Line 665: | Line 665: | ||
[[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] Firstly you are putting your conception of common name here above the more central Wikipedia issue of NPOV. Secondly any search on "[[wikt:is|is]]" is not to be. The search [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=isis&espv=2&biw=861&bih=455&source=lnms&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=d32xVMfvG8X4UrDdgpgO&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbs=qdr:m&tbm=nws&q=IS here] on "IS" in News dramatically failed to find results on IS as an acronym. The first result I got was of [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11335063/Alex-James-the-rowing-machine-is-back-to-haunt-me.html Alex James: the rowing machine is back to haunt me] and other results, as far as I could see, consistently presented "is" as a form of verb. Thirdly, as elsewhere mentioned, if there was to be a move, on your arguments on reference to common usage ISIS would be the name used. ([https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=isis&espv=2&biw=861&bih=455&source=lnms&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=d32xVMfvG8X4UrDdgpgO&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ ISIS] gets "About 12,500,000 results" on News in the last month while [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=861&bih=455&source=lnms&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=1n2xVK7lMILxULGCgnA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ "Islamic State"] gets "About 1,100,000 results" on News in the last month. Then we get to the '''[[WP:NPOV]]''' issues. There should not be an issue here in normal circumstances but for the fact that the group has chosen a controversial name that many find objectionable. The article even has a section entitled "[[Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Criticism_of_the_name_.22Islamic_State.22_and_.22caliphate.22_declaration|Criticism of the name "Islamic State" and "caliphate" declaration]]" and the opening paragraph of the lead ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&oldid=641965617 here]) presents the text "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. This is a fair representation. Ban-Ki Moon stated, "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State". Many people have Mohammedan based faiths who do not believe that this group is representative of Islam and yet the group, with qualification removed, have declared themselves "Islamic State" while claiming authority over all Muslims. Wikipedia's NPOV indicates that we cannot support a POV name that faces |
[[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] Firstly you are putting your conception of common name here above the more central Wikipedia issue of NPOV. Secondly any search on "[[wikt:is|is]]" is not to be. The search [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=isis&espv=2&biw=861&bih=455&source=lnms&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=d32xVMfvG8X4UrDdgpgO&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbs=qdr:m&tbm=nws&q=IS here] on "IS" in News dramatically failed to find results on IS as an acronym. The first result I got was of [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11335063/Alex-James-the-rowing-machine-is-back-to-haunt-me.html Alex James: the rowing machine is back to haunt me] and other results, as far as I could see, consistently presented "is" as a form of verb. Thirdly, as elsewhere mentioned, if there was to be a move, on your arguments on reference to common usage ISIS would be the name used. ([https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=isis&espv=2&biw=861&bih=455&source=lnms&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=d32xVMfvG8X4UrDdgpgO&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ ISIS] gets "About 12,500,000 results" on News in the last month while [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=861&bih=455&source=lnms&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=1n2xVK7lMILxULGCgnA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ "Islamic State"] gets "About 1,100,000 results" on News in the last month. Then we get to the '''[[WP:NPOV]]''' issues. There should not be an issue here in normal circumstances but for the fact that the group has chosen a controversial name that many find objectionable. The article even has a section entitled "[[Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Criticism_of_the_name_.22Islamic_State.22_and_.22caliphate.22_declaration|Criticism of the name "Islamic State" and "caliphate" declaration]]" and the opening paragraph of the lead ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&oldid=641965617 here]) presents the text "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. This is a fair representation. Ban-Ki Moon stated, "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State". Many people have Mohammedan based faiths who do not believe that this group is representative of Islam and yet the group, with qualification removed, have declared themselves "Islamic State" while claiming authority over all Muslims. Wikipedia's NPOV indicates that we cannot support a POV name that faces |
||
opposition anywhere near as strong as this. [[User:GregKaye|Greg]][[User talk:GregKaye|Kaye]] 09:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
opposition anywhere near as strong as this. [[User:GregKaye|Greg]][[User talk:GregKaye|Kaye]] 09:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
|||
I will not strike my support as I do not want to constantly strike once I have put my position on here. (I will strike if I am persuaded otherwise) [[User talk:GregKaye|Kaye]] I do not agree with your reasoning and I will attempt to explain. I am sorry for the long read. |
|||
It has to be stated that in any inductive process, be it a google search or to ascertain the relationship between the interaction between higgs particles and their rate of decay, you always have to control for variables. This is a fundamental principle of empiricism which itself is a branch of epistemology. Otherwise the question of "How" is left to making unsubstantiated conclusions. In the same manner here, your search will have to be like for like. Acronym (IS vs ISIL or ISIS) or fully spelled out, should be the rule when doing the searches. |
|||
*I know you have mentioned that IS dramatically fails to bring results for islamic state but that could be explained once you understand the basics of how algorithms determine search results if you are not aware already. |
|||
*You have to bear in mind the great disparity in results when comparing acronyms with IS getting very high results. |
|||
*You then have to factor how many different things IS could refer to and how many different things ISIS could refer to. |
|||
*Then you have to think of all those different possibilities and think which one is most commonly used. By that I mean for the acronym itself, how many different things could it refer to. |
|||
*The search "is" is used like the word before used in this sentence a lot more than as an acronym. This just means that results with "is" as a third person singular verb, is a lot more common than IS as an acronym, when taking the entire "is" cohort into consideration. Therefore those results are expedited to the top of the search. |
|||
*Same for ISIS or ISIL (just assume from now on I mean both acronyms), they are used more frequently for this group in comparison to the entire "ISIS" cohort with its different possible meanings. |
|||
*Look at disambiguous pages of those words to see how many different things it could possibly be. The list is very long. As an example, in the British costume drama Downton Abbey, the Dog before it was killed off (I wonder why?) was called ISIS. There is an Egyptian figure called ISIS as well. You will never be able to tell how many of those search results consist of the word in the context you mean as google only displays the top 1000 results even though the search can run into million or billions. |
|||
That was difficult to explain in words but I will attempt to illustrate what I mean with the example below. Lets assume two words are searched with different possible meanings. Both these words can also mean the same thing like in this case. I will call one word kappa and the other lambda. I have kept the ratio between the results the same to reflect the results for the acronym search above. |
|||
*A search for kappa returns 2000 results but the top results do not reflect the version of the word we were searching. Lets say the bottom 30% were the only results with terms we meant. |
|||
*A search for lambda returns 100 results. This word also means many different things but the most commonly used version of the name is in reference to the kappa term. Lets say 60% referred to our intended version of the word, or even 90% which I think is unrealistic. |
|||
What would you be left with? 600 results for kappa and only 60 (or even 90) for lambda. This is why we cannot use the reasons which you have given. This is also a reason why we should not use acronyms for search as there is no way to ascertain what the results as a cohort imply. I could possibly do it, but I would guess it would take me about 25 days to learn the theory behind how the google algorithm works and that is not time I can spare at the moment. |
|||
Secondly the name is not a NPOV issue. The page title will not be Islamic State. I would object with volition if that happened. Instead we will qualify the name with the qualifier most used in reliable sources. It could take the form of any of these or any others you can think of: |
|||
*"Islamic State (group)" |
|||
*"Islamic State (militant group)" |
|||
*"Islamic State (islamist rebel group)" |
|||
*"Islamic State (Jihadist organisation) |
|||
*"Islamic State (Terrorist organisation) |
|||
*"Islamic State (ISIS) or (ISIL)" |
|||
*"Islamic State (extremist group)" |
|||
The criticism of the name appears heavily in the lead and if it does not we will endeavour to make it prominent provided it is in proportion to the entire text. We also have to make a concerted effort to improve the page for the normative Islamic State which will enable readers to weight up the information themselves which I have no doubt they will appreciate. Of course I understand your points about the widespread condemnation from all sorts of organisations, groups and peoples. This will off course be incorporated into the article to provide as much balance as needed. When it comes to the issue of the name, I will address with reference to [[WP:POVNAME]] which says: |
|||
*"When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." - '''Yes this is a common name and used by majority of English-language reliable sources.''' |
|||
*"Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." - '''Yes this is the case here. The word may seem to some people to be non-neutral but by the reasoning just given, that concern is over-ridden in this case.''' |
|||
*"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later, Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." - '''This word is very likely to be remembered and will be connected with this issue for the foreseeable future. The word is also not colloguial''' |
|||
*"Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." - '''I think this is a very important reason. People type islamic state into wikipedia to come read this most of the time. This will make life a lot easier for the reader when looking for this article. If there was anytime to think about reader convenience, now would be it.''' |
|||
I hope I have made my reasoning clear which I believe to be in line with policy and also the most neutral. I have also taken into consideration some guidelines I read last week which I cannot remember the name of but they were something similar to: ignore all rules and don't be a lawyer sticking to every policy. They said that improving wikipedia was more important than rules if they were an impediment. I also read the reasons why you cannot also use that as an excuse to do whatever you want. I have taken this into consideration as well but I think they apply more to non-controversial issues. I will nevertheless still consider what you have said when time permits. Even though I disagree with your reasoning, Too many times, one does something thinking it is the right thing, only to discover the great error that was made later on. For this reason, I need to reflect so as to make sure I do not leave anything out when making my final decision. It is a guarantee that if this name is not the common name, I will oppose this request even though I put it through. I will keep you posted. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 16:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===Further discussion=== |
===Further discussion=== |
||
Revision as of 16:42, 11 January 2015
Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
RfC: File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png not used to highlight Israel
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png/200px-Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png)
The map image, File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png, is used with the following headings:
- Controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
- Controlled by al-Nusra
- Controlled by other Syrian rebels
- Controlled by Syrian government
- Controlled by Iraqi government
- Controlled by Syrian Kurds
- Controlled by Iraqi Kurds
- Disputed territory or Occupied by Israel
The proposal here is to remove reference to Israel and the Golan Heights disputed territory from the map as an irrelevance to the topics within which the map is used.
Please respond with Support or Oppose
I propose that there is no relevance in the inclusion of Israel in the context of the articles in which the map is used. Israel are not one of ISIL's military opponents and they are not amongst the nations that have designated it as a terrorist organisation neither have they been a participant in the war in Iraq and Syria in 2014. If Israel do engage in the war then I think a highlighting of Israel would be fair but until then I think inclusion is questionable. Basically the proposal is that, while there are certainly issues related to the Israeli occupation of regions such as the Golan Heights, these are best covered elsewhere. I have not seen maps in RS publications make reference to Israel and I think that Wikipedia should follow the same lead.
GregKaye ✍♪ 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Any reference to Israel should be deleted, which means making the Golan Heights/Israeli occupied Quneitra gray.—SPESH531Other 20:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- In addition to supporting the removal of color in Golan Heights, after the outcome of this RfC, the following images should be deleted (or at least be agreed on not using, and leave them available due to their presence in talk pages/archives):
- Comment: You're right, that Israel has nothing to do with Syria war. But saying just disputed obfuscates, that United Nations have condemned this annexation. It is irrelevant but what's the problem with mentioning the occupation? I suggest for clarification to use both (Disputed territory occupied by Israel)--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Within the context of the Syrian civil war, Israel has absolutely nothing to do with the war, and has nothing to do with the map. If Israel played an active and direct (indirect role would be like Turkey or Iran) military role in the Syrian civil war, then they should get a color. Israel is not a combatant in the war, and so Israel should not be shown. Adding another color to represent Israel also adds clutter to the map/legend—SPESH531Other 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: And to your comment about the United Nations and Resolution 497, if Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey all had different colors, then Golan Heights would be colored in the same color as the rest of Israel. The dashed border in Golan Heights should give enough information to show that it is a disputed territory.—SPESH531Other 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: "Israel should not be shown.".. Israel is already not shown. Golan is Syria, not Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: To clarify, when I say "Israel should not be shown," Israel should be gray like the rest of the countries. Golan Heights' borders are dashed, already showing a dispute. If a Syrian combatant held territory in Golan Heights, then it should be colored. But a foreign country (represented in gray) occupies it, so it should be kept in gray.—SPESH531Other 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Israel is already grey like the rest of the countries. The captions to the maps used for Syrian Civil War maps say "Military situation in Syria.", Whether Israel is part of the civil war or not, they are occupying part of Syria, so they are part of the "military situation in Syria".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- If there was a page that said "Military Situation in Syria" that was not created for the civil war, then you may have a point. But, these maps are for the civil war, hence the name "File:Syrian civil war.png".—SPESH531Other 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- So how about this: We make the Golan Heights striped, Black/grey. And then we change the caption to all images: "Participants in the Syrian Civil War" - or something like that, then we can remove mention that Israel is occupying the GH, because it is not a participant in the Syrian Civil War. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that in images that deal exclusively with the Syrian Civil War captions on images should relate to "Participants in the Syrian Civil War". This is the only relevant content to the issue. There has been edit-warring over captioning. We can't let an area be given different colouration without an invitating continued disruption. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- So how about this: We make the Golan Heights striped, Black/grey. And then we change the caption to all images: "Participants in the Syrian Civil War" - or something like that, then we can remove mention that Israel is occupying the GH, because it is not a participant in the Syrian Civil War. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- If there was a page that said "Military Situation in Syria" that was not created for the civil war, then you may have a point. But, these maps are for the civil war, hence the name "File:Syrian civil war.png".—SPESH531Other 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Israel is already grey like the rest of the countries. The captions to the maps used for Syrian Civil War maps say "Military situation in Syria.", Whether Israel is part of the civil war or not, they are occupying part of Syria, so they are part of the "military situation in Syria".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: To clarify, when I say "Israel should not be shown," Israel should be gray like the rest of the countries. Golan Heights' borders are dashed, already showing a dispute. If a Syrian combatant held territory in Golan Heights, then it should be colored. But a foreign country (represented in gray) occupies it, so it should be kept in gray.—SPESH531Other 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: "Israel should not be shown.".. Israel is already not shown. Golan is Syria, not Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: You're right, that Israel has nothing to do with Syria war. But saying just disputed obfuscates, that United Nations have condemned this annexation. It is irrelevant but what's the problem with mentioning the occupation? I suggest for clarification to use both (Disputed territory occupied by Israel)--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: Israel is not included in any of the maps above. The maps only show the military situation in Syria and Iraq. Golan is part of Syria and is occupied by a foreign invading country. So that should of course be shown in maps showing the military situation of Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - we tried using the grey and brown striped for Golan Heights to emphasize the disputed area with the Syrian Arab Republic, in order to satisfy some users like Supreme Deliciousness, but it has just created more confusion and has not reduced edit-warring. Furthermore, Syrian Arab Republic doesn't control the Quneitra border areas (1967 cease fire line) with Israel any more, and considering that Israel is not significantly involved in the war - Israeli-controlled Golan should be made external color.GreyShark (dibra) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- No I can support brown for Golan, but why cant it say in the infobox that brown is "Occupied by Israel" ? The 1967 line is not the border with Israel, the land to the west is part of Syria. Excluding it from the map mean "Golan is not Syria" Which is an Israeli pov and in violation of international community view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Because Israeli military occupation and later unilateral annexation in 1981 has nothing to do with the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The Israeli-controlled Golan is not an arena of the war and Israel is not a belligerent (so far), so it should not show on "Syrian Civil War map" images.GreyShark (dibra) 07:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- No I can support brown for Golan, but why cant it say in the infobox that brown is "Occupied by Israel" ? The 1967 line is not the border with Israel, the land to the west is part of Syria. Excluding it from the map mean "Golan is not Syria" Which is an Israeli pov and in violation of international community view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - there is no "Israel" in the original image, so why is this vote for? inclusion of Israel has widely been discussed at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel and no consensus has yet been gained.GreyShark (dibra) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: This discussion is supposed to be the final consensus (at least for English Wikipedia) on what the status of Golan Heights should be as shown in the maps.—SPESH531Other 22:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you talking about only maps showing the military situation in Syria or also other Syria location maps showing places in Syria? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- About the two maps that include a white, gray, or brown striped Golan Heights that has to do with the civil war.—SPESH531Other 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you talking about only maps showing the military situation in Syria or also other Syria location maps showing places in Syria? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The Israelis are less involved than others (namely the Americans and us Europeans, let alone the local actors), but have repeatedly bombed Syria. Golan Heights are occupied (inadmissible to acquire territory through war; bog-standard international law). Describing the territory as "occupied by Israel" is a simple statement of fact. In all honesty, what is the big deal here? All we're going to get, if we do as you suggest, is someone come along and say that Wikipedia is trying to airbrush Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights. If Israel doesn't want to appear on such maps, it could always withdraw from the Golan Heights. Anyway, for what it is worth, my view is that this is a non-issue. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- YeOldeGentleman to clarify I personally don't know but I have not personally heard of military activity for a relatively long time. I agree that the occupation of the Golan Heights is morally wrong but think that these issues are best dealt with elsewhere. We have to present encyclopaedic content here. These maps are used relevantly in connection to the current episode of Sunni-Shia conflict and in relation to the warring factions concerned. I think that this is the central issue that should be addressed in content with no more than warranted distractions of other issues. GregKaye 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, GregKaye. "Israel last bombed or otherwise intervened militarily in Syria" less than two weeks ago, apparently. This is by no means exhaustive:
- Syria conflict: Israel 'carries out Latakia air strike', "believed to be sixth Israeli attack in Syria" in 2013.
- Israel bombs Syria's Golan after blast, March this year.
- Israel bombs nine military targets in Syria after ‘unprovoked’ cross-border attack kills Israeli teen, June this year.
- Cheers! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Supreme created the map highlighting the Golan in bright white and adding Israel to the legend to promote his anti-Israel/pro-Arab POV that extends to fighting over salads, the location of archaeology sites and names of Kurdish towns. He has been trying to push this map all over Wikipedia for months. Tenacious editing at its worst. Israel is not a combatant in the Syrian Civil War (any action has been very limited right on the border when attacked) and the Golan is not part of the conflict. However other gray countries - Lebanon, Jordan, KSA for example ARE involved in the Syrian Civil War with troops or bombing but are all gray. No one is disputing that Israel occupies the Golan Heights but the map is supposed to show which faction controls what part of Syria in the Civil War. Legacypac (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- When Lebanon, Jordan or KSA are occupying a part of Syria, we will ad their color in the map. But currently the only foreign country occupying part of Syria is Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png/200px-Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png)
- The map (added again for perspective) is used in relation to the activities of the militarily active factions in Iraq and Syria. We need to encyclopaedicly present relevant issues on the Sunni-Shia conflict which is the central issue presented in the articles in which the image is used. Israel is an issue relevant in many topics but not here. GregKaye ✍♪ 04:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Support The most that Israel has done in relation to the current conflict is, I believe, that they have set up a relatively small refugee camp. The fighters: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al-Nusra, other Syrian rebels, the Syrian government, the Iraqi government, Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds, all deserve mention. They all have valid inclusion within the context of the "...War map" discussed.
I agree with SPESH531Other, who is a regular editor on these maps and seems to know their content: "Adding another color to represent Israel also adds clutter to the map/legend". In my view it offers no encyclopaedic benefit to article content concerned while presenting an invalid distraction. GregKaye ✍♪ 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I already said, that Israel is not involved, but that's not true. See May 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrikes, January 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrike and Number of wounded terrorists treated in Israeli hospitals on the rise.--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Other countries are doing airstrikes but on the map. Israel has not sought to control one sq ft of extra land. Turkey is taking in wounded too which surely does not make a country a belligerent.
Support We had a similiar discussion at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel. Mark Golan Heights grey (like Israel, Palestine, Lebanon etc.) as the Israeli occupation of Golan Heights is not related to the civil war but the general situation, though there has been some incidents there. However, marking Golan Heights with a colour such as brown here and mention it as "Disputed" like now is unacceptable. It is viewed as occupied by the world. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Support The dotted line seems sufficient to me to show that this is not a de jure national boundary. The colouring implies fighting, but the Turkish border, particularly around Kobanî/Ayn al-Arab has had far more fighting. Were rebels to try to reclaim the area, or have a major battle in the area, then I might reconsider. Everything else I have to say has been said above repeatedly.--Banak (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I assume this discussion effects File:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png, File:Syrian civil war.png and Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map. If so, an immediate improvement would to (assuming support) switch from using File:Syria_location_map3.svg to using File:Syria_location_map.svg in the Syrian detailed map, then updating the other two maps. Is there a map of Syria without the Golan Heights being highlighted.--Banak (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is for the two files and template. The file in the template does not have to change, it as easy as making the striped areas gray, we do not need to worry about the template. About the Syria sans Golan Heights, I'm not sure.—SPESH531Other 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear, I meant the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights only. --Banak (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is for the two files and template. The file in the template does not have to change, it as easy as making the striped areas gray, we do not need to worry about the template. About the Syria sans Golan Heights, I'm not sure.—SPESH531Other 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I have just taken a look through all the other language, parallel articles to the English article on 'SIL Of the articles that use the map at File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png only the Tamil article added reference to the occupied territories in the context of this map. I left a link to this content for anyone who wants to join the discussion. GregKaye ✍♪ 15:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is instructive, the evidence suggests Israel is fighting Hezbollah/Iran in Syria, not Syria, confirmed by Jewish academic and Lebanese press. "Prof. Eyal Zisser, an expert on Syria from the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, told The Jerusalem Post..., “Israel’s policy is clear. It does not interfere in the war and has no interest to attack [Syrian President] Bashar Assad and its army, or to topple the regime.” However, he said that “Israel took advantage several times in the past of Assad’s weakness and acted against arms shipments on their way from Syria to Hezbollah.”" Syria says Israel is helping the al-Qaeda terrorists-which makes zero sense. [1].Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The map shows the current military situation in Syria and Iraq; the UN, and most countries in the world, recognize Golan Heights as part of Syria under Israeli military occupation, so that is relevant to the situation of the map. Furthermore, while Israel has not been a major player in the Syrian Civil War, they have attacked Syrian government forces several times, and there have been media reports of them providing low level aid to the rebel forces, so that is another reason to include them in the map. SJK (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- SJK The map relates to the 2014 military situation in Iraq and Syria. As far as I am aware Israel has not attacked the Syrian government forces was a relatively long time. The low level aide that you are referring to relates to medical aide given to war wounded. Certainly some if not all of the casualties may have been fighters but, the nature of wounds received, will mean that a large number of them will not return to active duty. Israel has no motive in antagonising the Assad regime and I think that it is likely that this is a PR move with the rebels. Israel is not involved in military activity of any relevance to the articles in which this map is used. I don't think that this map is an appropriate place to attempt to WP:right wrongs. As I see it the only thing that will result from a highlighting of Israel will be an increase in antagonism and a distraction from a Sunni-Shia conflict which also needs to be resolved. There is nothing encyclopaedic in the current context in a mention of Israel. Please alter your decision. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- GregKaye, you say "As far as I am aware Israel has not attacked the Syrian government forces was a relatively long time". According to the Washington Post, Israel attacked Syrian government facilities earlier this month, I don't think that was a long time ago. Given that Israel has attacked the Syrian government and its allies in Syria on more than one occasion, I don't think it is right to label Israel a non-participant in the Syrian Civil War. Their degree of participation is at the lower end of the scale, but it isn't zero. SJK (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png/200px-Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png)
- SJK Thank-you. Having given more attention to ISIL related issues I was unaware of this significant handful of attacks on the Syrian government. However I don't see that this information is relevant the majority of ISIL related articles within which the map is predominantly used and viewed. Israel is not raised as an issue in these forums. There are maps available specifically related to the Syrian situation in the Syrian Civil War and these maps can equally be used in the one relevant article use there. GregKaye ✍♪ 09:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
So have we come to a conclusion or are we going to leave this for a discussion 6 months later?—SPESH531Other 22:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- There has to be. The current situation where some are repeatedly showing the Golan Heights in a certain colour and calling it "disputed" is unacceptable of the reasons I have mentioned above. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- The result is clearly for making the Golan Heights gray. But, I won't change it until the discussion is closed.—SPESH531Other 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Leave the Israel-occupied area as orange - We already have "grey" for ISIL, and the area is clearly Israel-occupied, so the map key should be changed to reflect this. However, the color should remain orange, because the color grey is already in use. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand, I believe the proposal is to colour it the same as other territories not involved in the conflict/ other countries, not the same as ISIL. Whether that grey is territories not involved or other countries (de jeru) is in effect what we are asking, I believe. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Leave the Israel-occupied area as orange - We already have "grey" for ISIL, and the area is clearly Israel-occupied, so the map key should be changed to reflect this. However, the color should remain orange, because the color grey is already in use. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- The result is clearly for making the Golan Heights gray. But, I won't change it until the discussion is closed.—SPESH531Other 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Golen is not involved in the Syrian Civil War and has not been controlled by Syria for several generations. It should be coloured the same as Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait etc. The map is about the Syrian Civil War and Iraq Insurgency. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming another wave of RfCs went out that I was notified now when much of the conversations seems to have taken place a couple weeks ago. Support per the immediately preceding statement by Legacypac and the earlier statement by IRISZOOM. The Golan Heights has been viewed as occupied independently of and preceding the civil war and Islamic State conflicts and is not relevant for highlighting in a graphic. Weedwacker (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- But if Israel's territory of the Golan Heights is to be colored grey, then it should be grey-striped over a white background, because the area is not globally recognized, and due to the fact that there is some political tension between Syrian and Israel right now over the issue of the occupation of the Golan. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- As I understand your comment, you are saying to make it grey one will/should make the golan heights striped grey over a white background. Currently the map is striped orange and grey or white and grey depending on who the most recent updater is. I believe your comment is therefore incorrect as staying half grey would not be colouring the area grey. I believe making it more grey could therefore only reasonably mean making it all grey like surrounding countries. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Move toward DAESH term
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/we-are-helping-extremists-win-the-propaganda-war-in-syria-and-iraq-20141006-10qp82.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/18/politics/pentagon-now-calls-isis-daesh/index.html http://www.wam.ae/en/news/international/1395273411563.html http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-islamic-state-name-20141206-story.html
- That's not a complete change, and ISIL is still the most widely used term at the government level, so we're going to stick with ISIL. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing a change in terms here, only supporting the addition of DAESH to the lead and a small insert that notes the DAESH term inserted in the article, which I added some days ago. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- No qualms about that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing a change in terms here, only supporting the addition of DAESH to the lead and a small insert that notes the DAESH term inserted in the article, which I added some days ago. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Boko Haram
Did you see them using the IS flag? See: http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Cameroon-says-kills-41-militants-20141229 Does anyone have info they may now be an integral part of it? --78.1.73.42 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- 78.1.73.42 'SIL use the flag of al-Shabab and different groups (and individuals?) use different versions of the Black Standard. Its worth keeping an eye on though. GregKaye 19:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is not to be a surprise. ISIL's current flag is actually the one of the most popular variants of al-Qaeda's Black Standard, quite possible al-Qaeda's war flag. Many other jihadist terror groups also use this flag, so it's actually somewhat popular among jihadist terrorists. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Barn door POV pushing in the lead
I have just arrived on this article, having read the lead I am shocked about the POV pushing that is apparent from reading it. Please could someone correct it. The criticism of the group/self-declared state starts from the get go before the article has even started. "A name widely rejected by non members" - seriously? This obviously needs to be in the article to give a balanced view of the issue but it has no place in the opening paragraph. In fact I am going to go ahead and delete it for the sake of having a NPOV article. Other editors are welcome to add it in somewhere more appropriate in the article.
The lead starts with 2 paragraphs of criticism and then moves on to the history and timeline of major events. That should be reveresed. Yes I am also going to go ahead and make that change too. Please discuss further. Mbcap (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mbcap: If you search "NPOV" or WP:NPOV on this Talk page and recent archived Talk pages, you will find that the question you raise has been hotly debated for a very long time. I have protested about what I regard as the POV-pushing you see in the Lead for some time, but the editors who agreed with me have disappeared. This is why the Lead appears as it does now. P-123 (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This issue has been heavily debated. Your opinions are welcome but undiscussed changes to the lead are not going to be appreciated here. Please post your proposed wording for discussion first here. WP:NPOV requires a balanced presentation and in this case the group has been so widely condemned that a presentation without the condemnation or noting rejection of the name is inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mbcap The issue regarding criticism that I personally think is of most importance is that the reference to designation as terrorist (which I view as a form of international name calling) should remain in the context of comment/criticism of the actual atrocities and abuses actually performed by this group. Beyond that I see arguments on both sides but, with due consideration to WP:NPOV I think that there is call for what I would regard to be a representationally strong presentation of world criticism in the early lead. Is there any moderately sized to major group that has had its name as widely rejected as this one? Is there a group that has received such an extent of criticism and condemnation? GregKaye 09:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mbcap, P-123 I would ask you to please take note of the new thread on this page relating to the BBC article and video on the sex-slavery trauma of Yazidi women at the hands of ISIL. Please take a look and reflect on the content as you decide on the relevant prominence of criticism within the article and the lead. GregKaye 14:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the prompt reply, I thought I would have to wait a while but alas I have been proved wrong. lets firstly start with their name and starting the first sentence by saying the name is widely rejected by all others. That is not NPOV. We have to accept the name that they ascribe to themselves. For example the Ahmadiyya's are universilly considered as non-muslim by all other Muslims but still we group them into the Islam here because they self identify as Muslims. But you may say that all non-members reject the islamic state name but with the Ahmadiyya there are some Muslims who disagree with the view outlined above. Again that would be false. The Muslims can not agree on what day Ramadan starts or when the moon is first sighted but 75 scholars from all denominations came together in Saudi Arabia in the 70's to designate the Ahmadiyya non-Muslim. Did wikipedia bend and classify then as Non-muslims, no it did not. Wikipedia must retain its integrity in spite of all the commotion that is going on regarding the ISIS issue.
- Moving on to you Legacypac. I have to agree with you regarding the widespread condemnation. The group has gathered the most controversy that I have ever seen and the condemnation is also equally severe. This needs to be in the article of course and a lot of it. However the lead should start by giving background information on the group as it stands now, a brief history, major time points in their evolution towards a militant group controlling territory. Then a paragraph about:
- It's effect on geopolitics in the region and internationally
- The regional and international response to the situation
- Majority view of the situation (includes the condemnation, UN position, majority muslim position, sexual slavery, head chopping, the list really goes on does it not?)
- Moving on to you Legacypac. I have to agree with you regarding the widespread condemnation. The group has gathered the most controversy that I have ever seen and the condemnation is also equally severe. This needs to be in the article of course and a lot of it. However the lead should start by giving background information on the group as it stands now, a brief history, major time points in their evolution towards a militant group controlling territory. Then a paragraph about:
- In regards to the sexual slavery of Yazidi women, it is quite proven and also notable I would say. I think we should create a seperate article for that. I was going to read the ISIS journal that was published recently which states their theological reasons for commiting such an act but it was declared illegal. Therefore I was unable to read it. Even still the topic deserves attention and there is plenty of material out there that talks about the sexual slavery situation.
- Also Gregkaye, I think you suggesting I read the article on the bbc and then telling me to reflect on the prominence of criticism suggest you may have an emotional bias towards the subject. I think it is best when writing about such an issue, to be behind a veil of ignorance and then to scout for information in order to build an article that is NPOV. As I have already suggested, the sexual slavery thing needs to be mentioned in detail in the article, and it may get so big that it may require its own article. I do not make it my business to reflect on a news story but simply to access its credibility and whether it warrants insertion into wikipedia. Mbcap (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mbcap Your misrepresentation of my content above must be addressed. I had requested, "Please take a look and reflect on the content as you decide on the relevant prominence of criticism within the article and the lead." The only issue here is to ensure that the article is written according to Wikipedia's clear content of NPOV. I request that you argue the point and not the person. I was making fair point regarding one facet of the reliably sourced references to the groups activities. From my doing so you publicly infer bias. I was requesting reference to one example of news coverage to provide context of group activities. Of course, like any editor, you can conduct your own research into this group's activities which will reveal a great deal of similar content. I did not tell you to do anything. GregKaye 07:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- [content above placed out of chronological sequence]
- Suggestions that editors are bias against terrorists here for pointing out the widespread criticism is disingenuous. Please carefully read WP:NPOV. Compare to Jim Jones and Peoples Temple where the crimes are in the 2nd line and 4th line respectively. ISIL is best known for its atrocities and acts of terror. That should be one of the first things the article lead talks about. Legacypac (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also Gregkaye, I think you suggesting I read the article on the bbc and then telling me to reflect on the prominence of criticism suggest you may have an emotional bias towards the subject. I think it is best when writing about such an issue, to be behind a veil of ignorance and then to scout for information in order to build an article that is NPOV. As I have already suggested, the sexual slavery thing needs to be mentioned in detail in the article, and it may get so big that it may require its own article. I do not make it my business to reflect on a news story but simply to access its credibility and whether it warrants insertion into wikipedia. Mbcap (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, no it is not disingeneous. You are more than welcome to point out criticism and ask me to have a look. But do not ask me to reflect. Reflect means to think deeply or carefully about something. It is disengenous to assume I have not reflected. I think it is clear that there is an agenda being pursued with the lead. Please could you look at the articles about Nazi Germany or Adolph hitler who were the embodiment of absolute evil. They massacred and cleansed 6 million Jews and others they did not like. Their actions elucidate heartfelt disgust to this day but the article is so well written and unbiased. It gives the information in a way that an encyclopaedia should and leaves it to the reader to make their mind up. No one would read those pages and think Nazi Germany was great. We here at wikipedia have to strive towards consistency and as I mentioned before assume you are behind a veil of ignorance. This best reflects the reader that will stumble upon the page, most will not be aware of the full extent of the information available on IS. Hopefully, just like the articles on Nazi Germany or North Korea, if the information is presented in an encyclopaedic manner, the reader will come to their own conclusions. I am still very new so I will back to contribute on this article when I am more familiar with guidelines. Mbcap (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mbcap Noone has assumed that you have not reflected. You are relatively new on this particular page and I don't see a reason why people would make assumptions on what you have or haven't done. GregKaye 07:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- [Comment above placed out of chronological sequence]
- I looked at Hitler and Nazi Germany before. I think the situation there is a little different. Hitler was the recognized leader of an actual country with millions of residents etc. Without excusing their acts in anyway, there is more to the story then the atrocities. Plus anyone coming to the those articles who has taken any history in school is going to know basically what they are famous for, while I continue to be shocked at how many people I find in real life who don't know much about ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, no it is not disingeneous. You are more than welcome to point out criticism and ask me to have a look. But do not ask me to reflect. Reflect means to think deeply or carefully about something. It is disengenous to assume I have not reflected. I think it is clear that there is an agenda being pursued with the lead. Please could you look at the articles about Nazi Germany or Adolph hitler who were the embodiment of absolute evil. They massacred and cleansed 6 million Jews and others they did not like. Their actions elucidate heartfelt disgust to this day but the article is so well written and unbiased. It gives the information in a way that an encyclopaedia should and leaves it to the reader to make their mind up. No one would read those pages and think Nazi Germany was great. We here at wikipedia have to strive towards consistency and as I mentioned before assume you are behind a veil of ignorance. This best reflects the reader that will stumble upon the page, most will not be aware of the full extent of the information available on IS. Hopefully, just like the articles on Nazi Germany or North Korea, if the information is presented in an encyclopaedic manner, the reader will come to their own conclusions. I am still very new so I will back to contribute on this article when I am more familiar with guidelines. Mbcap (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Lets take it one step at time then. The starting sentence has reference about the name being rejected by others. Let us take this out forthright because as I explained before their name is self-ascribed so we take it at face value. If you disagree and insist on leaving it, then you should also put a reference on the starting line of the Ahmadiyya page saying their attribution as Muslims is rejected by all other muslims.
- Moving on to your comment about, you being shocked at how many people do not know much:
- This is the exact reason why we must act as if we are behind a veil of ignorance because the average viewer will be in that same position. We do not need to push a POV in the lead because if the article is written well, the reader will come to their own informed conclusion. The informed conclusion bit is important, it respects the reader and affords him/her a modicum of respect in regards to the competence of his/her fronto-temporal decision making. Why is their so much condemnation in the media about the propaganda that is spewed out? It is because that propaganda is pushing a POV. What sets this wiki apart from the propaganda is the neutrality of the articles. Mind you as I have said before there is a plethora of criticism which does have its place in the article but the way it is in the lead is biased.
- =>Reply: Neutrality means presenting both the claim and the wide spread rejection of the claim close together. Just presenting the claim is not neutral, its very bias.Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC) )
- In regards to your comparison between hilter/nazi germany articles and this article:
- I did not mean to say the situation is the same but I was asking you to look at the style in which them two were written. I was highlighting the need for consistency across different articles. Just because ISIS is not a state does not mean we can pursue a POV and automatically force the reader to adopt a position on the issue. I will repeat again, if written well the reader will arrive at their own conclusion, it does not need to be spoon fed to them.
- Lastly could I ask "self-proclaimed title" to be removed. This is also clearly a POV. Who's name is not self-proclaimed. Al-Qaida, Taliban, Muslim brotherhood, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, AQIP, AQIM, Houti's these are are self proclaimed titles. They self-ascribe the name Islamic State so that is enough. There is no need to push a POV. Why not instead have a criticism section or contemporary opinion section and talk about the impact of the name and its acceptance or non-acceptance by the masses. In fact a lot can be found on their naming alone and this would provide an opportunity to discuss the significance of their name in a lot more detail later on in the article.
- Moving on to your comment about, you being shocked at how many people do not know much:
- In summary, could we take the first step and remove the attribution in the first sentence about their name being rejected or that it is self-proclaimed. We can then move on to discussing how to solve the remaining issues. I would like to make clear beforehand, I am not against having criticism in the lead. It should be towards the end of the lead after giving background information on the group first. Mbcap (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- =>Reply: While all the orgs you list are problems, their names are not contested by the world (and in Boko Haram's case, that name was given to it by its opponents). The name "Islamic State" itself is a huge issue. Many experts say they are not Islamic. Everyone agrees they are not a State. Plus they are not claiming to be an "Islamic State" but The "Islamic State" as in the only one, with worldwide religious, political and military authority [2] The RS usually qualify it as self-proclaimed, or put it in quotes. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC) )
- I just had a look at the criticism section and feel that it is poorly structured. The criticism section should be arranged into subsections and a lot more content needs to be added. Subsection I would reccomend are:
- Islamic criticism
- Criticism and world reaction to its name
- Takfir of groups and individuals which will follow nicely by;
- Beheadings
- Mass executions
- Sexual slavery
- I just had a look at the criticism section and feel that it is poorly structured. The criticism section should be arranged into subsections and a lot more content needs to be added. Subsection I would reccomend are:
- =>Reply: The last three points are covered under War Crimes and Human Rights abuses. Are you suggesting moving those points from that section to Criticisms? I hope not because those three topics are core to the definitions of war crimes. Go for expanding these sections, or even spinning off an article. There is tons of material and much of it has been seriously summarized here in the interest of keeping this article a reasonable length. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think in the end the section may even warrant its own article because there is a lot of information on these issues. Also an unrelated question: when referring to other editors how should I use the pronouns relating to gender. Should I use him/her or is there an alternative? Thank you Mbcap (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mbcap: You can use "they" or "s/he". P-123 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, I have not been sock-puppeting. P-123 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. What are you talking about? Mbcap (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mbcap Because your views on this article are so close to my own and I am very unpopular here for expressing them. See WP:SOCKPUPPET. P-123 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. What are you talking about? Mbcap (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hope no one would go as far as to accuse you or me for that matter. That is a very offensive allegation. If you have concerns why don't you air them so we can improve the article. So far I have got nowhere. I do not know if I should just go ahead and amend the introduction or wait for a reply to my points above. Who gets to decide the final format of the introduction? Mbcap (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Mbcap: As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I have argued about this for some time. Have a look at this Talk page and the discussions in #1 Pro-ISIL and Anti-ISIL and #Ham fisted Lead. Edits are made by consensus among editors and in this case the consensus was against me. P-123 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've =>Replied inline, hopefully to make the reply clearer on each point. There are some unique challenges with ISIL because they make so many claims that are so widely rejected. It is acceptable to diminish claims right in the beginning of the lead in WP. Intelligent design for an example I don't agree with but am not going to fight.Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Legacypac I would much prefer you answer in one go without intersecting my points but I accept that you may prefer to reply like you have. Please could you in the future reply to all the points I have raised. Your end point about war crimes and so forth I agree with. If you feel it is fine the way it is then I defer it to you.
- You say write the claim and objection together. I disagree with absolute volition. As I mentioned before we should also put the objection into the Ahmadiyya page as well in the first sentence in regards to the widespread rejection of their claim to be Muslims. The Ahmadiyya claim to be Muslims and yet they are not considered so, universally by Muslims. We however do not put the objection with the claim in the first sentence because we take their self asserted attribution at face value even though they face 'widespread rejection' from Muslims. I would say the Ahmadiyya article is unbiased in its current form without that objection in the first line or paragraph. You can not have double standards. You could always talk about the widespread rejection later on in the article or maybe at the end of the lead. Other points in regards to leaving the name on its own without objection in the first sentence:
- They ascribe the name to themselves, it does not matter if the whole world objects. This is an encyclopaedia and not an opinion piece where we lean towards a certain side. The objections are all welcome but they should be somewhere else in the article. Most Muslims object to having pictures of Mohammad on the related article page but wikipedia maintained policy and kept them in. Here, in this article we have maintain NPOV and the article as it stands is very biased.
- You say write the claim and objection together. I disagree with absolute volition. As I mentioned before we should also put the objection into the Ahmadiyya page as well in the first sentence in regards to the widespread rejection of their claim to be Muslims. The Ahmadiyya claim to be Muslims and yet they are not considered so, universally by Muslims. We however do not put the objection with the claim in the first sentence because we take their self asserted attribution at face value even though they face 'widespread rejection' from Muslims. I would say the Ahmadiyya article is unbiased in its current form without that objection in the first line or paragraph. You can not have double standards. You could always talk about the widespread rejection later on in the article or maybe at the end of the lead. Other points in regards to leaving the name on its own without objection in the first sentence:
- You also failed to address:
- Maintaining consistency in style across articles with reference to the Nazi Germany and Hitler articles
- You also failed to address:
- Let me know what you think. Mbcap (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah intelligent design is not a person, group, state, or any other animate object (or group of objects) that have the necessary neurocognitive ability to ascribe itself with a name. Mbcap (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have no experience with Ahmadiyya but it sounds like you want to do there what you don't think we should do here. Wikipedia has rejected calling the group "Islamic State" based on a number of criteria including WP:COMMONNAME - see the move moratorium on top of this talk page. Its very hard to find a contemporary parallel example, so I'll resort to making one up. Henceforth, I declare myself The Pope, my properties the Vatican, my group the Roman Catholic Church and my religious, political and military authority to cover all Catholics and Catholic containing countries worldwide. Further, the governments of Italy, Spain, and everything South of the Rio Grande are void. I'll also start the Inquisition for good measure. If you call me Legacypac anymore I'll cut out your tongue or beat you. Please write a Wikipedia article about me using your version of the NPOV criteria. Remember all the RS call my claims total BS, 60+ countries declared war on me and I've accumulated more terrorist designations than al-Qaida. How will you word the lead exactly? Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Plese I impore you to take this seriously Legacypac. The ahmadiyya example was simply for comparison just like the Nazi germany or hitler article. Regarding your example, lets starts with the first problem; you do not have defacto control over the Vatican. But I wish to restrain myself, I will not play a game with a serious issue such as this. Please could we realign the discussion so we do not go off on a tangent into the hypothetical unknown. Mbcap (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm dead serious. ISIL surely does not control Sinai or Algeria but it has not stopped them from declaring governments there. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Right, where would I be able to get another editors input who holds no bias. It is clear from you comments that you have a bias that is conflicting with your work on this article. I am dead serious about this assertion as well. I think someone who is uninvolved needs to have an input to arbitrate this issue. So far I have faced opposition from yourself and Greg. Myself and from what I gather by the comments here and by my conversation with, I think P-123 also agrees with me. You do not answer the points I have raised specially in regards to the self assertion of their name and also the lack of consistency in style as compared to other article across wikipedia. You seem to be quite hurt and emotional about the ISIS declaration of sovereignty over other regions of the world. I am here to discuss how to make the page NPOV and your reply to my points is:
- "ISIL surely does not control Sinai or Algeria but it has not stopped them from declaring governments there."
- Right, where would I be able to get another editors input who holds no bias. It is clear from you comments that you have a bias that is conflicting with your work on this article. I am dead serious about this assertion as well. I think someone who is uninvolved needs to have an input to arbitrate this issue. So far I have faced opposition from yourself and Greg. Myself and from what I gather by the comments here and by my conversation with, I think P-123 also agrees with me. You do not answer the points I have raised specially in regards to the self assertion of their name and also the lack of consistency in style as compared to other article across wikipedia. You seem to be quite hurt and emotional about the ISIS declaration of sovereignty over other regions of the world. I am here to discuss how to make the page NPOV and your reply to my points is:
- This does not help the discussion and it seems you want to debate the politics of ISIS. If I wanted a debate I would go and find a forum elsewhere on the internet. You have already tried to use an analogy which speaks more about your bias about the group than anything else. Having said that I agree with your analogy but I choose to distance myself from that way of thinking so that I can contribute to the article in an unbiased fashion.
- Another point is that you equate your rejection of the name by saying "Wikipedia has rejected" the name. The two are not synonymous. Here I think you are being disingenuous. I read the link you posted to WP:COMMONNAME which talks about the title of the article and not the issue which we are discussing. Please could I ask why you did this? I would really like an answer because I feel you have decided to play on my naivety as a new editor. An answer would be appreciated because the WP link has no relation to the discussion we are having which by the way is not about the article title.
- I implore you again to realign the discussion onto the issue at hand which involves the editing of an encyclopaedia. Also I just reverted you edit which I felt was an attempt to add further bias to an already biased lead. Mbcap (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Stop assigning emotion and bias to me. You don't know me. I'm trying to answer your questions. RS say that countries, muslims and others have rejected the name. Wikipedia editors have rejected the name=fact. See the list of requested moves at the top of the page. You didn't like the wording in the lead, so I adjusted it with a link to the details in the article. I'm starting to think you are here to defend ISIL. Please post your suggested wording and stop criticising me. Legacypac (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- As I have said time and time again, the wording is fine but the line "name is rejected widely by others" or whatever it is needs to go away and can be discussed later in the page or at the end of the lead. Funny you should say I am here to defend them when I have shown no leaning either way. I have constantly said the criticism whould be there but the lead is biased. I feel we can no longer go over this impass as you are unwilling to consider my call for a change to the first sentence. As I asked before, could you advise on how I could get an unbiased un-involved editor to help resolve the situation? It can no longer go on like this where you do not engage with my points. I have talked about your WP:COMMONNAME statement which you have not replied to. You have equated your rejection with wikipedia policy rejection. You also use meaningless analogies and loaded statements like the one about declaring Sinai and algeria as their territory. I ask you, how can we work constructively if you continue to disengage from my points? Mbcap (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Until we resolve this issue I thought it would be best to have a POV lead template on the article which I have just put in. Hopefully it will attract other editors and once we resolve the issue it could then be removed. Just to clarify what I am disputing at the moment is the first sentence. I will elaborate shortly. I initially was also against the biased nature of the entire lead in that the criticism comes first before the characteristics and context of the group. Since I am new, I did not think I would be able to take on the monumental task of changing the whole lead. Therefore I have decided to stick to the first sentence only and hopefully after that is resolved I will move on to the entire lead. So in regards to the first sentence this is what I think should be change to be NPOV:
- The phrase "self-proclaimed title" - since which person or group does not self attribute their own name
- The phrase "a name widely rejected by non-members" - for the sake of maintaining NPOV the first sentence should not start with criticism. There is plenty of space that follow where that could be discussed with more detail. If you start the sentence with the phrase you immediately inform the reader about which position wikipedia adopts. Wikipedia is neutral but since I read the WP links that my fellow editors posted I appreciate and have even before reading, that the majority view needs to be included in the article. I am all for this but feel in the first sentence it would not be appropriate. Elaborate on the name rejection further down the article.
- My fellow editor Legacypac posted a link for WP:COMMONNAME. I studied it in depth but it only referred to the title of the article which I do not dispute at all. I appreciate that the most widely cited name should be used.
- I also went and read WP:LEAD which said the lead should be structured in the following manner:
- 1. Define the topic
- 2. Establish context
- 3. Explain why the topic is notable
- 4. Sumarize the most important points
- 5. Include any prominent controversies
- As you can see here or by reading the link this lead does not follow this format. The lead first criticizes (i.e. name widely rejected) then moves on to depine topic and extablish context by using a 2 sentences before moving on to further criticism:
- "is a Sunni Islamist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria, where it controls territory. It also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[24] North Africa, South Asia,[25] and Southeast Asia."
- Also WP:LEADELEMENTS says about the introduction:
- "articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies..."
- Also WP:LEADELEMENTS says about the introduction:
- It seems to me that the first thing to be done is to define topic and establish significance then move on to criticism. The lead first criticizes then does very little in defining the topic and establishing significance before criticizing again. I would like to make it clear that I am all for criticism and I would prefer even more of it with the way things have been going recently. However I have to make sure the article is NPOV so I hope other editors will help me resolve this situation. Mbcap (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mbcap You misrepresent WP:LEAD which does not say that "the lead should be structured in the following manner ..." and it does not then present numbered points in the way that you have presented. It simply states that, "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." There is nothing proscriptive here and it is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to present relevant content in relevant ways. To this effect WP:LEAD had previously stated that "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." With this in mind presentation is decided on by consensus. GregKaye 23:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your turn to policy. Is the 2nd paragraph detailing designation as terrorists, war crimes etc "criticism" or "context"? Does it not also explain why the group is notable and summarize important point (important enough to have whole sections on them?) These topics that are much more important to the reader then history (which details atrocities too in the text) and name changes going back to 1999 right? "Prominent controversies" would seem to cover other stuff that happened that is not core to the existence of the group, like how the lead of Red Cross reads. Anyway think about that and respond. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion on actual wording
(continued discussion) inserted heading changed from level 2 ==, to level 3 ===, so as to maintain link to content above. GregKaye 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well Legacypac, I thought if we work towards a single point of reference, we both may get what we want. I know interacting like this does not help convey the real intonation or emotion behind said words but I could not help but smile by your response ('nothing proscriptive here') Gregkaye. I mean this in a friendly sense. It reminds me of that scene from pirates of the carribean where Elizabith tries to invoke 'parle' but the captain laughs it off and says they are not really rules but more akin to guidelines. Sorry got carried away. First I could not get any consideration in regards to the POV nature of the article. After much discussion I decided to resort to guidelines. Now you say even that is not 'proscriptive' but up to other editors to present information in relevant ways. That just leaves me nowhere and leaves us with no point of reference. If we can not agree under normal circumstances (like before) and we also do not agree when I present wikipedia policy then we do not really have a point of reference to work towards to, do we.
- Regarding the second paragraph, I will leave that till the current issue regarding the first line is resolved. I apologise Legacypac, I am not trying to be rude. This would be a bit too much for me at the moment to juggle all at once since I am just 25 days old. That is my wikipedia age I mean. Must be frustrating discussing with a newbie on an issue like this but I hope you guys can be patient with me. The first line in not NPOV. Before even defining the topic it starts criticiszing. I would like the first sentence to be neutral with no 'self-proclaimed' and no 'name widely rejected' statements in it. I have to take few weeks leave from wikipedia to concentrate on my medical finals. I thought of an alternative start to the article to reach an interim solution before I leave. We can continue the discussion after I return. The interim solution would be the following (it may need copy-editing to read as encylocpedic:
- The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) also as known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), by the Arabic acronym Daʿish or DAESH, and by title of the Islamic State (IS) is a Sunni Islamist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria, where it controls territory. It also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[24] North Africa, South Asia,[25] and Southeast Asia.[26] ISIL have self proclaimed themselves as the "Islamic state" (link this to the concept of islamic state article) meaning they would hold political, religious and military authority over all lands belonging to Muslims, past and present. This assertion has been widely rejected by all non-members.
- Sorry about the bit 'hold political, religious and military authority over all lands'. I took this from you legacypac. I hope you do not mind. I think it best describes the sheer audacity of the claim. I think the link to the islamic state (or caliphate article) is important because the average reader would be able to read more about the normative 'Islamic State' and know the absolute gravity of the claim and the significance of the widespread rejection. To be honest I would be quite pleased with this version once it is copy-edited. I hope this is acceptable to you Gregkaye and Legacypac. Please let me know what you think. Mbcap (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we understand each other now. It's been a long day - let me think about your proposed wording and see if others chime in. I promise I'll get back to the thread ok? Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am glad we are understanding each other. We still have a long way to go with the lead. Yes that is ok, I shall wait. Take as long as you need. When I get some more time, we will need to qualify the statement "by all non-members" as it is ambiguous and does not explain what is meant but I will leave that for another time. Lastly we need to make it clear in the first sentence that the name they have chosen for themselves is Islamic State but I did not know how to do that. There are 4 different names for the group in the first line and it is not immediately clear which one the group has chosen as its name. Mbcap (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Lead: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a Sunni Islamist rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria and also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[24] North Africa, South Asia,[25] and Southeast Asia.[26] The group's Arabic name is الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام or ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām (transliteration) leading to the Arabic acronym Daʿish or DAESH. The name is also commonly translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). In June 2014 the group dropped the words " of Iraq and the Levant" from its name and now refers to itself as The Islamic State or IS. At the same time they proclaimed a Worldwide caliphate saying they hold political, religious and military authority over all lands belonging to Muslims, past and present. The new name and the assertion of a caliphate have been widely rejected by Muslims scholars and adherents, nation states and world leaders, and the United Nations.
Current Lead: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), by the Arabic acronym Daʿish or DAESH, and by the self-proclaimed title of the Islamic State (IS), a name widely rejected by non-members, is a Sunni Islamist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria, where it controls territory. It also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[24] North Africa, South Asia,[25] and Southeast Asia.[26]
- Thank you for your reply. I will consider the wording and get back to you. I also promise. Mbcap (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mbcap The lead is something that we have worked through many times and I do not agree with your previously expressed perspective that we have a long way to go with it. The simple fact is that it is a group that condemns and attacks all those around and that is highly criticised.
- None-the-less Legacypac's suggestion seems to me to read well.
- A few points can be made. As previously mentioned, the Arabic text is in the infobox and, if included just for the sake of the acronym, perhaps the transliteration can be sufficient. I think that the last sentence ending might end with "... world leaders." The United Nations is mentioned in the second paragraph.
- With regard to the claim as caliphate, if we chose to add this here, I think that it may be important to check facts. I have never seen the original claim despite having looked and would appreciate it if anyone could help with this. Was the emphasis on declaring a caliphate or, as I think more likely, in the appointment of a caliph. As far as I have understood its more of a claimed return of the authority of a prophet and the impression I have got the authority is over the Muslims that the group/caliph consider to be faithful. I have not seen anything that refers to a claim over land but a lot to indicate a claim over people. Reference to caliphate is currently made extensively in the fifth paragraph which fits in with the chronology of events. GregKaye 20:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I will consider the wording and get back to you. I also promise. Mbcap (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
While I supported dropping the Arabic, when I tried to write a readable paragraph that explains the different common names it made a lot of sense to include the Arabic so we can say it translates to ISIS and abbreviates to DEASH. Anyway, just throwing it out there for discussion.
To answer your other question Greg - here is the official source document and an exceprt of the important parts. The three concepts of caliph, caliphate and The Islamic State go hand in hand. When we say stuff like "authority over all muslims" and around the world this comes from ISIL's own declaration "We clarify to the Muslims that with this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him... The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's authority and arrival of its troops to their areas."
Revised Proposed Lead: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a Sunni Islamist rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria and also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[24] North Africa, South Asia,[25] and Southeast Asia.[26] The group's Arabic name transliteration is or ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām leading to the Arabic acronym Daʿish or DAESH. The name is also commonly translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham abbreviated ISIS. On 29 June 2014, the group renamed itself the Islamic State (IS) and declared itself to be a worldwide "caliphate".[31][52][53] "Accordingly, the "Iraq and Shām" in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration." This name and the idea of a caliphate has been widely criticized, with the UN, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups refusing to use it.
The last sentence is pulled from the last point in the names section where it has 9 sources. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Greg, whilst I appreciate your disagreement about me saying we have a long way to go, I feel it is necessary to deal with a non-neutral lead if one stumbles upon one. Especially on a topic such as this where the extent of the actions taken by a group has led to so much. Understandably there is a lot of emotion and utter disgust towards the group so it can be easy to get carried away. Because of that, it is my impression that over the last year, some editors who contributed to the lead did not strictly follow wiki policy on neutrality. My impression is simply my opinion and it is only worth as much. Even still, I appreciate the fact that you are an experienced editor so once time is more plentiful, I will trawl through the archives to see if I have missed anything that would suggest this is neutral. I doubt it as I have come across P-123 a while ago who seemed to share my views as well regarding the lead, and he gave the impression that there were other editors who felt the same way as well. To help speedily resolve this I have attached the disputed neutrality template which I hope will attract other editors to this talk page.
- Legacypac, Thank you for the new version. My initial impression is that it is a lot better. Some immediate points that come to mind:
- "The name and idea of a caliphate has been widely criticized" - why the change from rejected to criticized. I would have thought the sources indicate that the caliphate as a concept or as a sovereign state was rejected outright by the UN and others. To say criticize when it has been rejected by UN and all other nations would be cut slack for the group I would have thought. Out of the two words criticize is softer in my opinion. I think if sources agree, we should say rejected. Would it be better to say. "The name, the concept of a caliphate and their claimed sovereignty over (do we need to qualify?) has been rejected by, the UN and various governments, and criticized by mainstream Muslim groups who refuse to use it.
- Is there any way to incorporate their name into the first line. ISIL name should come first for reasons already discussed followed by mention of IS somewhere in the first sentence as it is the name they have chosen for themselves. This current version mentions their name in the fourth line.
- The link to the caliphate article - for such a big issue to have such little information on a caliphate is not ideal.
- Let me know what you think. Mbcap (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Legacypac, Thank you for the new version. My initial impression is that it is a lot better. Some immediate points that come to mind:
- I just copied a sentence from the names section. Rejected is better. I'm fine with your wording.
- Not really if we want the text to flow. It is POV to use the Islamic State name without immediately qualifying it. We are already bolding it and using in the first paragraph. It's high enough it will be picked up in previews and summaries.
- Yes, link to worldwide caliphate
As for your other comments, please do not take non-mainstream view of WP:NPOV and don't disparage the efforts of the many editors who have struggled to write a high profile article while cyber-terrorists come to wikipedia to push a POV. We are not here to debate the merits of views expressed by a topic banned editor who can't comment on the debate. That would be disrespectful. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- We agree on 2 of the 3 points I have mentioned. The point that we disagree on is the name being in the first sentence. Let me think it over please. I will also read WP:NPOV again and try to ascertain what you mean by non-mainstream view. Sorry if this is a stupid question but what do you mean by, "It's high enough it will be picked up in previews and summaries"? What are previews/summaries?
- I did not disparage any editor. I was referring to non-neutrality being introduced which bears no semblance with the disparagement of an editor. We could agree for example that a worthy piece of writing that is simply ordered in a wrong manner could introduce bias but still retain its value. What I said was that some editors got carried away and I alluded to the fact that I though it was done in good faith. Those were interesting links to some questionable edits. Unfortunately, people do come to push a POV (I would have thought that was common). They obviously need to be dealt with but I think we must not be too hasty when branding people as terrorists. As to me mentioning a topic banned editor, I will not elaborate since I get the impression that I am not allowed to.
- I also would like to put something on the record Legacypac. I have been doing a lot of wiki policy reading lately and I came across guidance that said something along the lines of, you should always dispute or attack the words and not the person who wrote them. In light of this and my accusation of yourself of bias sometime ago in our discussions, I would like to apologise for my obvious indiscretion. It will not happen again. Mbcap (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do you want the IS name to stand alone without qualification? "...neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Would that be proportional - accepting ISILs decree without immediately noting the widespread rejection of the decree? Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac please do not delete the tag as it should not be until this dispute is resolved. I understand that you said this is a high traffic article with lots of editors viewing the talk page, but this discussion regarding the neutrality of the lead has only consisted of myself, yourself and Gregkaye. As we have had no outside input into this dispute, there is a need for the template to stay so that automated requests for comments continue to be sent to signed-up editors talk pages. Mbcap (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- The lead has been under dispute since the start of the article and its been rewritten hundreds of times. Your concerns, while important, do not justify the tag which implies that there is a big issue that needs to be fixed and that is a disservice to the reader. Your concerns are just over the placement of sentences, which is pretty minor. Click "Page information" under Tools on the left and you'll see this talk page has over 400 watchers and over 50 contributors in the last 30 days. This talk page gets 100-300 viewers a day. The article gets 15,000 viewers on a slow day, nearly 600,000 views in the last 30 days, and even more editor involvement then the talk page. If there was widespread support for your concern about NPOV there would be more editors jumping in this discussion. With this kind of editor involvement and massive readership (monthly exceeding the population of dozens of countries) tagging the article to try and improve editor involvement is not reasonable. Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do understand what you are saying. Whilst it is not ideal for the reader to see the banner for an extended period of time, I would not say it is a disservice to the reader. I think there are serious concerns about the lead which we here as editors have a responsibility to address. So serious in fact that I have dedicated a considerable portion of my time (about 10% of total) to this issue. The seriousness of the situation takes precedence over reader comfort. The reason why our journey towards a resolution has been so protracted is because of the stiff resistance that I have received from yourself and Gregkaye. I was initially unable to get any consideration until I resorted to taking on the the lead line by line and then you were kind enough to allow any mention of change. I hope we can get through the lead quickly so that we can remove the tag. It is simply not possible to delete the tag at this moment in time as No consensus has been established here regarding the dispute. I have also clearly stated my contentions regarding the lead in earlier posts, together with an explanation as to why I dispute the lead. As I promised to do in an earlier post, I have managed to read some posts from the archives and very quickly saw that the same contentions had been raised before with good reason which suggest that my concerns are not completely without merit. The state of the lead has compelled me and it obliges us to put serious effort to move towards a neutral version. It is my hope that the tag will continue to send out invitations to signed up editors to comment and this will help provide much needed insight.
- Whilst writing this I noticed you have removed the tag. Since I am not allowed to revert for 24 hours, I request that you re-instate the tag. Alternatively, I shall wait till 07:16 on 6th January 2015 before I add in the template again. You are not allowed to remove the template for the reasons I have just mentioned. I will clarify again just so you know why you cannot remove the tag:
- There is no concensus here
- I have made the neutrality issue clear in my earlier post - this is not an objection over one sentence (please read first paragraph of this post to see why we are working on one sentence)
- The neutrality issue which I have raised, I have also provided satisfactory explanation as to why I dispute the neutrality
- Whilst writing this I noticed you have removed the tag. Since I am not allowed to revert for 24 hours, I request that you re-instate the tag. Alternatively, I shall wait till 07:16 on 6th January 2015 before I add in the template again. You are not allowed to remove the template for the reasons I have just mentioned. I will clarify again just so you know why you cannot remove the tag:
- Regarding you words about viewing stats for the page, although on the surface they may seem impressive, in essence they bear no weight regarding this dispute as it has consisted on me disputing with you two. 3 editors in total does not equal the kind of editor involvement that you statement alludes to. To be honest, the viewing figures suggest that we need to solve the neutrality issue as there are a considerable number of people who are using wikipedia to inform themselves of the issue. This only increases the burden of responsibility to address the bias concerns which many others have raised before. I have been told they are in the archives if anyone wishes to look it up as reference. I want to state again that the statement about this dispute simply being over the placement of sentences is a misrepresentation of the issue at hand.
- Finally I would like to point to this edit which you did not one hour ago:
- Not only have you undone my revert despite it not being allowed per guidance but you also failed to mention the removal in the edit summary. Please could you explain? I also feel as if I am being constantly over-ruled, and I hesitate and dread to even consider editing the ISIL article for fear of being reprimanded by you or GregKaye, whereas you both edit all the time. I do not think I deserve to be treated like I have been. I have been more than reasonable and open to learn from both of you. I have used a lot of your advice to help other editors on other pages but my appreciation for your help can only allow me to tolerate so much. I shall await your response and also for the re-inclusion of the tag. Mbcap (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have just noticed that you have edited the article and your proposed wording which I never agreed to has been incorporated in a way that was not even discussed in the talk page. The proposed wording was for the first paragraph and you have split then into two and inserted them at two separate ends of the article. You stated at the start of this dispute;
- "Your opinions are welcome but undiscussed changes to the lead are not going to be appreciated here."
- This is what I mean. You just changed the lead in a way that was not discussed. Why is my undiscussed change not appreciated but yours is allowed to stay without the need to discuss. After your heavy rebuke by the quoted statement from your earlier post, I simply can not believe what has just transpired. Mbcap (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You are being listened to, you are welcome to edit, and no one is shutting you down. I inserted the stuff that was discussed and we pretty much agreed to. I then realized that there was considerable duplication between the new wording and another lead paragraph so I modified as best as I could to reflect your concerns and keep a NPOV. If you have more concerns, please be specific here.
The tag can't stay - and I've explained why. If you want the tag start an RFC on it and get consensus, but every time someone tags the article others strip the tag quickly using the reasons I gave you. The article is factual, not POV, and arguments that the positioning of a phrase on line 4 vs line 1 or whatever are clearly not what the NPOV tag is about. The page gets lots of input - w Sith 124 distinct editors changing the page in the last 30 days, surely any unreasonable POV in the lead would have been addressed by some of them if there was a serious concern. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- A significant level of support has previously been given to the prominent position of the critical content of the second paragraph but objection has been raised over time by at least three editors. There is now a new context in which, I think, an important representation of the criticism of the use of the name "Islamic State" is placed in the article's first paragraph. I still have a moderate preference for retaining the prominent positioning of the second paragraph content. I personally think that NPOV in regard to this particular group can now be achieved either way and that this issue may beneficially be left open for editor comment. GregKaye 23:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- As I have been informed that there are currently 414 page watchers, I would like the record here to reflect an extension of the current discussion which has taken place here [3] on my talk page. Mbcap (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I skimmed through it, and was pleased to see an effort to maintain/restore good faith from editors, though I'm not too sure how much of it relevant. This should hopefully mean less arguing and accusations and therefore greater productivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith the Gamer (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank-you, and this was certainly the intention of the User talk page thread. GregKaye 13:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I skimmed through it, and was pleased to see an effort to maintain/restore good faith from editors, though I'm not too sure how much of it relevant. This should hopefully mean less arguing and accusations and therefore greater productivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith the Gamer (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The current discussion has covered a number of issues with a recent return to the topic of the placement of the content of the second paragraph. GregKaye 13:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Request add : ISIL (yemachshimam) Sharia-FAQs on sex and slavery in regard to girls and women - honeypot for pedophiles -disgusting
BBC News by Paul Wood (22 December 2014) published ISIL (yemachshimam) Sharia-FAQs on sex and slavery in regard to girls and women. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30573385 The document appears to be genuine. It was posted on an jihadist (yemachshimam) web forum and, apparently, given out after Friday prayers in Mosul. Christians, Jews and Yazidi women can all be taken as slaves, it says. Women can be bought, sold, and given as gifts; they can be disposed of as property if a fighter dies.
The pamphlet's Q&A format includes the following: Question: Is it allowed to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty? Answer: You may have intercourse with a female slave who hasn't reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse. IS itself has not tried to hide what it has done. As well as the pamphlet and the video, its official publication, Daqib, records what happened:"After capture, the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to Sharia [Islamic law] amongst the fighters of Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations…
"Before Satan sows doubt among the weak-minded and weak-hearted, remember that enslaving the kuffa [infidels] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly-established aspect of Sharia." The figure of 3,500 women and girls still in captivity is not a rough estimate. A Yazidi committee has names of all the missing. Of those who have returned, some are pregnant. --85.178.244.177 (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is extremely disturbing, but it is important information and should be added into the article in the "Sexual violence and slavery" section, if the information hasn't already been introduced. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Infobox problems
Another user has pointed out to me that, I quote " "Template:Infobox geopolitical organization" does not exist. It is just a REDIRECT to the country template." Perhaps we should just stick with the "infobox country" in this case, or is there another reason why this article chooses to stick with the redirect?--BoguSlav 17:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I remember that we used to have what I regarded as a very bitty situation with two infoboxes for all of the information. When I looked at the contents there didn't seem to be a way to get all the info into either of the boxes. GregKaye 20:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The template definitely exists and is used on a few articles like Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf and European Union. Just the guide is on the same page as the guide for Template:Infobox country (hence the redirect). The templates are similar but there are critical differences. ISIL is not a country and does not fit well in the country template as it forces a bunch of inappropriate fields on us. The geopolitical organization template is a lot more flexible designed to deal with a range of organizations, offering many extra and customizable fields that allowed merging the 2nd info box we used to use into one box. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have been having a similar conversation at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic, saying that DPR is not a country, similar to ISIL. However, I was wondering if there was some kind of discussion where this was agreed upon, or some kind of policy or convention you were following.--BoguSlav 23:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok cool - I feel your pain. There is a clear decision that ISIL and Donesk are not countries. This article used infobox country for a long time but it lead to all kinds of inappropriate inserts. ISIL acquired official languages, multiple currencies, a capital, a government type, a national flag, and other such nonsense because the box has blanks for all these. We also had a war factions box with some overlapping info but some stuff that would not fit (like a second map) in the infobox country. I went looking for a way to fix the country box and found the geopolitical organization box on the same guidance page, which fit so much better. 3 hours of editing in my sandbox to get it ready and looking much the same as the old box. One or two people reverted it right away without any good reasons, but we were able to get the change to stick and the box has been much more stable ever since. I presume geopolitical org was created for things like EU (the example given in the guide) but it fits pretty well for ISIL and should work well for the two pro-Russia breakaway regions where editors would be facing many of the same issues as here. One of the really useful features is 9 establishment dates and events. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have been having a similar conversation at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic, saying that DPR is not a country, similar to ISIL. However, I was wondering if there was some kind of discussion where this was agreed upon, or some kind of policy or convention you were following.--BoguSlav 23:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The template definitely exists and is used on a few articles like Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf and European Union. Just the guide is on the same page as the guide for Template:Infobox country (hence the redirect). The templates are similar but there are critical differences. ISIL is not a country and does not fit well in the country template as it forces a bunch of inappropriate fields on us. The geopolitical organization template is a lot more flexible designed to deal with a range of organizations, offering many extra and customizable fields that allowed merging the 2nd info box we used to use into one box. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Bogu can I also ask you to try to make sure you've had a decent look at previous discussions related to topics such as the uses of "self-proclaimed" and other terms in the opener of the lead. Many of these issues have been extensively discussed. Issues can be reconsidered but I would hate to go over the same ground for the sake of it. GregKaye
- It's cool - he came looking for advice on another article. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
ISIL or ISIS?
I am completely uninvolved here, and plan on remaining so, but I do have a question. It seems to me (purely subjective original research) that I hear the term "ISIS" used more than "ISIL". Has anyone done any research to see which is the more common name? Looking at the "Requested moves to date" box at the top of this page, I see that other than a couple of early move requests all the requests have been for other moves, not ISIS --> ISIL or ISIL --> ISIS. I really don't want to restart those later discussions. I am just asking about ISIL vs. ISIS. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Guy Macon Its a tricky one. The title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been adopted by the article as a major designation. ISIS is a more widely used term than ISIL but a decision had previously made to use ISIL for the sake of consistency. I know that ISIS is used as the article name in at least one language version of Wikipedia. GregKaye 10:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- ISIS is used more often in the media overall, but ISIL is used officially by both the government and by the US-led Coalition. Given this, and what Greg stated above, we should stick with ISIL for consistency. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- The choice has confounded the media. We had at least one RfC that decided ISIL over ISIS based mainly on it being short for the article name chosen. The two acronyms are alternative translations of the same Arabic name. The translation of the last word is where there is variation - al-Sham (no translation), Syria (denoting Greater Syria) and Levent with all three being roughly equivalent. Legacypac (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, in any case, ISIL should be the default, for the sake of consistency and its usage at the government level. However, both ISIL and ISIS are okay to use as acronyms. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Collapse the Ref Section?
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.
Would it be ok to put the whole reference section of the article in a collapse box? It's longer then the actual article, takes forever to scroll through just to get to the content below, and would take a page or so to print. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wait and see - I honestly don't think it's that bad yet, but if it gets too long to navigate, when compared with the rest of the article, then go right ahead. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if there is a policy or standard practice on this. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Got a couple good answers here at Help Desk. The answer is do nothing per standard practice. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- One thing I've seen done in some other articles is to group multiple citations for a single fact or statement into a single footnote. This works best when each source is only cited once. When that's the case, you can create a single "< ref >" with a bullet list of sources within it. I don't think it makes sense to do that, because the article is still in flux. But once it's settled down a bit, that might be something we could consider doing. (did not get signed due to ref tag)
Propose removal of second map
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg/230px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png)
I believe that the second map on the page as at File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg was originally developed as part of a misunderstanding. I currently displays the area of occupied territory but this is otherwise presented in the File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png.
The map was originally used with a third colour marked as in this version. The third colour gave reference, as far as I later learned, to a one time 'SIL twitter announcement related to a listing of territorial areas in which the group then claimed to have a presence or control. This was interpreted within Wikipedia as 'SIL's territorial claim which was misleading. As far as I am aware ISIL have not made any specific territorial claim beyond non spokesman members saying things like the black flag will fly on Buckingham Palace and that kind of thing.
At the present the map is in two locations, in the infobox at the top of the article and in article section #Goals and territorial ambitions.
I would support removal of the map from both locations (or at least one) as superfluous and wondered what other editors thought. GregKaye 16:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- That map has definitely changed a few times. Not too long ago it showed red controlled, pink claimed, and white for the rest. Right now on my screen it does not show a light pink for "claimed" just white. The one thing it does show that the multicolor map shows is Derna, but the extent of ISIL control in Derna is geographically limited as the Libyan Army has taken villages within a few km of the city and has announced an assault on the center. I don't think we need it twice, so I' ok with taking it out of the infobox for sure. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I'd agree that the info box map may be the one to lose as depending on broswer and screen I also think that the infobox may be getting proportionately long compared to the TOC. More thoughts? GregKaye 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the map - Honestly, the second map does have areas that the battle map does not go over, and so it should be kept for this reason. Also, they are updated at different rates, and even though it may be somewhat of an annoyance, I believe that the benefits make it worth the trouble to keep them both. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- PS, I have no idea who removed the pink coloration for the ISIL territorial claims, but either way, the countries with official land claims (including the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and Turkey) should be re-highlighted as pink. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- (If one were to go on the history, one would see that I removed the pink) The pink is not needed there anymore because the entity of ISIL has expanded its claims into the white countries of the map. The map should be used on the ISIS page, not necessarily on the Syrian Civil War pages anymore, the reason being that the ISIS now seems to contain a part of the smaller Syrian civil war, as opposed to ISIS being a part of larger civil war. The pink became redundant.—SPESH531Other 08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- LightandDark2000 Can you give any reference to 'SIL's territorial claims? GregKaye 20:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are plenty of references in the article itself, and assuming that it is still there, there was one in the lead stating that they basically claimed the entire area of Greater Syria, before extending that claim to the entire world. But basically, the "claimed" countries should be the ones in which ISIL currently has a presence, which aside from the obvious ones, are the countries I listed above in my last post. And there are plenty of sources in Military of ISIL to suggest ISIL presences in each of those countires. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- LightandDark2000 I do not see that: 'the "claimed" countries should be the ones in which ISIL currently has a presence'. Like anything else we would need reference for this. I think that either ISIL/ISIL sympathetic forces are in control of an area or they are not. It is as simple as that. Any other claims have to be referenced. To my understanding, countries in which ISIL have a presence are marked as white while other countries are marked as grey. What justification is there for presenting any specified indication of "claim"? GregKaye 11:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are plenty of references in the article itself, and assuming that it is still there, there was one in the lead stating that they basically claimed the entire area of Greater Syria, before extending that claim to the entire world. But basically, the "claimed" countries should be the ones in which ISIL currently has a presence, which aside from the obvious ones, are the countries I listed above in my last post. And there are plenty of sources in Military of ISIL to suggest ISIL presences in each of those countires. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- LightandDark2000 Can you give any reference to 'SIL's territorial claims? GregKaye 20:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- (If one were to go on the history, one would see that I removed the pink) The pink is not needed there anymore because the entity of ISIL has expanded its claims into the white countries of the map. The map should be used on the ISIS page, not necessarily on the Syrian Civil War pages anymore, the reason being that the ISIS now seems to contain a part of the smaller Syrian civil war, as opposed to ISIS being a part of larger civil war. The pink became redundant.—SPESH531Other 08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- PS, I have no idea who removed the pink coloration for the ISIL territorial claims, but either way, the countries with official land claims (including the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and Turkey) should be re-highlighted as pink. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the map - Honestly, the second map does have areas that the battle map does not go over, and so it should be kept for this reason. Also, they are updated at different rates, and even though it may be somewhat of an annoyance, I believe that the benefits make it worth the trouble to keep them both. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I'd agree that the info box map may be the one to lose as depending on broswer and screen I also think that the infobox may be getting proportionately long compared to the TOC. More thoughts? GregKaye 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Source countries for fighters presentation
User:Star72 created a sorted list. I like the data, but the inclusion of flags suggests official permission by the countries and there is no prose on the topic. In some countries it is a crime to fight for ISIL, many fighters have done videos burning their passports, and penalties for joining ISIL can include loss of citizenship. Ideas for a more clear presentation? Also "fighting with" could mean "warring against" or "joining alongside" so a clearer heading is in order. Current presentation (I've removed the refs so they don't clutter the talk page):
Number of nationals fighting with ISIL:
Saudi Arabia:7,000
Tunisia: 2,400-5,000
United Kingdom:2,000
Russian Federation:1,000
Turkey:1,000
France:500
Germany:550
China:300
Belgium:250-400
Sweden:150
Canada:130
United States:100<
Australia:70
Israel:40-50
Spain:40
Japan:9
Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is this supposed to be a comprehensive list? It gives the impression that there are no Iraqis or Syrians fighting with Isis. That can't be right. Formerip (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Or Jordan, Turkey, Yemen, Egypt... Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have no way of knowing if this is substantiated but some editors here talked of maps slowing things down. Additionally I have to wonder how many of these people will be flying any flag who's primary colour isn't black. The most important information is in the numbers and, if anything, I think the flags detract from this. I'm also wondering whether this information is more relevant for the military of ISIL article. GregKaye 19:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Or Jordan, Turkey, Yemen, Egypt... Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is lots of material in news articles country by country but nowhere I've seen is it brought together. Maybe an article on International response to jihadist fighters? Then list Country by Country - Canada has been revoking passports leaving "Canadians" like the idiot who bragged about playing soccer with severed heads in Syria or the ones who filmed themselves burning their Canadian passports stranded unable to return to Canada or go anywhere else. Hope he bought a one way ticket. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- In whatever context it goes perhaps a numbers then nation format might work such as "7,000 from Saudi Arabia • 2,400-5,000 from Tunisia • 2,000 from the United Kingdom etc." In the current context the content under the heading "=====Number of nationals fighting with ISIL:=====" comes in the context of the section and text: "====Foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria==== There are an estimated 15,000 from nearly 70 countries in ISIL's ranks. According to an UN report." My first thought is that the numbers are of at least as much importance as the countries concerned but this is just a provisional view. GregKaye 10:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Proposed new Level 2 Section contributed
Justification based on religious texts (edit here)
The Islamic state group has for long claimed religious justification on the treatment of its captives based on the Hadith and Qur’an.They received widespread criticism from Muslim scholars and the rest of the Muslim world for explicitly citing verses from the Qur’an. They publicly express their right to enslave and rape captive women i.e. non-Muslims citing Qur’an verses. They express their motive as to ethnically cleanse their state and rid their self-proclaimed state of all non-believers .They consider Shiites as infidels and the enemies of Islam so they are more prone to violence compared to non-Muslims .Non-Muslim women have reportedly been married off to fighters against their will and sold off for $25, and ranging up to $150. Those who do not convert face daily rape and a slow death, new born babies are reportedly being ripped away from their mother’s arms to fates unknown. Pre-pubescent girls as young as 10 are being violated. The mantra is that the caliphate needs new converts and children to spread, women can provide both. Their narrative may well be wrapped up in the familiar language of jihad and "fighting for the cause of Allah". "Before Shaytan (Satan) reveals his doubts to the weak-minded and weak hearted, one should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia’s that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Qur'an and the narration of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam," states the latest issues of the ISIS's glossy propaganda magazine Dabiq, named after a site in Muslim apocalypse mythology. The main focus of the IS fighters is towards yazidi women whom they consider satanic and ones who worship the devil, resulting them to be treated in an inhumane manner. "After capture, the Yazidi women and children are divided according to the Shariah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations, after one fifth of the slaves are transferred to the Islamic State's authority to be divided as khums, enslaving women and forcing them to become wives reduces sin by protecting men from being tempted into adultery," Dabiq quoted. Khums is a traditional tax on the spoils of war. "This large-scale enslavement of mushrik (idolater) families is probably the first since the abandonment of Shariah law, “the magazine added. They offer three choices to their non-Muslims captives, the first being the choice to convert to Islam, secondly to pay jizya (taxes) and maintain second class citizenship in the country and if they don’t choose either of the above choices the final choice is to be awarded capital punishment i.e. death penalty to non-Muslims .In spite of the above rules mentioned in the sharia law book, Islamic State fighters have reportedly force converted non-Muslims giving capital punishment as their only alternate option. [1][2][3] [4][5][6] [7]
- ^ Siddiqui, Mona (24 August 2014). "Isis: a contrived ideology justifying barbarism and sexual control". The Guardian. The Observer. Retrieved 1 January 2015.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ Kumar, Anugrah (13 October 2014). "ISIS Claims Islam Justifies Making 'Infidel' Women Sex Slaves". The Christian Post. CHRISTIAN POST CONTRIBUTOR. Retrieved 1 January 2015.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ Abdelaziz, Salma (13 October 2014). "ISIS states its justification for the enslavement of women". CNN. Retrieved 1 January 2015.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ "ISIL seeks to justify enslaving Yazidi women and girls in Iraq". ’’Today’s Zaman’’. abril. 14 October 2014. Retrieved 2 January 2014=.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help) - ^ Spencer, Robert (2 January 2015). "Islamic jihadist says slavery biggest honour for non-Muslim women". ’’Jihad Watch’’. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
- ^ Sypher, Ford (28 August 2014). "Rape and Sexual Slavery Inside an ISIS Prison". ’’The Daily Beast’’. Horror. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
- ^ Harding, Luke (25 August 2014). "Isis accused of ethnic cleansing as story of Shia prison massacre emerges". ’’The Guardian’’. Retrieved 4 January 2015.
Discussion
I assume good faith with this new editor, but have some concerns about a large insertion, including the need to improve the English first and put the citations closer to the extraordinary claims made. I don't doubt the claims, read them myself elsewhere, but they are likely to be challenged if left like this in the article. Also how does this insertion fit with the sections Religious_and_minority_group_persecution and Sexual violence and slavery? Is this info not better inserted into those sections? Feel free to edit right here until these issues are resolved. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- The reason for creation of a new section because of the repeated Justification citing verses from the koran by the Islamic State fighters, so it cannot be integrated to any other section because justification for their actions are widely reported by the media thus it needs a seperate section. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank-you for coming here to discuss finally. Perhaps new material could be incorporated in as a subsection of the Sexual violence and slavery section it seems like it should be just under that sub-heading. It does not make sense as a level 2 header section in my view. Also, we use the : to indent discussions. Makes them easier to follow. Legacypac (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- The main problem with this section is that only the three opening sentences actually refer to "Justification based on religious texts". The rest of it details crimes and abuses committed by ISIL which already has sections. The latter material needs to be incorporated into "Human rights abuse and war crime findings". Otherwise fails neutral POV. Please see Wikipedia:Core content policies. Also the inline citations need to be placed at the appropriate places. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- DONE!!! ,I have copy edited the correct position of cite claims and rectified minor mistakes, the original editor of this section can thank me later Easy Peasy....Jason foren daniel (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure there has been development. The section as currently appearing is here. For instance I don't think we can say in Wikipedia's voice that "they treat yazidi women in an inhumane way". We can only go by quotations and editors should not insert their own judgements. I think there is still more work to do, perhaps with section title, perhaps with positioning within the sections. GregKaye 19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- DONE!!! ,I have copy edited the correct position of cite claims and rectified minor mistakes, the original editor of this section can thank me later Easy Peasy....Jason foren daniel (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Propose move of content to section Group goals, structure and characteristics
Suggestion cut the content back to a point where everything is cited (or provided with citation) and move content into section 2 Group goals, structure and characteristics. That section is currently composed as follows:
- 2 Group goals, structure and characteristics
- 2.1 Goals and territorial ambitions
- 2.2 Leadership and governance
- 2.3 Ideology and beliefs
- 2.3.1 Theological objections
word usage
- subtitle added. GregKaye 09:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer to see the words penetrated or raped in the place of the word violated, as I consider euphemisms to be POV. The best way to make it clear how heinous these crimes are is to limit our POV as much as possible. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am in support of the term "raped." It is the least heinous word, yet the most accurate and the most direct way to described exactly what happened. We need people to know what happened, and we can't cover up the details or censor anything out, so we need to make it plain to the readers in the text. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Portrayal of ISIS in American Media
Just found this article - wanted to put it here for other editor input. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portrayal_of_ISIS_in_American_Media&action=history Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- TY Legacypac for this important notification. To me it seems to be a well written article that seems to have primarily been generated by a single first time author. For the time being I have posted responses on the editor's talk page. GregKaye 11:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was an orphan (no links pointed at it) Interesting topic. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is it an Encyclopedic topic? It seemed totally a WP:OR to me! Mhhossein (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are a number of precedents for articles like this:
- A couple of things strike me. It might be better titled something like "Media coverage of ISIL" or "Media represenation of ISIL", but that's a relatively minor issue that can be easily fixed at some point. Also, we can expect more reflective studies of the media coverage to become available over time. There will also inevitably be those who question they way the media have characterized ISIL. We should add all of this in when it becomes available. But precedent would suggest that this is a completely legitimate subject for Wikipedia. EastTN (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Those articles also seem problematic. I think they can't survive as stand alone articles per WP:NOT#OR. Mhhossein (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Several of those articles have been around quite a while (e.g., Media coverage of the Iraq War back to 2003 and Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict back to 2004), and have received a fair amount of editorial attention. The community consensus would seem to be that they pass muster. EastTN (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Those articles also seem problematic. I think they can't survive as stand alone articles per WP:NOT#OR. Mhhossein (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is it an Encyclopedic topic? It seemed totally a WP:OR to me! Mhhossein (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was an orphan (no links pointed at it) Interesting topic. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is a discussion relevant to this issue at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Are_these_topics_encyclopedic.3F. EastTN (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Minor typo
In the Supporters section, one sentence begins "Many groups of these groups were previously affiliated with al-Qaeda..." The first instance of the word "groups" should be deleted. The reference given states "...many of these groups were affiliated with al-Qaeda." Would someone be kind enough to remove the extraneous word "groups" in the article? Thank you. 2601:7:B80:B1A:58F3:1418:75E4:BA96 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 22:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
To give justification based on religious text a seperate section.Discuss.
The "justification based on religious text" deserves a separate section because not only sexual violence is justified, so does all the acts of violence against shia Muslims ,its civilians, attacking members of the press,organ trafficking,destruction of non-Muslim cultural heritage,beheadings and child soldiers, and also because these acts of violence are covered by the media on a widespread scale to the general public which obviously increases the traffic to this page, so we need to provide Wikipedia readers a better understanding of their actions.I request all editors to consider expanding the above mentioned section by adding extra content we need to provide a better understanding to the readers and cause of their actions and finally I want to give a shout-out to all the editors for their tireless editing work on this article.The Islamic state claims justification for all its action on the basis of Islamic religious text.If you don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest you read all the citations near the claims listed under human rights abuse section.Thanks........Jason foren daniel (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
- WP:AT says the main focus should be on 5 criteria: Recognizability Naturalness Precision Conciseness Consistency
- 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.
- 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"
- 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:
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties; (Clearly not relevant)−
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (Clearly not relevant)
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- 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 [4]. 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- US Govt moving to DAESH [4]. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 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)
- 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)
Requested move 9 January 2015
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group) –
A proposal is made to rename the page. I would like to thank John Smith the Gamer for providing the criteria on which to decide a name. The qualifier is Islamic State (islamist rebel group) as described in the first sentence of the lead. I assume the lead is well sourced. I will make points on WP:AT which has just been mentioned in a previous post by John Smith.
- Recognizability- The title is very familiar to people in the subject area. Firstly a combination of the US's non-use of their name as part of the strategy to deligitamise them and to counter their influence has led to a media circus on issues surrounding the name. This has made the name notable in and of itself. Secondly, I took the liberty to do a google serach and news. Results are self-explanatory.
- Naturalnes - I think it is well known that the name is islamic state. I thought the only way to ascertain that in an objective way would be to do a google trends search. I ran the search for the names with a limit set to last 12 months in the category of news so that we could see the relationship between the use of the name, the date the name was declared and trends in how much it has been used before and after the decleration.
- Google trend on "search terms" in the news category (limit last 12 months):
- "islamic state" compared to "islamic state of iraq and the levant"[13]
- What can be seen is as follows from the trend results:
- Both terms were negligible on the internet over time graph before 7th June 2014
- After the decleration there is a massive spike for the term "islamic state" but the name isil stays at the very low level as before
- Only in october was there some increase which is due to america's strategy to not give them any legitamacy. The difference in interest between the two name is big with "islamic state" being used a lot more
- Regional interest shows 'darker' for IS term than ISIL. Regionally the term IS is most popular in Australia, Canada, UK, US and India. For the term ISIL it is just US. If you click to city mode for IS you will see how bright the map gets. Compare this is to ISIL which regionally is less dark and in city mode there is not enough data to even present a graph.
- It is hoped that this information also makes it clear that the argument; but people type islamic state to go to the other article here[14], is without merit. It is highly unlikely that people decided at the beginning of june 2014 to start reading about the normative islamic state. This is because most english sources talk about a caliphate when they talk about what the group represents as opposed to a normative islamic state.
- Precision - the term is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identy the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects as the proposed name will be Islamic State (islamist rebel group).
- The name has become so widespread that it has become associated with the group. It is like the example of BlackBerry here [15], even though it is a fruit.
- Conciseness - The new name is no longer than the current ISIL one and also the qualifier qualifies the group.
- Consistency - I am not sure what this means.
- WP:COMMONNAME - Shown above that islamic state more common than isil.
- WP:SPNC - Shown above with search, news and trend that IS has much more weight than ISIL. The WP link gives an example of Cat Stevens who is not moved to Yusuf Islam. That is because analysis of sources demonstrate that Cat Stevens has more weight than the latter name. The same approach should be taken here.
- WP:BLPSELFPUB - This does not apply here but I will entertain it anyway. The name that we are going to source is not from a self-published or questionable source but from reliable sources who name the group as wuch. Plus even on the wp:BELPSELFPUB link it says (highlighted portion):
- "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..."
- We are not going to be using self-published sources so this does not apply. We will be using the name that has the most weight within sources.
- John Smith you have mentioned your preference for keeping the name as it is. You point to:
- "ISIL is the most common name" - The results above with search, news and trend show that the statement is totally unsubstantitated. Any editors who disagree, please could you substantiate it.
- the name (islamic state) is " rejected almost universally" - The results above with search, news and trend show that the statement is totally unsubstantitated. If it was rejected almost universally then why so many more sources and searches than ISIL. America wants people to think that it is universally rejected as part of their battle of hearts and minds. Our purpose is an encyclopaedia, we do not exist to fight a battle of hearts and minds but to collate the sum of all human knowledge. Any editors who disagree, please could you substantiate it.
- ISIL is "slightly less ambiguous" - maybe but the islamic state name has become so widely used that it is like the blackberry situation. No I would say even more as majority of people do not even know what a normative islamic state is but everyone knows what a blackberry is (a fruit but also a phone company). I would say Blackberry is more ambiguous as article name for the company as opposed to the name islamic state.
- ISIL is "slightly more recognisable" - again unsubstantiated as you can see from search, news and trend above.
- "the name Islamic state is "slightly less natural" - again unsubstantiated. If it was less natural it would not have been used by so many people as seen by search, news, trend.
For the reasons I have outlined in response to John Smith the Gamer I would like to propose a page move to Islamic State (islamist rebel group) Mbcap (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Mbcap (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Something else to consider when deciding on an article title for this article. This is a summary article and a number of other articles fill in details about this subject and at the moment depend on this article for part of their name name eg "Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". If this article name changes to one that needs a dab extension what names should be given to those subsidiary articles? -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment If there is not a consensus for this proposed move please also propose and consider other article titles and if necessary disambiguation extensions in this move so that move requests can be put to bed for a few months once this move is closed. -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose for a bunch of reasons, but I'll just highlight that seeking to delegitimize ISIL is an goal shared by NATO, EU, GCC, Arab League, Russia, Iran, China, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries, plus the UN. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by fighting against what an editor wrongly labels an American propaganda effort. The locals and adjoining nations all oppose ISIL and use the Daesh term, not Islamic State. As for the search results, you can't use them like that because instances of "Islamic State of Iraq and Levent", "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" "so called , self proclaimed etc Islamic State" and real entities like Islamic State of Afghanistan all will get counted in the search results for "Islamic State". Also, this is a truly novel title as shown by this search which returns nothing but this proposal. Legacypac (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support This isn't about delegitimizing or legitimizing said group. The fact that you bring up this point as a reason to oppose the name change is your own personal opinion getting in the way of Encyclopedic truth and fact. As this is the English Wikipedia, what the 'locals' (I'm assuming you mean Iraqis and Syrians) refer to the group as is irrelevant, even if 'Daesh' is the preferred expression. Fact, since June 2014 the group formerly known as The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria changed its name to The Islamic State. Instead, Wikipedia is adhering to the old and outdated title in the name of political correctness. Why should an Encyclopedia dedicated to the world in which we live in be commanded by governments or transnational bodies such as NATO or the UN? Is this some sort of censorship of fact in an effort to win some sort of propaganda battle? If so, it has no place in any Encyclopedia, much less Wikipedia, a place where many people come to gain knowledge and insight instead of listening to the regurgitation of the U.S State Department and mass media outlets. It's a blatant point of view being expressed and completely opposes WP:NPOV. To sum up the 'Islamic State' is far more popular than ISIL as stated by Mbcap. This suggests that it is therefore in line with WP:COMMONNAME. The fact that results for the Islamic State were negligible before June 2014 then suddenly boomed post June 2014 suggests this. It is factually correct to refer to the group by its current name and not a previous name which no longer has meaning to the group, except if you are the U.S government. Finally, to keep ISIL just to avoid offending certain people or to keep in line with a certain POV held by other groups such as the U.N and NATO is reckless and shouldn't determine what goes into an Encyclopedia. StanMan87 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
*Oppose Until I see or find a source/search that clearly demonstrates the term Islamic State is in greater use than ISIL/ISIS I will assume that name Islamic State is not the most used term by English language speakers. Care must be taken to avoid false positives. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Having searched news outlets for the term "Syria", I found 7 which used "Islamic State", 2 which used "the Islamic State group", 1 which used "the militant group which calls itself “Islamic State”" and 1 which used ISIL. I now believe "Islamic State" is the the common name. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
*Support (as the nominator) Per my reasoning above in line with policy and also below, I am satisfied that Islamic State (or The Islamic State) is the most common name. Mbcap (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - in light of issues raised by Gregkaye and PBS, will abstain for the time being until an informed decision can be made. Mbcap (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose apologies to admin but this is a duplication of my "oppose" with explanation presented below based on stats and NPOV issues. GregKaye 20:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. it is evident that the phrase 'Islamic State' is more commonly used then Islamic state of iraq and the levant. --Ritsaiph (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support (as the nominator) Per my reasoning and more google searches on alternate names but in the same modality to control for variables (ie. search for IS vs ISIL or search spelled out. But do not mix one acronym vs spelled name for the other), I am satisfied that Islamic State is the common name. The other issues raised about there no being islamic state in these sources, are arguing over qualifiers. I will say again to clarify, the things being disputed here are qualifiers and not the name. Islamic State militants means the militants of the islamic state group. The islamic state group means the group that is called the islamic state. We can always decide on a qualifier later. The qualifier will need its own search to determine which qualifier is most used by reliable sources. Middle eastern news sources are unreliable and if you disagree, please look at press freedom in the middle east with the notable exception of Israel and maybe one other. So in summary this name meets WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. It is also recognizable, natural, precise, more concise than the current name and will also be consistant because if the name goes through, we will be making a name change across all related articles. Mbcap (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap Firstly you are putting your conception of common name here above the more central Wikipedia issue of NPOV. Secondly any search on "is" is not to be. The search here on "IS" in News dramatically failed to find results on IS as an acronym. The first result I got was of Alex James: the rowing machine is back to haunt me and other results, as far as I could see, consistently presented "is" as a form of verb. Thirdly, as elsewhere mentioned, if there was to be a move, on your arguments on reference to common usage ISIS would be the name used. (ISIS gets "About 12,500,000 results" on News in the last month while "Islamic State" gets "About 1,100,000 results" on News in the last month. Then we get to the WP:NPOV issues. There should not be an issue here in normal circumstances but for the fact that the group has chosen a controversial name that many find objectionable. The article even has a section entitled "Criticism of the name "Islamic State" and "caliphate" declaration" and the opening paragraph of the lead (here) presents the text "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. This is a fair representation. Ban-Ki Moon stated, "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State". Many people have Mohammedan based faiths who do not believe that this group is representative of Islam and yet the group, with qualification removed, have declared themselves "Islamic State" while claiming authority over all Muslims. Wikipedia's NPOV indicates that we cannot support a POV name that faces opposition anywhere near as strong as this. GregKaye 09:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I will not strike my support as I do not want to constantly strike once I have put my position on here. (I will strike if I am persuaded otherwise) Kaye I do not agree with your reasoning and I will attempt to explain. I am sorry for the long read.
It has to be stated that in any inductive process, be it a google search or to ascertain the relationship between the interaction between higgs particles and their rate of decay, you always have to control for variables. This is a fundamental principle of empiricism which itself is a branch of epistemology. Otherwise the question of "How" is left to making unsubstantiated conclusions. In the same manner here, your search will have to be like for like. Acronym (IS vs ISIL or ISIS) or fully spelled out, should be the rule when doing the searches.
- I know you have mentioned that IS dramatically fails to bring results for islamic state but that could be explained once you understand the basics of how algorithms determine search results if you are not aware already.
- You have to bear in mind the great disparity in results when comparing acronyms with IS getting very high results.
- You then have to factor how many different things IS could refer to and how many different things ISIS could refer to.
- Then you have to think of all those different possibilities and think which one is most commonly used. By that I mean for the acronym itself, how many different things could it refer to.
- The search "is" is used like the word before used in this sentence a lot more than as an acronym. This just means that results with "is" as a third person singular verb, is a lot more common than IS as an acronym, when taking the entire "is" cohort into consideration. Therefore those results are expedited to the top of the search.
- Same for ISIS or ISIL (just assume from now on I mean both acronyms), they are used more frequently for this group in comparison to the entire "ISIS" cohort with its different possible meanings.
- Look at disambiguous pages of those words to see how many different things it could possibly be. The list is very long. As an example, in the British costume drama Downton Abbey, the Dog before it was killed off (I wonder why?) was called ISIS. There is an Egyptian figure called ISIS as well. You will never be able to tell how many of those search results consist of the word in the context you mean as google only displays the top 1000 results even though the search can run into million or billions.
That was difficult to explain in words but I will attempt to illustrate what I mean with the example below. Lets assume two words are searched with different possible meanings. Both these words can also mean the same thing like in this case. I will call one word kappa and the other lambda. I have kept the ratio between the results the same to reflect the results for the acronym search above.
- A search for kappa returns 2000 results but the top results do not reflect the version of the word we were searching. Lets say the bottom 30% were the only results with terms we meant.
- A search for lambda returns 100 results. This word also means many different things but the most commonly used version of the name is in reference to the kappa term. Lets say 60% referred to our intended version of the word, or even 90% which I think is unrealistic.
What would you be left with? 600 results for kappa and only 60 (or even 90) for lambda. This is why we cannot use the reasons which you have given. This is also a reason why we should not use acronyms for search as there is no way to ascertain what the results as a cohort imply. I could possibly do it, but I would guess it would take me about 25 days to learn the theory behind how the google algorithm works and that is not time I can spare at the moment.
Secondly the name is not a NPOV issue. The page title will not be Islamic State. I would object with volition if that happened. Instead we will qualify the name with the qualifier most used in reliable sources. It could take the form of any of these or any others you can think of:
- "Islamic State (group)"
- "Islamic State (militant group)"
- "Islamic State (islamist rebel group)"
- "Islamic State (Jihadist organisation)
- "Islamic State (Terrorist organisation)
- "Islamic State (ISIS) or (ISIL)"
- "Islamic State (extremist group)"
The criticism of the name appears heavily in the lead and if it does not we will endeavour to make it prominent provided it is in proportion to the entire text. We also have to make a concerted effort to improve the page for the normative Islamic State which will enable readers to weight up the information themselves which I have no doubt they will appreciate. Of course I understand your points about the widespread condemnation from all sorts of organisations, groups and peoples. This will off course be incorporated into the article to provide as much balance as needed. When it comes to the issue of the name, I will address with reference to WP:POVNAME which says:
- "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." - Yes this is a common name and used by majority of English-language reliable sources.
- "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." - Yes this is the case here. The word may seem to some people to be non-neutral but by the reasoning just given, that concern is over-ridden in this case.
- "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later, Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." - This word is very likely to be remembered and will be connected with this issue for the foreseeable future. The word is also not colloguial
- "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." - I think this is a very important reason. People type islamic state into wikipedia to come read this most of the time. This will make life a lot easier for the reader when looking for this article. If there was anytime to think about reader convenience, now would be it.
I hope I have made my reasoning clear which I believe to be in line with policy and also the most neutral. I have also taken into consideration some guidelines I read last week which I cannot remember the name of but they were something similar to: ignore all rules and don't be a lawyer sticking to every policy. They said that improving wikipedia was more important than rules if they were an impediment. I also read the reasons why you cannot also use that as an excuse to do whatever you want. I have taken this into consideration as well but I think they apply more to non-controversial issues. I will nevertheless still consider what you have said when time permits. Even though I disagree with your reasoning, Too many times, one does something thinking it is the right thing, only to discover the great error that was made later on. For this reason, I need to reflect so as to make sure I do not leave anything out when making my final decision. It is a guarantee that if this name is not the common name, I will oppose this request even though I put it through. I will keep you posted. Mbcap (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Further discussion
- Comment Yes the trend analysis is the most important bit, if you want to read one thing in my proposal read that. StanMan87 - no we do not use the official name but we use the common name which aheres to WP:ARTICLETITLE. Judgin strictly by policy, the name change is warranted. This is not the place for American propaganda. Also I just read the link you posted toWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That shows that what you are suggesting should not be done. We are not here to right great wrongs just like the various organisations and countries you state want to. We are not a nation state or even a democracy (I read this somewhere - Jimmy wrote it) but what we are is an encyclopedia. Therefore we follow our own policy. Mbcap 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Mbcap (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mbcap it does not matter what the trend is in ghits, what matters is usage in English language reliable sources (see WP:UCRN). Also note that that section of WP:AT includes the sentence "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". -- PBS (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The only basis to reject a proposed name change is citing what Legacypac has already mentioned, that if we refer to IS as this then they are legitimized and that the U.S and NATO say this so Wikipedia must follow suit none of which bear any resemblance to an Encyclopedia, but some sort of propaganda magazine which I cannot stress enough. A change of name has been long overdue by about 7-8 months. StanMan87 (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry I was editing my post above and when I pressed save I saw your comment was below mine StanMan87. In regards to your point we here follow wikipedia policy. Our policy dictates how we do, what we do and nothing else. This is an encyclopedia and therefore we must abide by our policies so that we maintain our integrity. The above arguments are empty air. Editors are requested to bring forward policy based objections. If an editor presents their opinion but does not relate it to policy then that opinion is not welcome here. I think people would appreciate not having to read propaganda no matter how noble the intention of such propaganda. Mbcap (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I thought it would be commonsense for an Encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to use the correct and up to date terminology for a group such as IS. Why that needs to be linked to a Wikipedia policy is way beyond me. StanMan87 (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment
- Had double edit conflict
- In response to Stan, as I've said to you twice, I'm not convinced that just by virtue of them choosing that name that it is "the right name"
- In response to Mbcap
- You asked about consistency, the description of which is: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles." Consistency isn't really relevant here, other articles can be edited to be consistent with this one. Of the five good characteristics of a title, precision appears to be the only one of which there is likely of to be much discussing that doesn't come under which name is the common name.
- You are correct that I did not substantiate the remark of ISIL being more commonly used than Islamic state. However, most of the results for Islamic State appear to be for Islamic State (type of government). The acronym ISIL seems to be beating Islamic State. [16]. I'm not familiar with this tools, though. I don't know how to ensure we only deal with search queries relating to Islamics Sate.
- Note that anything that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Syria/Al-sham" contains "Islamic State", so caution must be taken when searching.
- Note that a some sources may call it ISIL/ISIS without expanding the name (ISIS is hard to search for because of other usage of same acronym)
- When I say the name is rejected almost universally, I mean that few recognise its rights to it (i.e. that they are *the* Islamic state), rather than claiming it's almost universal non-use.
- The reason I brought up WP:SPNC was due to it's parallels individual's names and groups names. The most interesting thing about is the way it links to WP:BLPSELFPUB saying it is particularly relevant which I take as an indication that a person cannot just change their name by saying that they do so, rather they need a reliable source to agree with their name change. If this is correct, I see no reason why a group be would able to if a person can't. This was to counter claims that we should choose whatever name ISIL chooses because it was "the right name".
- I believe that the most common terms should be used as the name, but I lack the skills to confirm what I suspect (that the term "Islamic State" is in lesser use than "Islamic state of ..."
- If you think I've missed any any responses to your previous questions let me know, as well as any more questions/rebuttals. I'm going to try to find search results to check the common name before making a vote. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- John Smith the Gamer, yes I agree with your points generally. If what you say about name being used in reliable sources after or before decleration is valid; I do not have the neccessary skill to judge that or to even know how to ascertain it. I am extremely busy so I must leave now. I put the proposal forward as it needed to be discussed from time to time (as PBS says). I am happy which ever name is chosen here as long as it follows wikipedia policy as I have great trust in them. It does not matter to me if ISIL, ISIS, IS, Daesh or any other name is used as long as it follows the aforementioned policies. However it would be a day of gloom if pro-american propaganda is allowed to dictate how we design our encyclopedia. I am repulsed by propaganda be it from US, Russia, Iran, China or any other country which thinks it can use our team here like a, wholly owned information war strategy company, as a subsidery of the armed forces. Mbcap (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mbcap, I also agree with you generally, though I find myself on the opposing side. I also lack the skill and also want to follow Wikipedia policy. I share you dislike for propaganda, though I do not know how much is in play here, which I suppose is how propaganda is used best. I personally would be slightly worried if this article did get named Islamic State as children may misunderstand if they came across the article. I'd like to thank you for being civil and assuming good faith when posting here, and wish you luck with what you are rushing to. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank John. I appretiate you saying "personally" when expressing your opinion which I completley understand. Hard things will always come our way in these uncertain times. I think you have been kind with your words and for that reason I wish to persuade you that you should overlook everything but policy.
If policy points to ISIL at the end of this discussion, then happy I will be to go forward and vice versa with Islamic State. Personally I do not think a child would come across this as both names are not well known to children. There are efforts being made to moderate muslim schools in some part of the western hemisphere so children learn in a pure secular fashion. Regardless you may still worry. Just to give you a comparison to something completley unrelated, I too worry. My worry is paedophilia. Within my own profession it is widely known that paedophilia will eventually become a sexual orientation and will no longer be classified as a psychiatric condition. It will go through the same evolution that homosexuality went through. I know that when the day comes and talks have already started in scandanavia, that paedophilia will no longer be a crime or disease or a taboo in society (of course relationship with a child will not be allowed but they will be open about it). I think at that time too we will have a difficult time editing the encyclopedia because there is always that struggle between doing what is right based on an objective criteria and what your connsciounce tells you is right. Though both are admirable, I ask which one would provide the most momentum going forward.
News magazines which use Islamic State:
- Economist [17]
- Newsweek [18]
- New Republic [19]
- Businessweek [20]
- NewStatesman [21] uses ISIS in brackets
- New Yorker [22]
- The Spectator [23] with ISIS acronym
- The Atlantic [24]
- Der Spiegel [25]
- The Week [26]
- Mother Jones [27]
- The weekly standard [28] with ISIS and ISIL acronym
- National Review [29] with ISIS acronym
- The Nation [30] with ISIS acronym
Result for the major news magazine US and UK (plus one from Germany)= 14 out of 15 (only major newsmagazine not to use name was Time magazine)
News Sources that use Islamic State:
- 1 BBC [31]
- 2 Guardian [32]
- 3 CNN [33] (no, uses ISIS Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC))
- 4 AFP [34] (no uses Islamic State group, see next talk section Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC))
- 5 Reuters [35] (no, see next talk section Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC))
- 6 Washington times [36]
- 7 Telegraph [37]
- 8 The huffington post [38]
- 9 Wall street journal [39]
- 10 New York times [40]
- 11 Christian science monitor [41]
- 12 Jpost [42]
- 13 Sputniknews [43]
- 14 CNBC [44]
- 15 long war journal [45]
- 16 Vice news [46]
- 17 The Scotsman [47]
- 18 LA times [48]
- 19 International business times [49]
- 20 DW [50]
- 21 Bloomberg [51]
- 22 NDTV [52]
- 23 Sydney morning herald [53]
- 24 San Francisco Chronicle [54]
- 25 Chicago Sun Times [55]
- 26 Chicago Tribune [56]
- 27* Heral Scotland [57]
- 28 The Australian [58]
- 29 National Interest [59]
- 30 Sky news [60]
- 31 Al-Monitor [61]
- 32 The times of israel [62]
- 33 The express [63]
- 34 USA today [64]
- 35 The Boston Globe [65]
- 36 The Buffalo News [66] (no, uses "Islamic State militants" and "Islamic State group" Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC))
- 37 Denver post [67]
- 38 The Florida Times-Union [68] (uses "Islamic State group" Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC))
- 39 Miami Herald [islamic state] ("Islamic State group" yesterday Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC))
- 40 Philly [69]
- 41 The Salt Lake Tribune [70]
- 42 Seattle Times [71] (Islamic State group - even in the title Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC))
- 43 StarTribune [72] (Islamic State group even in the title, Islamic State extremist group, AP article Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC))
- 44 Yorkshire Post [73]
- 45 The Hindu [74]
- 46 Japanese times [75]
Bar one or two, these are the major broadsheets in the english speaking world. If I have missed any my apologies. Actually I have. But I do not have the time to do a search on them. I have done 46 here. All of whome use Islamic State. Some qualify it in a bracket and they differ on their qualifiers.
All of these sources use the term Islamic State unless qualified. I would like to ask other editors is this still not enough to warrant consideration for name change. I would like to know so we can discuss the qualifier within the bracket. 15:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Mbcap (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
John Smith the Gamer The google trend link you posted was broken so I recreated it and you are right. ISIL is the most common search term. Do we take an acronym search into account and do the above sources use of islamic state merit consideration? If the answer is no then I will also oppose page move(I know I requested it). Mbcap (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It is entirely possible that "ISIL" in those searches refers to something else in a large number of cases, for example NASDAQ: ISIL share prices. You are free to decide what merits consideration. There is no policy on considering acronyms as far as I know, and even if there were you'd be free to say you think we should ignore it. Last time (before I came to this page) two editors opposed on the basis they did not consider the name to be accurate whilst it appears to have not got through because of it being "too early" to tell if the term would be adopted. I am now going to do some searches and consider switching from oppose to abstaining/supporting. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Other notable English news magazines (not from US or UK):
- Macleans (from Canada) [76]
- 3 of the main news magazines from India --->
Mbcap (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I have been doing some research into how news works and I found that a lot of news providers depend on news agencies to sell them content. There are only four global agencies agencies so I searched their content to ascertain what term they used. The agencies are number below 1-4 with the corresponding term written in bold:
I am not exactly sure if there is a difference between Islamic State and The Islamic State. I glanced at the archives and it seemed like a complicated discussion. Clarifying by a more experienced editor would be appreciated.
Apart from AP the others use Islamic State or The Islamic State. I do not know if this bears any say on the naming issue. Collating all this together reveals the following number of notable sources:
- New agencies -- 3 out of the 4 global agencies use Islaimc State (exception AP) I think this may explain your search result John Smith the Gamer
- News magazines-- 18 out of 19 most notable english news magazines use Islamic State (exception is TIME)
- Broadsheet newspapers-- 48 of about 55 most notable broadsheets from US, UK, Canada and Australia use Islamic State(may have an indian or japanese one as well)
If anyone wonders how I knew what was notable. I did not know. I just read the notable section of the articles for news agency [84], this for news magazine[85] and this for broadsheets[86]. I did the search for all news agencies and English news magazines. The list for broadsheets was very big so I picked the ones that sounded most well known and respected to me. I know this is not ideal so I am happy for anyone to do a full search of all notable broadsheets, if you so insist. Mbcap (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Mbcap (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2015
I think an editor previously mentioned that the name used after the name change in reliable sources carries more weight when deciding on name change. I did a book search for both terms with time range between 29/06/2014 to 10/01/2015. Both searches on google books[87][88] returned no results. Mbcap (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Reading WP:RS, it says we can also use scholar based sources. I did a google search but I was unable to restrict the time limit by month. Even then it was difficult to differentiate between the two results as when I searched ISIL (spelled out), I also got islamic state articles, and when I searched Islamic State, I got articles about other groups and normative version of islamic state. Therefore I did a search to find a list of political sciences journals ranked by Impact factor and found this[89]. This could also help us ascertain which name is more common after 29th June 2014. If I get time this week I will try to do it and post the results.
Note: If you click on impact factor, there is a disproportionate criticism section. The value of I.F. is well substantiated at least within medical and biosciences. It is calculated by dividing the total number of times the journal has been cited, by the number of possible citable material in that journal the previous year, so it is a very good indicator of the popularity and reach of the journal. Mbcap (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- (as per vote! moved to correct section above) Oppose, Mbcap in 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
- If there was a name to be chosen for the group based on stats (and even before strong NPOV arguments weighed in) the name to be chosen would be ISIS. GregKaye 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mbcap you seem to have been selective in the survey that you have done. I checked the first couple of new entries you gave the BBC does indeed seem to use Islamic State and then explain other usages against that, but while the Guardian may use Islamic State some/most? of the time it does not do so exclusively, in this article Peter Beaumont in The Observer (the weekend version of the Guardian) on Saturday 4 January 2014 uses "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – known by the acronym Isil –" and the uses "Isil" throughout the rest of the article, so given that the second entry in you list is not representative of always using Islamic State, how confident are you that your survey is accurate and representative of news outlets not just for the one link you provide to each organisation but in the general usage? Also there are other reliable sources to be considered which you have not done any form of survey for, what do the Governments of the Anglosphere countries use, what do the international bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Arab League (in their English language publications) use? -- PBS (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Listing CNN as using Islamic State is a huge red flag that the research presented was done with a specific goal in mind, damning the facts. Anyone who reads or watches CNN knows they slavishly use ISIS. I see only one Arab/Turkey/Middle Eastern world English media on your lists. The provided link only says Islamic State once (essentially quoting a supporter of ISIL) and then uses IS for the rest of the article. [90] Since the regional media are closer to the issue that also suggests bias in selection of data. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Greg Thank you for your input. I am really sorry I can not really look into this at the moment. However, you are welcome to find out what term is most common.
PBS I am not sure what you are saying. I looked for major news outlets and took a recent story they have published. Then I saw which term they used in the title of the article or if the name was not in the title I saw what they used in the text. They may well have said, they are also known as this or that. I can not say for certain. I though since they used Islamic State in the lead and made the comment about the other name it meant the former is the one the news outlet uses. If I have made a mistake in that interpretation, I am sorry.
If you are both right, I will happily vote to oppose this move request. I have also just struck (or deleted) through my "support" comment above so I can make an informed decision after what you have both presented has been clarified. Please could someone also check the agency information I have posted. I am sure they are correct but just in case in light of the issues raised by PBS. Mbcap (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Mbcap, News outlets may have a style guide that dictates what they use. It is clear from the BBC web postings that they have made an in house decision to use IS (just as they have to use Burma), but other news outlets may or may not have made a specific decision on this issue, and just leave it up to journalists to use whatever they prefer. You can not just "[take] a recent story they have published" and extrapolate from that that all the articles published by that organisation always use that term. For example many newspapers take their copy from the news agencies and do not edit it in house, so if they use more than one new agency their usage will reflect the house style of those agencies, and that means even if the agencies are consistent (and they may not be) the newspapers that use multiple agencies (and do not edit the copy) will use more than one term. In other cases you find that the news-desk in a publication have decided to use one name and the travel department will use another (eg the news-desk may have a policy of using IS, but the travel desk that takes Foreign Office memos on safe places to visit may use the terms the Foreign Office use eg ISIL). For all these types of reasons, it is necessary to to run a survey on each publication to see what they currently use -- one web page is nowhere near enough to ascertain usage in most news organisations. -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac Thank you for pointing that out. It would seem I did not read the page carefully. Yes I did have a goal but it wasn't in the sense you are suggesting. I searched through as many broadsheets as I could and also those news organisations that I know of. I took a recent article and searched islamic state with "Ctrl+F". The one that showed it was used in the title or main text I posted here. The ones that did not use islamic state I did not report here. So yes and no to your suggestion of research done with specific intent. If you still think I did it with an agenda, then my apologies, it was not done with malicious intent. Regardless, I want to thank you for checking my work and I would like to ask if you would be kind enough to check through the rest of my work. I know you must be busy but I think it is important that someone checks the validity of the information presented here. As I have stated, because of the issues just raised by yourself, GregKaye and PBS, I have deleted my support comment above. Hopefully when these issues are clarified, I will vote for whichever name meets policy. Also can I tag John Smith here so he is informed of the new issues raised (I don't think that would be canvassing?). I think he may too think differently in light of the previous comments. Mbcap (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- How is this different to what I have stated. It is clearly written above in my previous comment that they use "Islamic State Group".
Note: GregKaye please also factor into your search for ISIS that it could refer to many things including this[91]. As you see there are a lot of things a search for ISIS could be. I think it may be better to do a search for ISIS. I did a quick google search in the different modalities and found they had this for "islamic state of iraq and syria":
So you see the results are not obviously clear. When you spell the name out it looks for the name so its more accurate. If you put isis it will take into account all the other isis's in that disambiguous link I have posted. The same could be said for islamic state as when you search you do not know if it searching for normative islamic state. I hoped the news search would help avoid that. Right I need to do some revision now. Mbcap (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac how is the information above which I posted different to the one you found. It is written in the my comment above regarding AP: "2. Associated Press -- The Islamic State group"
Also I would dispute a search using an acronym as has been done with ISIS. If you search on google books for "IS" you get around 2,200,000,000 results. If you search google news for IS you get 241,000,000 reuslts. This is not a fair comparison as ISIS, just like IS, also means many other things. Once spelled out though the google test spells out a different picture, one that supports islamic state as common name. This has been elucidated above. 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Mbcap (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the concern, but there is no need, I have this page on my watchlist. Also, as far as I can tell, because I have already posted here keeping me informed of any change in discussion would not be canvassing. In future, if a discussion is on an article talk page that I have frequently posted on or you have good reason to believe otherwise, assume I do not wish to be informed via my talk-page about it. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- John I want to assure you I have acted in good faith and I do not have an agenda. I always try to ascertain the facts and after weighing the evidence, I make a decision. The concerns above I do not believe are merited apart. As you can see, I have replicated Gregkayes search on news and books and the results still support islamic state name. Apart from CNN which was a video (I overlooked this, for this I can only apologise), the rest are written articles which I checked and then double checked. They all use islamic state but they may be qualified in varying ways like:
- Islamic state also known as ISIS, ......
- Islamic state also known as islamic state of iraq and syria.....
- Islamic state also known as ISIL......
- Islamic state also known as islamic state of iraq and the levant
- Islamic state (IS) or it might say Islamic state (ISIS) or it might say Islamic state (ISIL)
- Islamic state (qualifies it varying ways not in brackets like; a militant group, a rebel group, a jihadist group, terrorist group) is ......
- John I want to assure you I have acted in good faith and I do not have an agenda. I always try to ascertain the facts and after weighing the evidence, I make a decision. The concerns above I do not believe are merited apart. As you can see, I have replicated Gregkayes search on news and books and the results still support islamic state name. Apart from CNN which was a video (I overlooked this, for this I can only apologise), the rest are written articles which I checked and then double checked. They all use islamic state but they may be qualified in varying ways like:
In all these situations it uses islamic state as primary name. I have checked the sources thoroughly and made sure the article I used was a recent one, preferably a january 2015 article. I did the same for news magazines of which the overwhelming majority used islamic state. They may have also used qualifiers but they always used islamic state as primary name. It is entirely possible that my scouting of the issue is uninformed so I have struck my support comment. Having said that I do not think the opposes above, warrant that decision. The evidence points absolutely to the contrary. 3 our 4 of the only global agencies use islamic state as well as the other source I have posted excluding CNN. Even still I will abstain, maybe I am blind and not seeing the huge hole in my argument. I really need to go now because if I spend any more time here I will fail my final medical exams. Mbcap (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Mbcap please also factor into your considerations that the ratio of uses in News in the last month is 12:1. Please keep reference to the stats. Please also ping. GregKaye 21:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is the ratio 12:1. Surely it should be 6:1 since it was just over 6 months ago that they changed their name. Surely it would make sense to see which name is being used more commonly after the name change. Someone pointed this out as one of the criteria for considering which name to use, re. how often a given name is used after decleration of new name. Regardless I will explore the issue when I get time. Legacypac also raises concerns below about how even though the source mention islamic state, it is qualified or later on in the article they may use different names. This holds true for the current name as well. They dont use the full name everytime in the article as well. They refer to it via acronym or other qualifiers. Also just like islamic state being qualified at the start of a report, the same is done for islamic state of iraq and the levant. This name is also used the same way. The variation in the qualifiers is fine for now I think as we can debate qualifiers later. Mbcap (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mbacp, I do not question your good faith, as I think have said before. As far as I can tell, every action you've taken has pointed to good faith and trying to be representative. I'm not sure if you saw, but after I conducted my own news searches I changed from opposing to supporting. Note I looked in the article itself rather than in the titles. I posted my results below, but I found the majority (>50%) used "Islamic State" without any alteration such as "so called..." or "... group". Also, I'm finding it hard to follow where I'm meant to post this, because of the varying intendedness. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I also think you have acted in good faith. I have struck my support so I can re-evaluate the evidence when I get time. After analysis, I will make the decision that is warranted. I do not think though that I will change my mind as all the evidence points contrary to the opposer's.
I decided to give it consideration only after Gregkaye & PBS raised an issue. However I must write here that I strongly think Legacypac has a conflict of interest here. I have very strong reasons for this as he wanted to get the moratorium extended "since the world opinion has gone even stronger against legitimizing the group by the "Islamic State" name". As I have mentioned before this is not a propaganda tool as per OED definition (no matter how noble the intentions) but an encyclopedia. For this reason, I ask all editors here to double check his work and I ask the admin supervising this to disregard his vote completely. I assume good faith on his part but I prefer to build a neutral encyclopedia.00:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Mbcap (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I also think you have acted in good faith. I have struck my support so I can re-evaluate the evidence when I get time. After analysis, I will make the decision that is warranted. I do not think though that I will change my mind as all the evidence points contrary to the opposer's.
- Mbcap Re: "Why is the ratio 12:1." Because the search I was referring to related to News results for the last month. More specifically the ratio is 11.3636:1 ("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).
- Re: "I have checked the sources thoroughly". No you haven't. You can't just pick and choose references. Please check ISIS gets "About 12,500,000 results" on News in the last month. Results shown present "ISIS" as "primary name". GregKaye 07:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Policy of News Services
Policy of AFP
One of the 4 major news providers from the begining and end of this policy statement [95]:
PARIS, September 17, 2014 – Faced with the kidnap and murder of journalists in Syria, Iraq and Africa, and the flood of horrific propaganda images churned out by the "Islamic State" group and its offshoots, it is time to reaffirm some ethical and editorial groundrules.
( bunch of other really relevant content)
We have decided no longer to use the expression "Islamic State" as the jihadist movement rebranded itself a few months ago. From now on AFP will refer to it as "the Islamic State group" or "Islamic State organisation", and as "IS jihadists" in headlines and news alerts. The Arabic acronym for the group's full original name, Daesh, while used by some governments including France, is hard for most readers to relate to. An international news agency cannot be pressured into using subjective terms like "terrorists" or "slayers". Nor can we alter the name an organisation has chosen for itself.
But we feel giving its name simply as "Islamic State" is inappropriate for two reasons. Firstly this is not a state, with borders and international recognition. Secondly, a great many Muslims consider the values driving this organisation to have nothing to do with Islam. The name "Islamic State" is therefore doubly likely to mislead the public.
I also note that use of IS does not mean that a news org is using "Islamic State" References to "Ïslamic State" in scare quotes, inclusions only in a headline for sake of brevity, and qualifiers like so called are instructive. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Policy of AP
Posted Sept 16 [96]
Back in June we talked in this blog about AP’s preferred abbreviation for the fast-growing Islamic militant group in Iraq and Syria, known variously at the time as ISIL and ISIS. We explained why our preference was ISIL.
Things then changed with ISIL’s decision in July to rebrand itself as the “Islamic State.” In a recent story, we explained that AP now refers to the organization as “the Islamic State group” (not simply “the Islamic State”) and the reason for this approach. (and from the blog post)
Prior to the group’s self-declared rebranding in July, The Associated Press opted to refer to it as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, believing it was the most accurate translation. (same reason used by Wikipedia editors)
The AP now uses phrases like “the Islamic State group,” or “fighters from the Islamic State group,” to avoid phrasing that sounds like they could be fighting for an internationally recognized state.
“The word ‘state’ implies a system of administration and governance,” said David L. Phillips, the director of Peace-Building and Rights Program at Columbia University. “It’s not a term that would be used to characterize a terrorist group or militia that is merely rolling up territory.”
Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Practice of Reuters
Can't find a post yet on editorial policy but "Islamic State militants" is the evident preferred term [97] when you do a site search. Sometimes they flip it around "militant Islamic groups such as Islamic State and Nusrah ..." or say "Islamic State fighters" They rarely use "Islamic State" unqualified except in quotes and occasional headlines. Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Practice of EFE
Can't find a policy statement but recent stories use pretty consistent phrasing. They use a qualified Islamic State with IS then IS for the rest of the article. Some examples:
- "jihadist Islamic State, or IS" and then IS throughout.[98] and
- "Islamic State, IS, jihadists" followed by "IS jihadists" [99] and
- "Islamic State, IS, jihadist group" followed by IS throughout [100]
- "Islamic State (IS) terrorist group" followed by "the IS", "IS militants" and "jihadists" [101]
- "The jihadist Islamic State" followed only by IS for the rest of the article [102]
- "The Islamic State (IS) jihadi organisation" followed by IS [103]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Middle East English Media terms used
With recent examples. Checked by searching sites for Islamic State, ISIL, ISIS, Daesh. Note I have simply searched for the major english language news sources in the Middle East (most of which I read regularly for editing here), with no selectivity based on what terms they use.
- al-Akhbar - Lebenon - always ISIS - never Islamic State [104][105]
- al-Jazeera - Qatar - always ISIL - never Islamic State [106][107]
- The Daily Star - Lebenon - ISIS [108] Islamic State jihadist group (in an AFP story) [109] Islamic State [110] ISIS [111] so all over the map.
- almanar.com.lb/english/main.php TV stn in Lebenon - ISIL and terrorists [112] ISIL and "so-called Islamic State extremist group" [113] so-called 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' (ISIL) [114] so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant terrorist group [115] Libyan branch of ISIL terrorist group [116]
- kuwaittimes - Islamic State group [117] Islamic State [118] Islamic State group [119] The Islamic State (IS) jihadist group [120]
- hurriyetdailynews.com - Turkey - Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - ISIL [121] anti-ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) [122] ISIL, [123]
- Gulf News - UAE - Always Daesh, never Islamic State, numerous examples with onsite search [124]
- http://www.khaleejtimes.com/index00.asp- Dubai - ISIS, never Islamic State [125] [126] Daesh (ISIS) [127] ISIS group [128]
- PressTV - Iran - ISIL [129] ISIL Takfiri terrorist group [130]
May add more later - anyone feel free to add to this post. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I would discount all of these sources apart from Al-Akhbar and by a slim margin Al-Jazeera. That is because I do not think they are reliable sources which I think is the criteria here. The middle east is the worst in the world when it comes to press freedom. The notable exceptions are Israel and possibly lebanon. We need to take into account english language reliable sources which I feel are the western based news outlets. In the west there is total press freedom but the same cannot be said for middle east. The worst contenders I would say are probably Iran with the well known mouth piece Press TV and Kuwait is also shocking last time I checked. When I get time I will research if there are any reliable middle eastern sources of news. I on purpose did not search RT as well because I knew that was a well known Russian mouth piece. Mbcap (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Possible new flag?
I saw the above discussion on this group formerly changing its name and wondered if that has extended to their flag? I have started noticing variations of the current flag which bear an extra inscription at the bottom which looks similar to this [131]. I'll post them below:
[132] (warning, graphic content)
[133]
[134] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritsaiph (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
[135]
[136]
[137]
[138]
[139]
Any thoughts on this? --Ritsaiph (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting, I'm seeing a variety of versions in the photos. Remember that the group used the Black Standard which is noty exclusive to them, very old, and comes in many variations. Anyone know what the text at the bottom of these versions says?Legacypac (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I could do it. It says; "Al-Dawla Al-Islamiyah Fee Al-Iraq wa Al-Sham". It translates to "The Islamic State in The Iraq and The Levant". In Arabic the Al or al signifies the definite noun. They must be old photos as they do not use that name any more. The cloth may be different but they all read the same apart from one which I think is a billboard. Mbcap (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it time for an ISIL footer template?
Is it time for an ISIL footer template similar to Template:Taliban or Template:Al-Qaeda? There are now a number of related articles, including:
- Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
- Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events
- List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members
- Military of ISIL
- ISIL territorial claims
- List of wars and battles involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
- 2014 ISIL beheading incidents
- Islamic State of Iraq
- Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
- Turkish involvement in the 2014 military intervention against ISIL
- Persecution of Assyrians by ISIL
- Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL
- Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
- Human rights under the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
- Siege of Kobanî
- Sinjar massacre
- United Kingdom and ISIL
A nice, clean collapsible footer template might help readers navigate through these related articles. EastTN (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say yes, though I'd personally want it to match the name of this article, which I think may soon be "Islamic State" rather than ISIL. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the names should match. EastTN (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think not John Smith. Will you be doing Requested Moves on each article above? Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Emphasis on may, sudden increase in opposition. Quite possibly for consistency, regardless I'd personally like the tag to match the article. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I support the sentiment for consistency. IMO "Islamic State is an intensely POV name though. GregKaye 21:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Emphasis on may, sudden increase in opposition. Quite possibly for consistency, regardless I'd personally like the tag to match the article. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think not John Smith. Will you be doing Requested Moves on each article above? Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)