Talk:Islamic State/Archive 37

Requested move 15 July 2015

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus against the original proposed title and no consensus for any of the other suggestions given throughout the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (IS) – Per rationale below. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer Anyone opposed to the the RM will not mention ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Daesh to prove recognizability. This is strictly between the current article title and the proposed title. There will be none of this: ,

Strong support as the nominator for Islamic State (IS)


 * Key disadvantage for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is that it uses an outdated natural disambiguation based upon a clearly defined geographical location of the regions of Iraq and the greater Levant region, compromising Syria and parts of Lebanon where the groups dominance reigns supreme. The term ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām was a term the group designated on itself once it expanded into Syria. Now that it has expanded outside those regions in places such as Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Afghanistan and other areas, it may serve to construe the facts this Encyclopedia attempts to convey by maintaining an outdated term. This natural disambiguation is therefore no longer viable, and may instead confuse readers who access this article. See
 * Key disadvantage for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is that the title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the acronym associated with it, ISIL are both less recognizable in major English-language media sources and news agencies in comparison to the proposed titles with disambiguations of (IS) or (group) added.
 * Key disadvantage for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is that this term is intentionally used to delegitimize the group from being referred to as simply Islamic State with a suitable parenthetical disambiguation. While this may seem noble, such an agenda has no place on an Encyclopedia. This excuse that it therefore contravenes moral principles is therefore null-and-void as per WP:TITLECHANGES which states:""the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." and also fails WP:NPOV.
 * Key advantage of Islamic State (IS) is that it uses a parenthetical disambiguation that contains the acronym commonly used to reference the group in major English-language media sources, News agencies, and major NGO Think Tanks. It therefore satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, as it is far more recognizable than both the current title and acronym associated with it.
 * Key advantage of Islamic State (IS) is that it contains a parenthetical disambiguation in reference to the group when a suitable natural disambiguation is missing. This satisfies WP:NATURAL.
 * Key advantage of Islamic State (IS) is that it is the groups official name. This therefore ensures neutrality when referring to them by their official name, as we are merely documenting facts in an Encyclopedia, which is what an Encyclopedia should be about, that is, accurately representing factual knowledge. And this current title as representing the article, is neither accurate nor factual.

In summarizing the main advantages and disadvantages of both the proposed and current titles, I will now go into further depth in supporting my argument, mainly revolving around Wikipedia Policy concerning this matter.

Firstly, the issue of WP:NATURAL. The current title as mentioned above, fails to have an accurate natural disambiguation in referring to this group. Proponents of the current name cite this natural disambiguation as being suitable and viable and therefore, something that shouldn't be changed. Disambiguation describes removing the possibility of ambiguity by making something clear. However, how then is having the article title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, with the natural disambiguation being of Iraq and the Levant possibly making it clear for readers, when the group not only does not go by that designation, but are not even confined to only the geographic regions of Iraq and the Levant anymore? See for Islamic State provinces and activity outside of Iraq and Syria. The fact that this article has had countless name change requests since July 2014 by multiple users, with hotly contested debates arising from each one is further proof that this natural disambiguation is nothing more than an ambiguation. As this article has quite allot of visitors, see, we owe it to readers to make the article as accurate as possible. As no suitable natural disambiguation can be found, the most appropriate form to be used is a parenthetical disambiguation. This takes place in the form of either (IS). (IS) is a recognizable and popular acronym for the group known as Islamic State, and is to disassociate the militant group known as Islamic State from the type of government of an Islamic state. This is a similar practice done to the Khorasan (Islamist group) to disambiguate itself from the historical region of Greater Khorasan and the Khorasan Province in Iran, see Khorasan for more. Because of this, the only possible reason why the term "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is being maintained, is to POV push, just like how western politicians refer to it as "ISIL" in order to intentionally de-legitimize the group then if they referred to it as "Islamic State", as stated by Bataaf van Oranje. See and then the comments of some editors on the issue:  (Note the word 'terrorist'), ,[

This brings me to my second point. On WP:TITLECHANGES, the policy states:"the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." As we see here, there is no argument to be made that the group is neither Islamic nor representatives of the religion of Islam, that to term it "Islamic State" with a disambiguation will offend people both muslim and non-muslim, or that it is not line with how governments around the world term the group and their media mouthpieces. This argument, while again appearing noble, still holds no water on Wikipedia and should not on any Encyclopedia in general. Any such comments pertaining to therefore take the higher moral ground, will be refrained from being mentioned, and if mentioned, will be ignored. They hold no validity on Wikipedia. Statements such as these are null-and-void.

Thirdly, and perhaps the most important of all, is WP:COMMONNAME. We should adopt the term used by most mainstream English-language media source, news agencies and magazines, as they will have much greater exposure to the public. Secondary considerations should be given to Governmental agencies, Think Tanks. This follows WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

These top, reliable English-language media, news agency, Think Tank and intelligence sources see more use of the Islamic State term and the IS acronym than any other term for the group:

Note the sources included here mainly, if not exclusively use Islamic State with either 'group' or 'IS' also used. All other renditions used such as self-proclaimed Islamic State or so called Islamic State still use the term Islamic State, and do not disqualify them from proving this point. E.g an article uses self  Self-proclaimed Islamic State but is referred to as 'IS'. This still proves the point being conveyed.

English-language mainstream media and news agency sources: BBC- Associated Press - Reuters - PBS - ABC - NPR - Agence France-Presse -

Among these sources are Reuters, the Associated Press and Agence France-Presse, three of the largest news agencies in the world. Also note, none of these sources were 'Cherry picked'. These are by far the most mainstream, impartial and reliable sources in the English-language, many of them being public broadcasters such as BBC, ABC, PBS and NPR. They therefore represent the conduct of what an Encyclopedia should be like, in comparison to institutions more opinionated with political alignments/agendas, such as Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, al-Jazeera, Daily Mail, The Guardian, Breitbart etc. It really says something when sources used to support one thing over another have a better history of pertaining more to impartiality than sources which do not. Irrelevant - See a study survey from the Pew Research Center confirming this assumption,.

News magazines: Economist - Der Spiegel - New York Times - Wall Street Journal -

Other reliable media sources which have had incredible coverage of the group described include: Long War Journal - Vice News - Al-Monitor - |The Soufan Group -

NGO Think Tanks: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Brookings Institution - Council on Foreign Relations - RAND Corporation - Center for Strategic and International Studies -

These are search results on each some of the most mainstream and most impartial English language sources and news agencies as mentioned above. The search results for Islamic State group: Reuters - 13,300 results Associated Press - 73 results PBS - 25,200 results ABC - 6,553  results NPR - 3,980 results Agence France-Presse - 484 results Wall Street Journal - 302 results

The search results for Islamic State (IS): Reuters - 20,600 results Associated Press - 100 results PBS - 54,700 results ABC - 6,553 results NPR - 6,280 results Agence France-Presse - 1005 results

The search results for the current term Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were as follows: Reuters - 941 results Associated Press - 1 result PBS - 690 results ABC - 3,331 results NPR - 87 results Agence France-Presse - 54 results

The search results for the current term ISIL were as follows: Reuters - 5,100 results Associated Press - 12 results PBS - 720  results ABC - 659 results NPR - 259 results Agence France-Presse - 2 results

The proposed title meets the required criteria for WP:COMMONNAME: Google searches with the following terms and their corresponding results: Islamic State (IS) - 73,500,000 results Islamic State (group) - 72,700,000 results ISIL - 22,000,000 results Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1,900,000 results
 * Recognizability- The title is very familiar to people who either do not have a great deal of knowledge of the current crisis in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the middle east and with those who do. Current media exposure and social media are all cases for this.

Google News search with the following terms and their corresponding results: Islamic State (IS) - 12,800,000 results Islamic State (group) - 10,300,000 results ISIL - 3,100,000 results Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 43,200 results

Google News search (past month) with the following terms and their corresponding results: Islamic State - 7,550,000 results Islamic State (IS) - 5,660,000 results Islamic State (group) - 4,060,000 results Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 4,280 results ISIL - 62,600 results -


 * Naturalness - A Google search showing the trend between the terms Islamic State and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant reveals that before the 7th of July 2014, the search results were negligible for the term Islamic State. It is therefore highly unlikely that search results conducted on the term were in reference to media and news agencies writing about the type of government of an Islamic state rather than the militant group that blasted its way to media fame mid-2014 in June,July 2014. Also note the articles for Islamic State under the letters A,B,C,D,E,F,G all make reference to the Islamic State group. The search results for the terms Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State (group) were also higher than the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and ISIL above for Recognizability. For the past news in the past month, the term Islamic State all other common renditions all defeated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and ISIL. News in the past month will undoubtedly be about the Islamic State group rather than anything else.


 * Precision - The proposed title unambiguously refers to the group more than the current title, utilizing both the official and more designation Islamic State and the common acronym associated with it to disambiguate the group from the Islamic state form of government, as shown in media sources.


 * Conciseness - The title is concise and no longer than necessary for the reader to be able to distinguish what exactly the subject is.

I have to thank XavierItzm for this one, as he brought to my attention the fact that many other language Wikipedia's refer to the Islamic State as its proper name and in line with Wikipedia policy. It provides some solace that at least these Wikipedia's have not been infected with this POV pushing nonsense. : État islamique (organisation) (French Wikipedia) Stato Islamico (Italian Wikipedia) Islamischer Staat (Organisation) (German Wikipedia) Estado Islámico (Spanish Wikipedia)

Finally, allot of criticism will be made at the term Islamic State (IS) with regards to the parentheses (IS). Some will make the argument that 'IS' could register as many more things than just the acronym of 'IS' in Google searches. Or that Islamic State could refer to as other things besides the group. Both are valid arguments. However, a Google search showing the |trend between the terms Islamic State and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant reveals that before the 7th of July 2014, the search results were negligible for the term Islamic State. It is therefore highly unlikely that search results conducted on the term were in reference to media and news agencies writing about the type of government of an Islamic state rather than the militant group that blasted its way to media fame mid-2014 in June,July 2014. Similarly, due to the overwhelming usage of the term 'Islamic State', the acronym IS will be used even more when referring to the group, as typically, media sources refer to the group once then use the acronym for the rest of the article.

Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE. However, the current title is in violation of this very policy, as the intent on keeping this article from being named the correct title and more recognizable, as per WP:COMMONNAME is in order to ingrain a certain POV against this group, which violates the policy. What was stated by Legacypac is the WP:POV I'm referring to: "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." -

At the end of the day, the current proposal is not only the groups official name, and therefore pertaining to WP:NPOVTITLE, but also to WP:COMMONNAME, as shown above. P-123 made the very true fact that Wikipedia editors should stop editorialising in this article. This is an Encyclopedia. How about Wikipedia starts acting like one? StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No. The history of the current debate, and the recency of a previous discussion, means that it is far too soon to discuss another move: it distracts from real editing. It is only worth revisiting so soon if it is highly likely to change the earlier consensus. Please stop this discussion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Negative. The title should have been changed a long time ago. This article shall not be at the mercy of editors whose only reason to maintain the status quo is personal opinion and not Wikipedia Policy. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose as per Hroðulf and countless failed move requests before this one. "Islamic State" can be any Islamic state including many others, within the last 14 centuries (i.e. since 622 CE to the present time). As per WP:Recentism "IS" is ambiguous, while the current title (without a parenthesis) naturally disambiguates. Khestwol (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And as per above, the natural disambiguation in the title fails to accurately disambiguate the subject from the group. If it wouldn't there would not be all those countless failed move requests being put forth in such short periods of time by editors who, like their Spanish, Italian , French and German  counterparts, want what is actually suitable for this article. Moreover, the current title is less recognizable compared to the proposed title with a parenthetical disambiguation, so you fail to address WP:COMMONNAME, perhaps the most important Wikipedia Policy when considering a name change. And no, given the context of the article, "IS" is certainly not ambiguous, it is a widely used acronym for the group, as shown above, and more common than its "ISIL" counter-part. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose – First of all, WP:TITLECHANGES suggests that we should think very carefully when moving between controversial titles. Moving from one controversial title to another, despite countless failed move requests for various titles, is simply not support by policy. Regardless of that, the present title provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation, and is stable. NATURAL disambiguation is always preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. The present title is commonly used by British sources, various governments, &c., along with its acronym ISIL and the other acronym ISIS. A parenthetical (IS) is not supported by any policy, and is redundant to the "Islamic State" bit, and provides no disambiguation from countless Islamic republics, such as Iran or Afghanistan, which at least have legitimacy in the international system. In addition, "Islamic state" refers to a general type of state that is Islamic. The present natural disambiguation ensures that the title is both unambiguous, neutral, common, and suitable for an encyclopaedic register. The same editors need to stop proposing the same change every minute, and start looking at Wikipedia policy.  RGloucester  — ☎ 16:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What you have just referred to has already been refuted up above. The "Natural" disambiguation which separates the term "Islamic State" from the philosophical/Political concept of an 'Islamic State" is the phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant". The phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant" which constitutes the "Natural" disambiguation in the article title is worthless and meaningless now. It now leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence due to the fact it no longer confined to the regions of the Iraq and the Levant. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it is an ambiguation. The only possible reason you keep maintaining this "Natural" disambiguation is therefore to POV push, just like how western politicians refer to it as "ISIL" in order to intentionally de-legitimize the group then if they referred to it as "Islamic State". Because the "Natural" disambiguation is therefore worthless, (this is shown due to the all the change of name requests launched on this talk page to change it to "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation, like this one) you fail WP:NATURAL. Because the "Natural" disambiguation is no longer applicable nor relevant, this means a parenthetical disambiguation take precedence. And I doubt any serious human being would confuse the Islamic Republic of Iran with "Islamic State (IS)", given the recognizability of both terms in their respective context, also shown above. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It leads to no ambiguity. Regardless of the territorial extent of the entity, it is still called ISIL &c. by RS. There is nothing "worthless" about it. What you propose is that a country like France cannot have territories outside metropolitan France, or that the USA cannot possess American Samoa. WP:NATURAL says to use natural disambiguation, and this is natural disambiguation. This is one of the common names of the organisation, eliminates all redundancy and ambiguity. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Islamic State cannot be geographically be bound, it isn't describing a place or a location, unlike the term "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" which is vastly under used by most recognizable and impartial English-language media sources and news agencies. I've cited ones to support my case. The Wikipedia page refers to the USA as the "United States", and the term "United States" can not be geographically bound, becuase it is not referring to a set location. The fact "American Samoa" is called American Samoa proves the point, that it is indeed under the authority of the United State of America. Do we call Islamic State controlled territories in Libya "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Libya"? or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant controlled-Libya"? or "ISIL in Libya" or anywhere else in the world where they have control? What is the point of that? That is the reason why the natural disambiguation is a failure. How can people expect to see that the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", which implies it is only in the the regions of Iraq and the Levant, when it is not? The group no longer goes by that designation, as it is no longer confined to those regions, hence why it is now known as the "Islamic State". I'm afraid the circumstances are different. We are happy to call the "United States of America" the "United States", but we cannot refer to the "Islamic State" as the "Islamic State" and instead use an outdated name, with POV connotations attached, see and the urging of the BBC to use the term "ISIL", which are the POV I am talking about. The only reason is to POV push, and to intentionally not call them simply the "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation because most RS use the term "Islamic State" with many renditions such as "IS", "militant" group", "islamist group" or "self-proclaimed. Do you not see the confusion here? Honestly, what goes on this article, on this Wikipedia page is just sheer stupidity and somehow I find it humorous that the English language Wikipedia is more backward than the Spanish, French, German and Italian Wikipedia's when it comes to this article. It astounds me how some people's personal Points of View are allowed to dictate the titling of a Wikipedia article page. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for exactly the same reasons as in my 04:44, 14 July 2015 response above which clearly StanTheMan87 has not considered. The rationale presented with my oppose was:
 * "as per the current title being an encyclopedic name. See Encyclopedia Britannica, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (militant organization).
 * as per the opening search results having no validity. For instance the search on Islamic State (IS) could as easily come from a phrase such as "The so-called 'Islamic State' is a ..."  ISIL and ISIS remain commonname and NPOV names for the group.  We are not here to WP:SOAPBOX for a group that claims to have authority over all of Islam and yet actively prejudices against Sufis, Shias and non line towing and non extremist Sunnis.  The group, as has been repeatedly commented by a vast number of commentators, is not representative of Islam.  It presents itself as a state and yet the recognized states in the area of the groups activities are Iraq and Syria.  If the group had called itself something like, "Sunni Extremist Polity" then this would have had accuracy.  As it is Islamic State is ambiguous with every other group that has attempted to operate as an Islamic state.  "Islamic State" of what?  How?  It certainly isn't within the general possession of Islam.  The majority of Islam rejects it."
 * The search presentations, for a start, are a joke for the reasons presented. They also fail to take into account that the current title references the same source material on which the greatly prevalent ISIS in English and the similarly prevalent Daesh (in Arabic) are based.
 * Sufis, Shias and the majority of Sunnis reject ISIL and if presents staggering bias on the part of the group to even consider a presentation of themselves as "Islamic State". I do not think that is is Wikipedia's place is to WP:SOAPBOX an offensive reworking of the name of a Muslim killing terrorist group.  GregKaye 19:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Encyclopedic name, see the Wikipedia articles who also have adopted Islamic State with and without a parenthetical disambiguation.
 * French Wikipedia - État islamique (organisation)
 * Spanish Wikipedia - Estado Islámico
 * German Wikipedia - Islamischer Staat (Organisation)
 * Italian Wikipedia - Stato Islamico


 * You claim the search results are invalid, yet provide no proof to support your claim for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" being the common name for the group. Again, what you cited before: Islamic State (IS) could as easily come from a phrase such as "The so-called 'Islamic State' is a ..." doesn't prove your point at all. It still uses the term "Islamic State" in that sentence, regardless if it is referred to as "so-called" or "self-proclaimed" this does not support your point. Again, "IS" is a popular acronym for the group, and is used by a plethora of reliable sources, some of which are the largest most impartial news agencies and English-language mainstream media institutions in the world, not to mention influential Think Tanks and News magazines, as is the term "Islamic State". Again, your efforts at denying the recognizability of these terms over "ISIL" and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" are futile. Actually properly read everything in my opening paragraph and view every link rather than just type stuff which has already been refuted, I'm tired of doing the work for you. And I'm not going to entertain your personal thoughts on Sufis and Shias views, and the whole POV WP:SOAPBOX about offending people, that is absolutely irrelevant on an Encyclopedia, per WP:TITLECHANGES. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "It still uses the term "Islamic State". No it doesn't.  All it does is present a search on the three words/letterings "Islamic", "state" and "is".  The search gives very similar results to a search on the two words "Islamic" and "state" and is worthless.  I will amend.  What you cited before: ''Islamic State (IS) could as easily come from a phrase such as "sources state that it is Islamic to recite the shahadah".  There are many articles that might, in various ways, use the words "Islamic" and "State"/"state".
 * Various RMs have, out of context, presented various uses of the group as "Islamic State" and, as you have done, have ignored the fact that these references are regularly presented with qualification. Britannica, free of the potential influence of tendentious editors, have come to similar presentation of the group as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant".  Acronyms on this basis are frequently used.  Many groups, with similarity to the Associated Press, use "Islamic State group".  Others make reference to the "so-called Islamic State".
 * It makes no difference whether someone refers to the group as 'Islamic State group' or 'Islamic State (IS)', 'IS' or 'so called Islamic State group' or whatever rendition which only includes the phrase 'Islamic State' in it, they all mean the same thing, they all refer to the same group, and they all use the groups official and formal name, 'Islamic State' when referring to them, which is another point for recognizability. You make it sounds as if they all those renditions are in a completely different languages. That's just bad luck if it means it makes the term more recognizable than just the 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. But it will make it null and void for you to keep proselyting that argument further. And whether or not an edit is considered 'tendentious' by you, is completely irrelevant on Wikipedia, an Encyclopedia that should strive for fact and accuracy rather than a censorship political manifesto used to deligemisitise a group based on a POV held by the likes of you and other editors.


 * Google News search results over the past hour:
 * Islamic State - 508 results
 * ISIL - 10 results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1 result
 * Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
 * Islamic State - 11,400 results
 * ISIL - 2,220 results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 150 results
 * Google News search results over the past week:
 * Islamic State - 81,200 results
 * ISIL - 20,900 results results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1370 results
 * Google News search results over the past month:
 * Islamic State - 11,300,000 results
 * ISIL - 59,300 results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 4,310 results


 * You cannot dismiss these search results. Look at the number of hits for each term, in the period given. The numbers would have changed somewhat for each one, but the phrase 'Islamic State' which includes any mention of the term Islamic State in whatever rendition, such as 'Islamic State (IS)', Islamic State group) the 'so-called Islamic State' or 'Islamic State militant group' always comes out on top. You cannot cite the fact that both 'Islamic State' and 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' both contain the terms 'Islamic State' and therefore they will overlap and is an unfair comparison. Nope, look at the vast difference in hits between each term. There is no overlap here, the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' is purely less used then the term 'Islamic State' with whatever rendition used. Due to the amount of renditions for the terms in circulation, this will undoubtedly boost search results for the term. This only helps my argument for WP:COMMONNAME. Obviously, you do not like this fact, so you are attempting to make the results negligible by saying: There is a difference between each individual rendition term, that 'Islamic State group' is different to 'Islamic State (IS)', that 'Islamic State militant group' is different to 'Islamic State jihadist group'. Sorry, that argument is purely POV pushing ridiculousness. Just becuase you do not have WP:COMMONNAME on your side, does not give you the right to interject your own POV in contravening WP policy, and the policy states that the term with the most recognizability should be used. Look a the above searches, and you will see and bad luck when you come to that revelation. Tough luck if you don't. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The argument that the title "Islamic State" is common name for the group often presented as "ISIL", "ISIS", "Daesh", the "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group" is very far from conclusive.
 * Google News search results over the past hour:
 * "Islamic State" - 225 results  results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  872 results
 * Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
 * "Islamic State" - 12,000 results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  25,300 results
 * Google News search results over the past week:
 * "Islamic State" - 58,100 results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  695,000 results
 * Google News search results over the past month:
 * "Islamic State" - 1,660,000 results results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  About 13,700,000 results
 * Again these results do not represent articles that add some form of qualifier in the text such as "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group.
 * response added late (inclusive of "Islamic State" search formatting amendment GregKaye 11:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, do you know what the title of the current article reads? This proposal was to change the current article title which, if I am not mistaken, is solely the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and the acronym associated with it, 'ISIL'. Therefore, if you are going to try and prove WP:COMMONNAME, it has nothing to do with the terms 'ISIS', 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria' or 'Daesh'. Do you understand? It would be different if the title was 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh'. The you could cite search results for each of those terms. Unfortunately for you, the title only contains the phrase 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. So if you are going to cite google hits, it will only be between the phrases 'Islamic State' vs. 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and 'ISIL'. I have already done this, and it shows you fail WP:COMMONNAME. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "do you know what the title of the current article reads?" Of course I do and I would ask you to please avoid the use of uncivil, condescending questions. As you certainly realize the three acronyms "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh" are all based on the same source material as forms the basis for the article title.  This argument fully fits with the general principle at WP:CRITERIA: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."  Anyone with any familiarity with the subject will know that "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh" are interrelated terms. They are synonyms for exactly the same thing.  You, being familiar with the subject, know this.  GregKaye 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support prefering "Islamic State" (Per DIFFCAPS, "Islamic State (organisation)", "Islamic State (group)", "Islamic State (ISIS)" in that order of preference 14:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC) per same reasoning in previous RM. ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used. The oft quoted references to NPOV and SOAPBOX fail to actually consider what is said.
 * 1. NPOV says: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a 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."
 * In other words, refusing to use the name used by the majority of reliable sources sources may actually go against NPOV. We already have a large portion of this article discussing the (in)accuracy of this name.
 * 2. SOAP says: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages."
 * Unless you believe by using a name we are agreeing it is representative, then there is no problem. It then lists five forms of SOAP. If you believe it to be one of these, please tell me which.
 * 3. POVNAME appears to agree with this: "... 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."
 * I believe this also holds for groups as well as events. Islamic State is a proper noun, and therefore should override concern that Wikipedia is endorse Islamic State to be an/the Islamic State.
 * To my mind, the main focus of discussion should be OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME. Banak (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * can you please give a direct indication of what you mean in your claim "ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used."
 * The likes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, use Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (militant organization). I am currently watching a UK Channel Four documentary entitled "Escape from ISIS".  Watch the trailer and, if to your interest, the full programme if you get the chance.
 * In google news:
 * "ISIS" gets "About 23,300,000 results".  Granted "Isis" may also have other meanings but this is news.  What other meanings might be commonly used??
 * "Islamic State" gets "About 3,790,000 results"
 * Thank you for the question regarding WP:SOAPBOX which presents, as its first point, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view...". This group is very specifically a Salafi Jihadist/Salafist/Wahhabist group on the fringe (if that) of Islam and yet, even though it is rejected by Sufis, Shias and most of Sunni Islam, they self promote themselves as "Islamic State".  These people do not call them "Islamic State".  The international community does not call them "Islamic State".  The great majority of the people, from a wide range of backgrounds, that are interviewed by our so called "reliable sources" do not call them "Islamic State".  The press quotes sources that THEY consider as being both reliable and noteworthy and these sources, with notable predominance, use other forms of reference for the group.
 * Often when news groups use "Islamic State" they use qualification such as "so-called". Presenting it as "Islamic State" when it is so far away of being representative of Islam in general is incredible POV.  They are not an Islamic state for all of Islam.
 * GregKaye 22:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On soapbox, I don't know where you're going by repeating my quote. No one is suggesting we change the title to recruit people to IS, or as propaganda or to advocate for them. That is what is not allowed under SOAP.
 * On the issue of common name, my own searches, displayed previously found Islamic state to be more commonly used on top articles. If you do some for yourself and come to a different conclusion for full names, then I will respect that.
 * On the relevance of what groups call IS, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". If they aren't a reliable English-language source, then they don't come into it.
 * On your comment on POV, I will repeat my comment from my 3rd point, I believe "Islamic State" has become a noun, and therefore should override concern for endorsing them being an/the Islamic State, in my the same way as it does for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or for Golden Dawn.
 * On the documentary, in the very intro you linked me to, it says "... with exclusive footage from within the Islamic State" and other than that just calls them "ISIS". It never calls them one of {ISIS or ISIL} spelled out. Banak (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again can I please ask, can you please give a direct indication of what you mean in your claim "ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used."? Please stand by your words and explain.  Please see the search presented on the usage of ISIS.  Please, do not make a claim about one thing with attempts to link it with evidence of something different.  ( add Please be careful when presenting content such as "ISIL and ISIS ... are rarely used." even with, ambiguous qualifiers, related to references such as spelling.  and why you linked this to "ISIL and ISIS ... are rarely used"?
 * ISIS and ISIL remain at extremely high rate of usage and presentation "rarely used" I think belies an undercurrent of tendentious and selective argument here. Please directly and fairly say what you want to say.  As you know from your own research usage of "Islamic State" when it is used, is often accompanied by a qualifier such as "so-called" or "group" which, having looked at the OPs talk page and following personal contacts with him, I think have all been tendentiously disregarded.  If this kind of editor behaviour occurs here then I have no reason to believe that similar abuses have not occurred in other Wikipedias.
 * A presentation of being the "Islamic State" of the entire Islamic world is a central part of the group's propaganda and this is exactly why governments, representatives of communities with Islam based practice and the majority of the various experts interviewed by "reliable sources" either avoid the name or use it with some level of qualification. As far as WP:SOAPBOX is concerned all we have to do is to consider the end result effect.  Issues regarding what any editor may have been openly "suggesting" or otherwise complying with irrelevant.
 * "Islamic State" is clearly presented within a context as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". A content as loaded as this it needs a context as, in some way, is regularly provided within the international community, by representatives of Islam, by various experts and by the reporting agencies.  GregKaye 03:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd already submitted a response yesterday, but it didn't send for some reason. Apologies for the delay.
 * I ask you to provide an example for the comment "Please, do not make a claim about one thing with attempts to link it with evidence of something different" or strike it, as otherwise I will consider it an unsubstantiated personal attack.
 * Please strike "While, I have not made any claim regarding editors intentions or motivations..." due to your comments of "tendentious and selective argument" and "tendentiously disregarded" which pre-date it.
 * ISIL and ISIS (spelled out): The names "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and, less commonly, "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"
 * I mean the names are used less than the name "Islamic State" to refer to the group, both in common usage and in usage by reliable sources despite diplomatic pressure. The search results are not particularly relevant to this exact thread of reasoning, but I shall look at them. They should not be put in every single thread.
 * "tendentious and selective argument" is entirely inaccurate. I started with the POV that the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" was the most accurate and changed my mind based on arguments provided. I therefore see no way this could be construed as tendentious. I provided evidence before to show this name was rarely used. However, you decided to provide two sources you believed backed you up without providing any methodology to say how you selected them. You appear to have not watched the trailer you used in evidence as it actually never uses any name for IS other than "Islamic State" and "ISIS". This suggests to me that you are being selective.
 * "Please directly and fairly say what you want to say." I'm not sure what prompted this, but I will oblige. I will not be intimidated by what appears to be threats against two other users on this talk page. I will use policy and reason in arguments, and not repeated speeches ad nauseam about how terrible IS is. They are terrible, but that's makes no difference to this argument. The best way to handle this topic is to follow policy, and I believe that policy is on my side.
 * I've seen Stan brought to ANI for little reason and that brought up on this talkpage. You have brought a topic banned editor in what appears to me to be an attempt to intimidate Mbcap. This, in the context of the number of users who have various sanctions from ANI who opposed you and legacypac and Stan's ANI being brought up, leaves me believing intimidation is the only reasonable explanation, assuming good faith for everything else, as I believe it would be very unlikely you would not predict this. Please be careful not to intimidate users, even if you profoundly disagree with them.
 * As I remember it, my research showed that the name "Islamic State" (ignoring uses with a qualifier) was by far the most common name. Could you please link me back to it, or are you also working from memory?
 * "If this kind of editor behaviour occurs here then I have no reason to believe that similar abuses have not occurred in other Wikipedias." To be clear, you are saying you believe that many of the other Wikipedias that take the name "Islamic State" are doing so out of error on the basis of what you believe to be deliberately representing research I did in a previous more request.
 * I believe what other Wikipedias call this group is as irrelevant as what sources written in arabic say. None of our policies care about either.
 * As I said before, the group is taking the name as a proper noun as "(the) Islamic State", much like how Mbcap used the name (the) "Democratic Republic of the Congo". There is another state called the "Republic of the Congo" which is democratic, yet the Wikipedia article is titled "Democratic Republic of the Congo" and begins with the sentence "The Democratic Republic of the Congo..."
 * Moving to "Islamic State" will not change the context provided in the lead. Therefore I believe your concerns about context to be unfounded.
 * The usage of "ISIS" as a name is irrelevant, unless you want to move to that as a title. People who call the group "Islamic State" often call it "ISIS" for short. Banak (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Banak, can I ask please, if you want to make a claim such as "ISIL and ISIS are rarely used" then say that. If you want to present something along the lines of saying that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" are rarely used" then say that.  The search evidence presented clearly demonstrates that, at least, the first of these statements would be utterly false.
 * Please take care not to cobble together claims such as "ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used." ISIS, in particular and as is demonstrated, has an extremely high rate of usage.
 * In the text below Mbcap said, "Changing name to Islamic State is absolutely policy based". To which I replied, "Please do not push opinion as fact. Wikipedia has a range of policy and guidelines and it is up to editors to take the whole package into account."  Maybe I should have instead challenged this as a one sided opinion push.  Objections including WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:NATURAL (which supports titles such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Islamic State group) have similar p and g base.  However is this what you are describing as "intimidation" or do you wish to comment on something else?  My interpretation was that Mbcap presented a one sided presentation and that I fairly replied to state that there were two sides to the debate.  GregKaye 06:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye The actual quote is ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used. please correct this in the first line. Appologies for any confusion from the "at least", this is a mannerism I seem to have adopted. The intention was for it be read as ISIL and ISIS (spelled out) are rarely used.
 * Please consider the two things I requested you strike.
 * My comment on intimidation: You have brought a topic banned editor in what appears to me to be an attempt to intimidate Mbcap. This, in the context of the number of users who have various sanctions from ANI who opposed you and legacypac and Stan's ANI being brought up, leaves me believing intimidation is the only reasonable explanation, assuming good faith for everything else, as I believe it would be very unlikely you would not predict this. I believe it is entirely clear that I did not mean giving counter arguments, rather that it appears to be a threat to take Mbcap to ANI if he continues to argue against your position. Banak (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Banak Sorry to have taken time to respond but, have not known how to respond to your comments. Re: "You have brought a topic banned editor in what appears to me to be an attempt to intimidate Mbcap."  No I have not.  Please re-read comments by Mbcap at 06:52, 17 July 2015 and my response at 05:07, 18 July 2015.  Mbcap had made the statement "No one is here to legitimise".  Please consider that this was said in a context in which anyone can comment and anyone can vote! and that we are here in the context of being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit".  I responded to this and said, "Please put away your WP:CRYSTALBALL with regard to your claims that "No one is here to legitimise".  While, I have not made any claim regarding editors intentions or motivations and have only indicated the results, you seem to be conflating what a person says and what they think.  I suggest you take another look at the previous RM in which you were not involved and which resulted in a unanimously supported topic ban at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive882"  I think that it is clearly very possible for an editor to edit "here to legitimise".
 * Banak, all I did here is that I presented the most recent and, I think, extremely clear indication that it is perfectly possible for an editor may very potentially be "here to legitimise". I could have alternatively pointed to previous threads on this talk page in which it was proposed that Wikipedia declares in its own voice that this group is a "state" even though all of the support was based entirely on OR.  I could have also pointed to a lengthy thread on my own talk in which an editor made concerted attempts to rationalize the activities of the group.  All I have done is present the most recent evidence to indicate just how impossible it is to make the utterly unfounded WP:SPECULATION that "No one is here to legitimise".
 * I apologize for the "do not make a claim about one thing with attempts to link it with evidence of something different" which was strong. GregKaye 10:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye 10:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye 10:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support per the reasons given in the RM, but specifically because of WP:COMMONNAME. To quote: " 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." StanTheMan87 has provided exhaustive evidence to show that Reuters, the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and many other reliable sources have all switched to using the name  Islamic State since its name changed in June 2014.
 * Just recently, the Washington Post (which uses Islamic State) reported that the BBC (which also uses the Islamic State) reviewed their use of the name after criticism from British Conservative politicians, and decided to continue using it to "preserve the BBC's impartiality". Given that WP:NEUTRAL is a fundamental principal of the Wikipedia project, I think this episode is instructive. Gazkthul (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - It is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in English, as outlined above, and this suffices.  To the objections, which in an encyclopaedic context are inappropriate, that somehow the term "Islamic State" is irreverent or culturally inappropriate:  consider that the Arabic Wikipedia article is... "The organisation of the Islamic State (DAASH)".   "Islamic State" is a legitimate title in any culture, including Arab, German, Spanish, Italian, French, etc.  This is why the BBC entitles its canonical definition: What is 'Islamic State?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is your justification then why are you not arguing for the use of something like the previously proposed "Islamic State group"? Wikipedia in the Persian language (another language widely spoken among Arabic communities) simply presents fa:داعش (Daesh).  Even the BBC (despite their consistent habit of overlooking use, by their interviewees, of ISIL, ISIS and Daesh) present the group, in the article you quote, as: "So-called Islamic State".  (In your previous talk page edits here (including those in which you selectively presented content referring to the group as "Islamic State") you have consistently managed to sign your posts). GregKaye 06:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg yoru statement that Persian language is another language widely spoken among Arabic ommunities is simply false. As someone fluent in the Persian dialects of Farsi and Dari, I can tell you that, that can not be true as there is no source to back it up. As for Islamic State group, well that is actually an alternative that we could consider but I do not think it is as commonly used as Islamic State. Mbcap (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap Fair enough yet the article Arabs indicates the presence of 1,600,000 Arabs living in Iran indicating about a fiftieth of the population. Arabs are a significant minority in just this one Persian speaking country and I presume that some of them speak Persian.  GregKaye 17:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap I guess that the main issue that I see here for me is Persian speaking countries like Iran are predominantly Islamic. On this basis I think that people from language groups such as Persian can be referenced to a give good indication of the reaction to the group from communities that have high rate of connection and understanding of Islam.  GregKaye 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose move and support an early close, a hat, and a move on to something productive. This proposal seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of how we use parenthetical disambiguation. The proposed title is flat-out wrong even if it can be demonstrated that "Islamic State" is the best title root. The search results provided in the nomination are laughably naive from a technical standpoint (no crap, "is" is a common word! It is!). Also, work on concision. Seriously. VQuakr (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a commonly used acronym for the group, used in a plethora of RS as shown above. The term "IS" is now as recognizable to the term 'Islamic State" as the term "USA" is to the "United States".
 * Google News search results over the past hour:
 * Islamic State - 508 results
 * ISIL - 10 results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1 result
 * Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
 * Islamic State - 11,400 results
 * ISIL - 2,220 results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 150 results
 * Google News search results over the past week:
 * Islamic State - 81,200 results
 * ISIL - 20,900 results results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1370 results
 * Google News search results over the past month:
 * Islamic State - 11,300,000 results
 * ISIL - 59,300 results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 4,310 results


 * I added the acronym "ISIL" to level the playing field, as most articles will refer to the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" firstly, and then revert straight away to the usage of the acronym. You still come up short against the "Islamic State" term, with all possible renditions included, such as "Islamic State (IS)", "Islamic State group", "so-called Islamic State" or "self-proclaimed Islamic State". It makes no difference which one is used, so along as the "Islamic State" is somewhere in the title. These searches virtually all refer to the group known as the Islamic State. Also, the argument that the terms "Islamic State" and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" overlap is also nonsense, as the results are so far apart, it makes no difference if they actually overlapped. Maybe that argument could be made, should the two terms has registered a smilar number of hits. But the terms vastly favor "Islamic State" StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Google hits are a poor indicator of the best title even with competent search strings. These are not competent search strings. Nearly every web page on the internet written in English will contain the word "is". Every reference to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" will turn up in your search for "Islamic State." You didn't even attempt to address your misunderstanding of disambiguation, which has been pointed out by myself and several other editors. Your proposal quickfails, and your lack of concision is so severe it borders on disruptive. VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Parenthetical disambiguation changed from (IS) to (islamist group). So what if every reference to 'Islamic State' still makes reference to 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'? Then merely substitute all the hits for the latter with the former, and even if that didn't work, the sources shown above in the first paragraph by the worlds most largest, reliable and impartial media sources and news agencies all use the term 'Islamic State'. 'Islamic State' still has more hits and is still the more popular term, even if Islamic State group or Islamic State islamist group added in to the search. Your Wiki-tirade is now irrelevant. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument that the title "Islamic State" is common name for the group often presented as "ISIL", "ISIS", "Daesh", the "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group" is very far from conclusive.
 * Google News search results over the past hour:
 * "Islamic State" - 225 results  results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  872 results
 * Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
 * "Islamic State" - 12,000 results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  25,300 results
 * Google News search results over the past week:
 * "Islamic State" - 58,100 results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  695,000 results
 * Google News search results over the past month:
 * "Islamic State" - 1,660,000 results results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  About 13,700,000 results
 * Again these results do not represent articles that add some form of qualifier in the text such as "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group.
 * response added late (inclusive of "Islamic State" search formatting amendment GregKaye 11:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, do you know what the title of the current article reads? This proposal was to change the current article title which, if I am not mistaken, is solely the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and the acronym associated with it, 'ISIL'. Therefore, if you are going to try and prove WP:COMMONNAME, it has nothing to do with the terms 'ISIS', 'Islamic State of  Iraq and Syria' or 'Daesh'. Do you understand? It would be different if the title was 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh'. The you could cite search results for each of those terms. Unfortunately for you, the title only contains the phrase 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. So if you are going to cite google hits, it will only be between the phrases 'Islamic State' vs. 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and 'ISIL'. I have already done this, and it shows you fail WP:COMMONNAME. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See response to identical content above. GregKaye 08:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Islamic State (IS) is not the common name in English. The idea that we should use a redundant parenthetical disambigator that does nothing to disambiguate, but merely uses an abbreviation of the previous words is absurd, and has no basis in the policy on article titles. WP:NATURAL disambiguation is preferred, no parenthetical disambiguation has been proposed as (IS) is not disambiguation. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Parenthetical disambiguation changed to (islamist group) in line with the disambiguation used for the Khorasan (Islamist group) page. 'Islamic State' which included every single possible rendition that contains the term 'Islamic State' such as 'Islamic State (IS)', 'Islamic State militant group, Islamic State jihadist group, 'Islamic State islamist group or even 'so-called Islamic State' are more popular are commonly used. All the terms still use the phrase 'Islamic State' which does not hamper recognizability, though you seem to think it does, just so you can express your POV. ISIL and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are neither the most common nor the most recognizable, nor are they official. This has been shown multiple times. The natural disambiguation used is a farce and irrelevant now, and you have yet to reply to my previous comment above on this issue of WP:NATURAL. Provide evidence that the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' is used by the worlds largest English language media sources and news agencies, which also happen to be the most impartial, reliable sources in the world, or cease continuing to regurgitate nonsense. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Islamic State" is worse than POV/advocacy, it is incorrect.  There is no such Islamic State.  Move to DAESH instead.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Invalid point raised by editor SmokeyJoe concerning support for Daesh. The RM is only between the current and proposed title.
 * You don't get to set the rules. You can't constrain others to your false dichotomy.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why this nomination is Procedurally invalid and should be failed automatically due to the nominator's fake rules -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The proposed title with "IS" in parentheses appears to violate the parenthetical disambiguation rules of WP:NCDAB. "IS" is not a generic class, subject or context, or adjective describing the topic. Rather, it is an abbreviation of the unambiguous article title, which does nothing to help disambiguate. Furthermore, the search engine tests above appear to be flawed (see also WP:HITS). First they are heavily skewed towards recentism and recent news events for the past few years, which does not erase the fact the "IS" has been refer to, and searched for, a vast range of other topics listed on the IS page for decades. And second, it appears to be picking up all instances of the word "is" and the other uses of the "IS" abbreviation, which also skews the results (for example, one of the Google results is this article that has the phrase near the top "The Islamic State is..."). I'm not against a parenthetical disambiguation title in general, but the term in parentheses needs to be more clear per WP:NCDAB. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a commonly used acronym for the group, used in a plethora of RS as shown above. The term "IS" is now as recognizable to the term 'Islamic State" as the term "USA" is to the "United States".
 * Google News search results over the past hour:
 * Islamic State - 508 results
 * ISIL - 10 results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1 result
 * Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
 * Islamic State - 11,400 results
 * ISIL - 2,220 results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 150 results
 * Google News search results over the past week:
 * Islamic State - 81,200 results
 * ISIL - 20,900 results results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1370 results
 * Google News search results over the past month:
 * Islamic State - 11,300,000 results
 * ISIL - 59,300 results
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 4,310 results


 * I added the acronym "ISIL" to level the playing field, as most articles will refer to the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" firstly, and then revert straight away to the usage of the acronym. You still come up short against the "Islamic State" term, with all possible renditions included, such as "Islamic State (IS)", "Islamic State group", "so-called Islamic State" or "self-proclaimed Islamic State". It makes no difference which one is used, so along as the "Islamic State" is somewhere in the title. These searches virtually all refer to the group known as the Islamic State. Also, the argument that the terms "Islamic State" and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" overlap is also nonsense, as the results are so far apart, it makes no difference if they actually overlapped. Maybe that argument could be made, should the two terms has registered a smilar number of hits. But the terms vastly favor "Islamic State" StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There might be many other "IS"s but there's almost a unique "USA", so the example is not applied here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You still fail WP:COMMONNAME. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You still fail to even demonstrate the argument re: common name. Your searches are flawed and that's even before accounting for the many instances in which reference to "Islamic State" is given some form of qualification.
 * The argument that the title "Islamic State" is common name for the group often presented as "ISIL", "ISIS", "Daesh", the "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group" is very far from conclusive.
 * Google News search results over the past hour:
 * "Islamic State" - 225 results  results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  872 results
 * Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
 * "Islamic State" - 12,000 results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  25,300 results
 * Google News search results over the past week:
 * "Islamic State" - 58,100 results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  695,000 results
 * Google News search results over the past month:
 * "Islamic State" - 1,660,000 results results
 * "ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh"  About 13,700,000 results
 * Again these results do not represent articles that add some form of qualifier in the text such as "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group.
 * response added late (inclusive of "Islamic State" search formatting amendment GregKaye 13:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, do you know what the title of the current article reads? This proposal was to change the current article title which, if I am not mistaken, is solely the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and the acronym associated with it, 'ISIL'. Therefore, if you are going to try and prove WP:COMMONNAME, it has nothing to do with the terms 'ISIS', 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria' or 'Daesh'. Do you understand? It would be different if the title was 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh'. The you could cite search results for each of those terms. Unfortunately for you, the title only contains the phrase 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. So if you are going to cite google hits, it will only be between the phrases 'Islamic State' vs. 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and 'ISIL'. I have already done this, and it shows you fail WP:COMMONNAME. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See response to identical content above. GregKaye 08:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose the nominator cannot bar other people from making their opinions known, so the rationale is completely biased and this is no longer a fair discussion process, and should be automatically failed. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. There he wrote:"Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE." Mhhossein (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: The proposed title, Islamic State (IS) is really questionable due to the fact that no actual disambiguation is done by the word in the parenthesis. Using this word as a key word for google search is not a valid attempt (because of the parenthesis) there for one may not show how common this title is in reliable news outlets (User:Zzyzx11 made a more comprehensive critique).
 * By the way as GregKaye said if we are to refer to statistics, titles such as "ISIS" has far more hits than any other terms. Greg said: "ISIS" gets "About 23,300,000 results". Granted "Isis" may also have other meanings but this is news. What other meanings might be commonly used?
 * "Islamic State" gets "About 3,790,000 results." Mhhossein (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Zzyzx11, the parenthetical disambiguation has now changed, and it still gains more hits in Google searches whether through the default search or through News search divided into time periods spanning from 1 hour to 1 month. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per most of the preceding oppose !votes. I will simply add that bringing this proposal up so soon after the last time it was debated is bordering on vexatious. All of which said, I would support a proposal to put a one year moratorium on this topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a moratorium. Starting a subsection below. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The prior discussion was not a formal WP:RM. Gazkthul (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Clearly Islamic State is the common name as a simple reading of sources will show. Lets not conflate the name with the claim. This title change is long overdue. Mbcap (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support The name 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' is not accurate and doesn't make sense within the context of many articles. Islamic State has global ambitions. In Libyan Civil War (2014–present) and Boko Haram insurgency, for example, you will find 'ISIL' as a combatant, despite the fact that neither Libya nor Nigeria are part of Iraq and the Levant. DylanLacey (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If RS use ISIL, ISIS, &c. to refer to the group as it fights elsewhere, which they do, then we are able to use it too, and should do. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this mean reliable and impartial public broadcasters and the worlds largest news agencies are all not reliable sources? So I guess what you saying is that none of these sources are reliable:
 * BBC-
 * Associated Press -
 * Reuters -
 * PBS -
 * ABC -
 * NPR -
 * Agence France-Presse -


 * But opinionated sources with political alignments like the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, al-Jazeera and Russia Today are much more reliable and impartial? Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse are the three largest news agencies in the world, but lets just forget that part becuase it's so convenient for your argument. What a joke. StanTheMan87 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The majority of the interviewees of the news agencies that you have mentioned use ISIL, ISIS and Daesh. Watch, listen to and read some news.  From the get go when the Islamic State group self-declared itself as "Islamic State", despite the rejection of this titling by Muslims and both governmental and non-governmental agencies, the agency Reuters, I think, inexplicably adopted the unqualified use of the name "Islamic State".  This is something that, in the same circumstances, would never have occurred in Wikipedia and, as far as I can tell, the decision was made purely subjectively.  The BBC article mentions the "So called Islamic State" and, after considerable time, Associated Press adopted regular presentation of "Islamic State group".  Britannica present "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)" and other news groups give similar presentation.  GregKaye 09:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support - anything else would be taking sides. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and cannot provide commentary whether by implication or otherwise.  It can only comment second-hand, as in "X said Y about Z".  ~ P-123 (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the OED, really it should be "Islamist group", not "islamist group". ~ P-123 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * P-123 Britannica is also an encyclopedia with an article, that was last Updated 4-21-2015, that presents "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)".  Islamist is also problematic both in terms or representation of Islam, the group is predominantly waging way against other groups who lay claim to Islam, and in reference to usage in sources.  News searches (similar to those that have previously been presented in these pages) indicate raw stats:
 * (isis OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (militant OR militants) gets "About 2,970,000 results" while
 * (isis OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (islamist OR islamists) gets "About 487,000 results" and
 * (isis OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND group gets "About 9,290,000 results"
 * GregKaye 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose all parenthetical disambiguation alternative proposals, as the present title uses WP:NATURAL disambiguation, as preferred by the article titles policy. For the record, given the proposers attempt to muddy the waters by changing his proposal midstream. This is clear gaming the system, and is getting tiresome.  RGloucester  — ☎ 15:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but change disambiguation - If I can interject, I'd like to add that I can see good arguments raised by both sides in this discussion from what I have read so far.

The current title used has a natural disambiguation, which is always preferable in an article name and obeys WP:TITLE and WP:NATURAL. I don't wish to make a statement without any evidence to support it, but where I come from, everyone knows what the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' means and what it represents so it's not unpopular. The acronym 'ISIL' is also accurate enough to represent the group. That being said, I have started to notice that both these terms are being displaced by 'ISIS', 'Islamic State' and 'IS' in publications that I read, and news that I tune in to. Many reliable sources are also starting to refer to it as 'Islamic State' with many many different variants. The other fact that also should be considered here is the actual wording in the name. 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' makes the group sound as if it is geographically locked in these two regions, with no territory or ambition to spread outside of its primary spheres of influence. Similar to the Taliban-controlled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. And, dare I say, it also makes them sound more legitimate as a group then just the ambiguous 'Islamic State' designation, due to the emphasis placed upon the areas of 'Iraq and the Levant'. Makes it sound more formal. But it is now not the case. As multiple editors have stated, it is not merely a parochial militant group with territory in the regions of Iraq, Syria and now even parts of Lebanon but a transnational entity bent on expansion. I cannot see how relegating it to two geographic positions is the mature thing to do in an Encyclopedia, whatever the intention. It is becuase of this that I do not believe the current name and its disambiguation is viable anymore, purely for this reason. Some editors had stated the potential and very real problem of justifying 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' territory outside of Iraq and the Levant. It's not a recognized entity as far as I know. You cannot liken it to the Russian Federation having territory outside of Russia in Europe e.g Kaliningrad or the United States having territory outside of North America e.g Hawaii. What I am getting at is that this implies a level of legitimate ownership, and this group doesn't have it. Not in Libya or Yemen or Iraq or Syria or anywhere.

The issue I have with "Islamic State (IS)" is the disambiguation which, whilst being a widely used acronym for the group, can not be measured accurately to satisfy WP:COMMONAME through Google searches alone. Even though many sources use 'IS' which has been stated, on its own as a disambiguation, it is simply too generic. A similar issue arises with the term "Islamic State". However, were you to isolate the period for a search, the results would become more accurate, and this has already been stated. If a more appropriate disambiguation were to be found that could in concise terms explain what the article is about, I would support it. I suggest something along the lines of Islamic State (organisation) or Islamic State (ISIS) or Islamic State (group) or Islamic State (militant group). I am under the impression that WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONAME are the important policies here, as editor Banak stated, and in my opinion the current title doesn't satisfy either, whilst a proposed title has the potential to satisfy both.

The only reason why I choose to support this current proposal, is that progress towards a better article name will emerge allot quicker were it 'Islamic State (IS)' vs. a proposed alternative rather than the current title vs. a proposed alternative. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The article contains content including: "a leading Islamic educational institution, Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah in Egypt, advised Muslims to stop calling the group "Islamic State" and instead refer to it as "Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria" or "QSIS", because of the militant group's "un-Islamic character"" and "representatives of the Islamic Society of Britain, the Association of British Muslims and the UK's Association of Muslim Lawyers proposed that "'Un-Islamic State' (UIS) could be an accurate and fair alternative name to describe this group and its agenda"". I do not know of any title that has been more vehemently objected to and rejected than the one adopted by this group.
 * I continue to question the commonname claims presented in the OP, in a search across the last month:
 * site:www.independent.co.uk/ "ISIS" gives "About 14,100 results" while
 * site:www.independent.co.uk/ "Islamic State" gives "About 250 results"
 * I think that this ratio of results better represents early responses of the interviewees of news organisations.
 * GregKaye 21:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. The common English name is ISIS or ISIL, which is the initialism for the current title. Since using an initialism for a title is somewhat problematic, the current title is fine as is. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Issues:
 * The common name for the group in a variety of sources is ISIS / ISIL and this counts across both secondary and primary sources.
 * Various "reliable secondary sources" arguably behave on this issue in the fashion of unreliable secondary sources or as primary sources. The vast majority of people interviewed or quoted by news groups call the group "ISIS"/"ISIL" or "Daesh" and in other cases they may mention the so called "Islamic State".  Our "so called" secondary sources, on this issue, are not reporting sources but are expressing their own primary source style choice.  The interviewees from Muslim sources, agencies even including relief and refugee agencies and governmental and intergovernmental sources, regardless, carry on using ISIS and similar terminologies.  Why do they do this?
 * "Islamic State" is a WP:POVNAME. I can't think of any name that has ever been more contested and rejected than "Islamic State".
 * This is not simply a corollary of innocuous names like the much mentioned yet comparatively innocuous "Democratic Republic of the Congo". The so called "Democratic Republic of the Congo" does not consider other manifestations of democracy to be invalid.  To my knowledge the Congo has not declared all borders and state recognition to be invalid while claiming, itself, to be a state.
 * In the case of the Islamic State group. It claims authority over all of Islam effectively saying that Islam will have validity if it is under the claimed authority of the claimed caliphate.  Even though it is not a state, if they had called themselves something such as the Salafi Jihadi State then, arguably, something like this would have been less objectionable and, arguably, been more openly direct.
 * Mbcap has repeatedly, but while refusing to cite anything that I have actually said, described whatever similar comment that I may have made as "conflating the name with the claim". There is no issue of conflation as the claim of the name "Islamic State" and the groups various claims about states and being the state for all Islam are inextricably linked.  A great many comments have been made by various sources criticizing this greatly POV loaded name and, within this context, I think that it is completely understandable as to why the name is so widely avoided.  I have repeatedly asked Mbcap "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?" and s/he, for whatever reason, has refused to answer.  I do not see a valid justification for using this loaded name within the encyclopedia outside of the context of designations like the much mentioned "Islamic State group".  Meanwhile commonname, even in "secondary" sources, remains ISIS.  GregKaye 06:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: one-year moratorium on move proposals
Frequent move proposals are disruptive to actual article improvement. Per 's suggestion above, I propose a one-year moratorium on page move proposals for this article. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support moratorium as nominator. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I respect the fact there are strong opinions on this subject. But it is painfully clear that after a month or more of often heated debate over two substantively identical proposals, that no consensus on this subject currently exists or is likely to be gained in the near future. It's time to move on to more constructive activities. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support – These repeated proposals have been disruptive and pointless. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Changing name to Islamic State is absolutely policy based and a moratorium will just impede that effort. Regardless we should have this conversation after this RM has concluded. Mbcap (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "Changing name to Islamic State is absolutely policy based" Please do not push opinion as fact. Wikipedia has a range of policy and guidelines and it is up to editors to take the whole package into account.  GregKaye 05:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg I never said it was fact. An admin can judge what I said based on his/her own understanding of policy. As a serial POV pusher you should reflect on your own actions first. Maybe learn from the good arguments being made by those who oppose the name of Islamic State, where they actually use policy based reasons rather than personal thoughts. Mbcap (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * then what were you trying to convey in saying "Changing name to Islamic State is absolutely policy based and a moratorium will just impede that effort"? Please note that when anything is presented on a talk page, other editors have the right to challenge the validity of what is said.  If you think that something is POV pushing you need to establish that first.  Please note that I am not here necessarily supporting a moratorium.  I find it humourous that you are advocating censorship in some quarters and opposing it in others.  If you dispute an edit then an appropriate course of action would be to present any aledged issue on a user's talk page.  GregKaye 05:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg Where did I say it is a fact? Do you really wish to start a debate about epistemology. You are right that anyone can challenge the validity of said statements. If you do wish to know, please read my arguments from the January RM and also the very good explanation by StanTheMan, Banak, Gazkthul and Xavierltzm. If you have any question, do let me know. I also find it humerus that you find it humorous regarding censorship in some quarters and opposing in others. Yes I certainly do want to censor those comments that treat this page as if it is a forum. Mbcap (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you are not WP:LISTENing. If you have an issue with a particular edit please specify the edit and state your view on the alleged problem.  I think that it is valid to consider the views and practices of other groups associated with Islam in their regular rejection or qualification of the use of the name "Islamic State".  GregKaye 06:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg you are conflating the name with the claim. Maybe you should start a seperate thread on the claim. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be. The idea of an Islamic Caliphate is entirely at odds with modern international laws and precedents. It can never be accepted and everyone appreciates that. To understand the topic more, I recommend you read al-ahkam al-sultaniyya by the Kurdish jurist Al-Mawardi. I think this is one of the books they may be basing their governance on. A reading on a normative version of an Islamic State would instantly show that it is in no way compatible with the modern political structure in place. Therefore this talk about it not being accepted as being legitimate is a wasted discourse. It is said that this group has no basis in Islam and there are others who say that it is to do with Islam. There is another subset of people who say that it has something to do with Islam. Everyone can choose which they believe in but there is a distinction between what people who are Muslim's say and what classical sources on the subject say. We are here to accurately convey the content available on this topic. The constant attempts to "deligitimise" the group serve no purpose. No one is here to legitimise then and changing the name to accurately refer to it is not going to legitimise them any more than the current name. Rather we should spend time on improving the article. Mbcap (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer.  Is this what you are saying?  Again if you make an objection to an edit then you should specify that edit.  The reaction of Islamic communities, government communities and the vast number of people that news groups interview are all in line with the view that the official name, as used by the group, is objectionable.  I have legitimately expressed legitimate arguments in regard to legitimate issues.
 * In your previously proposed RM you presented claimed reference to use of "Islamic State" while making no reference to the many instances in which qualification is given to the use of the name as in line with the many "so called ..." and "... group" references. The current nomination presents internet search results that have done nothing more than search on the separate words "islamic", "state" and "is" and yet have, for whatever reason, avoided all reference to the also commonly used "isis".
 * Please put away your WP:CRYSTALBALL with regard to your claims that "No one is here to legitimise". While, I have not made any claim regarding editors intentions or motivations and have only indicated the results, you seem to be conflating what a person says and what they think.  I suggest you take another look at the previous RM in which you were not involved and which resulted in a unanimously supported topic ban at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive882
 * It can also be noted that separate comments were made in this RM comments that:
 * "An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused ...";
 * "Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed" and
 * "wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves".
 * These are commonly presented arguments as presented by separate editors which, I contest, all present legitimate good faith concerns. Again, if you do not view any such concern to be legitimate then please cite the actual edit so that fair reply can be made.
 * Finally, in agreement with your comment "we should spend time on improving the article", the view was presented in the previous RM so as to state "By the way, per WP:TITLECHANGES we'd better not to move this stable title and concentrate on the article itself instead." The issue of the evaluation of the value of time spent is an issue that is solely the responsibility of editors who advocate change.
 * GregKaye 05:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg You start of your post with the garbage I have mentioned previously. As I said I do not give a shit about your personal views. Your half backed arguments possibly work on those poor souls who you chase away from this page but not with me. You have never had a problem with not conflating the name with the claim of a country like North Korea or the Congo. Secondly your two favourite policies that form part of your tools to discourage discussion that is not in line with your world view is WP:SOAP and WP:CRYSTALBALL. I have no idea of the relavence of your comments about the ANI. Mbcap (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer." GregKaye 08:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg To what extent is the name "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" unrelated to the claim that North Korea is democratic. No doubt this piece of common sense will give you a contusion so you will make this go in circles. How is this related to discussing title change. Mbcap (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * North Korea (known by themselves as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) does not claim authority over all of democracy. The Islamic State group is claiming authority over all of Islam.  Please note the difference.  The name that we give to the self proclaimed "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is North Korea.  We remove the self designated reference as "democratic" and add the qualifier "North".
 * To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam? GregKaye 09:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We use the name North Korea because it is the common name. You say, "The name that we give to the self proclaimed "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is North Korea." How you conveniently fail to mention "Democratic Republic of the Congo" which is what the page is called. As for your comments re conflation between name and claim, and other comments re pov name and so forth, I can not be bothered entertaining your personal views that are treating this talk page as a forum. I recommend you read Banak's support comment for the RM. Mbcap (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you make public accusation regarding conflating the issues yet refuse to answer a direct and related question. "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"  GregKaye 16:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

GregYou are jumping from one argument to another when it suits you. Answer my last post. Is The Congo democratic? It's main space article is called, "Democratic Republic of the Congo". Mbcap (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In my 05:07, 18 July 2015 edit I asked "To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer. Is this what you are saying?"
 * You make unjustified mud slinging accusations that I am "jumping from one argument to another when it suits" when you are avoiding responding to a simple direct
 * In my 08:12, 18 July 2015 edit I again asked "To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer."
 * In my 09:12, 18 July 2015 edit I asked "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"
 * In my 16:43, 18 July 2015 edit I again asked "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"
 * I do not think that there are many central African countries that are democratic and I presume, on the basis that you are asking the question, that The Congo is not one of them. Now "Please", "Please" answer my question.  GregKaye 10:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg Is there a relationship between Congo's self proclamation as "Democratic" and their claim to be democratic. Does Wikipedia conflate the two? The question you have is the same. We go by sources here and the common name. Mbcap (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After answering your question I will again ask you a sixth time. "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"  This is a question that I asked you over two days ago and that you still refuse to answer.  The comparisons between the two situations are extremely weak.  While the titling of "Democratic Republic of the Congo" is inaccurate, the title does not generally cause offense among democrats and it would be ludicrous to consider that the Congo was, in some way, claiming authority over the institution of democracy.  Many groups will also use the name "Democratic Republic of the Congo" without concern for the simple reason that the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" does make assertive claims regarding other people's life choices.  At a different extreme the self proclaimed "Islamic State" claims authority over all Islam.  This is a group that is not representative of Islam.  At extremes it will (in a context in which men have all the power and all the options) make a public spectacle of the stoning of women caught in adultery with no comparative evidence being presented of the man caught in adultery, the man not even being referenced.  The group similarly makes public show of the killing of aid workers and journalists that their Muslim friends have declared to be innocent in every way.  These are the kind of things that have resulted in strong reaction from Islamic communities.  Even the United Nations makes direct reference to the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" presumingly because no one is really taking it as a POVTITLE.  Muslim groups reject the use of the title "Islamic State".  Governments reject the use of the title "Islamic State".  Aid and other agencies reject the use of the title "Islamic State".  Can you see the difference?  Please answer.  AGAIN I will also ask, "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"  GregKaye 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg Your question which you knew the answer to has already been answered by Gazkhtul below. Answering your question will serve no purpose apart from encouraging you to start another spiel about the actions of the group which we have heard enough of already. We are not here to discuss how Muslims (members of a faith) and governmental organisations such as the UN and its member states use the terms for this group. That is not the criteria for producing or labelling content on Wikipedia. We go off sources and the majority of those use Islamic State. 23:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Support In general there should never be need for moritoriums and the like as they strike at censorship.  Instead editors should review previous issues raised and discussions in their consideration of appropriate actions that they might take.  GregKaye 04:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My change of view has come in application of a "catastrophic waste of time" view that, in the link provided, applied to accountability in editing.  Also in reaction to the, I believe, tendentious practices of this editor in particular that result in uncited slurs, as touched on in the link, accompanied with the flat refusal on six occasions  to answer the simple question (which was made extremely valid within the context of accusation) presented above.  GregKaye 19:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support the nomination rationale on this nomination is clearly designed to break the process by making claims of how to ballot that are not supported under consensus processing. So, we should try to let people have a time out before doing this again, preferably without making invalid claims about how the process works. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - The RM in question hasn't even closed yet. Also, please explain how move proposals have been disruptive to the articles improvement. Gazkthul (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well obviously those who oppose the name request find it disruptive. Mbcap (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support - I think some of the recent requests have been quite good, and I would have supported a move to Islamic State militant group or similar if there hadn't been so many recent debates. There are strong feelings in many directions, so there is no chance of any of them succeeding. Each new request seems to think they have a more convincing case than the last, but in reality it is just a re-run: they generate far more heat than light, and fill the talk page and watchlist with endless unresolvable political debates and search engine stats. We need the talk page and the watchlist to develop the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose We literally are in the middle of a move request. Banak (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The terrorist organization has changed its name. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The name of the organisation is 'Islamic State' and this issue is definitely not settled. 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' is an inaccurate name and doesn't even make sense given Islamic State's global ambitions. DylanLacey (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose New parenthetical disambiguation put forward in the RM, debate still on-going. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. http://www.theweek.co.uk/isis/62422/islamic-state-daesh-or-isis-the-dilemma-of-naming-the-militants There is real-world movement on what to call this group. There is developing real world consensus that this militant groupd should not be called by their own chosen name.  Recent reliable sources can be seen making the change.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support one-year moratorium as per other editors: this page does not need disruptive and pointless RMs almost every month. Khestwol (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So it needs yet another year of using a now irrelevant and false, with no basis held in WP policy in order to intentionally delegitimize a group on its Wikipedia page due to the personal bias held by editors? StanTheMan87 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * StanTheMan87 Your arguments regarding WP:UCRN are not strong and your searches, including of separate terms "islamic", "state" and "is", do not amount to much. Within practice at WP:RM a regular contention is that a mere change capitalization in an article name is not sufficient to disambiguate the subject and this legitimate issue is raised time and again;  WP:NATURAL has legitimately been cited by many editors in support of current title and WP:TITLECHANGES discourages unnecessary change and this is before we get on to various NPOV issues and the sometimes flagrant disregard that some news agencies have exhibited to content presented by their own various sources, the presentation of representatives within Islam and governmental representatives.  Your assertion of "no basis held in WP policy" is incorrect.  GregKaye 05:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the underlying premise of a moratorium such as this one is that incessant move requests are more disruptive to the overall quality of the article than the possibility of using an imperfect name for a while. Whether the current naming reflects your version of WP:TRUTH is not relevant. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Modified support - a one-year moratorium seems excessive. How about a quarterly RM?  That seems reasonable to me.  ~ P-123 (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Moratorium - The name article name needs change anytime the name of the entity changes. So for instance, Wikipedia changed the name of the Bruce Jenner article the nanosecond he announced he would start crossdressing.  Likewise, if the Islamic State tomorrow announces it wants to be called Islamic Paradise or some such, there would be grounds for an article name change, and an artificially imposed one year deferment would be just as unencyclopaedic as it is to call the Islamic State anything else other than what the majority of the English sources call it, which is Islamic State. XavierItzm (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support the number of these is proposed moves is enormous and they seem to always fail, with the arguments for moving never getting stronger. ISIL is used by some sources, and DAESH unlikely to be approved. -- Callinus (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't mind one year, but I would hope more than that. How about five years? By the way, I overlooked this discussion and created a duplicate thread instead. George Ho (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

PROCEDURAL OPPOSE: midstream change

 * The OP has midstream revised his previous comments and the original proposal, destroying the comments of other users. This is a travesty, and must be reverted at once. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is incredibly convoluted (the support and oppose votes really should have been segregated in different subsections) but retroactively changing comments and the nominating statement is a serious no no. Has this been corrected? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Old comments are now non sense and the editors are not coming back correcting their comment based on the new proposal. I'm highly in favor of it being reverted. Mhhossein (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I managed to revert the change. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for handling that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I will keep reverting any changes to the RM I proposed. I find it entertaining that those who want it reverted are those who want to oppose the RM. The term is the exact same, 'Islamic State'. The disambiguation has been changed, to conform more to WP policy. Unless of course, none of you really want what is best for WP policy?... Or you of course do not want the new proposed disambiguation as it makes many of your previous arguments null and void? StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * StanTheMan87 I find it astounding that you unilaterally change the proposed destination to Islamic State (islamist group) which fails to coincide with either of the two proposals and completely refuses to acknowledge the clearly presented objection that to the group is not representative of Islam. I agree that requests for a procedural close, following revert, strike at wikilawyering but also do not think that you are in any way presenting NPOV proposals.  Your "I will keep reverting any changes to the RM I proposed" statement is clear sign of disruption and edit warring.  You do not WP:OWN this page.  I don't think that it always works but please read WP:BRD.  GregKaye 05:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a total mess. The proposal should be procedurally failed as it is being changed in midstream. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This entire discussion is a cluster bleep and with the nom persistently trying to change stuff in mid discussion its legitimacy has been completely compromised. It's time to procedurally close this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

New proposal
Note - As many people have stated that the acronym 'IS' is too generic for a parenthetical disambiguation for 'Islamic State', (islamist group) will be put forth. Apologies, I still do not view IS as being generic in this context, but some editors have stated it is does not make for a suitable disambiguation on Wikipedia. (islamist group) still allows for 'IS' to be used in reference to the group in all articles concerning the Islamic State, and will be able to distinguish the article page more clearly than perhaps just 'IS'. It also follows the parenthetical disambiguation use for the Khorasan (Islamist group).
 * This way the whole discussion is a mess! A new proposal was rather better than revising the current one. Mhhossein (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Islamic State (militant group) could also work. Both are far more accurate and sensible than the current name of the article. DylanLacey (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my preference. Gazkthul (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * late addition If it is proposed that we use parenthetic disambiguation rather than disambiguating by names use then I am unsure whether either ".. (Islamist group)" or "... (militant group)" would disambiguate from previous entities that have been described as being Islamic states. "Islamist" also does not represent the group's agenda which would be better represented as "... (Sunni Islamist group)".  GregKaye 08:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A use of Islamic State group would better fit with the search consistently presented in StanTheMan87's proposal. As indicated, it fits with usage of many news groups and also corresponds with the usage of qualification by news groups with references such as the frequently used "so-called Islamic State".  This also fits in with Muslim communities of the use, either of an alternative term such as daesh, ISIL or ISIS, or a direct qualification added to the term "Islamic State".  This would also fit in with policy at WP:NATURAL.  As has been proven (and not discounting common usage of terms like ISIS) when the group is referred to as "Islamic State", is very frequently referred to as "Islamic State group", "the group Islamic State" or similar.  As has been consistently agreed, the term "Islamic State" is ambiguous and policy presents: "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." GregKaye 20:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Islamic State group" would not follow proper Wikipedia article naming conventions. "Islamic State group" is neither the organizations official name or its common name. Disambiguation is done with the use of a parenthetical, "Islamic State (Islamist group)" or "Islamic State (Islamist organization)" would be the best disambiguators that I can think of for "Islamic State".Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

which Wikipedia article naming conventions does it not follow? As an example, Associated Press present a title for one of their webpages as Now we say ‘the Islamic State group’ instead of ISIL and they clearly see "Islamic State group" and ISIL as synonymous. When "Islamic State" is used it is often used in the context as "Islamic State group" or, in other circumstances, with similar qualification.

I have long collaborated with and generally supported editor SMcCandlish on many parallel moves which related to a different breed of topic. I had already compiled a list of the articles that have similarly made, I think, good use of WP:NATURALDIS and they are presented below:
 * British White → British White cattle
 * Welsh Black → Welsh Black cattle
 * Florida White → Florida White rabbit
 * Anatolian Black → Anatolian Black cattle
 * Anglo-Nubian → Anglo-Nubian goat
 * Nicastrese → Nicastrese goat
 * Argentine Criollo → Argentine Criollo cattle
 * Indo-Brazilian → Indo-Brazilian cattle


 * Asturian Mountain → Asturian Mountain cattle
 * Dorset Down → Dorset Down sheep


 * American Sable → American Sable rabbit
 * Silver Marten → Silver Marten rabbit
 * Belgian Fawn → Belgian Fawn goat


 * Blue Grey → Blue Grey cattle


 * German black pied (cattle) → German Black Pied cattle


 * Canadian Speckle Park → Speckle Park cattle
 * German black pied (cattle) → German Black Pied cattle
 * German Red Pied → German Red Pied cattle


 * Flemish Giant → Flemish Giant rabbit
 * Netherland Dwarf → Netherland Dwarf rabbit
 * Checkered Giant → Checkered Giant rabbit
 * Galician Blond → Galician Blond cattle
 * Murray Grey → Murray Grey cattle
 * Peppin Merino → Peppin Merino sheep
 * The designation "Islamic State group", though dealing with a different topic area, would be presented in much the same way. The "Islamic State group" designation has wide use within media as has been proven in evidence presented in the RM.  It is also representative of the many uses of qualification such as "so called ..."  GregKaye 08:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To reiterate what was said in another of these confounded RMs, the subject of this article has no official name, as it is not an official body of any kind, and because it is not recognised by the international system as such. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the group is not an official body, the third paragraph of WP:OFFICIAL refers to the "subject's "official" name". This unofficial group self designated with the official name "Islamic State" which occurred on the same day as it declared itself as being the worldwide caliphate.  I appreciate that this comment may be the result of nothing more than my own pedantry interpreting the official views of an unofficial group.  GregKaye 08:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Planned Battle of Mosul (2015)
Mosul currently one of main cities occupied by ISIS. Comments/feedback on whether Planned Battle of Mosul (2015), Articles for deletion/Planned Battle of Mosul (2015) is a WP:CRYSTALBALL and/or Psychological operation in respective pages most welcome... LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

ISIS Prisoners
Are there any ISIS prispners taken or are they all killed in combat oder executed as once? -- 84.62.108.128 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
Now, I know what everyone will be thinking... "Fuck off, another name change", and especially after the last poorly organised and hotly debated one, so I can see why. But please, hear me out. I only aim to satisfy all parties. A key argument against the current one is that it lacks WP:COMMONNAME. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and ISIS are both the most commonly used renditions for this group and would therefore be more recognizable. It also would obeys WP:TITLE better than the current title, being more recognizable and has a WP:NATURAL disambiguation. And seeing as how the current name for the article isn't the official name anyway, what would it matter if we switched it from Levant to Syria? If it makes it more recognizable, why would consensus not be reached quickly? This isn't an RM, but I want to get other fellow editors impressions on this. --Ritsaiph (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Debated for pages already. ISIL vs ISIS are just different translations of exactly the same words. ISIL is a more accurate translation according to reliable sources. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Syria" is inaccurate, for one. For another, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is more common that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" in the British and Irish press, and has been since the inception of this group. It is also reasonably common in America, and used by the Encylopaedia Brittanica. For a final reason, please see WP:TITLECHANGES. There is no justification for changing from one controversial title to another, as that will simply result in a succession of moves without end or reason. Stability is key. Please also avoid coarse language, if you are able. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Military activities of ISIL should be merged here, as it is plagued with problems, including that it appears to promote ISIL, and because it duplicates much of the information at this article. Merging would also make it easier to keep the information accurate and up to date. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sammy1339 I don't dispute your point but, on the other hand this may also bring into question articles like Military intervention against ISIL. There are no other examples of articles starting "Military activities of ..." and neither are there other examples of articles starting "Military intervention against ..."  I would be interested to know if there are other phrasings of similar titles but both seem to me to present one sided accounts.  GregKaye 04:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I recall, that page was setup as a fork from this one, so as to reduce the size of this article (which continues to be quite large). Reading through it, its beyond me how exactly it is "promoting ISIL", it does need a clean up though. Gazkthul (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As of this writing, this article is 347 kB - more than 5x the recommended length. Merging summary forks would be counterproductive. ISIL's military activities are well-documented; if there are NPOV issues they should be fixed by editing rather than by merging. Duplication should be fixed by paring down the parent article. By way of !voting, this is an oppose merge. VQuakr (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you think merging it will keep the information accurate and up to date? Mhhossein (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That article simply repeats a lot of the information here. The problem is that most of the discussion of ISIL is about its military activities - it would almost make more sense to have an article titled "non-military activities of ISIL" as there would be fewer sources for that. That article is short, and a mess, and couldn't be properly written without becoming this article. For those who think it's appropriate to have separate articles because this one is too big, the solution would be to split off at least half the text of this article into that one - but I think a merge is simpler and more sensible. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Simple reason of WP:TOOLONG. Promotion or condemnation of ISIL and its activities is not the job of Wikipedia, due to WP:neutral. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Oppose - WP:TOOLONG. Also, I do not recall a clear consensus for the page move. By the way, the article is about the military force of ISIL, NOT it's military activities. Can someone please move it back to Military of ISIL, as this title is more formal and concise? LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with LightandDark2000. Like it or not, ISIL is a 'country' and has a military force. Its military is larger than the militaries of some countries, so I think a specific article is important. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, ISIL is not a country (at least it is not internationally recognized as such). However, it is an armed group, and that means that it DOES have some kind of fighting force. Whether or not we choose to recognize their own name for their "army" (ISIL calls their fighting force "Soldiers of the Caliphate"), we need to recognize that they do have a well-organized armed force, as acknowledged by many reputable sources, and the article title should reflect that fact. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't merge. Military of ISIL is an appropriate title. You don't need a country to wage war. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have another problem. The Rename discussion on the talk page of the article in question has been improperly closed. There was a very strong consensus for the renaming of the article, yet the discussion was closed as "no consensus" and no action has been taken. Requesting that the users involved there (and those involved in this discussion who have an interest as well) to check out the discussion and to reopen it until further actions can be taken. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

ISIS in Lebanon.
ISIS doesn't have a foothold in Lebanon, the articles quoted don't even endorse that claim. please re-read them through. I live in Lebanon and the border is secured by both the national army and armed Shiite militiamen. When any of you find any article stating that there was an actual intrusion and control of Lebanese soil by ISIL please feel free to revert my edit. - Elias   Z   09:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Name
Although I won't even bother to propose a name change, can anyone tell me why Wikipedia is quite literally switching to the propaganda term coined by the US government itself? Today's press briefing was an interesting example: the Gov Spokesperson only used the term ISIL, even though the journalists still mostly said ISIS.

This isn't a case of just liking one name more than another, this is the blatant hijacking of this page by political preferences in a political administration. The names denies the group's Syrian origin by claiming it operates in "the Levant" (which isn't true). This is an international Wikipedia, not the CIA Factbook. I have yet to hear a good argument for the current name besides "keep it as it is". Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should read past requested move discussions linked at the top of this talk page. Khestwol (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The ISIL name was picked by the group itself, see the name history section. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User talk is absolutely correct that Wikipedia continues to slavishly use the name the government of the U.S. has chosen for political reasons, and which is not the name the terrorist organisation calls itself, nor which most media outside the United States use. XavierItzm (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Name searches at random
I have got tired of potentially tendentious editors raising selective references to name use. My reaction is now to present searches related to used designations for the group with a sequence of the presentation of search results targets being itself determined by Google.

All my searches are time limited to the month of July 2015 and my first search was for "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" OR "islamic state". At the end of the first listing of articles I found the text "Explore in depth (1,321 more articles)" and I clicked on the link.

I then made the following searches on news providers in the sequence in which these news providers were presented by Google.

That covers all the news outlets that I found mentioned in my time bound (July 2015) search. There is clear indication, even before getting into other issues relating to title choice, a clear predominance of use of the term "isis" with use also being made, by some providers, of "isil" and "daesh".
 * 1) site:www.theguardian.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 1,040 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 461 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.independent.co.uk/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 7,700 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 115 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.express.co.uk/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 1,500 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 1,300 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.mirror.co.uk/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 1,800 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 225 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.cityam.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "7 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 26 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.bbc.co.uk/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 213 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 1,200 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 8,020 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 1,180 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 373 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 312 results"
 * 1) site:http://uk.reuters.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 70 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 2,830 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.nytimes.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 3,930 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 1,040 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "1 result"
 * "islamic state" gets "1 result"
 * 1) site:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 857 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 428 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.thedailybeast.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 163 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 86 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.ibtimes.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 1,840 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 300 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.bloomberg.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 38 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 528 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.torontosun.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 1,100 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 73 results"
 * 1) site:http://rudaw.net/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 517 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 358 results"

GregKaye 13:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Other outlets (not inclusive of minor concerns), that were found through a news search "the", gave the following results.

GregKaye 15:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) site:http://www.economist.com
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "5 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About About 107 results"
 * 1) site:http://time.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 222 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 38 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.usatoday.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 638 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 356 results"
 * 1) site:http://edition.cnn.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 638 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 0 results" but, apparently, 1
 * 1) site:http://www.npr.org/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 208 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 125 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.wsj.com/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 1,890 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 878 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 292 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 160 results"
 * 1) site:http://www.cbc.ca/
 * "isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets "About 184 results"
 * "islamic state" gets "About 126 results"


 * I do not have those results because google requires cookies.
 * Nonetheless this analysis probably has several bias:
 * One of them is that two wrongs do not make one right: if the BBC is wrong calling it differently than Daesh, having a second wrong does not make it right.
 * Another bias might be that the word used might be Dependant of the country, most of those research are limited to UK, US and Australia. Other countries might use different term.
 * Another might be that we do not know how google is representative
 * Nonetheless the number of references has few importance: there are two sides, the Daesh side call it ISIS, the anti-terrorist side call it Daesh.
 * In fact, both terms are used: For instance "islamic state site:gov.uk" in bing gives 9 900 results; "daesh site:gov.uk" in bing gives 258 000 results.77.193.105.53 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Between Islamic state, and Daesh, it is just a political choice. BBC chooses Islamic state, Cameron chooses Daesh. Wikipedia should remain neutral by presenting both point of views, and deal with care this «Islamic state» name which being tendentiously repeated suggest that Daesh might be an islamic state and that an islamic state might be Daesh (Beg a question)..77.193.105.53 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Between Islamic state, and Daesh, it is just a political choice. BBC chooses Islamic state, Cameron chooses Daesh. Wikipedia should remain neutral by presenting both point of views, and deal with care this «Islamic state» name which being tendentiously repeated suggest that Daesh might be an islamic state and that an islamic state might be Daesh (Beg a question)..77.193.105.53 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WOT
The WOT's over, stop adding it back in. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Citation Overkill" Isn't
For subjects such as this one where the events under discussion are both extraordinary and controversial, citing to a large number of reliable sources that all document the same fact set is appropriate. We can all think back to historical events that have been proven beyond any shadow of doubt, and yet are still widely denied. Reducing the number of sources because they seem duplicative is, in my judgment, not at all helpful for this particular article. Extensive, if not exhaustive, sourcing is critical here. EastTN (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert
This edit removed a major sentence that was backed up by its citation (Los Angeles Times). I have reverted it. (Apologies for mess in Revision History.) ~ P-123 (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, though it was somewhat confusing!
 * There are three refs.
 * The third one cannot be used to support that the proclamation of the caliphate was a rejection of Sykes-Picot, because it occurred about a year before the proclamation of a caliphate.
 * The first two can, as I understand it, simply because the video released at the time of the proclamation, is entitled "The End of Sykes-Picot".
 * Having said that it is also clear that the entity proclaimed as a caliphate, if it follows the traditional rules, is determined on continual and unbounded territorial acquisition, irrespective of the origins of current boundaries. Our neophyte editor is quite right to that extent, also that a certain school of thought (which ISIL is likely to subscribe to) believes that recognising the power of any (possibly non-Muslim) state is, if not apostasy, at least un-islamic.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Wording on dominating Arab ethnic composition
Currently it reads "...is a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate and Islamic state which is led by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria", which i find a little vague. The group has a clear Arab majority, so saying "it is led by Sunni Arabs" is only a partial picture. I propose the following possibilities: Please choose an alternative of the above.GreyShark (dibra) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. "...is an Arab-majority Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate and Islamic state"
 * 2. "...is a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate and Islamic state which is mainly packed by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria"
 * 3. "...is a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate and Islamic state which is led by and mainly composed of Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria"
 * Three but with preferably with wording as: "...is a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed Islamic state and caliphate which is led by and mainly composed of Sunni Arabs from in Iraq and Syria"
 * The "Salafi jihadi" description is recent and, although less supported by attribution in news, provides accurate description.
 * "extremist", "terrorist" and "militant", as far as I remember, are the most commonly used descriptions.
 * The Sunni reference is a key to their identity and reference to either "Sunnis" or "Sunni Arabs" would be appropriate.
 * There are groups that have declared allegiance to the group's leader or that have been newly formed that are not predominantly composed of Arabs but they are not in Iraq or Syria. GregKaye 21:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a fact that the majority of the Islamic State's composition are Arabs. It is a fact that most of these Arabs come from Iraq and Syria with a Sunni Islamic background. It is a fact that there are also many non-Iraqi and Syrian Arabs from neighboring countries and across the Middle east. It is a western-inspired falsehood that the Islamic State are dominated by 'foreign fighters' from places such as Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia or that these 'foreign fighters' are a majority. These non-Syrian and Iraqi 'foreign fighters' comprise a minority of what you would call 'rank and file' members and are virtually non-existent in the upper echelons of Islamic State's hierarchy with the exception of Abu Omar al-Shishani. I would choose three. --Ritsaiph (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:, can I take it that option two is meant to read as "which is mainly backed by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria"? It currently reads as "... mainly packed by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria" which doesn't make sense in English. Even if it were "backed", such a description is too vague (i.e., one can back a company, a sports team, an ideology without being actively involved). What is under discussion (per WP:TITLE) is both the active members and supporting infrastructure of sympathisers. That being the case, option three covers the salient points most adequately but, per GregKaye's observation, "Islamic state" should precede "caliphate" per the TITLE, and bearing in mind that it is declaring itself to be a contemporary sovereign entity, therefore caliphate becomes secondary. I'm not worried about the 'in' as a qualifier. As observed by Ritsaiph, the press may get more excited about foreigners involved, but it isn't representative of the majority of fighters, therefore "mainly composed of" is qualifier enough to allow for a minority not from Iraq and Syria. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No packed means composed of (not backed); composed of might be indeed a better term. Considering option three - i tend to agree with the proposed suggestion ("Islamic state" should precede "caliphate").GreyShark (dibra) 06:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It did strike me that you might be attributing the "manned by" definition to "packed", but I find it an awkward use of "packed" in context. It wouldn't be as commonly used as "composed of" and, for some reason, it struck me as connoting a collective noun... as in a "pack of wolves". Hmm, probably just my tangential mind at work. For me, "composed of" is far more of an anticipated descriptor. Well, I'm off to pack my pack of hyenas away for the night before I go to bed. They tend to shred everything in their wake while I'm asleep. Yep, now it's time for me to stop running off at the mouth (keyboard). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - seems like version 3 is to be adopted. Thanks.✅GreyShark (dibra) 15:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Overcitation for sex slaves – curious
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation I believe this does not apply to this case. The ISIL market in sex slaves has been openly admitted and "justified" by the organisation itself. In such a case, why do we need eight cites to establish that US officials confirmed the account of Mueller's fellow hostage, that the depraved Ogre Baghdadi raped Mueller? Rape and sexual enslavement have been documented ad infinitum over the course of many months, so what is extraordinary about ISIL's Sadist in Chief himself raping his group's prisoners? Just curious. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would apply this rule not just to the treatment of Ms. Mueller, but to all of these cases of rape and sexual enslavement. ISIL's behavior in these areas is extreme, bordering on the incredible. Before the rise of ISIL, most of the civilized world would have found the current situation unimaginable. That's why I describe this as an "extraordinary claim," not because it is unusual behavior for ISIL - all the evidence suggests that it is all too characteristic of this organization - but because it is the kind of behavior that is extreme enough to cause most civilized people to initially say "that can't be right!" We need to understand that not everyone is following ISIL as closely as we are, and many readers won't come to this article already understanding the extent of ISIL's barbarity. It's for those readers, now and in the future, that we need to provide what may seem to be overdocumentation of ISIL's most extreme acts and statements. EastTN (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is probably not a bad idea to have multiple cites, though I have no opinion on the exact number. It would be useful if they cover a wide range of sources, rather than just UK and US sources.  I think it is useful to make it clear that this is not just a stray article in a random publication (remember a lot of readers will not know which papers are generally reliable, and which are yellow press, though they may recognise the BBC - and not trust it) but the consensus of many reliable organs across the world.
 * I hope consensus can be reached here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC).


 * I agree that going beyond UK and US sources would be desirable. Personally, I'm limited to English-language sources, but I'll try to keep an eye out for more international news reports. EastTN (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One potential approach has occurred to me. In general, I would argue that if we have two reliable sources, both should be included.


 * If we have more than two reliable sources, we should include all of the newspapers of record. This would include, for instance, the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, the Telegraph, Le Monde, The Times of India, etc.  I would also include their equivalents from the broadcast world, although there is likely to be more disagreement about what they constitute. But at a minimum I would think that would include the BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and the equivalent from other nations. (Many would also argue for including Fox, which I'm personally fine with. But with all of these I'm thinking of the national networks and not local affiliates.) When multiple outlets use the same story from a single news service such as the Associated Press, we would only include one version (unless a news outlet includes its own reporting in addition to the AP report. We could prune other sources if: a) they did not include unique information, and b) we were left with at least two sources in total.


 * Under this rule we would always include at least two sources when they are available. If we get above two, the ones we kept would be of a generally recognized stature. EastTN (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Name in the infobox
The page is called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but that does not explain why the infobox pretends that the name of the group is the same. The name in the infobox is falsely "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and it also has the corresponding Arabic form. Can someone correct this please. Mbcap (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy related to the coherent presentation of content is for the title in the infobox to reflect the article title. GregKaye 17:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is this policy? Mbcap (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap raises a most valid point. There may be some (rather unjustified) arguments that the Wikipedia entry for the Islamic State not being, well, the "Islamic State." However, the name of the organisation itself is none other than the Islamic State. Therefore, the infobox currently displays false information. XavierItzm (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would there be any policy based objections if I changed it? Mbcap (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess that there are potentially contradictory views presented in the guidance at Template:Infobox_country it says to use the "Formal or official full name of the country in English". As far as the formalities of international relations are concerned, there is very widespread rejection of the use of the name "Islamic State" with the vast majority of nations using ISIL with ISIS and Daesh also being used.  The groups official name is Islamic State.  A standard default for infobox titles is to use the article title and this is specifically mentioned in parallel templates.  In all locations I do not see the validity of WP:SOAPBOXing their claim to being the State for all Islam in a situation in which the group is predominantly fighting communities that also make claim to Islamic faith.  Such use goes against the majority of content that comes across the board from the people that news organisations interview.  ISIL and ISIS remain regularly used and perhaps the most regularly used names by news groups.  GregKaye 06:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg Is there a policy because I do not think there is? You say ISIL and ISIS remain regularly used but I am saying that Islamic State is most commonly used. It is their official name. I do not see what your objection is. Mbcap (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On one side of the page we present the title given to the subject and on the other side of the page we present the title given to the subject. We don't typically just chop and change things without explanation.  It is not a name that is used in formal settings other than with a limited number of allies.  We have a designation for the group.  GregKaye 07:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox needs to stay the same as title. Discussed and decided over and over again. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Legacypac, could you please cite when was the infobox issue discussed? Could it be your statement is untrue? XavierItzm (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia designation for the group has been discussed ad nauseam. There may be others but one discussion on inclusion in the infobox here.
 * Following the lead the article also begins with the section #Name which has mainly been kept in response to editor preference. GregKaye 06:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, You have Technophant, Supersaiyen312 and Dustin from then, and also P123ct, myself, XavierItzm, and several other editors. What is consistently the case with the position you two are pushing is that it involves you two. By that I mean Gregkaye and Legacypac. Stop with your constant page owning and allow us to edit the article as an encyclopedia. This editorialising by you two is vomit inducing and needs to stop. That discussion you post a link to regarding the infobox, it has the same tag teaming that you two, Gregkaye and Legacypac, engage in. It also has a line by Gregkaye about having an opening similar to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" to which Legacypac then agrees to. Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting and it has to end. You make a statement, back each other up and then whalla, "you have a consensus which has been debated to death". Mbcap (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GregKaye for highlighting the November 2014 discussion on the infobox. While it provides important context, its statistics are evidently obsolete and incomplete. Today, the WP:COMMONNAME is evidently Islamic State; hence, the conversation must be had anew without attempts at short-circuiting it. XavierItzm (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not try to present this as two editors when you can look at every single RM that has repetitively been presented and see, again and again, overwhelming editor opinion. If in this you have any actual issue to raise then please do so.  There is no tag teaming.  I can also raise names of editors quite easily and can easily raise various points.  Please either justify your WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND use of "vomit inducing", "disgusting" etc. or strike your directly offensive and WP:PA content.  In regard the slurs presented please read editorialising.  If you have a specific accusation then please present it.
 * Please can you cite "you have a consensus which has been debated to death" or similar. You have gone to great lengths to advocate article name change within which you did not make reference to repeated use of qualification in mention of "Islamic State" and you are now presenting insulting accusations to me.  GregKaye 04:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GregYou very well know what you are doing. Your constant debating of Islam and Islamic state as if this is a forum is indeed vomit inducing and disgusting. This is an article talk page. Discussion should be related to content, sources and policy and not "your" opinions on Islam and what it represents and what it doesn't. I don't give a shit what you think about Salafis, Shias, Sufis, non line towing Sunnis, etc but what I do care about is what sources say. Your constant conflation between source material and your world view is distracting as one has to sieve through the total garbage to get to anything that may be worth reading. This is not a platform for pseudo intellectuals who think just because they listen to some Maajid Nawaz that they are some sort of experts on the topic. Even if you were, this is not the place to discuss it. As for striking my comments, no I will not. Perhaps you should strike some common sense back into your head by following the rules at the top of the page; this is not a forum. Mbcap (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap What I am doing is attempting to keep debate in context. Like it or not Shias, Sufis, non line towing Sunnis also have claim to Islam and very valid objections have been made.  Their views, I think, are something that editors here should give a "shit about".  What are you doing here?  NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia and issues that affect other groups are rightly considered.  GregKaye 05:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The key statement is "don't give a shit about what you think." I did say I care about sources. All editors must abide by NPOV and should consider that content that may be relavent. Do not conflate these things with your constant editorialising. Get back to discussing content, sources and policy. This is not your personal advocacy platform. Mbcap (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * specify an edit. What do you claim is wrong?  Which things do you think that I have conflated?  How?  GregKaye 05:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg You previous edit clearly says that you attempt to keep debate in context. Do not conflate context with the context in which your world view is at the centre. Does that make more sense. Why write, "Policy related to the coherent presentation of content is for the title in the infobox to reflect the article title"? It is rubbish like that which demonstrates what I mean. Where is this policy? Please present it here. Your actual objection to the name in the infobox as Islamic State is more along the lines of, "Like it or not Shias, Sufis, non line towing Sunnis also have claim to Islam and very valid objections have been made." As I said, I do not give a shit about your emotional or personal opinions and pleas. Do not hide your actual non-policy based objection behind a false policy that only exists in your head. There are editors who disagree with having Islamic State as the title and they present completely respectable arguments but what you write is just drivel. As one editor recently said, I'm not going to entertain your personal thoughts on Sufis and Shias views, and the whole POV WP:SOAPBOX about offending people, etc, etc, etc. Stop wasting my time with such nonsense. Mbcap (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as policy and guidance are concerned, as mentioned, "A standard default for infobox titles is to use the article title and this is specifically mentioned in parallel templates." You are right in that this is as far as written policy goes.  Practice within Wikipedia is a different matter.
 * A use of SPECIAL:RANDOM permits a random sampling of articles from which it is seen that the common and I would say coherent way of working would be to present one set of titles. Rarely does the infobox title differ from the from the article title and, when it does, it is only on very rare occasion that the infobox title is reduced in length.  The purpose of an infobox is to add information.
 * With similarity to the legitimate concerns that I have raised as recently as the last RM (which was very recent) other editors has similarly expressed concerns as:
 * "An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused ...";
 * "Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed" and
 * "wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves".
 * The views and example presented by the Islamic world are of central relevance to the presentation of a group that calls itself the "Islamic State" and these issues are presented as a common theme. I think that we have a disagreement here on the fundamentals of policy.  GregKaye 06:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So there is no policy that objects to having Islamic State in the infobox which happens to be the name they have designated to them selves and which has become the most common name as used by journalists, news agencies and news magazines. Your use of personal opinion veiled as other comments on this page is not helpful. I am not interested in your world view. Mbcap (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Other names such as ISIL and ISIS (as representative of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" presentation) remain in common use. Also, the people that "journalists, news agencies and news magazines" get their information from make comparatively rare use "Islamic State" and, on this basis, I think that it is a fair contention to say that various writers, typically working in Western city centers with potentially little contact with the Islamic world or Arabic communities, have got it wrong.  For instance the BBC will even go as far as to present, in an extensive and contextualized documentary, the recording of several people speaking in Arabic who clearly and consistently use the designation "daesh" and will add the subtitles as ".. IS .."  See: World's Richest Terror Army.
 * This is far from just being me making such name objections with other editors making name objection such as against the use of the preferred name of a terrorist group. Even within the context of the, I contest, questionable and non representative practice within various reporting of "journalists, news agencies and news magazines", the name is frequently given qualification such as "so-called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group".  GregKaye 06:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Greg Seems like you are going of on a tangent about journalistic ethics and fair contentions. If you are upset about the name reliable sources have decided to use, this is not the place to do it. The point is North Korea's page, has, "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", in the infobox. So exactly why is it that you are opposed to having "Islamic State" in the infobox? Mbcap (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The central issue here is Wikipedia's presentation of the group. The same issues apply here as with the article title.  In our description of "reliable secondary sources", in this case, I dispute the applicability of the first two words.  We call them reliable and yet, when the majority of the sources use other terminologies, they are failing to report directly.  In effect it is a primary role they take.  They are not reporting but are presenting the results of their own, arguably, subjectively determined opinions.
 * Why do you think that I am upset. I am not the one resorting to uncivil "don't give a shit" type comments.  Islam is the second largest religion in the world.  I certainly think that we should "give a shit" about the predominant views of its membership.  GregKaye 06:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox is a separate issue from the article name though. Currently the infobox asserts the group's official name is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, however this is demonstrably untrue, as the group released a statement from it's official spokesman stating "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".
 * Incidentally, the Arabic Wikipedia page refers to the group as Islamic State in it's infobox official name, and as Islamic State Group (Daesh) in the article title. Gazkthul (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye is using, direct quote: "we should "give a shit" about the predominant views of its membership" with regards to a religion as a basis for editing an encyclopaedia. Sad that people want to edit an encyclopaedia based on religious views and that Wikipedia allows this sort of tampering.  I think it is terrible this sort of tampering allows the infobox to display false information.  XavierItzm (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very said indeed and the consequences for this page are quite evident. Mbcap (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg I will ask for the fourth time, where is the policy that you refer to when you said, "Policy related to the coherent presentation of content is for the title in the infobox to reflect the article title." Can you provide a direct link to the policy page. Mbcap (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * XavierItzm as you will realize my "we should "give a shit" comment 06:08, 21 July 2015 came in the context of three "don't give a shit" comments by Mbcap at 04:36, 17 July 2015, 05:28, 17 July 2015 and 05:50, 17 July 2015.
 * Mbcap, as I have already openly admitted in regard to generalities that: "As far as policy and guidance are concerned,... "A standard default for infobox titles is to use the article title and this is specifically mentioned in parallel templates." You are right in that this is as far as written policy goes. Practice within Wikipedia is a different matter."
 * I have also referred to the guidance at "Template:Infobox_country where it says to use the "Formal or official full name of the country in English" regarding which I think editor RGloucester, in an edit at 02:23, 21 July 2015, has rightly questioned the official nature of the group.  Formal agencies typically refer to the group as ISIL.
 * Added to this I can add that Template:Infobox war faction confirms this view in saying that the name to be used should be "the formal name of the faction". GregKaye 16:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is terrible that GregKaye thinks Wikipedia should be edited according to "the predominant views of its membership" with regard to a particular religion. Since when do religions have veto power over encyclopaedic material?  Can wikipedia edits made with such a biased perspective?  Full quote by GregKaye, for the avoidance of doubt: "Islam is the second largest religion in the world.  I certainly think that we should "give a shit" about the predominant views of its membership.  GregKaye 06:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)" XavierItzm (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm, Please do not attempt to polarize discussion. Clearly within Wikipedia no single argument can conclude discussion but all valid arguments, such as those based on NPOV, can be fairly presented and can be considered by editors in making editorial decisions.  I object to a minority and extremist group from within a single branch of Islam literally presenting ownership issues on the whole of issues.  The thing that I think has been terrible here is the consistent attempt to close down legitimate points of discussion.
 * As demonstrated in my quotes above other editors have presented similar arguments and these arguments, amongst others, have consistently carried.
 * No Wikipedia edit can be made from a biased perspective but, as relevant, a range of perspectives should be rightly considered in the development of appropriate content.
 * I do not remember you ever quoting me before. To what extent is your quotation now to do with my repetition of Mbcap's "give a shit" references?  GregKaye 04:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bottom line, Wikipedia editors are getting away with this sort of admission of editing based on the beliefs of the adherents of a religion: full quote by GregKaye: "Islam is the second largest religion in the world. I certainly think that we should "give a shit" about the predominant views of its membership.  GregKaye 06:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)"" XavierItzm (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will repeat my question in response to your continued WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. "To what extent is your quotation now to do with my repetition of Mbcap's "give a shit" references?"
 * As you are again quoting this I'll also ask you a second question. Please reply.  Do you think that we should not give a shit about the predominant views and recorded reactions amongst the membership of the second largest religion in the world and in relation to a comparatively small number of people that are mainly involved in the control of territory in Iraq and Syria?
 * Bottom line is that we edit according to policy. Template:Infobox war faction indicates that the name to be used should be "the formal name of the faction" which, according to international views, is in line with the current title.  WP:NPOV indicates that we present a neutral point of view and, while we present a contextualized title that includes the wording "Islamic State ..." we do not condone a title that supports their claim (within the context that they suicide bomb Mosques and fight Islam based groups) that they are the state for all Islam.  GregKaye 17:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not encyclopaedic to bias articles according to what members of religions wish to believe. User  GregKaye continues to advocate that Wikipedia should be written based on religious views, and now he writes:  "Do you think that we should not give a shit about the predominant views and recorded reactions amongst the membership of the second largest religion in the world" (quoted from  GregKaye 17:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)).  It is nothing short of amazing that Wikipedia is blasé about such overt bias. XavierItzm (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing. XavierItzm Please try to consider views on neutrality.  You have spammed these pages with selected references that have favoured the use of the groups self designation over the widely used designations used internationally. You have also made false claims about my corrective presentation on the way this group is presented in other Wikipedias.  I find it astounding that you chose to talk here about bias.  I certainly no reason why Wikipedia should be in any way "blasé about" your actions in such cases.
 * All of my arguments, I believe, have been fairly presented. In any discussion arguments on any side can be fairly presented.  If you think you have an argument then you can fairly present that and I can do likewise.  Please read WP:CONSENSUS.  GregKaye 10:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some dancing about the fact that "unbiased" editors are advocating this wikipedia article be written using religious viewpoints, and I quote: "Do you think that we should not give a shit about the predominant views and recorded reactions amongst the membership of the second largest religion in the world" (quoted from GregKaye 17:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC))." Incredible.  XavierItzm (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Talking about the infobox, I read: "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, /ˈaɪsɨs/)". Why is it given a wrong pronunciation? That's the English pronunciation of "ISIS", not "ISIL" as shown. 80.180.75.2 (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: infobox country?

 * Reinstating template for closure by admin as this needs to be addressed formally. [EDIT] Removed by Legobot . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Should article continue to use infobox country? G8j!qKb (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No the war faction infobox is better, neutral, less controversial. Also see above subsection on this same topic. Khestwol (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How to establish consensus for so? recent change to infobox war faction reverted....G8j!qKb (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, it may be helpful for someone to compare and contrast the differences between the two. The presentations of the templates do not declare "this template relates to a country" or "this template relates to a war faction".  The last I knew from talk page discussion was that the article used Template:Infobox geopolitical organization which was used in November 2014 as here.  Before this we used two infoboxes as here.  GregKaye 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox country: The Template:Infobox war faction template matches the article better than any other similar templates. Greg would better note that the parameters used in Template:Infobox geopolitical organization or the in the infobox country are not in accordance with such a militant group and suggest that there's really a country being introduced. Mhhossein (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On a historical perspective, maybe we are seeing a new country being introduced or whatever it is that ISIL perceives itself to be. In the here and now, which is your context, I agree that introduction as a country is, at the very least, premature.  GregKaye 03:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose When the territory held by ISIS cannot even be labeled a "declared state", then it is certainly not a state. There are two ways of defining a "declared state" (I'm copying this from Wikipedia):
 * The declarative theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: (1) a defined territory, (2) a permanent population, (3) a government, and (4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to the declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. By contrast, the constitutive theory defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as such by another state that is already a member of the international community.
 * ISIS territory meets neither of the two theories' criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment (May change opinion later). There are really two issues here, one is whether IS is a State, and the other is which info box is actually better. On if IS is a state: IS is not on List_of_states_with_limited_recognition due to this section which states entities fighting civil wars cannot be counted. Banak (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. IS does not have a defined territory or population and while there are reports about de facto state-like structures in IS-controlled areas, they are not (yet) stable. The infobox country is therefore not applicable or helpful. Infobox war faction would be much more appropriate. --RJFF (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ISIL is mainly not regarded as a state on a recognition and ability to interact with other states basis - there potentially being a bit of a problem here as it does not recognise the validity of any state.
 * It may be challenging to compare and contrast but I think that there are a number of recognized and partly recognized states have less than ordered state like structures while, arguably, large armies like those of China, Russia, the UK and the US have, to an extent, their own relatively advanced "state like structures". GregKaye 17:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a country. If this organization ever becomes a recognized country, the infobox can be quickly changed.  But I'm sure we all hope that will never happen. Andrew327 12:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Without commenting on whether or not IS is a state, the country infobox is the infobox that provides the reader with the best and most thorough information on the topic. Wikipedia is not the Westphalia Conference and use of the country infobox neither enforces, nor detracts, legitimacy from any entity. Our only concern should be readability. LavaBaron (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Far from it. The primary concerns here are notability and what third-party, reliable sources are saying. Then comes readability. ISIS is not a state in these terms and, Westphalia or not, Wikipedia is not supposed to list something, even indirectly, as a state when it's not. For clarity of text and readability, there are many styles of infobox available, such as, for example, Infobox organisation or Infobox political party. -The Gnome (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Use infobox war-faction My opinion holds that Template:Infobox war faction would be more consistent with other articles on similar groups. There are many groups which have to an extent gained control of territory, yet they aren't declared countries. For example, AQAP/Ansar al-Sharia taking over most of the Yemeni province of Abyan, establishing an Islamic Emirate and holding it for over a year. --Ritsaiph (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Infobox country can be used for an organisation that isn't a country, and in no way suggests to a readers that IS is state, as it doesn't display the name the template. It gives plenty of fields and is generally useful. If there's info in there we don't want then we can consider removing those fields. Infobox war faction would not be able to show much of the information the current infobox contains. Banak (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There are currently six editors including myself, who are opposed to using the Template:Infobox country and two who are in support. I'd like to remind everyone that the Template:Infobox war faction has been used in this article before with much of the same information co-opted from the Template:Infobox country, so the concern that information will be lost isn't much of an issue. --Ritsaiph (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No per 's points. ISIS/ISIL has been discussed extensively, including here, here, and here recently on the "List of states with limited recognition" article talk page, and consensus still stands that it does not meet declarative theory, and most certainly doesn't meet with anything suggesting it is a 'country'. I've seen no reliable sources to indicate any change since those discussions. Any change to the infobox to As it currently stands, use of 'infobox country' does contravene WP:NOR regardless of whether it can be seen by the reader or not. Any future developments are WP:CRYSTAL. As it stands, 'Infobox geopolitical organization' was, and continues to be used, for both Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. What is problematic is the co-opting of information in order to misrepresent the status as being recognised as a sovereign state. I'm open to discussing some of the alternative suggestions as to which other infoboxes are viable alternatives. If there are no satisfactory infoboxes, perhaps a dedicated template should be considered. Please note that Novorossiya (confederation) was prematurely created using 'infobox country' - and remains as such - despite the fact that the 'entity'/'project' became 'defunct/frozen' at the beginning of May, therefore I repeat: no predictions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC) [EDITED] --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, I think you misunderstand, the article has already infobox country as stated in the RFC. This isn't obvious from looking at the article. This is one of the points I made above: Infobox_war_faction and Infobox_country don't tell the reader which one you are using. I'm not sure NOR's application to covers the name of a template that is transcluded, rather I take the quote "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." to mean that material is only what the reader can see in the article. Unless there is something about the template infobox country that actually suggests the entity described by it is a country (beyond the name which isn't visible to the reader). I believe your argument is flawed. I believe templates are frequently used for things other than their name's sake. Banak (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the qualification, and for getting me back on track, . I've been leaping from articles on Kosovo, Ukraine, etc. for too long and somehow, by the time I'd read the various responses, ended up conflating issues even though I'd read the straight-forward RfC proposal! !


 * Nevertheless, there is a fundamental problem with the parameters unless 'infobox war faction' is put in place, or some other form of consensus use of a different infobox. As is expressed in my reworked !vote above, there are enough seriously disputed states to warrant creating a new infobox conveying NPOV parameters in order that the reader be able to discern between recognised sovereign states, de facto states, de jure states, and other flavours of states. It's understood that creating such a dedicated template is most certainly not going to be and easy task, but neither is substituting templates as solutions (because that's all we have to work with) is heavily prone to POV pushing in areas already under ARB sanctions for the amount of edit warring they continuously attract. Yes, "...templates are frequently used for things other than their name's sake" [sic], but that an expression of WP:SYNTH rather than best practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: the arguments both sides have presented here appear to be wholly political or based on taste. An infobox is merely a graphical representation of an article's most important facts, the type of which is determined by convenience and practicality. Different infoboxes might be used in articles that upon a first glance are counterintuitive, regardless of the infobox name; for instance, I've seen country infoboxes used for locations, or company infoboxes for charities. In deciding which infobox we should pertinently use, we should not be trying to make a political statement, but rather base our judgement on the practical aspects of why we need a certain infobox. That being said, all arguments presented hence have been of the "ISIS is/is not an official state" nature. The legal nature of the organisation is appropriately discussed in the article itself. That is not what the RfC is trying to ascertain, but rather should we use a country infobox for ISIS or shouldn't we, based on the pros and cons of doing so. Along similar lines as GregKaye postulated above, please present your suitable arguments for or against, so we can support of oppose them accordingly. What benefits do the respective infoboxes offer? Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FoCuSandLeArN This edit illustrates the differences between the two templates. infobox country infobox warfaction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Spellcast. I couldn't have said it better myself. None of the arguments presented here are new. The same arguements have been turned down in the past for the exact same reasons mentioned in the comment above. Now then, I have restored the infobox to the way it was. Now can everyone just please stop trying to change the type of the infobox? We use the country infobox for good reasons, and it has become frustrating to have to constantly restore the infobox. Because so many people edit this article on a daily basis, the infobox cannot simply be reverted. All corrections must be done manually, which means retyping the entire infobox each time someone messes with it. It is time consuming work, and it keeps me from working on other articles that need attention. It has become increasingly difficult to maintain a civil and positive attitude about this, so I must apologize if any of my recent comments seemed a bit harsh. I am at wit's end, so please, I'm begging you, leave the county infobox alone. Anasaitis (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Use country infobox - Both infoboxes are presenting the exact same information, but the only difference is the style of the templates and the order of the information. It's wrong to say that using the country infobox is somehow legitimising this entity. It doesn't matter what the title of the template is, the question is which one presents the information better stylistically. As pointed out above, you can compare the difference between the templates. Although both templates show the same information, the country infobox looks and feels much less bloated in its presentation. Spellcast (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment See this discussion Anasaitis, the overwhelming consensus has been that the Islamic State is not a country and therefore Infobox_country isn't appropriate and will not be used. 6 editors not including myself have voted against using the country infobox with three in favour. The discussion has now been going on for nearly 1 month, and has well and truly concluded. If you disagree, make your own discussion on the talk page as per WP:BRD. Otherwise stop reverting the infobox and defying the talk page. --Ritsaiph (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't just numbers but on discussion and looking at the actual validity of the arguments. As Focus said above, the arguments haven't been based on the merits of the templates themselves, but on the legality of ISIL as a state, which is a separate issue. For those wanting the war faction template, the core of their reason to me seems to be a political or emotional one in which they believe Wikipedia shouldn't dignify ISIL by presenting them as a so-called state by using the country infobox. According to the same logic, none of the articles at Category:Former unrecognized countries should be using the country infobox despite cases where they had de facto control of whatever territory they occupied. Being an unrecognised state is not a valid reason to not use the country infobox. The template title is just pure semantics and should be a complete non-issue. Spellcast (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, can people note WP:BRD is


 * 1) An essay, not a policy or a guideline
 * 2) Explicitly not meant to be used for edit warring. "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle"
 * 3) Intended to start discussion, which is already going on.
 * In addition, if you think there is an obvious consensus that is unlikely to change, consider asking for the RFC to be closed rather than stating such. People tend to believe their own case is stronger than it actually is, because they tend to believe it, whilst others may disagree. Having said that, can editors on both sides please stop edit warring and remember we have a 1RR which has resulted in a fair few blocks and bans? Banak (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to request this RfC and this ridiculous edit war be closed for good, before anymore innocent editors are blocked. I've read the history of this conflict, and a lot of people have been blocked in relation to this article. I believe one of the main reasons that more editors haven't joined this discussion is because of all the blocks and bans. Now, would someone be so kind as to tell me what to do to request this? I've never had to do this before, so I don't know what steps must be taken. I highly doubt this comment alone is sufficient. Anasaitis (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC) I see that that certain users are ignoring consensus and continuing this ridiculous edit war. I would like to emphasize that the consensus is to LEAVE THE INFOBOX AS IS (INFOBOX COUNTRY). The reason for this decision is the simple: the arguements for the war faction infobox are based on Semantics, bias, and opinion, and do not represent a valid arguement. For a more detailed explanation of said reasons, please refer to Spellcast's comment above. Consensus is NOT BASED SOLELY ON MAJORITY, which the war faction group may not clearly represent. Any evidence to the countrary appears to be due to the fact that many of the editors from the past discussions are either working on other projects, or have been blocked. Regardless of the reason, the fact of the matter is that the exact same arguements have been presented for a warfaction box multiple times before, and were rejected for the same reasons. None of the arguements presented here are new to the debate, having all been argued at least once before. So, please, don't go telling everyone there was a consensus for a war faction box when no such consensus has been reached. In closing, I would again like to apologize if anything in this comment appears harsh or offensive. That has never been my intention, and it never will be. Thank you. Anasaitis (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Just an update on the situation. The infobox will be restored tomorrow. I have already fixed it once today, so I will wait until the necessary 24 hours has passed before I restore the article, as policy dictates. If anyone wishes to fix it before then, feel free to do so. Anasaitis (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anasaitis I condemn both side's edit warring, and waiting till 24 hours is gaming the system. Please also stop your edit warring. Banak (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Banak I can't help but take offense at that. I hate this blasted edit war just as much as you, and I have no intention of "gaming the system". I am simply following the one revert per 24 hours rule for this article. I did not create that rule, nor do I like it, but nonetheless I respect the rules of this site. Do you honestly think I enjoy this? Do you think I take pleasure in the constant arguing, the bullying, the insults? What kind of sick person do you think I am? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but that touched a nerve. Please do not assume such things about me. I take no joy in this constant arguing. Anasaitis (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming anything like that, please don't put words into my mouth. You've said you're going to wait until 24 hours after your last revert to revert the same thing. This is for an edit war. The 1RR was put in place to avoid edit wars. Therefore you are going with the letter of the rule, though against the spirit.
 * From WP:3RR: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring."
 * From the profile of a blocked user:, which was put down as being for gaming the system by the blocking admin. Banak (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked. Why would you lie to me? Anasaitis (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you have been. Banak (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , please read comments thoroughly. Banak made it clear that s/he was presenting a quote from a blocked user's talk page in order that you understand what pre-emptive blocking means. You've been gaming the system by a sequence of edits just outside of the 24 period in order to avoid 1RR. You have made it clear via your actions that you intend to continue your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I've just reverted your latest revert. This is intentionally disruptive behaviour on your behalf and is not tolerated. Either you back down or you will end up being blocked. Stop disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point. You've been pointed towards policies and guidelines patiently, yet you're still playing at I don't understand. I honestly don't know how to make the problems with your behaviour clearer. Read the wikilinks I've provided carefully. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with above comment by Iryna Harpy) Can everyone please stop edit warring. Changing the template either way is edit warring, unless you are self reverting. Even if you think you are in the right, or only did it once. Even if you think you have a consensus or there isn't consensus for the other side. I realise at least one of you is currently unable to respond because of edit warring elsewhere.

That said, the following parts of edit summaries make absolutely no sense to me (but please do not non-self revert based on this fact, because that is edit warring):


 * "Rv Please stop this slow edit war. No such WP:CONSENSUS exist." Edit warring takes two sides, and the poster was being one of them by doing this. Also there has to be a consensus for a change, not there having to be a consensus for the old version to not change.


 * "Restoring the infobox to what was agreed upon.." The RFC hasn't finished, and I'm not sure we're going to have consensus. I think "what was agreed upon" is a bit of a leap.


 * "The majority opinion in RfC is for infobox warfaction. Please discuss on talk page before reverting" Wikipedia is not a democracy, majority opinion is not a consensus. As far as I can tell did not discuss on the talk page before this revert, whereas the user he reverted had.


 * "The country infobox is the consensus infobox" What consensus? The RFC is to get a consensus, and the RFC hasn't finished, with major points unanswered.


 * "..restore consensus version of infobox" As I said above, and had been said on this talk page, there was no consensus and the RfC hasn't finished.


 * "Changed info-box as per the consensus on the talk page." As I said, and previous edit summaries and comments have said, there was no consensus.

I've also commented on earlier ones, and I imagine you get the picture. So can we please stop edit warring with reasons that a) Are not grounded in policy and b) wouldn't justify edit warring even if they did?

Finally, can we have a neutral editor (preferably an uninvolved admin to avoid arguments) close this RfC already? Banak (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As you would have noticed, the RfC template has already been removed as having expired. The bulk of responses died down over a week ago and, agreed, the editor who initiated the RfC should have asked for a neutral admin to close it a few days ago (but is, as you've noted, otherwise engaged). Would you reinstate the RfC tag and ask for admin closure, or would you like me to do so? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed Legobot a RfC template, for some reason thought it was for an archived discussion. I'm not familiar with RfC tagging, could you please do so? Thanks, Banak (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. If their was no consensus, then why did you change the infobox? Before this mess started, it was a country infobox, not a war faction infobox. Shouldn't it be restored to the way it was? Anasaitis (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just self-reverted, . As Banak noted, I'm also culpable, for which I apologise to other editors. Note, however, that the long-standing WP:CONSENSUS version stood at "Infobox war faction" before you started edit warring the "Infobox country" in, which is precisely why this RfC was started. At this stage, however, I'm content to wait it out until a neutral admin evaluates the RfC (I've just submitted for the RfC to be closed independently). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

So it isn't closed. Blast it! I'm sick of this endless arguement! I guess my thanks was pre-mature. By the way, by consensus, I was referring to the way the infobox was left the last time this conflict flared up. Although this debate predates my time on Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure it was the country infobox. The debate is somewhere in the archives of this page, but it's so long I doubt I'd be able to find it again, Anasaitis (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Is ISIL a state?
It is very easy to say that ISIL is "a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate and Islamic state which is led by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria". But whether one agrees with its ideology or not, it is a state. The current description downplays that to the point of extinction. It is a state as much as Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, etc are states. I suggest instead "a caliphate and Islamic state which was created by a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group". ISIL has been functioning as a state for a couple of years now. When will the world accept that, like Communist-controlled China, love it or hate it, it is a state?122.59.140.215 (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 122.59.140.215 Are there any sources that say it is a state? Please could you provide them if it is the case. Mbcap (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bill Clinton says it's, "arguably the most interesting non-governmental organzation today." H. Humbert (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bill Clinton said "Arguably the most interesting non-governmental organzation today, which proves the importance of inclusion by its short-comings but is formidable, is ISIS". GregKaye 09:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we all agree to close this discussion because there simply is not a single source that says it is a state. Mbcap (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you need a single source that says it's a state? All you need is sources demonstrating their fulfillment of the characteristics of a state, or the lack of said sources. AudreyTruong (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute says that, to qualify as a state, recognition is part of the deal. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. You probably know more than me, so I'm not trying to question you, but just to play devil's advocate, the standard non-legal definition of the word doesn't include that nuance, and copied from the Wiki article on "state": "The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states." AudreyTruong (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * AudreyTruong I am sorry but there simply is no source to say ISIL is a state. We should have this conversation when and if that time arrives. Mbcap (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can assure you with absolute certainty that I do not know more than you!


 * The trouble I found—as did you, it seems—was the issue of recognition: some say that, if it looks and acts like a state, then it's a state; others throw in this extra requirement of recognition. And, of course, it's not loopy people who differ on this! I suppose one argument against Islamic State could be the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through war: Islamic State has conquered and claimed territory from the states of Iraq and Syria; but that means its territorial claims are inadmissible. But then does the notion of inadmissibility apply only to the acquisition of territory of one state by another? But then I believe there are counterexamples to applying the notion of admissibility so restrictively. But are they actually valid counterexamples? Enough of this ludicrous, ignorant speculation. Ah, the joys of having zero legal knowledge…


 * I presume a most important consideration is the definition used by the World Court, which is, after all, the supreme authority on international law in the world! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * All those considerations are all very well and good, but at the end of the day, why do we have to follow the definition of "state" in the more narrow context of modern international law, as opposed to its broad political/historical sense? Historians have been describing "states" formed through conquest all the way back to Sargon of Akkad, no? AudreyTruong (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I totally misread, or rather merely glanced at, your original "devil's advocate" reply. I've no objections to using the word state in its non-legal sense. Within the article, it's just a matter of what the RS say; but that's not telling you anything you don't already know, I'm sure. NYT posted an article on this yesterday, the extent to which IS is a state. My initial response here, which I deleted, was: "I reckon it is a state. Has courts, police, etc. I mean, no one recognises it, but that doesn't change the fact. Just because it's a ghastly place, doesn't change anything—North Korea is not a nice place, and what is the big difference between living in Saudi Arabia and IS? Indeed, as of last year, all twelve judges in Raqaa were Saudi!" --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm a total noob at Wikipeida, so I don't even know what the RS is. ^^ AudreyTruong (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * RS just stands for reliable source. Click here to see what counts as an RS and what doesn't. Shouldn't be any major surprises awaiting you. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thanks for the info. Well, if there are no sources indirectly demonstrating characteristics of a state of lack therof, then I agree with Mbcap that we can't say anything, though I am somewhat surprised that there has not been substantial information on how things are run in their territory from SOHR type sources. But then again, I don't know much about the whole thing anyway. AudreyTruong (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly it is not as a state long as Al-Shabaab in Somalia is not state either. It's a rebel, and plus, a terrorist group that doesn't occupy any fixed territory (their controlled territory is always changing from day to day, either if it is for the Syrian Kurds, Iraqi Kurds, Iraqi Army, Syrian Army, other fighters in Syria, etc. It can't even be compared to the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic, which control a fixed (so far) territory in what was considered as Eastern Ukraine, and now in what noone really knows well if it's still Ukraine or completely separate countries. There was no referendum, no elections, etc in the ISIS controlled territory, and everyone is claiming their territory. Certainly it's not a state. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an unrecognized state. A state doesn't need recognition to be classified as an unrecognized state. That's why they're called unrecognized states. This debate is getting us nowhere. I say we leave the infobox as it is, but add unrecognized state to the top of it, like what's been done on other articles. It is clearly a regime which rules it's controlled territory as a country and considers itself such. Like Somaliland. And just like Somaliland, no other nation recognizes ISIL as country. Thus, it is a de-facto state which is unrecognized as independent. It's that simple. Anasaitis (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Anasaitis, ISIL is not "just like Somaliland." ISIL is unlike any "unrecognized state" for the simple reason that the very theology underpinning ISIL not only predates the concept of the state, but also considers the implications of statehood akin to apostasy, or 'shirk' (polytheism). The reason recognition is an important (if seemingly legalistic) criterion for statehood, is due to the fact that statehood as we know it is generally seen as a result of the Treaty of Westphalia. This treaty came centuries after the Islamic scriptures from which ISIL claims its divine authority to exist and rule. Consider the issue of peace treaties and border recognition. For an ISIL caliph to have a peace treaty longer than ten years or recognise a state's borders is to recognise an authority other than God's. The same reasoning applies to United Nations membership: ISIL cannot, by its very nature, apply for U.N. membership, for the reason that its very raison d'etre rests on total allegiance to God. Anasaitis (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, why not delete the infoboxes for all the Caliphates as well? ISIL is a SELF-DECLARED CALIPHATE. A Caliphate is a form of state. So, apparently, not all forms of states are apostasy to them. Otherwise, they would not have declared a Caliphate. ISIL is a unrecognized Caliphate, and by extension, an unrecognized state. Anasaitis (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, if they believe all forms of state are apostasy, then why do they insist on being called the Islamic State? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasaitis (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)