Talk:Islamic State/Archive 8

Draft:2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker is created and ready to go however User talk:G S Palmer is wanting community consensus approval for this article to be included. I emailed the functionaries 2 days ago for their approval in publishing this draft but have not received a reply. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker.~Technophant (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy is now dead. Name is no longer withheld. JhonsJoe (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 ISIL beheading incidents. I requested a split.~Technophant (talk

) 03:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Technophant: I am unclear as to why you reverted my edit here. [8]. What is Gaz? and can you elaborate? Worldedixor (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to Gazkthul and the conversation below from his talk page which I've copied below:~Technophant (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Please, can you clarify in one concise and comprehensive response, after reading these RS [9] and [10] ?Worldedixor (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should use "later commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq" instead of ""later known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq" because the group did not refer to itself by this, it was just commonly used in western media.~Technophant (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point on what they called themselves. However, I am fully aware that not only western media, but globally in Arabic and other world media, by and large, also referred to them as "Tanzim al-Qaeda in Iraq". These are two of many Arabic and world

WP:RS[11] where "وانبثقت الدولة الاسلامية في الأصل من تنظيم القاعدة في العراق" translates to "The Islamic State originally emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq organization" and [12]. Feel free to verify and let's resolve this discussion based on logical agreement and reliable sources provided here and above. Worldedixor (talk

) 09:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In para 2 of "Name and name changes", Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn is translated as "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers". If "Qa'idat" means "al-Qaeda" (translated there as "the Base", which I understand is what "al-Qaeda" means) and the "Country of the Two Rivers" means Iraq (through which the Tigris and Euphrates run), then it is clear why the group was commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", and why the subsequent groups (Mujahideen Shura Council and the ISI) were also known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", given the close connections of all three with al-Qaeda at that time. -

talk

) 12:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I agree especially, that I could not find one flag or picture or video for just "تنظيم القاعدة في العراق". So, after due diligence, that settles it. Now, even though the flow of the article is not smooth, it is more accurate. This discussion is resolved and commonly stays. Worldedixor (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Have changed it to "commonly known as". That was my sentence (or rather my adjustment of Gazkthul's) and I know it doesn't flow very well, but at least it eliminated the contradiction between the Lead and the "Name and name changes" section. (See

talk

) 17:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Split section Involvement in Iraqi Insurgency to Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad revisions

I've edited the mass of stuff at Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad to remove redundancies and add the right content from here, and I think it now roughly stands on its own. There may be things missing or present that still need adjustment, but I think it is independent enough that you can start thinking about summary style on this end... checking carefully to make sure nothing's being lost. I am picturing that the oath of allegiance, death of Zarqawi, death of al-Masri, and repudiation by al-Qaeda are the main dividing lines that should be used to split the history into sections, each with its own article. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

As it was decided above there's a consensus to split the content of

1. Create a
   summary
   of the content in this article.
2. Look through the various revisions of Al-Qaeda in Iraq to find useful text to reuse.
3. Rewrite new lead.
4. Fact check.
5. Review all redirects to see that they go to the proper place.

Thanks for all your help. Keep up the good work!.~Technophant (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone has altered many - but not all - instances of "ISIS" to "ISIL" throughout the article, and has even altered quotations from citations, changing "ISIS" to "ISIL". Who did this? Such a large change should be brought to the Talk page for discussion and agreement first. The article is now a sad mess because of this. This article is getting from 60,000 to 160,000 hits a day at the moment. What impression is Wikipedia giving here? --

I went through with this diff using wikiEd search and replace function change most of the instances of ISIL to ISIS. Changing this term inside references can cause big problems with broken urls. Can somebody please search through the revision history and come up with list of diffs where ISIS was changed so that the can be scrutinized for any inadvertent changes in citations?~Technophant (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. Did you find out who had done this? --

talk

) 21:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the diff that changed ISIS to ISIL is here. I may have accidently changed some quotes from ISIL to ISIS which is a technical violation of our quotation principles. I agree it's a mess. The only thing I can think of is to print out all of revisions in color and compare them side to side. Or, or we copy the latest version into a sandbox, then revert to the last known good version, compare changes, then manually put back in the newer edits.~Technophant (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment the lettering "ISIL"/"isil" appears 34 times on the page.

The lettering "ISIS"/"isis" appears 277 times in the page (with a just a small fraction of this count applying within words like crisis")

This is grossly misrepresentative not least in terms of article title and translated text. This title is based on the previous Arabic name of ISIL/"ISIS" (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎). I'd appreciate the guidance of editors with better knowledge of Arabic than me. With the help of Google translate, it seems that a translation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is correct.[13] Google translate indicates 5 possible translations for "the Levant" (بلاد الشام, الشام, المشرق العربي, المشرق, الشرق الأدنى) and 4 possible translations for Syria (سوريا, سورية, السورية, السوري). That's two confirmations that "the Levant" is more accurate. Despite this it seemed that the term ISIS is being unfairly and inaccurately pushed. This includes a misrepresentative addition of a hatnote with links to disambiguation pages. This went against both alphabetical ordering and priority to presented a link to the

Isil.[14]

✍♪

03:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. The current consensus is that ISIS is the preferred abbreviation in keeping with

WP:COMMONNAME. Gazkthul (talk

) 04:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the editor feels strongly about this, he should start a separate discussion and attempt to persuade other editors that he is right. This page works by consensus. I am concerned about the potential changes to the footnotes. There are about 15 footnotes with "ISIL". Each needs to be gone through, since there could now be broken links and readers will not be able to read the citations. The responsible editor needs to check his changes that Technophant may have missed and restore the original versions of footnotes and quotations, to save the article. --

talk

) 06:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@

✍♪

08:09, 15 September 2014 UTC

Who are heavily involved in military conflict in Iraq and Syria. --

talk

) 17:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Can you please include diffs when discussing edits? It makes evaluating and dealing with the issues so much easier.~Technophant (talk

) 00:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I assumed everyone would know what was meant by "the flags". --

talk

) 11:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed "Global war on terrorism" from the second infobox, as "Participants in the Global War on Terrorism" suggests to me fighters against terrorism. (This has also been reverted.) From Wikipedia:

The

War on Terror

(WOT), also known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is a term which has been applied to an international military campaign that started after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

This resulted in an international military campaign to eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant organizations. The United States and many other NATO and non-NATO nations such as Pakistan participated in the conflict.[sic]

--

The article obviously needs a new title. It still carries the old and outdated title, so lets reach a consensus on that and change it already. I don't mind Islamic State (capital)...? --Midrashah (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was very clear that the name should be The Islamic State and the Islamic State in the middle of the sentence as it is what the group call itself. However, this [15] presents valid arguments as to why we should not use the Islamic State. I apologize for the confusion, but I feel I needed to bring all good arguments into the discussion. As of now, I am no longer supporting the Islamic State. Worldedixor (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That article is a brilliant commentary on the name problem that is troubling not only WP editors but the media in the West generally. Well done

talk

) 09:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For me the most important issue here is the urgent need to remove the old title. I dont mind it to be "The Islamic State" or "Islamic State", as long as we update it already. Lets get some consensus around here and move it to a new title --Midrashah (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Its long-winded but could the opener read:
The Islamic State (IS;

• "Formerly" is incomplete. Opposition exists to an acknowledgement of "Islamic State" not least in a fatwa issued by imams and scholars based in the UK [16]. Another form of wording may suit but there should be an acknowledgement that terms such as the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and the associated "DAʿESH" remain current both in the Arabic world and elsewhere. I proposed and used "previously self-described as" as
  text above

The use of current wording is not the topic of the thread and is not a valid reason to reject proposed change. The proposed first sentence is as complicated as the history of the organisation. It is quite representative.

✍♪

13:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is the vexed question that has troubled editors in this and the al-Baghdadi article: is it POV or NPOV to call the IS a caliphate and al-Baghdadi the caliph, when the legitimacy of these changes is so widely questioned in the Muslim world? I believe Wikipedia should not make judgments on events, but simply record them as facts. I can see there is another point of view, though, that doing so looks like endorsement.

Can someone explain - in simple language, please - why "previously calling itself" and " previously self-described as" is suitable wording? I miss the subtleties. I joke. I think the idea behind it could be better expressed. --

talk

) 18:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The history of this group is quite complex and to have it distilled into one paragraph in the Lead is a good idea, especially as three sections of the history, on Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn and the Mujahideen Shura Council, have now been moved and have articles of their own. Best to look at the article globally before making suggestions for changes. --

talk

) 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Re [17], this "non-scientific" poll was originated on Facebook, the propagated on a bunch of non-reliable, newly created websites and non-official Youtube channels. Does the simple fact that RT published it make it "well sourced content"? Worldedixor (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The "poll" is utterly ridiculous, and the edit should be reverted Gazkthul (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have always regarded

talk

) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I invite someone, preferably an admin, to help us find the exact provision in

WP:RS or another rule to support your POV that I personally support. Worldedixor (talk

) 23:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just the Lead in the Wiki article on

talk

) 00:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me get the ball rolling in this Rfc... content from

WP:RS I this article unless it is also supported by another reliable source. Anyone opposed to this? Worldedixor (talk

) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm for using RTV, with attribution. Its all propaganda to some degree or another, fellas.. -- Director (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)]

It should not be used, full stop, in my opinion. The Wiki article on RT demonstrates, with back-up citations from reliable sources, that many regard RT as a propaganda machine: "RT has been accused of providing

talk

) 07:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to disagree with this. So, unless someone who opposes comes up with a stronger argument than P123ct1's in the next few days, can we all have a consensus to treat RT as an unreliable source in this article and dismiss and remove content solely relying on RT's unreliable news, after making an effort to look for alternative reliable sources for the content to be deleted? Worldedixor (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Loads of discussion at RSN in the past about this source, eg [18], [19] and [20] all concluding no consensus. The key thing is I think who else has reported on this? If we can't find any reports on it in the usual media, then we shouldn't use it.

talk

) 10:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Before getting carried away with this, how noteworthy is this poll anyway? I agree with the first comment here from Gazkthul, tbh. --

talk

) 15:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the poll blurb. We seem to be heading towards consensus towards not accepting content based on RT unreliable news after making an effort to look for alternative reliable sources. Let's give it a few days more to hear opposing arguments. Worldedixor (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess based on all these arguments, Fox News and CNN aren't reliable sources either. They have about as much credibility as RT. RT being Russian isn't sufficient to disqualify it as a reliable source any more than CNN being American qualifies it as a RS. RT is a major multinational news agency; deal with it. 119.18.0.66 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw the acronym DAISH in another site and wanted to know what it stood for, so I came to Wikipedia.

All I get is a redirect. Usually, the reason for the redirect can be found somewhere in the article, but not this time.

If it deserves a redirect, it deserves an explanation, no?

--Mfwills (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

✍♪

12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done as: [21].

✍♪

15:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There is another hostage that is an American woman who can NOT be named due to privacy. On August 26, 2014, it was widely reported that ISIS demanded 6.6 million dollars in ransom for her.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/isis-demands-66m-ransom-26-year-american-woman/story?id=25127682

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/isis-ransom_n_5715461.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bkAfHTFl1s - "kidnapped a year ago while doing humanitarian aid work inside Syria" ISIS threatened execution of the woman unless they paid the ransom, or released a certain high profile prisoner. She was working at a hospital in the Syrian city of Aleppo. They demanded Aafia Siddiqui releaesed. The Sadiqqui family condemned the demands

one more ref:

http://abc13.com/news/isis-demands-$66m-ransom-for-26-year-old-american-woman/281509/MeropeRiddle (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MeropeRiddle Thanks for bringing this up. I've emailed Oversight member User:Callanecc regarding this.~Technophant (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:AUSC and was unable to help. I emailed the functionaries again regarding this issue.~Technophant (talk

) 18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, no article at all mentions the person's name, and I found no evidence of any publication what so ever releasing it. MeropeRiddle (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)