Talk:Islamic State/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

"Daash", "'Daʿesh" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article

I just did a search on ("داعش") OR (" الدولة الإسلامية‎"). That's "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" OR "Islamic State". "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" got a lot of coverage.

I am curious about the following extreme results:

• "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" as "داعش" gets "About 45,700,000 results"

(I am yet to find other meanings for "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh": https://translate.google.com/#ar/en/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4 )

• "Islamic State" as "الدولة الإسلامية‎" gets "About 9,830,000 results".

First I think we should decide on a prevalent use of one English representation of "داعش" and I propose "Daash"

• "Islamic State" AND Daash gets "About 1,210,000 results"
• "Islamic State" AND Daʿesh gets "About 62,800 results"
• "Islamic State" AND Daesh gets "About 219,000 results"

Second, I propose that "Daash", "Daʿesh" or "Daesh" should be given a far higher level of representation in the article.

Dāʿesh is currently mentioned twice; Daash does not appear; Daʿesh is mentioned once in the article and once in references; Daesh is mentioned once in the article and once in notes.

In this connection I also propose that the lead be changed perhaps as follows:

At the moment the lead reads: The Islamic State (IS); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/; Arabic acronym: داعش Dāʿesh)...

I propose: The Islamic State (IS); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام - Arabic acronym: داعش Dāʿish, DaashDaʿish)...

I do not think that "formerly" is sufficient. There is significant use of "Daash", "Daʿesh" or "Daesh" in Arabic sources while the United States and others make direct reference to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see why Daash needs a far higher level of representation in the article. Outlining the term in the lead and repeating it with spelling variations in the 'Name and Name changes' subsection should be more than sufficient. Gazkthul (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I might have missed some previous discussion, but shouldn't we be deciding this based on the MOS's guidelines about Arabic transliteration? "داعش" should appear as "Da`ish" throughout, no? Suomichris (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul:, I said "should be". Reason, its a term in prodigious use and this "should be" fairly reported. @Suomichris: in reflection of the high level of use in arabic, "Daash", "Daʿesh" or "Daesh" is widely reported in western media. In this regard I had assumed that WP:Use commonly recognisable names applies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents. The داعش acronym is correctly pronounced Da3esh, where 3 is the internet representation of the guttural sound that Arab speakers can pronounce like they do in the word 3ayn - eye-, and is correctly transliterated as Dāʿesh. Daash is incorrect but it may be used by uninformed persons. I have never heard anyone call them Daash. An analogy may be something like a Latin speaker trying to say "my son" and it comes out "mi zhon". Worldedixor (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you all decide on this time, it will be changed again by a new editor down the line, and the discussion will start again and perhaps another variant will be chosen, and so on. Have lost count of the variants on this acronym that have appeared in this article in just a few months. The beliefs in the infobox are ever-changing as well, and the titles of the infoboxes. Some Wikipedia articles are like an amoeba, and this is one of them. So much for solid information from Wikipedia. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it should stop us that other editors will change it later—there's a clear MOS guideline here, and if we can also get consensus here on the Talk page, anything that doesn't match those two things should be reverted. Worldedixor and I seem to be largely in agreement that this should be represented as "Daʿesh" (note that the transliteration guidelines have the kasra as a /i/, regardless of actual pronunciation, and not /e/). Also, Gregkaye, the guideline you point to about recognizable names is specifically for article titles. Suomichris (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TY Suomichris It is a good point about article titles and I have withdrawn my proposal for Daash above. The thing that was on my mind is that the the topic of Daʿesh/Daash might develop to a point where it warrants an article in its own right but this may be thinking too far ahead. Would people be in agreement on the consistent use of Daʿesh then?

I just did a search on "Islamic State" AND Dāʿesh which merely got "About 3,480 results".

with similar results for "Islamic State" AND Da3esh getting "About 3,180 results".

The search on Daʿesh got "About 62,800 results" and, if people are happy that this fits the MOS criteria, is this something could be used consistently.

On the same basis how does this amended the proposed opener as: The Islamic State (IS); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام - Arabic acronym: داعش  Daʿesh)...

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the general Wikipedia reader will be far less bothered by how it is spelled and pronounced than why it is used pejoratively, what its pejorative meaning is it carries and why it is disliked so much by ISIS! This remains a mystery despite Google searches. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dāʿesh as a word has no meaning in the Arabic language. Some uninformed journalists just parrot that it has a pejorative meaning.Worldedixor (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

RS sources back it up in "Name & name changes". Examine them. That's my last word on it. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1 more cent from moi... I am aware of MOS's guidelines and its common errors. However, Dāʿesh (not Dā'esh) can only be pronounced Daa3esh... Dāʿish may be pronounced Daa3eesh by most readers, which is wrong! Worldedixor (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor, you seem to talk a lot of cents and with value greater than you let on. I am guessing that Daʿesh is better than Daʿesh. Good enough as a compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you, Gregkaye. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose the consistent use of Daʿesh in article

Can we use a consistent spelling? Daʿesh? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be my vote, yes, as it conforms to the MOS. Suomichris (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Gregkaye and Suomichris as a good compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Suomichris: @Worldedixor: and others, I just looked back at some archived pages of this talk page and found: "DĀʻiSh". I know Worldedixor prefers the use of "e". How applicable is a regular presentation such as DAʻeSh or DAʿeSh (DAʻiSh or DAʿiSh) or similar in comparison to Daʿesh? I also wondered about a format such as XXʻXXx or XXʿXXx.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "i" can be mispronounced by many. I see no justification for a capital A in the middle of the word. Perhaps DAʿESH because its an acronym, but we would be given three Latin capital letters to one Arabic letter (ش). I think 'Daʿesh is the best compromise. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Another argument for a capitalisation of DAʿESH is a commonality with ISIL and ISIS. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As I predicted, this decision didn't last long. It has just been changed again! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And again. :{ --P123ct1 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Spain is supplying weapons to the Iraqi Army

According to this news article, Spain's contribution to the Coalition is to give weapons to the Iraqi Army, among other material, and the use of Spanish bases by NATO allies. Spain also may send advisors:

http://www.abc.es/internacional/20140924/abci-espana-coalicion-internacional-201409231842.html

I'd have updated the article myself, but I am not an expert on Wikipedia and I don't know how can I do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, according to that news Spain is ready to provide (sell) arms to Iraq. Good for them, in these times of crisis. As far as I know, there is no limitation for arms sales to Iraq, so they are only announcing themselves as a provider; that is not much of a help to the coalition indeed. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Designation as a terrorist organization

Someone has added France, Germany, Poland and Denmark to the countries which have designated ISIL as a terrorist organisation - in the Lead, though not in the infobox in section 3 - but this edit mysteriously does not appear in the Edit Summaries. I have had to remove these countries as no citations were provided. Could the editor provide citations in support of their edit, please? It would be best to put them here on the Talk page to be looked at first, as there has been quite a bit of difficulty over the suitability of citations for some of the countries in section 3. A designation of this kind is a formal government process and quite different from a country simply saying that it regards a group as terrorists. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Territory seized and controlled by ISIL

A tricky technical point has arisen. How is land seized and controlled by an unrecognised state described? The Islamic State is described as an "unrecognized state" in the Lead. How should the land it claims for its new caliphate be described? Is the correct description "occupied territory"? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The term "unrecognized state" is actually linked to Lists_of_active_separatist_movements and ISIL is on the List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_which_control_territory so "controlled" and "occupied" or "occupied territories" seems reasonable. ISIL is the largest rebel army controlling the largest geographic area and population, and the only one spanning two countries in the world right now (Eastern Ukraine being a possible exception). Perhaps we should change "unrecognized state" to something better - I've almost done that already but fear a revert war. ISIL is (correctly) not on the List_of_states_with_limited_recognition but the term unrecognized state suggests that they should be. I can't come up with a better term other than terrorist organization Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Reworking the Lead

(new heading to attract attention to this continuing discussion)

Legacypac So far the article has "ISIL-controlled territory". Probably safest to keep to that, I think, for consistency if nothing else. There was some discussion about "unrecognised state" edit some time back, which I don't remember, so probably best not to edit it without putting it to the Talk page first. I have no view on what it should be. It is already called a "terrorist organisation" in the Lead, of course. Btw, I was going to add a sentence before yours at the end of the Lead and run it into yours this way:

"There has been much debate worldwide about the legitimacy of these moves, and no government and very few Muslims will acknowledge the name "Islamic State" owing to its far-reaching political and religious authority implications."

I wanted to get in that there is this debate about the legitimacy of what ISIL has done. Is that okay by you? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like that change because unlike many things that are debated, all parties (except ISIL, a handful of terror groups that have pledged to them, and some media organizations) reject the name. I don't think your addition says anything more than what is there now, just with more words. I remain open to discussion though. Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Much of the widespread criticism of the group from Muslims and the international community is about the legitimacy of the Islamic State and the caliphate. Their rejection of the name "Islamic State" is a part of that wider criticism. Your wording covers the name rejection, mine shows what it stems from. Simples. But I'm not fussed, my edit can stay out. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see what you are driving at - maybe we can wordsmith something stronger to that point. There is plenty to criticise. Maybe the name issue should be a subheading along with beheadings and sexual assaults and kidnapping kids (which might be missing) etc. Might want to rename the section. In the lead we could say something like

"ISIL's very existence and nearly all its actions are viewed by the international community as a threat to peace and security. No government and very few Muslims will acknowledge the name "Islamic State" owing to its far-reaching political and religious authority implications." Someone else want to take a crack at this? The only thing they have done that anyone other than their terrorist brothers would approve of is fighting Assad. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That end para has been replaced by a wonderfully woolly one from an editor who is probably oblivious of this Talk page discussion. The sentence does not hang together properly and makes no logical sense. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya, I fixed it some, along with the first paragraph which someone unhelpfully again took out the self declared part. Below is where it stands at the moment. Maybe with a little more editing to the first and second paragraphs we can cut the last paragraph of the lead?

---

The self-declared Islamic State (IS; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), which previously called itself and is internationally known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIraq wa-al-Shām) and by the Arabic acronym Dāʻish (داعش), is an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist group active in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East. In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with territory in the Levant region, which includes Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.

The group has been described by the United Nations and the media as a terrorist group, and has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses.

(3 history paragraphs then)

Due to ISIL's claim that it holds a certain "supreme/ultimate" political and religious authority over all others, no government, and in fact very few Muslims worldwide will acknowledge the "Islamic State" name, or its apparent aspirations to such a domination over all others. Therefore Arab countries and Muslim media outlets typically tend to refer to the group simply as Da-ish or ISIS while the United Nations and nearly all Western nations use the acronym ISIL.

---

---

Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Lead as it stands up until the last para should be disturbed, as there is a flow there. More importantly, that last para, on criticism of the group's aspirations and its name, I think follows on smoothly from the para before about the establishment of the caliphate, since it is describing how the world has reacted to that event - it continues the chronological sequence. To work it in earlier wouldn't make sense, because the criticism follows that last event. In a way, the last para is "And this is what the world said", as in that game of "Consequences" if anyone remembers that!

So in other words, my view on the current shape of the Lead is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The real task is to fix that last paragraph. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Flames of War

I think the section "Propaganda and social media" should be updated with info about the hour-long ISIS' propaganda movie in English called "Flames of War", mentioning the English-speaking American-accented terrorist who narrates.

Sources:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/19/world/meast/isis-flames-of-war-video/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-release-flames-of-war-video-warning-obama-of-attacks-troops-could-face-in-iraq-9737621.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759299/ISIS-releases-Hollywood-style-propaganda-video-response-US-plans-deploy-troops-Iraq-threatening-fighting-just-begun.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762864/Does-ISIS-U-S-jihadist-ranks-Masked-man-American-accent-star-ISIS-latest-propaganda-film-Flames-War.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-releases-flames-war-blockbuster-style-propaganda-film-1466428

The full video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XZ3ovDxhw4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not done any personal work on section "Propaganda and social media" and think it would be worth considering similarities or differences between this video and those that have gone before. The beginning of the video places significant focus on "lies". Not mentioned here was the original excuse for the second invasion of Iraq being on the basis of "weapons of mass destruction". At the other extreme, even in Wikipedia, I felt the need to add this: Talk:Muslim#Honesty. I think truth and honesty, responsibility and the representation of identity can clearly all be casualties of both war and religion. I don't provisionally think that we should place too much focus on accusations but would prefer to support emphasis on representations of proven wrongs of any of the groups involved. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this Article

Dear All,

I have noticed some problems with this articles and think fixing them is important given the possible traffic this article may get as military action in Iraq and Syria escalates.

1) The time of events and history sections are confusing. These should be one section. 2) The group is not a "jihadist group". Jihad is a religious duty for muslims and this group is engaged in persecuting and murdering muslims as well as various non-muslim religious minorities. 3) The article is bias and furthers ISIS propaganda. Re-terming the article in terms of a movement is more appropriate. The group has labelled itself "Islamic State" to attempt to assert political and religious authority over all muslims. Wikipedia has no interest in supporting this assertion and doing so is biased and not via media. 4) The article is becoming far too long. There is a lot of interest on this at the moment and so a lot of editors, but there is too much content for this topic. It is not in the reader's interest for there to be a billion pages.

That is about it. Please try to address as may be the case. I cannot, since the article is "locked".

Regards, 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

131.217.255.4: Thank you for your comment. There is a proposal to reduce the size of the "History" section here and this will probably happen soon. I also have questioned why the 2014 timeline should be duplicated in this article, now that it has been transferred to a new article of its own here. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To 131.217.255.4: If you want to participate in editing this article (which is semi-protected), you should choose a user-id and password and register. After four days of editing, you will be allowed to edit semi-protected articles. I disagree with your desire to whitewash Islam by trying to claim that the actions of ISIL are contrary to the will of Muhammad as conveyed in the Qu'ran. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

131.217.255.4 I was particularly interested in what you said at: 2) "The group is not a "jihadist group"..." I am not sure of the extent to which the actions of the group can be justified under any interpretation of Jihad. See: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=2 for one article on "What Jihad IS NOT!" Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects descriptions by reliable sources. These sources describe claims and counter-claims; and we have both in the article. We don't do original research to single our sources that accord with our findings. I appreciate your point of view but we must defer to reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The idea of including the last 30 days of the 2014 timeline was my idea and is discussed above (#Timeline and History sections). The idea is to have about 30 days of the most recents events viewable here, however the information is actually in the timeline article, and clicking the edit tab opens an editing window for that article. I think the entire timeline (2003-2014) or just older timeline (2003-2013) should be also on split page as well with a link to it from this page. A proposal to reorder the sections is above (#Sequence of article sections) and there's another proposal to allow Ip users to edit the article with pending revisions (#Questioning semi-protected status) which can be closed and requested. As far as bias, I think there needs to be more information about the soft power campaign and local governance. I found an article here, which along with the Vice documentary gives a rare (albeit biased) view into what everyday life is like in occupied territory. ~Technophant (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that more info on governance would be desirable. I have put some in the Governance section and I see some is in the Guidelines for civilians section. I suggest moving the latter into the former. We use The Atlantic article in both sections. The sources have more details on governance. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this article? It is now being influenced too much by the personal views of editors. Bare facts are being twisted and magnified. I am not saying from bad motives. But neutrality is important in Wikipedia. I understand this is a common problem in Wikipedia. Fortunately, this page seems to have escaped it until recently. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist or similar in lead!?

In light of criticisms of Islamic authorities in regard to the groups activities I have swapped Sunni Jihadist for Sunni Insurgent in the lead. I certainly don't think it is fair just to declare them jihadist without citation and without statements regarding who says what. In what Islamically legitimate ways are the group "struggling" and should this label be placed on the groups scholars, the groups leadership, all the groups members? How do some of the groups more controversial actions fit in with the concept of Jihad?
Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Once again, Wikipedia should not judge these things. That is for historians and commentators, whose views can be reported in the right place ("Ideology and beliefs"). Wikipedia must adhere to NPOV, especially in the Lead. The subject you raise has been discussed on the Talk page more than once, for example here. The Lead should not be cluttered up with footnotes; editors have been trying to cut down on their number (see Talk page discussion #27). Footnotes are for the section where their jihadism is described, in the "Ideology and beliefs" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye:I think you are reading too much into the term Jihadist, reliable sources use it to describe Islamic State (as well many other organisations from al-Qaeda to the Taliban) therefore we do to. What is or isn't Islamically legitimate is not Wikipedia's place to decide. Gazkthul (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A google of ISIS jihadist gives 9.3 million hits. A google of ISIS insurgent gives 484,000 hits. Jihadist is used in a broad range of publications including The Guardian, CNN, the BBC, and the New York Times. From the context it is clearly used in the martial sense and not in a general sense of striving. Incidentally al-Qaeda jihadist gives 2 million and al-Qaeda insurgent gives 7 million while Boko Haram gives 3 million hits for both combinations. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. We use jihadist more often than insurgent. It is more specific than insurgent. And given the successful establishment of governance in eastern Syria and the possible establishment of rule over Western Iraq, ISIS has gone beyond the insurgent stage in some areas. The word jihadist better summarizes the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Insurgent is beginning to look outdated; events have moved on so fast since June. I agree that the Lead should use the term jihadist as that is how they are commonly described. Whether they can legitimately call themselves jihadists could be discussed in "Ideology and beliefs" - see my new outline for this section here. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In comparison the article on al-Qaeda states later in the lead that: "It operates as ... a radical Wahhabi Muslim movement calling for a strict interpretation of sharia law and jihad". If substantiated then it is certainly warranted to document any of Islamic State/..'s claims of being a jihadist group, its advocacies of jihad or anything that it actually does. Its also fair to report on interpretations of various outlets of it as being an jihadist group. However, when interpretations of Jihad vary, I don't think it right to directly label them as being jihadist. I don't believe the killing of innocents as being legitimately in tune with Islamic law or jihad and, if anything, we should quote experts on these matters. I agree with other editors that the word insurgent is outdated but think that value references to topics like Jihad need to be qualified. Several wordings can be used including "Sunni group" or "group predominantly composed of Sunni Muslims". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To Gregkaye: The problem is the definition of "innocents". People who you, I, and most others consider innocent are not considered innocent by strict Muslims because those innocents have rejected Allah as understood by the strict Muslims. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, with all due respect, I believe your objection to stating that ISIS is jihadist is because the converse doesn't hold. The converse would state that jihad must be what ISIS does and as you point out it is a much broader concept; even in the sense of "lessor jihad" most interpreters object to ISIS behavior. This problem is true for every categorization of ISIS. ISIS is Salafi (but not all Salafists are like ISIS). ISIS is Sunni (but the converse is obviously false). ISIS is Wahhabi influenced but so are others who reject ISIS. ISIS longs for a caliphate but so do others who reject self-appointed upstarts. You can put ISIS in many categories that they would share with others who reject and repudiate the path ISIS has taken. The sources overwhelmingly categorize ISIS as jihadist and I believe we must too. Obviously further qualification is absolutely required as we have an obligation to provide a full description. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs: I would like to see evidence that the imams and other muslims beheaded by ISIL were any less "strictly Muslim" than the murderers that killed them. Should we also call them Jihadist? Declaring ISIL to be Jihadist prior to a discussion on the topic is taking sides. There are many Muslims that fit the literal description of Jihad that would not kill journalists and civilians etc. In fact notable opposition exists.

3. By murdering prisoners of war, journalists and civilians, including mosque imams who refused to endorse their campaign, and by enslaving the women and children of their opponents, ISIS has violated international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions and conventions on slavery that everyone, including Muslims, have signed up to. God says in the Qur’an, “Believers, fulfil your covenants!” (5:1)

4. The IS persecution and massacres of Shia Muslims, Christians and Yazidis is abhorrent and opposed to Islamic teachings and the Islamic tolerance displayed by great empires such as the Mughals and Ottomans.

5. Based on all of the above: IS is a heretical, extremist organisation and it is religiously prohibited (haram) to support or join it; furthermore, it is an obligation on British Muslims to actively oppose its poisonous ideology, especially when this is promoted within Britain.

from: http://www.aobm.org/fatwa-on-the-so-called-islamic-state-formerly-islamic-state-in-iraq-syria/

The article's first paragraph described the group as "Jihadist" with the problem that the second paragraph then went on to presents descriptions of the group as being "a terrorist group" "designated as a foreign terrorist organization" that the "United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses".

Yes Jason from nyc, the point is that Jihad does represent a wider concept. The lead as it stood failed to represent it.

Readers would be forgiven in thinking, oh, so that's what Jihad is. The text of the lead was unacceptable in context that it is very possible for a reader to read just a portion of an article. We would be giving an inaccurate/incomplete view of the broad concept of Jihad.

"islamic state" "jihadist" gets "About 2,560,000 results"
"islamic state" "extremist" gets "About 2,890,000 results"

Claims of the group as being Jihadist or comments on references made in the media (and perhaps in other places) to the group as being Jihadist might well be placed with the groups declaration as being a caliphate as also mentioned in the lead.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just the nature of categorization. It’s epistemologically necessary that different concretes subsumed in a general category will be different. Saying that French are Europeans doesn’t mean that French are Greek or Estonians. The fact that all French are Europeans doesn’t mean that all Europeans are French. That's the converse. When stating the Europeans is the genus of French that doesn’t imply that this is the only way to embody that genus. This is just the nature of categorization. Sources overwhelmingly use “jihadist” as the genus for ISIS without implying that the term applies to others in the same way. We should follow the sources as Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Instead of "Sunni insurgents" one could say "jihadist extremists." This gives a differentia of extremists to distinguish ISIS jihadists from others. This would be an improvement even if the word "extremist" is vague. By the way I get five times more google hits of ISIS with jihadist than I get with ISIS and extremists. It's clear that jihadist is the descriptor of choice of reliable sources with other qualifiers depending on source. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done "jihadist extremist..." as per suggestion. This may concur with western sources but may follow a path of error.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad

"The two forms of Jihad in Islam are sometimes explained by apologists as follows:

• Lesser outer jihad (al-jihad al-asghar); a military struggle, i.e. a holy war
• Greater inner jihad (al-jihad al-akbar); the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires"

Militant claims of jihad have a theological context

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think the distinction in "jihadist extremists" will mean much to readers. To most people all these al-Qaeda-related groups are seen simply as "jihadists", their extremism being taken for granted. "Jihadist extremists" will probably look like a baffling tautology to them. The Lead is really not the place for hair-splitting of this kind. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy of letter sent to British Broadsheets and Reuters

Title: independent.co.uk comes first in integrity league table of UK broadsheets in the context of a brazen lack of neutrality by Reuters

The league table compared one weeks worth of usage of the terms "ISIL" and "ISIS" in comparison to usage of the "Islamic State" terminology rejected by Muslims, Arabs and the international community. The calculations used followed the formula: #uses of ISIL + #uses of ISIS : #uses of "Islamic State" for the period: "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" Summary of results: 1st independent.co.uk - gets score - 24 2nd thesundaytimes.co.uk - gets score - 4.3 3rd theguardian.com - gets score - 2.5 4th thetimes.co.uk - gets score - 2.3 5th ft.com - gets score - 2.2 6th telegraph.co.uk - gets score - 1.2 reuters.com - gets score - 0.07 The calculations did not consider the various uses of Daʿesh Source: telegraph.co.uk - gets score - 1.2:1 for 2,520 uses of ISIL + 352 uses of ISIS : 2,370 uses of "Islamic State" 2,520 + 352 / 2,370 = 1.211814345991561 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk%2F+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:telegraph.co.uk/ "ISIL" gets "About 2,520 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk%2F+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:telegraph.co.uk/ "ISIS" gets "About 352 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk%2F+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:telegraph.co.uk/ "Islamic State" gets "About 2,370 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" Source: ft.com - gets score - 2.2:1 for 6 uses of ISIL + 3,090 uses of ISIS : 1,390 uses of "Islamic State" 6 + 3,090 / 1,390 = 2.227338129496403 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aft.com+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:ft.com "ISIL" gets "6 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aft.com+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:ft.com "ISIS" gets "About 3,090 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aft.com+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:ft.com "Islamic State" gets "About 1,390 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" Source: thesundaytimes.co.uk - gets score - 4.3:1 for 0 uses of ISIL + 39 uses of ISIS : 9 uses of "Islamic State" 0 + 39 / 9 = 4.333333333333333 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athesundaytimes.co.uk+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:thesundaytimes.co.uk "ISIL" gets "0 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athesundaytimes.co.uk+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:thesundaytimes.co.uk "ISIS" gets "About 39 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athesundaytimes.co.uk+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:thesundaytimes.co.uk "Islamic State" gets "9 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" Source: theguardian.com - gets score - 2.5:1 for 205 uses of ISIL + 6,400 uses of ISIS : 2,630 uses of "Islamic State" 205 + 6,400 / 2,630 = 2.511406844106464 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atheguardian.com+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:theguardian.com "ISIL" gets "About 205 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atheguardian.com+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:theguardian.com "ISIS" gets "About 6,400 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athesundaytimes.co.uk+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:theguardian.com "Islamic State" gets "About 2,630 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" Source: independent.co.uk - gets score - 24:1 for 49 uses of ISIL + 3,610 uses of ISIS : 151 uses of "Islamic State" 49 + 3,610 / 151 = 24.2317880794702 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aindependent.co.uk+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:independent.co.uk "ISIL" gets "About 49 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aindependent.co.uk+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:independent.co.uk "ISIS" gets "About 3,610 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aindependent.co.uk+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:independent.co.uk "Islamic State" gets "About 151 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" Source: thetimes.co.uk - gets score - 2.3:1 for 4 uses of ISIL + 436 uses of ISIS : 187 uses of "Islamic State" 4 + 436 / 187 = 2.352941176470588 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athetimes.co.uk+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:thetimes.co.uk "ISIL" gets "4 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athetimes.co.uk+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:thetimes.co.uk "ISIS" gets "About 436 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athetimes.co.uk+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:thetimes.co.uk "Islamic State" gets "About 187 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" Source: reuters.com - gets score - 0.07:1 for 335 uses of ISIL + 1,490 uses of ISIS : 24,900 uses of "Islamic State" 335 + 1,490 / 24,900 = 0.0732931726907631 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Areuters.com+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:reuters.com "ISIL" gets "About 335 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Areuters.com+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:reuters.com "ISIS" gets "About 1,490 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:reuters.com "Islamic State" gets "About 24,900 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WD, Gregkaye. Those are exactly the kind of intra-RS results that I thought would be more helpful than random surveys by editors, to guage name usage. Who did this survey? You say "Copy of a letter", but I see no letter. The results are quite revealing, aren't they? Is it possible to do this for some American RSs? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done indeed - reuters.com the fount of news everywhere, has signed on to "Islamic State" regardless of what the UN or any country calls them. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I need to improve my letter writing skills. I did the searches, wrote a summary, looked up some addresses and sent it off. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! Can you do some for US RSs? These are the best kind of results to help guage usage. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

TY - I'm not familiar with the term - sounds good tho . Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC) @P123ct1:

Can anyone help with a personal question?

Videos and propaganda by Islamic extremists that I seen have tended to describe the United States as America. What are the ways/ is the way that the UK is described?

Thanks

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Map is misleading

Most of the big red splotch of Islamic State is empty desert controlled by no one. At most, ISIS/ISIL controls the cities/towns they occupy and the routes between the cities/towns. The area fully controlled by Islamic State (and the for that matter most formal governments in a desert region) would look more like a spider web. --Naaman Brown (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Note: map includes uninhabited areas" was added to partially address this. I don't believe it's technically feasible, or at least far more challenging, to create and update a map using the 'spiderweb' that Institute for Understanding War and others are using. Gazkthul (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If you were to modify the map, you should add another color for "no man's land (desert)". To be fair, that territory does not count for either side in the conflict. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Which part is Syria and which part is Iraq? That is a basic question any reader would want answered looking at this map. Why is this considered so unimportant? The maps have never shown borders. Why? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement that the "map includes uninhabited areas" is facile; nearly any map of anywhere in the world above the city level includes uninhabited areas of some kind, depending on the reader's interpretation of "uninhabited". I had no idea what the note meant to communicate until I read this talk page discussion. I recommend either re-wording the note or removing it outright. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it's ambiguous and unhelpful. The easiest fix might be to include the locations of cities so the sparseness of al-Anbar province will be more obvious. I'd also suggest replacing "uninhabited" with "uninhabitable". 136.159.160.242 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Uninhabitable" is not a bad idea, but I worry about quibbles about what that means. How about Note: shading includes large area of undefended desert. This includes several significant wording changes. I'm hoping "undefended" conveys the sense of "nodody gives a f***" what we're trying to find words for. It's not quite "unclaimed", but close. And by saying "shading" (not just "map") and "large areas", it's clear that the indicated sizes are misleading. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to bring this discussion to your attention which deals with the same question. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The war faction infobox is out of hand

There are two infoboxes at the start of the article, the first based on {{Infobox country}} and the second based on {{Infobox war faction}}

These pose several problems in their current form. I think the first 2 problems are very serious.

1. The war faction infobox has grown enormous in scope, covering at least 4 conflicts, and listing military and political opponents and allies all across the globe. It no longer summarizes useful information for the reader. It has instead become several lists with nothing but offsite references to explain it. A reader can no longer navigate it. How do they know whether an ally or opponent is political or military? How do they know whether an alliance existed in the current conflict, or in one of several previous conflicts? Some of the entries are not even mentioned in the body of the article.
2. They span many screenfuls down the right-hand size of the page. On mobile devices, they dominate the top of the article. Tablet and smartphone users have to scroll dozens of pages to get to the table of contents and the body of the article. Mobile readers may never have the patience to find the best work of this article's editors.
3. Editors are confronted with many pages of template code before they can find prose they can read or edit. This is a bad experience for new editors. Even though the page is semi-protected, we should still welcome potential new editors with something that is easy to edit.

I thing that the war faction template was originally designed to be useful to summarize a faction in a single conflict, rather than extend to the entire history of a political and military organization.

I suggest that we start working to fix it. Should we make a first step? Lets delete the second infobox, and work its contents into list sections in the article. (Some of these should eventually become prose sections, and perhaps even lists in themselves. Perhaps as a later step we can add a few more highlights to the main infobox, even if it means customizing the template for this article.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This sounds generally sound to me. The first template is a perhaps edited version of one of the templates found at: {{Infobox country}} and maybe there are extra categories there that can absorb some other information.

One difficulty for computer/ large screen users, is that there is a long lead and lengthening TOC while the first infobox is comparatively short. One of my earlier suggestions was for the content of the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead to be distributed into later text. This would give readers more immediate access to the TOC which would also have benefits for small screen users.

Alternatively, not all of the second box need be deleted. Sections are: active -dates; Ideology ...; Leaders ...; Headquarters .. ; Area of operation; Strength ...; part of al-Queda; Originated as ...; Allies ...; Opponents ...; Battles and wars ...;

Sections that I think would be worth moving include the last three (big sections). Other sections like Leaders are duplications of main article content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to check that information transfers well.

Iraq based opponents

Iraq

• Iraqi Armed Forces
• Iraqi Shia militias
• Iraqi Turkmen Front [1]

Sunni Iraqi Insurgents

• [[General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries[2][3]

Iraqi Kurdistan

It does and columns can be easily applied :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It must be borne in mind that the Lead to any article should be a summary of the article, which this Lead now is. If anything is removed from it, it will no longer be a summary. The Lead is of reasonable length for an article of this size. The problem here is the ridiculously long second infobox, not the Lead, and it is the second infobox that needs dealing with, not the Lead. Reshaping the article to suit the needs of mobile phone users is crazy. The best solution is obviously to give the second infobox information its own section, as suggested, perhaps as lists complete with its flags, or is there some WP policy/guidance that prevents it? Or look at the Syrian Civil War article to see how the same problem is dealt with there. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The TOC is collapsible, btw. --P123ct1 (talk)

 Done! at least to a point that gave me satisfaction :)
the TOC now reads:

11 Finances
12 Equipment
13 Support

13.1 Foreign fighters

13.2 Allies

14 Opposition

14.1 Front line opposition forces

14.2 Multinational coalition (US lead) opposition

Actions taken were: to move Equipment above Foreign fighters to link with Finances; to add title Support; to move Allies from infobox; to add title Opposition (used to be opponents but I wanted to counterpoint support); To change to title front line opposition forces from whatever it was and add Iraq, Syria and Lebanon listings here (Perhaps the Kurdish forces could be moved up to here); to move multinational yader yader title changing to opposition from opponents and inserting listings from infobox; placing lists in two column format. That's all folks. Feel free to edit away. :)

The infoboxes now neatly (just as I planned honest) reach down to just about the same depth in the page as the end of the TOC. (I still favour more editing out from both lead and infoboxes but not to the point of being that bothered). Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye After all your hard work I am now wondering about the wisdom of having the allies/opponents in a section so far away from the first page! I notice there is a lot of white space on the first page, in the TOC (s.2.2.1 could be two lines) and between the first infobox and the TOC. Could a single or double column with the allies/opponents be fitted in there? If you look at the first page of the Syrian Civil War article you will see the sort of thing I mean. If the only way would be by removing some of the Lead, please forget it, for as I said above I am very against that! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Wow, the Syrian.. page looks good. I really don't have an opinion on positioning and it wasn't that much work, just a few shifts about (but thanks also for your copy-editing). Split column infoboxes would be one option. The option of moving the info to a higher position also sounds great to me. Perhaps, as a section composed of names, it could even follow directly on from the names section - or perhaps follow History or Designation as a terrorist organization. I think the next three headings go well as a unit (Analysis, Ideology and beliefs and Goals) and they are followed by 7 Territorial claims, 8 Governance, 9 Human rights abuses. I'm not fussed on where to place the new insert so don't necessarily wait for my opinion.

Section headings of the moved content might read:

Allies and opposition

Allies

Opposition: based in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon

Opposition: multinational coalition (US-led)

That last section currently reads "Multinational coalition (US-led) opposition" but I wanted to get "opposition" either consistently at the beginning or end of the header.

The sub-heads represent the three double columned lists with the last list being the longest.

This "Opposition: multinational coalition (US-led)" section has further sub titles:

Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria, Supplying weapons to ground forces, Other State Opponents, Other Non-State Opponents, Iranian Kurdish fighters[335]

I think the section on Foreign fighters is best left as following the sections on Finance and Equipment as this typically deals with smaller scale gains rather than organisational support.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye So there is no way the information could be put in a double/single column beside the other infobox as suggested, then? That would be preferable. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought perhaps after names but I've got no strong opinion. Suggestions welcome from all. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it looks good as it currently stands. Gazkthul (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

TY. An advantage of current configuration is a connection between of section "Foreign fighters" and "Allies" which was my original motivation. However, P123ct1 is right to note that information has moved from the top of the article virtually to the bottom. The question relates to reader priorities, either to know how things got to the current situation or to know how that situation currently stands. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the section up to come after "Designation as a terrorist organization" as a more appropriate place for it. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One the of problems is that with the mobile view current/old mobile view has the subheading "As Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Mujahideen Shura Council (1999–2006)" being way too long, which forces the width of the TOC to be too wide to fit side by side with the infoboxes. I tried adding {TOC limit|2} which limits the Table of Contents to only headings that have "==" level, however there's a problem with how this works with Common.css and does not change the mobile view. So I shorten the heading to "Early incarnations (1999–2006)" and now the TOC fits side-by-side with the infoboxes as seen here. The ideal solution would be to limit the mobile view to only the first level headers, but how? The help desk might be able to help.~Technophant (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw that there was an issue with not being able to set the {{TOC limit}} in mobile view so I posted it the Village pump and created a bug report. If we can set the mobile TOC limit to 2 (only == level headers) then it will create a slimmer shorter mobile TOC. ~Technophant (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State"

"Islamic State" is the morally corrupt name of a morally corrupt group. It has all the ambiguity of stating "Government" or similar while suggesting a large yet specific sphere of influence.

• ISIL gets "About 28,000,000 results" with results including those of the likes of Intersil Corp.
• ISIS gets "About 227,000,000 results" note that this will include a number of references to ancient Egyptian religion and a significant number of other organisations and people etc. as partly referenced at Isis (disambiguation). There is also a potential issue here in that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is less accurate than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but the article currently makes reference to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"

Curiously:

• ISIS got "About 62,100,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

• ISIS got "About 1,380,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Its still a lot of hits.

• "Islamic State" gets "About 59,800,000 results"
• "Islamic State" got "About 18,700,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

• "Islamic State" got "About 3,460,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Another repeatedly mentioned problem with the the groups self-designated title is that there is already a Wikipedia article on Islamic state. I have mentioned a potential but personally unfavoured use of Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) which also has the advantages of avoiding the arrogant ambiguity of the self-edited title. Islamic State (group) provides zero disambiguation from other Islamic States that have either come before or which may appear in the future. That title may have use in the context of a news outlet dealing solely with current events but it has no place in an encyclopaedia.

Acronym title formats work for in connection to articles such as: BBC, HIV/AIDS, IBM, NATO, and a wide range of others. The format can work here. Arabic and Muslim communities reject the use of "Islamic State". WP:COMMONNAME indicates that: Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.

• site:www.nytimes.com/ "ISIS" gets "About 220,000 results"
• site:www.nytimes.com/ "Islamic State" gets "About 29,200 results"

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye Is this a new Talk section or a continuation of GraniteSand's that he opened? Probably best to avoid subsections in Talk discussions, I think. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The GraniteSand's thread is disjointed by use of the Sources subheading and I did what I thought best to preserve chronological continuity. I'll move: ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State" to a level 2 heading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 10:44, 2 October 2014

Yes, I guessed that is why you had done it! To continue, most of those statistics lump all sources together and it is only the RS sources that we are interested in when looking for the group's WP:COMMONNAME. Global stastistics of that kind won't help especially as ISIS and ISIL refer to other entities as well. Even statistics for "Islamic State" in an individual RS source are no good without a comparison with its use of "ISIS/ISIL". Can you find any more breakdowns for RSs of the kind you found for the NYT? An assessment of the group's common name has been attempted innumerable times on this Talk page in the last few months and each time failed miserably. A proper breakdown of individual RS sources would be needed to come to a sensible conclusion. So far in discussions it has been random sampling, anecdotal evidence and impressions none of which are satisfactory. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

GraniteSand, you were aware of the prevalence of the use of the names ISIL and ISIS as per information presented at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Alternative_name and this awareness is demonstrated by your 1 October edit of your thread at: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#How_much_longer_are_we_going_to_avoid_calling_the_Islamic_State_the_Islamic_State.3F. Never-the-less you still presented a single option title as at: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change. Are these not examples against WP:NPOV? Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're asking me. GraniteSand (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

GraniteSand, I made a statement. You are also well aware of previous statements statements made regarding the prevalence of the use of ISIL/ISIS. You also quoted a range of articles several of which did not even mention Islamic State in their titles some of which even made statements such as: 'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name. You know that RS use a variety of names and of the prevalence of the use of acronym based titles and yet you still presented the one sided: English language reliable sources using"Islamic State".

Its not good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP has a word for editors with an agenda. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye After all that verbiage I'm still unclear what your question is. @P123ct1 No need to be passive aggressive or snide. If you have an accusation to level then, by all means, do so. Still, I would suggest that it would behoove you to be more concise and unambiguous than you have so far. GraniteSand (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Manners forbade, but I will say it straight: I think you are a POV-pusher. Your examples were biased and selective and designed to put across a point of view which the evidence does not support. I bow out from this now. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

GraniteSand, You have everything you need to understand my meaning. You knew of the existence of multiple options and you presented one. This is not a balanced or fair approach to take. I don't know what word P123ct1 had in mind but I think that biased, selective and manipulative apply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye Wow, where to begin? We don't treat search engine results as a reliable source when extrapolating facts, especially when attempting to gauge the notability or veracity of subject or terms, across the project. Even if we did, your metrics are wrong. You're using search parameters more than a year outside the Islamic State's name change. Additionally terminology searched provide inherently unreliable results as ISIS and ISIL both contain "Islamic State" and many articles talking about the proper or preferred use of "Islamic State" include the former terms for context. These search results are categorically worthless.

Your objections to the title change based on existing articles is a technical issue easily fixed by disambiguation pages and is not an excuse to make a move otherwise compliant with policy. Your push for an acronym title is misguided and your corresponding search results for the NYT are as erroneous as the previous search results, for much the same reason. You'll notice that the overwhelming preponderance of sources using "ISIS" use so as a shorthand, only after identifying the group as it's full former name, in the lede. This is not true of your examples.

To reiterate the policy on Wikipedia article titles: "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." The subject has changed its name and the way in which we determine usage is by compiling reliable sources who have spoken on the subject since the name change. We don't use loose search results or complain about perceived moral slights, which brings me to my last point. You're leading objection to the use of "Islamic State" as being morally corrupt raises concerns about your paradigm in editing this article. Your angry and unsolicited characterization of the subject of the article as also being morally corrupt, while probably correct, also raises concerns about your state. Both suggest that, in this space, you may be driven more by animosity than a desire to build an article based our core policies. Combined with antagonistic declarations on your user page characterizing religion in general as being an inevitable contributor to insecurity, grief, and insanity leaves me in doubt that you can edit here fairly and without bias. You may want to consider recusing yourself, or even just taking a break, from editing here. GraniteSand (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Gregkaye has made a number of major, useful and objective edits to this page - more than most have in the past week. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Force for Good

I think Wikipedia could be a useful vehicle here, and maybe list some of the various international muslim communities that have condemned ISIS. For example, in the UK there is "not in my name" campaign by British Muslims. Perhaps this information could be placed near the top, so its prominent. This wouldn't be manipulative or untruthful, but it would be useful for people to have this information spelt out to them clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not an arm of the media or an information service. But a section dealing with criticisms of the Islamic State has already been proposed and this could go into that. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC) (See next section --P123ct1 (talk))

If I add this will it be considered breach of the 1RR? I don't f'ing understand how that procedure works. Could someone else add it in my name please. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To Why should I have a User Name?: If it has been at least 24 hours since you last edited the article, then you should feel free to edit it again. Even if your edit is construed as a reversion of someone else's edit, that would not be a violation of 1RR which limits you to one reversion per 24 hour period per affected article (i.e. articles on the Syrian civil war). JRSpriggs (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why should I have a User Name? On an earlier Talk page I drew up this guidance on what a revert is, as I think most of us have been baffled about this rule at some stage. Dougweller, the admin on this page, seems to have approved that list. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No I agree that its not an arm of the media etc, but I think its noteworthy to include that many Islamic organisations have condemned this action. The fact that it will also be of humanitarian benefit is just a very positive additional benefit of having such a section. Just without the criticism section, people reading up on ISIS may have the false conclusion that this is supported by the majority of Muslims, so information by omission of such a sensitive nature is all the more crucial in this instance - especially when it seems that a large part of ISIS campaign is to cause a Muslim/non-Muslim divide; would be a shame for wikipedia to play even a small role in propagating that :)

Thanks for the civilised discussions here btw - I've already had a mod that I fell out with on a previous article come to my page and lay down the law regarding this, so thankfully you guys are seeing the bigger picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

87.115.43.249 You will have seen I opened a new section (see next discussion) after your first comment, because I agree that the Muslim opposition to ISIL is a very important topic to cover. I foresee this new "Criticism" section will grow fast, now that Muslim communities and the international community are voicing their criticisms more and more loudly. Unfortunately, I cannot see where this new section could go in the article to give it more prominence. The history of the group and what is doing now naturally has to be covered first, including the human rights abuses, to explain the contents of the "Criticism" section. This is why it comes fairly low down in the article. There was certainly no intention to "bury" the information. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No that's excellent, and I don't think anyone was intentionally burying this information (sorry if I sounded accusatory at all - was not my intention!), I just felt it was an important inclusion for the purpose of balance which led onto the wider reasons I mentioned.. Thanks again for the discussion and the edit. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you weren't accusing, but I have been accused of it by another editor, hiding the controversy over the name. Nothing was further from my mind. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A good reason not to use Islamic State

According to this BBC article quoting a woman in Mosul "They will cut your tongue out even if you call them Isis - you have to say Islamic State." Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. Could you expand on that? GraniteSand (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Isis" in their minds means the pagan goddess. Nonsensical - but what do you expect from a bunch of mentally defective terrorists? HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(Pagan? That's POV. The Egyptian religion had a great belief in such concepts as "truth," "justice," and "order" Belief systems held that people would be judged according to the weighing of their souls. Modern religions typically say that people are judged according to adherence to a specific creed. For most people this means that, if you are born into the wrong family, you're screwed. The Egyptian belief may be considered to be relatively fair in comparison. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

One way of looking at this is that using "Islamic State" for ISIL bows to the desires of the terrorists. In examining COMMONNAME we need to look at what RS call it - and not just the news media headlines. (I continue to update this list)

UN - consistently uses ISIL in Security Council documents.

US - Govt and Obama consistently using ISIL. Extreme proof: http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/

Canada is using "The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL)" or just ISIL.http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2014/09/15a.aspx?lang=eng

AU PM Tony Abbott said at the UN Security council "To use this term [Islamic State] is to dignify a death cult; a death cult that, in declaring itself a caliphate, has declared war on the world," he told the Security Council. Perhaps the realisation is now dawning for all peoples, all cultures and all faiths that it can never be right to kill in the name of God. Countries do need to work together to defeat it because about 80 countries have citizens fighting with ISIL and every country is a potential target."

UK PM Cameron uses the term ISiL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4HDt9PUkeI

France using Daesh

EU The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has adopted a resolution to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, to establish peace and stability in conflict regions. http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/398838--pace-calls-for-governments-to-stand-up-against-isil

Russia Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has called for the involvement of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the campaign against the Takfiri ISIL terrorists operating inside Syria and neighboring Iraq. “Iran of course should be part of the efforts to fight ISIL, because Iran is a strong opponent of this group,” Lavrov said http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/09/28/380328/russia-urges-iran-role-against-isil/

Gulf/Arab states usually use Daesh from everything I've read.

That covers the major part of the English speaking world and a few other key players. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that any news organisation that has reporters in front-line regions of Iran, Iraq or Syria can necessarily be considered a reliable source. Sources continue to use a variety of references to the group but remember, this is a group that have been known for killing reporters and for killing people that make reference to Daesh and now ISIS as well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it not be a good idea to keep all discussion on this topic under one heading, instead of having it scattered about in different sections? It would make the discussion much easier to follow. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac Oh yes, you're right. All those governments utilize the alternate/outdated name. All those governments are also in direct and declared conflict with the Islamic State, a conflict that extends to naming conventions. Independent reliable sources such as the New York Times and the AP have both characterized the listed nations' naming conventions as part of a wider propaganda campaign. Note too that the official apolitical broadcast outlet of the United States uses their actual name "Islamic State" while the political arm of the US government uses "ISIL" which is rejected by independent sources. GraniteSand (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not an outdated name when it is commonly used to refer to the entity. For an older example Nazi_Party was not their official name, but kind of but not really an acronym. Same with Tory or Republican or KKK - not that these groups are related of course. And ISIL and ISIS are hardly rejected by independent sources. Lots of organizations like the UN Security Council and media worldwide use ISIL, even Fallon uses it. Legacypac (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change

The trend since the official name change has moved toward "Islamic State", the official name of the subject of the article. Here is a preliminary listing of English language reliable media sources who are using Islamic State. Feel free to add to the list as it inevitably grows. The dynamic nature of the subject, along with abiding by WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, is making the continued use of the outdated ISIS or ISIL increasingly untenable. GraniteSand (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the examples listed below are discussing the name, so cannot be used as examples of current usage. Samples need to be taken from regular RS reports on the activities of ISIS. I would imagine that most sources are still using "Islamic State" and "ISIS/ISIL" interchangeably. The Guardian article listed there, a regular report, not discussing name usage, has 29 instances of "ISIS" and 6 of "Islamic State". For as long as RS sources use both, "Islamic State" and "ISIS/ISIL", it won't be possible to say "Islamic State" is now the common name. Twitter and blogs, which appear in that list, are considered questionable sources by WP:RS. "Islamic State" is certainly not NPOV PC for some, which is exactly why there is all this reluctance to use plain "Islamic State" in the media and this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Without going against WP:NOTAFORUM, I still can't understand how calling them Islamic State (their name) gives them "legitimacy" and isn't NPOV, while calling them Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (their old name) doesn't. Gazkthul (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It can be looked at both ways. Calling them "Islamic State" in the article can be seen as NPOV because all that does is reflect what the group have renamed themselves as, i.e. a fact, and WP records facts. It can equally be seen as POV, because merely using the name in the article [my later additions] looks like endorsement of the highly-disputed legitimacy of the caliphate/Islamic State. The opposing viewpoints obviously account for why editors disagree so much over this, but as you say these are asides since this thread is about RS practice and this article reflecting it. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1 This paragraph is perplexing. That's exactly why they are reliable sources for common usage. These reliable sources are discussing the proper naming conventions of the subject of the article since its change and are agreeing upon "Islamic State". In an instance where the common name is not easily discerned because of the common interoperability then we establish there is no established common name and use what reliable sources tell us is the correct name, which the below sources assert is "Islamic State". Additionally, your use of "political correctness' as a litmus for usage here is extremely concerning and suggests that you are either wholly unfamiliar with our policies and mission or are editing here with an agenda not aligned with our mission. In fact it's reflective of much of the unnecessary and obstructive obfuscation surrounding this issue. GraniteSand (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You fail to grasp the simple point I was making about NPOV/POV (and being PC). It was a statement, not a view. Also, I did not like to say it when commenting on your examples, but I, too, thought they were biased. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I don't understand what you're saying. Still, I would like to know more about how you think Political Correctness fits into this discussion. Could you elaborate? GraniteSand (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

PC is not a "litmus" for anything and I did not suggest it was; again, I was simply making a statement. If you search "PC-ness" in these threads, you will see how I think it fits into the discussion. btw, I added a few words in my last main comment, which I hope makes my point clearer.  :) --P123ct1 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources

• Note most sources also take note of the political nature of the hesitancy to use the groups actual name.
• The New York Times
• BBC
• The Economist
• Reuters
• The Guardian
• The Washington Post
• The Associated Press --Adds qualifier "group" which is an excellent idea, i.e. Islamic State (group)
• NPR --Uses qualifier "self-declared" and ISIS for shorthand after the lede
• Washington Times
• International Business times --With qualifier (group)
• USA Today
• Voice of America and Foreign Policy Magazine

Even amongst these specific links:
BBC: "'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name"
The Economist - article title: The many names of ISIS (also known as IS, ISIL, SIC and Da'ish)
The Guardian - article title: US to directly arm Kurdish peshmerga forces in bid to thwart Isis offensive
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've read them. I fail to see where you're taking that, though. GraniteSand (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You have? You are quoting select references that clearly use references like ISIS; that can demonstrate the use of ISIS and not "Islamic State" in the title and that can state: 'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name. You know that RS use a variety of names yet you still present the single option, 'English language reliable sources using "Islamic State"'. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

First result in a search for Islamic State this AM is http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/01/islamic-state-language-isis - titled "Why there’s no such thing as Islamic State". Many other articles using the term similarly qualify the use. Counting results for "Islamic State" will include all results for spelled out ISIS/ISIL etc so don't assume that a count of search results = common name.Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, search results are inherently misleading and practically worthless in this context. We must assemble reliable sources speaking on the subject since the name change and determine common usage among those reliable sources. The list above demonstrates such sources doing just that. GraniteSand (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)