![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
All the major newspapers call it now "Islamic State": See Google News for Islamic State -- 2A01:E35:8B2F:7630:A1C3:E987:D9F:79D3 ( talk) 18:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against simply "Islamic State". There were plenty of alternatives also suggested but none of them came close to getting any sort of agreement. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant →
Islamic State – The last completed move request is at
[1] and was closed as no consensus. It is now over a month since that move request was raised people are making changes to the article that don't reflect the article title. Many sources still use the current name
[2] (although some of those use the new name but mention an old name) but many others use just "Islamic State".
[3] We need to come to some sort of decision even if it is to keep the current name. Please note that "The Islamic State" would need clear consensus among those reliable sources that use "Islamic State" and that translation issues do not apply, we go by what the English sources use.
Dougweller (
talk)
13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't follow the previous discussion and am confused by the wording of this one. Do you propose renaming Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to The Islamic State? The article's lead now begins: "The Islamic State (IS) … also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS)." All other things being equal, if The Islamic State is the group's official name, renaming our article would make sense. However, all other things are not equal. Last night at the White House, delivering a 1,332-word prepared statement explaining authorization of two operations in Iraq—targeted airstrikes and humanitarian airdrops—President Obama referred eight times to "the terrorist group ISIL" but not once to The Islamic State. Have the preponderance of reliable sources switched to The Islamic State? If you could somehow demonstrate that, your proposal would carry more weight. As is, it seems premature. Since POTUS hasn't adopted the change, we probably ought to wait until the sand stops shifting. JohnValeron ( talk) 17:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
As for "The Islamic State", the issue is WP:Commonname which is clear about this:"it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." And so far no one has come up with any arguments based on sources. Dougweller ( talk) 10:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about "Islamic State (organization)"? It's the true name without ambiguity with islamic state and it's OK with the reliable sources that use "Islamic State". In the French version we have switched to fr:État islamique (organisation).-- Monsieur Fou ( talk) 22:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
— and with the exception of The New York Times and Al Arabiya, they are all now calling ISIS either "Islamic State" or "the Islamic State", with a few of them using the new name and "ISIS". I can provide links if required, though they are easy to google. (None of them call it "The Islamic State", unless at the beginning of a sentence.) That is a big change from only three weeks ago, when most were mainly using "ISIS". I therefore think Islamic State (IS), without "the", should be the new title. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 12:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The official name is Islamic State, all other articles about an organization are named with their official name. For example, the article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't named Mormon Church.-- Monsieur Fou ( talk) 16:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Clodhopper Deluxe:Headlines are not written by the journalist who wrote the story. Your first link [14] says "He said the step was taken to defend U.S. personnel in the city of Irbil and protect religious minorities facing what he called a "potential act of genocide" from the Islamic State, the extremist group most recently known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." So it uses "Islamic State" making it clear it was ISIS. Your link to the Huffington Post [15] also calls it the "Islamic State". So does your Fox News link [16] "Obama announced action against the Islamic State". Dougweller ( talk) 20:37, 10 August 201 4 (UTC)
Clicked on the link and noted that this is not at the link List of states with limited recognition (although it was very briefly). It isn't sourced and appears to be original research. Please don't replace this without discussion. Start an RfC if you wish, this is a major claim and needs clear justification. Dougweller ( talk) 12:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Barzani: we are fighting a terrorist state not terrorist group. here 3bdulelah ( talk) 20:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I took a look at the Reliable Source Noticeboard for the latest discussion of this website as a source. It has been used in this article quite a bit. The consensus is: "it should be quoted with attribution" due to its potential POV issues here. ~ Technophant ( talk) 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
One of ISIS's names is the acronym, DAESH, which ISIS considers to be insulting (see "Name & name changes"). Does anyone know why? A curious reader (e.g. self) might want to know. What is DAESH an acronym of anyway? The US Department of State (see footnote #81) lists one of ISIS's names as "al-Dawla al-Islamiyya fi al-Iraq wa-sh-Sham" (it lists "Daesh" as well), so shouldn't the acronym be DAIISH, as other sources say? (e.g. Washington Post, footnote #79) -- P123ct1 ( talk) 20:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this should be in the article but at the very least useful for editors to know about and read in a reliable source. [17] Dougweller ( talk) 09:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I knew that ISIS was committing murder, but until last night's BBC report and this morning's somewhat briefer mention on NPR, I did not know the extent of what was going on. I will try to find journalistic reports that focus on numbers and those affected, but since it is this "serious" should the article have a section on this group's mass-murders? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This terrorist organization has no "official language". Terrorist organizations do not have an official language. They may have a common language (linguna franca) with which the militants can understand each other, and I doubt it is Arabic in this case. We all know that the militants of ISIS come from very different national and geographic backgrounds. I read somewhere of Australian presence for example. There are people of many nationalities, Indians, Pakistanis, Australians, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc. A third generation Australian muslim (of Indian, Indonesian, Arab or whatever origin) speaks in Arabic with the Pakistani or the Afghan? No Sir. They speak mostly English. (How could I know that? :-) I am making Original Research just as our absurd Infobox does, stating an "official language". Therefore I delete that so-called official language and will resist any attempt to put it back there without "multiple independent reliable sources". Thank you. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 08:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have added "citation needed" tags to the countries added to the list of those designating ISIS as a terrorist organization, as no citations were given when they were added. I have asked the editor to provide citations but there are none yet. I propose removing the countries from the list if none are provided soon. If there are any objections, please give them here. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 12:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I agree. I just searched for a statement by Amnesty and found nothing saying they call it terrorist. I'd say no more than 24 hours (less now(, they can always be replaced, just leave a list here of the ones removed. Dougweller ( talk) 14:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Have now removed the EU and countries with citation tags and Amnesty International from the Lead:-
This is a recent edit in the Lead [22]: " ISIS is known for its extreme and brutally harsh interpretation of the Islamic faith and sharia law and has a record of horrifying violence" (giving suitable citations) and then it goes on to give detail that I think is inappropriate for the Lead (the list of those ISIS persecute) and would be more suitable somewhere in the main article. That sentence with its intemperate language seems to me to flout NPOV outrageously. What do others think? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I will be re-formulating a discussion which I tried to begin before with no response: We have parallel articles on Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Persecution of Assyrians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The only ethno-religious groups persecuted by the ISIL in northern Iraq are not these two. There are also Turkmens and the Shabaks, who are also a Turkic people according to some sources, being persecuted. The majority of these two peoples are Shia Muslims (or seculars, as in the case of many Iraqi Turkmens). That is why the ISIL terrorists persecute them. Not to forget, please, that there are also many Sunni Muslims in northern Iraq (Arabs, Turkmens, Kurds) that are also secular and being persecuted. The ISIL is not a "Sunni Muslim" organization, it is a radical, armed organization that is "terrorizing" everybody who do not share and obey their extremist ways. There are many Sunni Muslims suffering this persecution (persecution is not only killing) in their daily lives in northern Iraq. We have to see this fact and not limit our "persecution" articles to the Assyrians and the Yazidis. These two are the only -non-Muslim groups there and our readers are going to think that we are only concerned for the non-Muslims. (If I were only a reader I would think so; but as I am also a Wikipedian I want to attract everybody's attention to this concern of mine.) Please, if we cannot find enough material for a "persecution article" for every ethno-religious group suffering from the ISIL's persecution, let us at least make a general article on " Religious persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Please participate in this discussion and/or help to begin that article directly. Thanks. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 06:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
First, I commend Peachster2 for being a useful contributor who adds well sourced content. His/her RT reliable source is sufficient for me. Live Leak cannot be used as a reliable source. I have used my 1RR. Can Peachster2 or someone who has not done 1RR or more today, remove the Live Link source? Thanks. Worldedixor ( talk) 23:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Do people think that [23] was a good revert? I'm willing to use my 1RR to restore it if that's what others want, but obviously if people think that material should not be in the article I don't want to put it back. Dougweller ( talk) 09:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In the best interest of improving WP, and before I say what I need to say, I want to verify who inserted ||cn|date=17 August 2014||
for the well-sourced content I added
16 August: The Islamic State massacred 80 Yazidis. 441 "The EU agreed to supply Kurdish forces with arms", citation needed and US military forces continued to attack Islamic State fighters in the area around Iraq’s crucial Mosul dam.[442]
noting that the reliable source 441 that I already provided in the same article and the same paragraph clearly says: "The EU agrees to supply Kurdish forces with arms" and there was no need neither for a cn request nor for another reliable source to support what was already well-sourced.
Worldedixor ( talk) 16:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a creeping use of YouTube as a source to back up edits in this article. How appropriate is this? There is even a YouTube clip cited which is spoken entirely in Arabic. How appropriate is that in the English Wikipedia? Fortunately I managed to find a written source to supplement that YouTube clip, guided by the text. This extra work shouldn't be necessary; edits and sources should be transparent. There are more and more citations of articles and news reports in Arabic as well, again not suitable for the English Wikipedia, whatever the subject matter is. A few are acceptable, but not as many as are being used now (see "References"). -- P123ct1 ( talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{admin help-helped}} on this page with {{admin help}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Indeed, P123ct1 has already admitted the mistake and apologised. No admin action is required here. Yunshui 雲 水 10:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that at least once per day someone goes through the article and makes all "BBC News" into links to " BBC News" and then someone goes through it and unlinks them all. Please stop. This is senseless and wasteful. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I read a sentence in the Lead, "Economic and political discrimination against Arab Iraqi Sunnis since the fall of the secular Saddam Hussein also helped it to gain support." Did that really happen? If not, the sentence should be changed to "Allegations of economic and political discrimination against Arab Iraqi Sunnis (as propaganda) since the fall of the secular Saddam Hussein also helped it to gain support." I am also reading in the newspapers and online news portals that the "ISIS" or "ISIL" is attracting a lot of Sunni muslims from all over the world, but I don't see that in this article. Why?–
Krish8 (
talk)
13:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please note that Krish8 is a sock, whose new sock name is Krishna39, who attempted an edit yesterday using all those docs as citations. They are both socks of Khabboos and should be ignored and reverted if they make an appearance in this article. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 14:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I submit here a proposed change to an entry in the timeline, removing a redundant footnote and moving another to a different position. (See main text for footnote details - providing them here creates footnotes that carry forward to subsequent entries on this page.)
Do you agree that this amendment can be made? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 10:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
According to this, IS's strength might be over 50 thousand! Is this figure confirmed by reliable sources? If it is, the infobox should be updated to reflect this. 94.253.204.194 ( talk) 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The map's current state imo suggests too strongly that the areas "claimed" by ISIL are actually part of it. I think the infobox map should only represent those areas in which ISIS actually has some control. The territorial claims should at best be shown in a map below, as they are rather irrelevant compared to the actual extent of the entity. I can introduce the changes myself, just looking to see if there's consensus. -- Director ( talk) 21:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Suggest that "Islamic State" should always be in quotation marks, since it is recognized as a 'state' by no other state. Sca ( talk) 16:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The name 'ISIL' or 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' has been condemned by two prominent Islamic religious leaders from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I believe that the wiki pages should be altered to reflect that the entire Muslim world condemns the use of the word 'Islamic' to describe this evil terrorist state. Ref http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/muslim-leader-condemns-islamic-state_n_5671572.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/saudi-arabia-grand-mufti-islamic-state-enemy_n_5690701.html. This entry should only refer to the 'self proclaimed' name and also reference that other Islamic countries, states and people refuse to recognize ISIL as an actual state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmd63 ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Quick close A move discussion was concluded today with no clear consensus amongst the variety of proposed titles. There is also no rational placed as part of this request.( non-admin closure) Labattblueboy ( talk) 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant →
Islamic State (organization) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here.
Panam2014 (
talk)
21:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The map grossly overestimates the extent of control the IS has. Many maps show that the IS controls a web like pattern of land and not the huge amount of territory shown in this article. http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/Lightbox/published/263/images/THUMB.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/isis-timeline-map/img/isis-control.jpg
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2014/06/12/320003_mainimg.jpg -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 02:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
An editor has removed these, citing MOS. According to MOS, they are acceptable when the subject is military conflict - see flag icons in infoboxes (2.1.2. para 2). The Syrian Civil War article contains a large number. Should they be restored? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
All the major newspapers call it now "Islamic State": See Google News for Islamic State -- 2A01:E35:8B2F:7630:A1C3:E987:D9F:79D3 ( talk) 18:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against simply "Islamic State". There were plenty of alternatives also suggested but none of them came close to getting any sort of agreement. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant →
Islamic State – The last completed move request is at
[1] and was closed as no consensus. It is now over a month since that move request was raised people are making changes to the article that don't reflect the article title. Many sources still use the current name
[2] (although some of those use the new name but mention an old name) but many others use just "Islamic State".
[3] We need to come to some sort of decision even if it is to keep the current name. Please note that "The Islamic State" would need clear consensus among those reliable sources that use "Islamic State" and that translation issues do not apply, we go by what the English sources use.
Dougweller (
talk)
13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't follow the previous discussion and am confused by the wording of this one. Do you propose renaming Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to The Islamic State? The article's lead now begins: "The Islamic State (IS) … also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS)." All other things being equal, if The Islamic State is the group's official name, renaming our article would make sense. However, all other things are not equal. Last night at the White House, delivering a 1,332-word prepared statement explaining authorization of two operations in Iraq—targeted airstrikes and humanitarian airdrops—President Obama referred eight times to "the terrorist group ISIL" but not once to The Islamic State. Have the preponderance of reliable sources switched to The Islamic State? If you could somehow demonstrate that, your proposal would carry more weight. As is, it seems premature. Since POTUS hasn't adopted the change, we probably ought to wait until the sand stops shifting. JohnValeron ( talk) 17:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
As for "The Islamic State", the issue is WP:Commonname which is clear about this:"it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." And so far no one has come up with any arguments based on sources. Dougweller ( talk) 10:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about "Islamic State (organization)"? It's the true name without ambiguity with islamic state and it's OK with the reliable sources that use "Islamic State". In the French version we have switched to fr:État islamique (organisation).-- Monsieur Fou ( talk) 22:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
— and with the exception of The New York Times and Al Arabiya, they are all now calling ISIS either "Islamic State" or "the Islamic State", with a few of them using the new name and "ISIS". I can provide links if required, though they are easy to google. (None of them call it "The Islamic State", unless at the beginning of a sentence.) That is a big change from only three weeks ago, when most were mainly using "ISIS". I therefore think Islamic State (IS), without "the", should be the new title. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 12:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The official name is Islamic State, all other articles about an organization are named with their official name. For example, the article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't named Mormon Church.-- Monsieur Fou ( talk) 16:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Clodhopper Deluxe:Headlines are not written by the journalist who wrote the story. Your first link [14] says "He said the step was taken to defend U.S. personnel in the city of Irbil and protect religious minorities facing what he called a "potential act of genocide" from the Islamic State, the extremist group most recently known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." So it uses "Islamic State" making it clear it was ISIS. Your link to the Huffington Post [15] also calls it the "Islamic State". So does your Fox News link [16] "Obama announced action against the Islamic State". Dougweller ( talk) 20:37, 10 August 201 4 (UTC)
Clicked on the link and noted that this is not at the link List of states with limited recognition (although it was very briefly). It isn't sourced and appears to be original research. Please don't replace this without discussion. Start an RfC if you wish, this is a major claim and needs clear justification. Dougweller ( talk) 12:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Barzani: we are fighting a terrorist state not terrorist group. here 3bdulelah ( talk) 20:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I took a look at the Reliable Source Noticeboard for the latest discussion of this website as a source. It has been used in this article quite a bit. The consensus is: "it should be quoted with attribution" due to its potential POV issues here. ~ Technophant ( talk) 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
One of ISIS's names is the acronym, DAESH, which ISIS considers to be insulting (see "Name & name changes"). Does anyone know why? A curious reader (e.g. self) might want to know. What is DAESH an acronym of anyway? The US Department of State (see footnote #81) lists one of ISIS's names as "al-Dawla al-Islamiyya fi al-Iraq wa-sh-Sham" (it lists "Daesh" as well), so shouldn't the acronym be DAIISH, as other sources say? (e.g. Washington Post, footnote #79) -- P123ct1 ( talk) 20:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this should be in the article but at the very least useful for editors to know about and read in a reliable source. [17] Dougweller ( talk) 09:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I knew that ISIS was committing murder, but until last night's BBC report and this morning's somewhat briefer mention on NPR, I did not know the extent of what was going on. I will try to find journalistic reports that focus on numbers and those affected, but since it is this "serious" should the article have a section on this group's mass-murders? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This terrorist organization has no "official language". Terrorist organizations do not have an official language. They may have a common language (linguna franca) with which the militants can understand each other, and I doubt it is Arabic in this case. We all know that the militants of ISIS come from very different national and geographic backgrounds. I read somewhere of Australian presence for example. There are people of many nationalities, Indians, Pakistanis, Australians, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc. A third generation Australian muslim (of Indian, Indonesian, Arab or whatever origin) speaks in Arabic with the Pakistani or the Afghan? No Sir. They speak mostly English. (How could I know that? :-) I am making Original Research just as our absurd Infobox does, stating an "official language". Therefore I delete that so-called official language and will resist any attempt to put it back there without "multiple independent reliable sources". Thank you. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 08:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have added "citation needed" tags to the countries added to the list of those designating ISIS as a terrorist organization, as no citations were given when they were added. I have asked the editor to provide citations but there are none yet. I propose removing the countries from the list if none are provided soon. If there are any objections, please give them here. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 12:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I agree. I just searched for a statement by Amnesty and found nothing saying they call it terrorist. I'd say no more than 24 hours (less now(, they can always be replaced, just leave a list here of the ones removed. Dougweller ( talk) 14:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Have now removed the EU and countries with citation tags and Amnesty International from the Lead:-
This is a recent edit in the Lead [22]: " ISIS is known for its extreme and brutally harsh interpretation of the Islamic faith and sharia law and has a record of horrifying violence" (giving suitable citations) and then it goes on to give detail that I think is inappropriate for the Lead (the list of those ISIS persecute) and would be more suitable somewhere in the main article. That sentence with its intemperate language seems to me to flout NPOV outrageously. What do others think? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I will be re-formulating a discussion which I tried to begin before with no response: We have parallel articles on Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Persecution of Assyrians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The only ethno-religious groups persecuted by the ISIL in northern Iraq are not these two. There are also Turkmens and the Shabaks, who are also a Turkic people according to some sources, being persecuted. The majority of these two peoples are Shia Muslims (or seculars, as in the case of many Iraqi Turkmens). That is why the ISIL terrorists persecute them. Not to forget, please, that there are also many Sunni Muslims in northern Iraq (Arabs, Turkmens, Kurds) that are also secular and being persecuted. The ISIL is not a "Sunni Muslim" organization, it is a radical, armed organization that is "terrorizing" everybody who do not share and obey their extremist ways. There are many Sunni Muslims suffering this persecution (persecution is not only killing) in their daily lives in northern Iraq. We have to see this fact and not limit our "persecution" articles to the Assyrians and the Yazidis. These two are the only -non-Muslim groups there and our readers are going to think that we are only concerned for the non-Muslims. (If I were only a reader I would think so; but as I am also a Wikipedian I want to attract everybody's attention to this concern of mine.) Please, if we cannot find enough material for a "persecution article" for every ethno-religious group suffering from the ISIL's persecution, let us at least make a general article on " Religious persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Please participate in this discussion and/or help to begin that article directly. Thanks. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 06:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
First, I commend Peachster2 for being a useful contributor who adds well sourced content. His/her RT reliable source is sufficient for me. Live Leak cannot be used as a reliable source. I have used my 1RR. Can Peachster2 or someone who has not done 1RR or more today, remove the Live Link source? Thanks. Worldedixor ( talk) 23:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Do people think that [23] was a good revert? I'm willing to use my 1RR to restore it if that's what others want, but obviously if people think that material should not be in the article I don't want to put it back. Dougweller ( talk) 09:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In the best interest of improving WP, and before I say what I need to say, I want to verify who inserted ||cn|date=17 August 2014||
for the well-sourced content I added
16 August: The Islamic State massacred 80 Yazidis. 441 "The EU agreed to supply Kurdish forces with arms", citation needed and US military forces continued to attack Islamic State fighters in the area around Iraq’s crucial Mosul dam.[442]
noting that the reliable source 441 that I already provided in the same article and the same paragraph clearly says: "The EU agrees to supply Kurdish forces with arms" and there was no need neither for a cn request nor for another reliable source to support what was already well-sourced.
Worldedixor ( talk) 16:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a creeping use of YouTube as a source to back up edits in this article. How appropriate is this? There is even a YouTube clip cited which is spoken entirely in Arabic. How appropriate is that in the English Wikipedia? Fortunately I managed to find a written source to supplement that YouTube clip, guided by the text. This extra work shouldn't be necessary; edits and sources should be transparent. There are more and more citations of articles and news reports in Arabic as well, again not suitable for the English Wikipedia, whatever the subject matter is. A few are acceptable, but not as many as are being used now (see "References"). -- P123ct1 ( talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{admin help-helped}} on this page with {{admin help}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Indeed, P123ct1 has already admitted the mistake and apologised. No admin action is required here. Yunshui 雲 水 10:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that at least once per day someone goes through the article and makes all "BBC News" into links to " BBC News" and then someone goes through it and unlinks them all. Please stop. This is senseless and wasteful. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I read a sentence in the Lead, "Economic and political discrimination against Arab Iraqi Sunnis since the fall of the secular Saddam Hussein also helped it to gain support." Did that really happen? If not, the sentence should be changed to "Allegations of economic and political discrimination against Arab Iraqi Sunnis (as propaganda) since the fall of the secular Saddam Hussein also helped it to gain support." I am also reading in the newspapers and online news portals that the "ISIS" or "ISIL" is attracting a lot of Sunni muslims from all over the world, but I don't see that in this article. Why?–
Krish8 (
talk)
13:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please note that Krish8 is a sock, whose new sock name is Krishna39, who attempted an edit yesterday using all those docs as citations. They are both socks of Khabboos and should be ignored and reverted if they make an appearance in this article. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 14:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I submit here a proposed change to an entry in the timeline, removing a redundant footnote and moving another to a different position. (See main text for footnote details - providing them here creates footnotes that carry forward to subsequent entries on this page.)
Do you agree that this amendment can be made? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 10:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
According to this, IS's strength might be over 50 thousand! Is this figure confirmed by reliable sources? If it is, the infobox should be updated to reflect this. 94.253.204.194 ( talk) 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The map's current state imo suggests too strongly that the areas "claimed" by ISIL are actually part of it. I think the infobox map should only represent those areas in which ISIS actually has some control. The territorial claims should at best be shown in a map below, as they are rather irrelevant compared to the actual extent of the entity. I can introduce the changes myself, just looking to see if there's consensus. -- Director ( talk) 21:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Suggest that "Islamic State" should always be in quotation marks, since it is recognized as a 'state' by no other state. Sca ( talk) 16:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The name 'ISIL' or 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' has been condemned by two prominent Islamic religious leaders from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I believe that the wiki pages should be altered to reflect that the entire Muslim world condemns the use of the word 'Islamic' to describe this evil terrorist state. Ref http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/muslim-leader-condemns-islamic-state_n_5671572.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/saudi-arabia-grand-mufti-islamic-state-enemy_n_5690701.html. This entry should only refer to the 'self proclaimed' name and also reference that other Islamic countries, states and people refuse to recognize ISIL as an actual state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmd63 ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Quick close A move discussion was concluded today with no clear consensus amongst the variety of proposed titles. There is also no rational placed as part of this request.( non-admin closure) Labattblueboy ( talk) 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant →
Islamic State (organization) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here.
Panam2014 (
talk)
21:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The map grossly overestimates the extent of control the IS has. Many maps show that the IS controls a web like pattern of land and not the huge amount of territory shown in this article. http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/Lightbox/published/263/images/THUMB.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/isis-timeline-map/img/isis-control.jpg
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2014/06/12/320003_mainimg.jpg -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 02:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
An editor has removed these, citing MOS. According to MOS, they are acceptable when the subject is military conflict - see flag icons in infoboxes (2.1.2. para 2). The Syrian Civil War article contains a large number. Should they be restored? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |