Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 44

Undue weight

There is an undue amount of weight given to the section called Views of ISIL as Islamic, verses the "Views of ISIL is un-Islamic" section. The vast, vast, majority of Muslims have renounced ISIL as un-Islamic. In fact, if we were to list every single renunciation of ISIL, this article would never end. The views of ISIL being "Islamic" should be briefly summarized, and the criticism of such views should be noted as well.VR talk 15:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've heard "not representative of Islam" or "a twisted version of Islam" much more than I've heard "not Islamic". In particular they appear to meet the 5 Sunni pillars of faith. I'd be interested to see what reliable sources say about it. Banak (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons you will see a lot more of "Not representative of Islam" than "Not Islamic" has to do with certain parts of their holy texts. I am not familliar with the actual text, but in the Open Letter to Baghdadi, which was written by what I believe are widely respected Islamic scholars, one of the first things they mention is "9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief." [1]. So it would make sense that there would not be a lot of official "They are not Muslims" type statements and there would instead be more "They are not representative of Muslims in general". I don't know how much that counts as a reliable source, but I figured I would mention it in case it has some value. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

Any Muslim can declare any other Muslim a disbeliever if they see a statement of disbelief. If someone says 'I don't believe in cutting the hand of the thief, even though I know its in the Qur'an commanded by Allah', they have left Islam as surely as if they said, 'I don't believe in Islam/I'm not a Muslim'. The so-called scholars in the 'letter to Baghdadi' are incorrect on this and many other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.186.112.132 (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Population of ISIS held territory

I know this has most likely already been asked, and I know this is opening a whole new can of worms, but is there any chance we could add the population of ISIL held territory? It would be useful if we started examining Islamic state as if they were an actual "state". Abattoir666 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This would require WP:CALC for which there are no reliable sources. Considering the outflux of refugees, it would be an exercise in WP:OR futility. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Not an actual state and with refugees, mass killings and shifting lines of control, plus varying degrees of control, its mighty difficult to figure out anything close to accurate. Legacypac (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Simply known as Islamic State?

Hello All, please do not refer to the organization called ISIS or ISIL, called by themselseves Daesh, as the Islamic State. Not only does this legitimize and credit them in an ironic way, but it also gives the wrong impression that they are an Islamic State, which they sure are not! Just because some irresponsible mainstream media are referring to them this way does not mean it is the right way to refer to them, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs to stay that way. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The group does not control the whole Syrian, Iraq or the Levant territory. So calling them ISIL or ISIS is not the correct way of calling the group, as stated above Islamic state is the most accurate of all of them names.08:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)117.211.98.83 (talk)
How they call themselves is irrelevant. It is also not relevant if they are actually a state. It only matters how majority of RS call them per WP:Common name. But Islamic state would not work here as a more general term that has been applied to a number of different objects, rather than this specific "state" formation. My very best wishes (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Make all the policy arguments you want in the RFC when one next comes up, which may be in quite a while because of the above proposed moratorium. Until another RFC the name of the page isn't changing. FYI the group doesn't call themself "Daesh", in fact they hate that acronym. Banak (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I argued that title should not be changed. My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That's redundant because there's not an RFC on it atm, so there's next to zero risk of them being called that though-out the article, or any discussion that could lead to that happening starting before this thread gets archived. If you're objecting to personal use of it on the talkpage, then I assure you if I use the name "Islamic State", then I do so as a proper noun, in much the same way that I do not believe the group "Golden Dawn" is actually a beautiful start of a new day, that "Al-Qaeda" is the a Foundation, that the "Real Irish Republican Army" is the Real representation of the IRA, or that someone called "Peter" is my rock etc. Banak (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, /ˈaɪsɪs/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham,[1] Daesh (داعش, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]), or simply Islamic State (IS),
to read:
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, /ˈaɪsɪs/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham,[1] Daesh (داعش, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]), or Islamic State (IS),
I think that this related to your query and certainly "ISIL", "ISIS" and "Daesh" are at least as simple as "Islamic State"
We used to use something like "self-declared as Islamic State". GregKaye 10:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Good points. Still "self-declared as Islamic State" is probably the most appropriate. -Dominator1453 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)~

Self declared needs to be in there. Legacypac (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Change page name from ISIL to Islamic State

The group doesn't like to be called ISIL or ISIS they'll cut out your tongue but simply the Islamic state because they control territories in place other than Iraq and the Levant.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29415302 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.228.2 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh so that's the reason for the page move. News results for the last month are:
"isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" gets About 17,100,000 raw results [1] while
"islamic state" gets just 1,270,000 results [2]
The BBC is no more a credible source than cnn, the New York Times or the Independent newspaper etc. and, I think in the context of wider Muslim, expert and other non and governmental opinions, their judgement can be questioned. GregKaye 11:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh! What they like or don't like does not matter here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I support the name change, Bruce Jenner asked his name to be changed to Caitlin Jenner, in the same way as the article points out Daesh wants to be called IS in English they control territories in Africa, Asia, Ukraine and elsewhere. They'll cut out your tongue because there exists IS controlled territory in other parts of the world. It's not upto us to call anybody by a name we like, that's against the rules of Wikipedia and violates the concept of Wikipedia neutrality. 117.203.107.133 (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Caitlin Jenner is a transwoman who now does not have the presence of y chromosomes in her body and who is regarded with use of the pronoun "her"
  2. She is pretty much universally known as Caitlin Jenner
  3. She does not claim religious authority over all Caitlin's. "Caitlin Jenner" is far from being a widely rejected or controversial name
  4. Please read WP p & g related to commonname and npov. Please do not try to twist rules for your own tendentious motives.
  5. If you have something to say consider saying it with something other than just using a briefly used IP. Wikipedia can do with the positive and contributions of regular and dedicated editors.
GregKaye 10:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
IS were the ones to change their name it wasn't president Obama who asked them to change their name. They control territories outside of syria so they renamed themselves to IS.107.161.168.55 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Greg Nice to see your chronic soapboxing has not faded. r.e "I think in the context of wider Muslim, expert and other non and governmental opinions, their judgement can be questioned." You want us to write articles based on the opinions of people rather than what sources say. As like before, other editors and IP's will trickle into this talk page and question why the page is not called Islamic State and the usual page owner(s) will again and again impede policy congruent actions which need to be taken. They will also wave the "no consensus flag" but fail to add up all these singular editors/ips who raise the issue again and again and again. Nice Mbcap (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap Nice to see that your manipulative rhetoric has not faded.
  • Fact, the BBC is only one of many, many news outlets.
  • Fact, most news outlets make predominant use the designations for the group, "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh".
  • Fact even the BBC makes very regularly presentation of "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group" as well as making partial use of other designations.
  • Fact, "wider Muslim, expert and other non and governmental opinions" exist. They are often presented in the strongest possible terms and this just goes to highlight the extreme controversy surrounding the self designation as "Islamic State".
Mbcap Can you think of any name in history that was as controversial as "Islamic State"?
Usage is very clearly presented in one of the rare neutral threads on designation usage that has been presented on this page and which is even presented as Name searches at random. Fact, sources that are quoted by news outlets most regularly use "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh".
Mbcap when you soapbox opinion you do it as absolutes. At 04:48, 17 July 2015 you stated "Changing name to Islamic State is absolutely policy based". Based on what policy? You have continually WP:ASSERTed that I have, "conflating the name with the claim" and yet, despite personal promise to answer, you have consistently avoided the question, "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?" (Please answer). The difference is that, when I present a fair opinion, I present it as exactly that, an opinion. Mbcap "in the context of wider Muslim, expert and other non and governmental opinions" within which the group is regularly presented as "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh" do you think that the judgement of the BBC (as a rare example of a news group that makes predominant use of "Islamic State" and whose sources predominantly use "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh") is beyond question?
Please stop wasting our time.
GregKaye 23:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Another name change proposal? Just wasting time, just like previous ones. Mhhossein (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just like it was said it's against the rules of Wikipedia to restrict the renaming of an article on what the context of the name means, IS is the proper correct name of the now government which controls territory through puppets in Asia, Africa etc. the puppets are controlled by Abu Bakr al-bagdadi. 59.89.204.25 (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Greg, Mbcap and anyone else who is interested: why not settle this matter once and for all outside ISIS Talk? There are other channels in Wikipedia where this can be done. ANI is probably not a good idea, as it is too combative - !  ;'( - but there are places in Wikipedia where outside mediators can come in to help with disputes such as this extremely long-running one, in which there have been many participants. I can almost hear the objections to this already, but the bickering and lack of resolution on this matter really cannot continue; it is bad for Wikipedia's image let alone anything else. I dread to think how many RMs there have been on a name change for this article, which have never got anywhere. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
P-123 What is it that you consider needs to be settled? This thread is asking for another name change debate and was opened only one week following the last RM being closed. What other issues need to be discussed that have not been discussed already on many and numerous occasions? In the last RM there was a proposal for a moratorium on requested moves which received ten votes to seven in support. The RM itself was made on the basis on selective presentation of references. I have since replied with an unbiased survey of name usage presented in a thread entitled Name searches at random. What more needs to be done? GregKaye 15:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Greg I nearly added that was a good and useful survey of name usage you did, and I agree, nothing more needs to be discussed. I meant editors must now make a consensus decision about a name change. That was all. :) ("Some hope", I hear the cynics say.) ~ P-123 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
One should take into consideration that most media outside the U.S. call the terrorist organisation the Islamic State. XavierItzm (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
«Like the earlier notion of the caliphate, the modern Islamic state is rooted in Islamic law. It is modeled after the rule of Muhammad. However, unlike caliph-led governments which were imperial despotisms or monarchies (Arabic: malik), a modern Islamic state can incorporate modern political institutions such as elections, parliamentary rule, judicial review, and popular sovereignty.» Daesh is not an islamic state Daesh is an organization which use terrorism or means similar to terrorism to fight against some islamic states. 77.193.105.53 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
P-123 Re: "editors must now make a consensus decision about a name change." What would be the topic of a proposed consensus decision?
XavierItzm Can you please substantiate "most media outside the U.S. call the terrorist organisation the Islamic State"? Are you referring to English sources?
In the thread #Name searches at random I demonstrated usage across a range of source. A high proportion of these sources come from outside the U.S.
You are developing a history here of presenting selective references. Your claims require substantiation. GregKaye 02:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic State doesn't control the whole Levant territory in the middle east, referring to the group as ISIL means falsely referring to the entire Levant territory as being controlled by ISIL, the page name should be changed to IS for better understanding of the foreign territories it controls (for example boko harm in Nigeria and Caucasus emirate in Ukraine ) outside Iraq and Syria. 117.223.243.118 (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Greg That the name of the article should be changed - or alternatively not changed - from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to Islamic State (with a disambiguator). ~ P-123 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it time to change the name of this article. What more do you want we have the group itself wants to be called IS it doesn't control the whole levant territory, it controls other militant groups through puppets. Read WP:NPOV. Anything else?118.102.228.2 (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. Further requests to change the name are just annoying. Legacypac (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

no Disagree (with the change proposal). Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL, the subject's preference has weight, but the choice hinges on what is most useful for the reader looking for information. For example North Korea prefers to call itself "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea", but WP doesn't follow that. "Islamic state" is annoyingly ambiguous, *and* not the most common name. (These two factors are interdependent; if it were more common, it would be less ambiguous to a reader, but I believe the ambiguity is one reason it's not more commonly used in reporting.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox area of operations headings

At present these headings have the format:

Military situation as of 14 August 2015, in the
Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese conflicts.
  Controlled by Iraqi Government forces

I think that the format might read:

Military situation as of 14 August 2015, in the
Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese conflicts.
  Iraqi Government controlled,
  Iraqi government controlled,
  Iraqi Government control or
  Iraqi government control
  Syrian Government controlled
  Lebanese Government controlled
  Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant controlled,
  ISIL controlled,
  Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant controlled or
  ISIL controlled
  Iraqi Kurdistan controlled or
  Iraqi Kurd controlled
  Syrian Kurdistan controlled
  Syrian Opposition controlled
  Hezbollah controlled
  al-Nusra Front controlled

Obviously this is just a cosmetic issue. Thoughts?

GregKaye 19:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Use present tense, and words should only be capitalized if it's a proper noun, e.g., the name of a country, person, or perhaps religious order. Government, unless it's the first word, should not be capitalized. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 22:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with the lower case for government, opposition, et al (per MoS). Regarding the tense, my preference would be for (immediate) past tense as it currently reads as future tense. I recently spent half a day checking into the rendering of 'as of' (which implies from that date forward) in order to satisfy a commonality per MOS:ENGVAR. Personally, I would normally use 'as at', but this doesn't appear to be a standard convention in North American English. 'As on' is acceptable, but keeping it simple by rending the introductory sentence as "Military situation on 14 August 2015" makes it clear to the reader that it's the situation up to and on that date. The situation is not going to be updated on a daily basis, therefore an absolute cut-off date on which the indicated areas were controlled by any group needs to be established. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 Iryna Harpy How does this look?

Military situation in the Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese conflicts as at August 27, 2019.

  Iraqi government control
  Syrian government control
  Lebanese government control
  ISIL control
  Iraqi Kurd control
  Syrian Kurd control
  Syrian opposition control
  al-Nusra Front control
  Hezbollah control

I changed wording sequence of the introduction and the end sequence of the key. Change to the key was made both on the view that Hezbollah have less history of interaction with ISIL and to move to a sequence to that of Iraqi > Syrian > Lebanese oppositions.

Ping: @Spesh531 and BlueHypercane761:

GregKaye 12:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice, although personally I'd move the repeated word "control" into the heading just for compactness. And "as at" reads oddly. How about "Areas of military control in the Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese conflicts as of August 27, 2019." 71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Allegations of Syrian support" Diagram

Diagram doesn't hold water because it ignores any geographic or temporal aspect: ISIS created in the northeast of Syria and a long time didn't have significant front line with Assad's forces (in western Syria), until the majority of the opposition militants defected to the ISIS; most of the ISIS attacks are directed against the Kurds, who are not even marked as a separate group. 87.252.229.15 (talk) signature added by GregKaye 16:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I referenced some of the Wikipedia maps such as: File:Syrian_civil_war.png and File:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png. Past editions of these maps indicate that the Syrian government forces had front lines with Syrian gov. However, much older maps versions present situations in which ISIL forces completely surrounded forces of other rebel groups. I suspect that the situation may be/have been a lot more complicated than is presented on a simple one issue pie chart. I have placed a notification of this thread on the Syrian Civil War talk page. GregKaye 17:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

of course the diagram is bogus, it was only placed on here because this page is frequented by fanatically anti-IS editors who want to use this page as their personal thesis of why IS is the 'worst thing ever'. personally i think all these 'allegation of support' sections should be scrubbed because they are only the conspiracy theories of fanatics on each side which are total junk unworthy of an neutral encylopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.97.57 (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Organization of article is pretty bad

I was looking for a sections which detail the military history and battles ISIS was engaged in but it's not apparent where that would be from the table of contents. Malamockq (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Holding territories in Afghanistan?!

@Gazkthul and GregKaye: I disagree with this edit. Based on the source,"there remains some confusion as to whether the growing visibility of the now-familiar IS black flag in Afghanistan constitutes the presence of an actual Islamic State group affiliate." The source does not mention the control of territories in Afghanistan by ISIS. I think the edit would better be reverted. Mhhossein (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue the source does make that exact claim [3]: "Homegrown militants loyal to the Islamic State group are making inroads into Afghanistan, controlling territory in some parts of the country and ruling with the harsh hand the group is notorious for in Iraq and Syria, according to officials, military leaders and analysts" and "In some parts of the country, the extremists have actually begun controlling territory — executing Taliban loyalists, banning girls from school and killing dozens of civilians for resisting their harsh rule, according to Afghan officials." Gazkthul: (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Gazkthul: I'm not ignoring what you quoted, but how do you justify what I quoted above? According to the source, there'e no de facto control of territory and the author regards the issue as being confusing. Mhhossein (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Mhhossein:Whatever the exact links are between the fighters in Afghanistan and the central leadership in Iraq/Syria, IS has recognised a Wilayat Khorasan in the area, and has been releasing updates from Afghanistan through it's official media channels. I don't see the difference with say Nigeria, also listed in the infobox.
Reuters has also reported territorial control [4]: "Fighters loyal to Islamic State have seized substantial territory in Afghanistan for the first time, witnesses and officials said, wresting areas in the east from rival Taliban insurgents in a new threat to stability...Local officials said fighters following IS have seized some territory from the Taliban in at least six of 21 Nangarhar districts. They are Kot, Achin, Deh Bala, Naziyan, Rodat and Chaparhar, according to provincial council chief Ahmad Ali Hazrat and Nangarhar member of parliament Haji Hazrat Ali. Local army spokesman Noman Atefi said IS had established a presence in "seven or eight" districts." Gazkthul (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that it would be helpful if a report be found that indicates which towns the Islamic State group controls and any report on the degree of permanence that this control may have? So far the report from AP has also been quoted by www.usnews.com and www.durangoherald.com and think that it would be helpful if we could see evidence of permanent control. I think that it is possible that permanent control of areas may have been established but, until this is confirmed, I would be dubious of inclusion. Groups including anti prohibitionists in places like the United States have occasionally occupied pockets territory. I think that the ISIS presence in Afghanistan is certainly of note and will be interested to see the level of control that this constitutes. GregKaye 07:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
We will have to see how permanent it is, but it seems that at this time they have control over portions of Afghanistan's Nangarhar Province, which should be sufficient for it's inclusion in the Infobox I believe. Gazkthul (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Update Map + conflicts between map editors.

ISIS has left Hawija retreating to mosul and sharqat. Many twits confirm this too. I am unable to edit the map so please do it for me.

In the current Iraqi conflict page and syrian civil war page some people are editing back and forth with 2 different versions of the map, one apparently a pro-ISIS map. I saw some rude comments between users also in the map history.

This is the source: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/isis-leaves-hawija-retreats-mosul-receiving-painful-blows-f-16/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSam88 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

source is bull, IS still hold hawija city and kurds are not even close — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.97.57 (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lebanon Removal?

Crossposting this here from other pages on the Wikimedia Commons.

I've noticed that someone has edited the map of the current military situation to remove Lebanon & Hezbollah. I feel that this change should be reverted: while it's true there's minimal or no IS activity in Lebanon, that's no reason to blank it out on the map - after all, the map is meant to show the territories of all of the insurgent groups in the area (hence the "And Lebanese Insurgencies" in the title), as opposed to just the ones in Syria and Iraq, and having the extra information did help give a sense of what's happening in the region without having to look at several different maps at once.

Any thoughts?

206.223.166.51 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll re-add it and update, if we want a map without Lebanon we have a different map for that. That said, I'm not convinced of the case for Lebanon. Banak (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: One year moratorium on move proposals

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for a one year moratorium on all move proposals for this article. The majority opinion is that multiple move requests in the recent past have hurt development and become a time sink. AlbinoFerret 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: impose a one-year moratorium on all move proposals for this article, starting at the time this RfC is closed. Any new move proposals started during the moratorium will be speedily hatted and/or archived. VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Background: as noted in the template at the top of this page, this article has been hamstrung by a steady stream of move requests. These requests have not been without merit, but no consensus closures have been the rule rather than the exception. Since the closure of the most recent move proposal two weeks ago, we have at least three new threads currently on the talk page requesting moves (albeit informally). A moratorium will allow quick hatting of such proposals, attracting the community's attention to more important matters.

A recent proposal to impose a one-year moratorium on all move proposals garnered some support here, but was closed without comment along with the move discussion of which it was a part. See also here and here for discussions related to the previous moratorium active October 2014-January 2015.

Please note that in the spirit of WP:WRONGVERSION a !vote for a moratorium is not synonymous with a !vote for the current name. It is merely a confirmation that endless move proposals are disruptive to article improvement. Similarly, in this discussion section please consider refraining from expressing a preference for any specific article title.

Pinging !voters in the last moratorium discussion: @Ad Orientem, RGloucester, Mbcap, GregKaye, Gazkthul, Hroðulf, and Banak: @Panam2014, DylanLacey, StanTheMan87, SmokeyJoe, Khestwol, P-123, and XavierItzm: @Callinus and George Ho:

It is also my belief that a moratorium of length of over 3 months would be incredibly bad for the restoration of good faith and civility on this page. If you have been following this page and the interactions between the editors on this page, or watching WP:ANI for a year or so, you'd know the RM did not spark the bad faith that is apparent between editors on this page, which is deeply split between those who believe the page should be renamed {"Islamic State" or "Islamic State (something)"} and those who think it shouldn't (some of whom argue for Daesh). Banak (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The current title in self-proclaimed propaganda. Support following the emerging real world international consensus and renaming to Daesh. For example, [5], [6]. I agree with the 120 British MPs arguing that the militants are neither Islamic nor a state. I do not support continuation of the current. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title is a very important matter, even if it may seem trivial. There is significant support for a change in name, just no consensus. Shutting down the conversation will not help resolve the issue. The name should be changed to Islamic State (militant group) or something similar. DylanLacey (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe and DylanLacey: per the request in the RfC, can you refactor your !votes to address why additional move discussions are important rather than focusing on a specific title or whether we have The Wrong Version? VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose moratorium because the current title has an unacceptable problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I oppose the moratorium because additional discussion is necessary to come to a consensus on what the title should be. I believe the current title is woefully inadequate. Also, a year is far too long for a current events oriented page. DylanLacey (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It has been two years since a move discussion reached a consensus to change a title (to the current one). Since then, we have had nearly constant move proposals that have accomplished nothing. How many more years of additional discussion will be the correct amount? An article can be about a current topic without needing to be moved often; indeed, the purpose of the proposal is to refocus on content. As noted in the nomination, the adequacy of the current title is not the topic of this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The oppose !votes appear to be following the dictum that "the debate shall continue until the desired result is obtained." A clear lack of consensus after protracted debate is a very good reason to suspend things for a while. And one month is not a moratorium, it is just a brief cease fire. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 3 months to one year. This has been canvassed many times and comes up several times a month. Many of the debates are cyclical and most of the points made have been made in preceding months. -- Callinus (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support one-year moratorium as per other editors here and in the last RM. This page does not need disruptive and pointless RMs almost every month. Khestwol (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A year is excessive, there is nothing wrong with healthy debate as long as there are a few months to avoid disruption. Gazkthul (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Srongly Oppose this will prevent any attempt to rename then you can just take 1 year to discuss the title, since it is clear that the current title is outdated . --Panam2014 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinging !voters in the last moratorium discussion:

@Ad Orientem, RGloucester, Mbcap, GregKaye, Gazkthul, Hroðulf, and Banak: @Panam2014, DylanLacey, StanTheMan87, SmokeyJoe, Khestwol, P-123, and XavierItzm: @Callinus and George Ho: to comment that:

The last and previous RM's were based on selective choice of reference in relation to name usage in RS. Since the end of July I've presented further research into name usage by sources which is presented at #Name searches at random. For those not regularly following this page, this content may have relevance as background then making comment here. GregKaye 00:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"The last and previous RM's were based on selective choice of reference in relation to name usage in RS." I dispute this claim. I also disagree with this methodology of your research as well as it's relevance. This aside, has no bearing on what is happening here. This isn't rejecting a move request, this is a proposal to not allow any mover requests for a year. Banak (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Usage in a range of sources is very far from indicating that proposed titles represent commonname. Then adding a range of other arguments against move there is zero chance of move for the foreseeable future. My view on moratorium has changed in the context of battleground tactics. Editors here have made unsubstantiated accusation and, has was even referenced in the last moratorium discussion, repeatedly refuse to answer questions related to the accusation. GregKaye 00:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support Summoned by bot. As others have said, there is no common name. Additionally, you have to consider there is possible bias as a motivation in usage of "Daesh" or "Islamic State." —МандичкаYO 😜 01:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikimandia, this isn't about evaluating the motivations of the use of names, though the current one has issues with that like any possible name we can thing of for this group as mentioned in the article. Every name is accused of being a POV push and accused of violating NPOV, and being down to other people's POV. Banak (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support – Enough time has been spent on this. There is no one clear and unambiguous common name, hence the use of the current title. Things may well change in a years time, but there should be no more hankering over this in the meantime. Let's reevaluate the situation after a year. RGloucester — ☎ 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye, Wikimandia, and RGloucester: If you believe the COMMONNAME means we should not move the page, or that arguments about common name are relevant, then unless you are sure this will not change in the next year, you should oppose the moratorium rather than support it. This is not a proposal to not move the page, it's a proposal to not allow discussions of a change of name for a year. Banak (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Banak I certainly know that COMMONNAME is just one of the arguments relevant for the page remaining titled as it is. Any suggestion that this is or has been the only argument fails to represent the history of these discussions.
I am certainly against discussion in context where an editor can make accusation and then regard such responses as answering simple questions that were directly related to the accusation as being a "catastrophic waste of ... time". This for me was the tipping point. We have indulged too long in these these discussions in which both references and arguments are manipulated. GregKaye 07:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, you know as well as me that there are frequent discussions in which both sides do not believe the other side is acting in good faith between You/Legacypac and Me/Mbcap/StanTheMan87, that dates back to at least DocumentError's ban. I do not want to go into everyone's conduct in the RFC here, but I raised some of the issues with stuff you'd done during RFC. Nevertheless, this should be on the topic. Rreagan007 Opposed any change by commonname alone. You raise POVNAME and COMMONNAME as your final objections in the RFC, and about a large proportion of the discussion revolved around it. Banak (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Banak Please consider your comment "I do not want to go into everyone's conduct in the RFC here, but I raised some of the issues with stuff you'd done during RFC." You make a one sided slur without any kind of the direct reference that might afford a chance to answer back. I reply directly to your comment. You make a one sided reference to past discussion with nothing definite being alleged.
My final objections should have been made at the beginning of the discussion. GregKaye 00:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye I was trying to fairly balance the comment I am certainly against discussion in context where an editor can make accusation and then regard such responses as answering simple questions that were directly related to the accusation as being a "catastrophic waste of ... time". This for me was the tipping point. We have indulged too long in these these discussions in which both references and arguments are manipulated. which appeared to me to be an unfair one sided summary of the conduct of editors in the RFC, and I do not see how this is a slur. Banak (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Banak I was responding to your comment, "If you believe the COMMONNAME means we should not move the page, or that arguments about common name are relevant, then unless you are sure this will not change in the next year, you should oppose the moratorium ..." and, if this were the only issue involved and if opening arguments to the RMs had not been based on selective reference then I would consider this to be entirely reasonable. I am consistently against manifestations of censorship in Wikipedia and the shutting down of proposals, initiatives, arguments and the like. For instance, at WT:ANI, I have gone as far as to argue unsuccessfully for editors right to reply on administrator notice boards. My response was to clarify my, I belive, reasonable stance on moratorium here.
You refer back to a discussion in which I made my last reply at 10:58, 24 July 2015 and which was conducted within the context of an RM that was closed on 16:42, 29 July 2015. If you think that there are issues that now need to be addressed then it would be fair for them to be specifically named preferably with evidence either being cited or with quotations related to alleged misconduct being given. GregKaye 06:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support An incredible amount of time and energy has been wasted on these move discussions. Whether or not the current name is ideal, it's good enough for interested readers to find the article without undue effort. Our time would be better spent working to improve the content of the article. EastTN (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. In the simplest of terms, the issue has been an energy sinkhole for editors. Give it a break. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A year is far too long, but one month is far too short. The picture is ever-changing with ISIL, so it is reasonable to attempt to reassess every two to three months, I think. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If there is a dramatic and obvious changes in the interim period, they will be evident enough to overturn any moratorium. Revisiting the issue every time someone gets a bee in their bonnet is an energy sinkhole. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support summoned by bot ideally for 2-3 months, but I can live with a year. I am a strong believer in the notion that NPOV should take precedence over COMMONNAME, but the debate over which POV is reflected by which name has gone on for so long, and gotten so convoluted, that it is not constructive any longer. We need to devote our energies elsewhere. In particular, people who believe the article reflects a POV would be far better served trying to correct this, given that in a topic this controversial, any name is going to be seen as POV by some, and the current one seems as decent as it can be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a year is an eternity LavaBaron (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose One year is far too long. It will also continue the use of the current outdated title. --Ritsaiph (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Ritsaiph, Please see the recently archived thread: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 37#Name searches at random or check recent results:
Google News search results over the past month:
"Islamic State" - [7] About 3,490,000 results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [8] About 18,400,000 results
There's only a small fraction of "Islamic State" uses in comparison to other uses and this is before other relevant arguments are brought into consideration. GregKaye 11:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If you did a search on each of those terms separately, then I would be more inclined to see things from your point of view. Clumping three terms vs. one in search results will more often than not show the three terms having more hits in google searches then just one. --Ritsaiph (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You are also more than welcome to work through any searches you want to substantiate your claims. The fact is that "Islamic State" is a lesser used designation for the group across sources especially as used amongst Muslim groups and governmental and non-governmental agencies.
Have you read the last RM? Reference after reference was made to Islamic State group. Even when the name is used this often happens in a qualifying context. GregKaye 12:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Greg:
Google News search results over the past month:
"ISIS" - [9]
About 14,500,000 results
"Islamic State" - [10]
About 8,970,000 results
"ISIL" - [11]
About 54,700 results
"Daesh" - [12]
About 38,000 results
There's only a small fraction of "ISIL" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" uses in comparison to other uses. This has however been stated time and time again by multiple editors. In contrast, the phrase "Islamic State" dominates over "ISIL" and no doubt the more commonly used acronymization of "IS" would also be more prevalent than "ISIL", even if all terms with the words "is" were filtered out. And before you jump to the "ISIS" bandwagon which has the majority of results, keep in mind that all the RM's proposing a name change haven't mentioned "ISIS" or "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" as a proposed title. It's all been "Islamic State" with some disambiguation. Also bear in mind that becuase "Islamic State" is the more commonly cited term for a name change, a fairer comparison would then be:
"Islamic State" - [13]
About 8,970,000 results
"ISIL" - [14]
About 54,700 results
This is becuase the current title is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) and the proposed titles are almost always "Islamic State" (IS) with some form of variation in the disambiguation used. It would only be acceptable to use "ISIS" or "Daesh" in this comparison if the current title for the article was "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" (ISIS) or "Daesh". As for the moment, it's purely an "Islamic State" vs. "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" debate. But that being said, I would support a change to the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" (ISIS) over the current title due to that term being much more popular:
"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" - [15]
About 51,300 results
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - [16]
About 6,910 results
--Ritsaiph (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ritsaiph Your search ("Islamic State" - [17] About 8,970,000 results) is not formatted to search on these words in sequence but can include reference to any article that references (at any place in the article) the word "islamic" [18] "About 17,500,000 results" and the word "state" [19] About 154,000,000 results.

Please see results as have been very recently presented:

"Islamic State" - [20] About 3,490,000 results

You can reference the same arguments as you have made in numerous RMs.

GregKaye 07:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Islamic State" - [21]
About 3,490,000 results
"ISIL" - [22]
About 54,700 results
"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" - [23]
About 51,300 results
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - [24]
About 6,910 results
It still illustrates that the phrase "Islamic State" is still more popular than "ISIL", "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". Not to mention the acronym "IS" being more popular than all three, including "ISIS".
Greg, you amaze me. You frequently cite figures to prove your point of view. But when someone picks you up on the fact that you combine three terms against one (hardly a fair comparison), or that the phrase 'Islamic State" is and will always the most popular in search results due to WP:COMMONNAME, it's as if you just don't care or pretend like the figures others cite against you don't even exist. We are not talking about opinions here where we can agree/disagree, we are talking about facts. Figures are facts. They stand on their own. You cannot deny that the figure 54,300 is somehow less than the figure 3,490,000 . There is no room for interpretation. The registered hits for "Islamic State" are higher than that of "ISIL", "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and "Daesh" combined. --Ritsaiph (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Ritsaiph let me refer you to a comment that I made relatively late in in the last RM once almost all the !votes had been cast and the RM was already heading towards rejection.[25] "... the three acronyms "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh" are all based on the same source material as forms the basis for the article title. This argument fully fits with the general principle at WP:CRITERIA: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Anyone with any familiarity with the subject will know that "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh" are interrelated terms. They are synonyms for exactly the same thing. ..."
All we are doing is going the same ground as has been covered time and time again and this just confirms everything that others have said about waste of time.
GregKaye 08:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the term "Islamic State" and "IS" are less recognizable than "ISIS", "ISIL", "Daesh" "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"? Considering that "Islamic State" is more common than not only the current title and its acronym and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, (but not ISIS) I have no doubt that the acronym for "Islamic State" (IS) is far more commonly used than "ISIS".
It's very convenient for you that you can use the title of the article page "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" plus "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh" when an RM pops up to change it to any alternative. Four terms against one. Very convenient. I've never myself seen an editor on Wikipedia state that before. Notice the heading of what WP:CRITERIA relates to: "Deciding on an article title". Notice "an article title". This references to one title only. Last time I reviewed the title page, it was not "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and ISIL and ISIS and Daesh". Maybe if that was the article title you could cite the three other terms.
It states "Editors choose the best title...". The phrase 'best title' is defined by the following points, of which Recognizability is the one that WP:COMMONNAME relates to the most. The best title. So we know that there can only be one title for an article, which there is (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and that we must choose the 'best' one based on recognizability. Ok then:
"Islamic State" - [26]
About 3,490,000 results
"ISIL" - [27]
About 54,700 results
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - [28]
About 6,910 results
Whad'Ya know Greg. If I'm not mistaken, it appears as if "Islamic State" has more results in the past month than even the article title in use and its acronym. And again, last time I checked which was about 5 seconds ago, the title of the article is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and that is the only title which can be debated on when discussing an RM vs. any proposed name e.g Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Islamic State of Iraq and Sham and Daesh. However, none of the previous RM's that i have been apart of have ever called for the title to be changed to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" or "Daesh". Therefore these terms were irrelevant in those RM's. You seem to be the only editor here who, when opposed to a proposed title, cites not only the current article title but every single alternative in support of the current title, which is ridiculous. I'm afraid Greg that I cannot understand your logic behind this article and its RM's regarding the change of article name. --Ritsaiph (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What I with others am stating is that a range of such arguments have been presented on numerous occasions in numerous RMs all with the same result.
  • What I am stating is that WP:COMMONNAME does not support this move and that "Islamic State", especially when used without qualification, is a minority term as used both in news and especially by the people that various news agencies interview.
  • What I have previously stated is that "Islamic State ..." is incorporated within the current title but that the current title is also representative of the predominant use of the term "ISIS", which along with parallel uses of "ISIL" and "Daesh"/"Daas" etc. present the substantively used presentation of the group.
What I do not plan to present here are the various NPOV arguments related to the proposed moves. ALL of this has been covered on numerous occasions.
You are going into monologue on one aspect of argument. Within the great many extremely extensive RMs a wide range of issues have been raised and, as any editor can see by scanning through the talk page, it is readily apparent that this behaviour has been exhibited time and time again to no effect. This adds one more discussion repeating exactly the same pattern.
GregKaye 13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Arguments... you mean a range of such trivial POV-inspired drivel on whether or not to use the term 'Islamic State' alone in the title, despite its WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME status? The only reason why previous RM's have failed is not due to your arguments. It's due to the sheer amount of POV-inspired editors who just so happen to share the same biased POV. Therefore, when an RM is launched, consensus will benefit the biased cretins who plague Wikipedia with their agendas.
  • Again, you are in denial Greg. Look at the search results before between the current title and its acronym and the proposed term "Islamic State". Look at them. Look at the figures. "Islamic State" is more popular than all terms, save "ISIS". But "IS", the acronym of Islamic State is more popular than "ISIS". Why? Because the "Islamic State" is the most popular term that is not an acronym. Sources will use it once or twice and then use "IS" in the rest of the source. Because of your moral dilemma in accepting this fact, you just pretend that you are in the right. You don't care at all about Wikipedia Policy on what is better for the article and WP:TITLECHANGES. Your arguments solely come from not offending those with a "Mohammedan based faith", and citing mere opinions about "legitimacy" while also constantly mentioning your own search results by clumping every single term imaginable for the Islamic State group and pitting those results against the "Islamic State". That is sheer stupidity and POV-inspired biasness. Please, do not try and justify it. You have already shown me you can't.
  • The title "Islamic State of the Iraq and the Levant" means the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or "ISIL". It does not give you or any editor the right to shoot down a proposal to "Islamic State" when WP:COMMONNAME is in its favor by citing other used expressions for the group that are more popular than the current title. That is ludicrous stupidity. If an RM was arguing to move to the term "ISIS" or "Daesh", then those terms could enter into the argument. But no such RM going back to early 2014 has used those terms. Again, becuase of your illogical biased conscience, I don't really think you will be able to understand what I am saying.
I'm not going to continue wasting my time on you any longer, and your biased point of view. I voted oppose for a reason, and that is becuase the current title is outdated and fails both WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
We don't go by WP:OFFICIAL and, while other editors have consistently cherry picked references to present, "Islamic State" has been proven to be very far from WP:COMMONNAME. "Islamic State" has only been one choice of title and one that (on the basis of a variety of objections that they have frequently raised themselves) editors have consistently rejected.
Ritsaiph Please either cite what you think that I have done here that in any way justifies your slurs of "biased point of view" and similar or please strike. GregKaye 04:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a year of no more round and round move proposals. There are no new arguments to be made. Legacypac (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for any time period up to a year (though perhaps a year is too long). Article titles are not as important and should not be allowed to distract from the substance of the article, and when they begin to detract it is important to take steps. There is too much variety to reach a consensus on the title (e.g. I have only heard the name "Daesh" once, here in the 3rd largest English-speaking country). A year can be a long time in the life of an armed group; maybe a consensus will develop in the year. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Although there's currently no consensus for moving to another title, things can change quite quickly, and we can't predict whether there will be one in 2, 4, 6, or 8 months time.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Daech an islamic state?

According to article introduction, «The (...) is a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate and Islamic state which is led by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria.[2] ». It looks like a specific point of view as other people think differently. For instance, David Cameron « (...) wish the BBC would stop calling it 'Islamic State' because it is not an Islamic state.
What it is is an appalling barbarous regime that is a perversion of the religion of Islam and many Muslims listening to this programme will recoil every time they hear the words.». So, is this an islamic state and why to prefer one point of view rather than the other one?

If so, should one consider that Cameron fight against Muslims?

Why not make the article clearer?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.101 (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2015‎

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ISIS or ISIL? The debate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Kurds accused of "ethnic cleansing" by Syria rebels". cbsnews. Retrieved June 22, 2015.

I agree with you, but we can"t let our personal opinions effect our edits. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is now a self-declared, unrecognized Caliphate and Islamic State. The statement in the issue merely reflects what they CLAIM to be, not what they truly are. The same can be said of all the articles about unrecognized states. it is there because encyclopedic entries are written from a neutral standpoint. they are statements of fact, not opinion. Anasaitis (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge "In the media" into "Supporters"?

The "In the media" section has five subsections, four titled as "Allegations of _____ support", and one on conspiracy theories. This doesn't have much to do with media, but does relate to supporters. I propose moving the current "In the media" section to the end of the "Supporters" section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the Allegations subsections, but left the media section in place with the lead text and conspiracy subsection. I believe these four subsections are better suited in the Supporters section, but feel free to discuss below if you believe otherwise. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Role of the United States

Should this be included in the article?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

It contains a link to a declassified US intelligence report from 2012.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf Ich901 (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ich901: Why not? Reliable and directly related! Mhhossein (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Hello everyone,

I would like to say that from my point of view (and I think the point of view of many like me), it is a bit strange how such a small military force like the IS, with little land controlled can maintain such a power for months. Obviously, IS is a very small army compared to the forces of NATO, Russia and Arabia altogether.

To give an example, Iraq government was defeated in just a few weeks (2003) and it was done mainly US and UK forces who did the work. I know there was a 8 year post-war period of time, but not a war itself, which it lasted for only one month or so. The Iraqui Government was rapidly changed and a new Constitution created and adopted, in about 3 to 4 years (2003-2006).

To add up, it is hard to believe why several big powers (USA+NATO European Countries+Arabia and others) cannot even maintain the control and reduce the IS expansion. I think a coaliation between US&Western and the IS against Syria Goverment or a kind of false flag operation) shoud be considered and investigated. Please, do not consider this like a conspirancy theory, well because there are serious reasons that (like I told before) to consider the idea of something deeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

if the US was against the syrian government, why dont they just give them 20,000 airstrikes like they did IS? take your bullshit conspiracy theories out of here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.97.57 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't say warfare between the US & partners against Iraq's conventional army (an army that generally sucks) in a successful effort to conquer Iraq and warfare between conventional forces and an insurgent like ISIL are very comparable. For starters, the US is not trying to conquer Iraq and Syria. They can bomb ISIL all day long, but if local forces (Iraqi, Kurdish, Syrian rebals etc) can't hold the ground, its a tough fight. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Tbm1998 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

US support

FF @Drmies: Hey please discuss the materials here before removing them. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: wow, about a year ago some news reports were wrong? Seems way too trivial. I guess I don't have a strong opinion about the Rand Paul quote. Why do you think it should be added to the article? VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll discuss important removals. There is nothing important about this. First of all, there is no credible evidence for US support of ISIS (can't believe I have to write this sentence). Second, this is at best a statement about, not evidence of, some kind of indirect support, but really an unintended consequence. One might as well say that, well, any country that sells spare tires to the Turkish army is supporting ISIS. Third, it doesn't matter that Rand Paul is a senator (Iago said it better then I ever could): it was an idiotic statement made only for Fpolitical purposes, and it has no relevance to an encyclopedic article about ISIS. And yes, false reports from a year ago likewise are silly to include. This isn't K-pop, you know, where every reported thing needs to be included--and at over 300k, this article is already long enough. Drmies (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, the section is entitled "Allegations of United States support", i.e. no certainty is mentioned there and no credible eveidence is required to reflect an allegation. A senator, as a political figure, is notable enough to have statements, whether silly or not! The best way to have it appear silly is to have the counter viewpoints beside it. What ever related to the ISIL and is published by WP:RS may be added here and time is not limiting us. Btw, based on which policy shall we not use the statement here, because it dates back to a year ago? Mhhossein (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @VQuakr: Was the report proven to be false? I mean, did he not say such a thing? Mhhossein (talk)
    • If we are going to publish every thing that's been said about ISIL, we need new servers. Instead, we should apply editorial discretion. Of course it's published in a reliable source--it's election season! If "he's a senator so it should be included" is a valid rationale, then please add [29], [30], [31], and [32] to the article--the first four hits for one single senator. Seriously, there is no rationale for including sub-par, politically motivated allegations just because they are "reliably sourced". None whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, we are not going to publish every thing said about ISIL but rather we try to reflect all aspects of ISIL as an encyclopedia within the limits drawn by the policies, don't we? To me the statement by Paul is different from those which you presented, although all of them might be used in closely related pages and sections. I don't mean that we should write that a senator is deeply worried about ISIL, but we should keep track of notable and challenging statements. However, I have to respect by viewpoints of other editors. If there's a consensus to have it removed, do it, although I think we can at least keep the first paragraph. Mhhossein (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: the "news reports were wrong" comment was about the incorrect reportage of a cease fire. VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems that there is pretty clear consensus that neither paragraph is important enough to include in this article, with no support voiced for Mhhossein's position. Are we agreed it should go? VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
VQuakr: I would wait to know how other editors think on this.
pinging involved editors: @GregKaye, Mbcap, P-123, and EastTN: Mhhossein (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that this might be of more relevance to Wikipedia articles on US political infighting. I also think that if there was anything at all genuine or substantiated in the story then other Republicans would have joined in with the claims or, at least, Rand Paul would have persisted with them.
A tendency that I have noted in this and parallel themed articles is to prominently present the influence / involvement of the US and Israel while presenting comparatively little emphasis on the, I think, extremely notable involvements of Middle-eastern, Asian and European states.
Without substantiation and in a context in which the US has shown clear support of groups in active combat with ISIL it seems to me that the allegation is a bit like criticising a doctor of supporting the flu when treating a cold. Admittedly, when commenting on western influence, the doctor may be open to accusation of being a bit of a quack but I think that the analogy still stands. GregKaye 09:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I am no longer an "involved" editor, but I support Mhhossein on this, i.e. to keep the Rand Paul reference. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Btw; is there any evidence, other than U.S. government & Syrian opposition propaganda, that Syrian government is supporting ISIL? As far as I know, the Syrian government and ISIL are mortal enemies. - [33], [34]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Tobby72: That's interesting! Mhhossein (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Greg: Paul's statement does not deserve to stay here? Mhhossein (talk)

I think that the citation for the text would far better describe "Allegations of United States cock-up/ineptitude" than "Allegations of United States support". To me "support" is suggested of intentional aid and I don't think that this was ever suggested. The titling as used is unencyclopedic imo.

In the: the associated citation we read: “I think we have to understand first how we got here,” he (Rand Paul) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” "I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we have been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria."

First he does not specify who these "allies" are (any ideas?) I am not sure on any substantiation for the use of "emboldened". I certainly think that, if Rand Paul had been a Wikipedia editor and presented the synthesis "We have been allied with ISIS in Syria", he would have been challenged.

P-123 What justification is there that we should "keep the Rand Paul reference". GregKaye 06:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Notable comment by a prominent US politician, however wrong-headed it may be? [Sorry, forgot to sign] ~ P-123 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This likely seemed more notable at the time it was originally added. I don't have the sense that Rand Paul has been successful into turning this into a significant political issue. That may change, but at this point my sense is that it's a political sideshow. He did say it, though. I don't feel particularly strongly either way about whether it stays or goes. EastTN (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Rand's quote adds nothing to the understanding of ISIL. Should be gone. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That nature of that quote reveals why it isn't usable here. It is quite obvious that the "allies" Rand Paul mentions are the other rebel factions. He is of the opinion that the rebels are allied with ISIL, and that one Froup of armed Muslims is just as bad as another. This view is ridiculous, and, if I may be so bold as to say so, idiotic. Not all rebels in Syria are extremists, and the rebels have been fighting against ISIL since late 2013. Rand Paul is clearly a biased and prejudicial individual, and we are not going to use such an unreliable source on what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. Anasaitis (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

U.S. arming rebels

The U.S. doesn't support ISIS, but the Western and Gulf Arab states created the conditions under which ISIS could come to power. As was the case in Afghanistan in the 1980's - CIA's Operation Cyclone - history repeats itself in Syria.

CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have been secretly training Syrian rebels with anti-tank and antiaircraft weapons since late last year, months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming them, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders. ... The training has involved fighters from the Free Syrian Army, a loose confederation of rebel groups that the Obama administration has promised to back with expanded military assistance, said a U.S. official, who discussed the effort anonymously because he was not authorized to disclose details.

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

For a long time, Western and Arab states supported the Free Syrian Army not only with training but also with weapons and other materiel. The Islamic State commander, Abu Yusaf, added that members of the Free Syrian Army who had received training — from the United States, Turkey and Arab military officers at an American base in Southern Turkey — have now joined the Islamic State.

Fighters from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Islamic military groups are joining forces with Isis, which has gained control of swaths of Syria and Iraq and has beheaded six western hostages in the past few months. Some brigades have transferred their allegiance, while others are forming tactical alliances or truces.

At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA’s overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents The Washington Post obtained from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden. U.S. officials said the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years — meaning that the agency is spending roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Below there is an interesting commentary from Seumas Milne:

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. ... Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Editors are still forgetting that encyclopaedias do not write history - i.e. interpret facts - they only record them. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, editors often forget this. I do not see that the above content constitutes support of ISIS by the U.S. as has been stated. GregKaye 16:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Are the Western and Gulf Arab states supplying them with the actual arms/weapons? Who is supporting them with Arms, I don't remember any country in the middle east or Africa manufacturing weapons, isn't it the West , North Korea or the U.S? Bobbyshabangu talk 17:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
They obtain their weapons from primarily from capturing it from the Iraqi and Syrian militaries. In the capture of Mosul alone, the Iraqis left behind enough weaponry to outfit 4 divisions. Gazkthul (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"Much of the Islamic State’s arms and ammunition were captured on the battlefield, but intelligence reports have suggested that the group’s income from oil sales and other sources is high enough to finance purchases of additional weapons directly from the companies and dealers that routinely profit from strife in the Middle East." — "Where Does the Islamic State Get Its Weapons?". Foreign Policy. 6 October 2014. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Khawariji or Salafi?

Should the lead be changed to: The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام,[1] is a Khawariji extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate led by and mainly composed of Khawariji Arabs from Iraq and Syria.

Also the article name is not Islamic State because Wikipedia doesn't label them as what they would like to be called by others so we should changed that also from Salafi to Khawarij which is what 99.9% of Muslim consider them to be and which they have shown by their actions to be that they are not just any Salafi Jihadist group but rather are in the league of their own. (See the references on Muslim position about ISIS in the article below). 217.23.5.70 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because virtually no non-Muslim will know what a Khawarij is, and the term is not used as an adjective by any English language WP:RS that I am aware of. You have not provided a source to show that 99.9% of Muslims consider them to be Khawarij, but even if this were true, it wouldn't mean Wikipedia would accept the terminology.
And plenty of other Salafi Jihadist groups (Boko Haram, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan) have sworn allegiance to them, so they are not really in a league of their own. Gazkthul (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem is there is no single comparable word in English for Khawarij. Also the King of Jordan just used that word in his speech to the UN today. He was speaking in English. 217.23.5.77 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well for one, they are not Khawarij. I doubt you even understand what the characteristics of the Khawarij are, if you did, you would know they are not. They describe themselves as salafi-jihadi and that's what they are. The reality is IS are Islamic. As the above editors noted, there is no evidence for your claim (one survey actually discovered 92% of Saudis thought IS to conform to 'true Islam'), and the reality that hundreds of thousands of Muslims in dozens of countries are fighting for them, supporting them etc shows that your claim is ridiculous.

And on the topic of the apostate "king" abdullah using the word 'khawarij', firstly he has no islamic authority at all, and secondly, in many transcripts i saw of this speech, the word was changed into 'daesh', clearly proving the previous editors point that most english speakers have no idea what it means and use of it will cause confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Allegations of Syrian support" diagram

Per comments here, this is a deeply misleading diagram. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

someone should just remove it, alongside all the 'allegations of support' sections this is an encylopedia, a place for facts, not a place to air every crazed fantastical bias it is a fact that neither qatar, saudi, turkey or syria have provided any support to IS, so why is there sections just to satisfy some conspiracy nuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Demographics of ISIL ?

Hello. I couldn't find any population estimate. Does anyone have one source for that ? Yug (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Map helping to estimate population

Given:

  • Syrian (whole) : 23M.
  • Irak (whole) : 33M.

after a quick review of the map, I estimate the population to ~5M, not counting migrants leaving the place. We could build up an estimate from scatered data such as pre-war's provinces populations. Yug (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's not build any estimates for ISIS population as that would definitely be original research. To make any relevant estimate you would need the following (all of it sourced): Original population in the area pre-war (as you suggest), an exact and stable estimate of the actual area controlled by ISIS, the number of migrants/refugees from the area (not trivial as the estimates of refugees in the region runs in the millions) and into the area, number of deaths/casualties (and births) since the last sourced estimates. Since the situation are extremely volatile these numbers should be sourced to reliable sources that makes these estimates not more than a few weeks apart (and the whole exercise should preferably be update at least every month). I have a hard time these sources exist. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
As Arnoutf said, the situation there is extremely volatile and lack reliable data. IS's forces are stated as between 30k and 300k. Currently, the reader has no idea if we talk about a country of 200k villagers or 30 millions people. We may certainly find a proper way to gives the reader a similar general idea and range of the population in this war torn area. By example by clearly citing "pre-war" numbers. Yug (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE77:8050:9CC0:10C1:B827:9DD1 (talk)

Map

We need to update the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.229.152 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The map actually has been updated; it's just that no one's corrected the little blurb under it. The map itself displays the situation as of 22 September (at time of writing). 206.223.166.51 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Since IS declared themselves to be a worldwide caliphate, shouldn't the map be a map of the world with IS controlled areas highlighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cganuelas (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, because they don't control much ground anywhere outside the Iraq + Syria map. The whole world map would make this info very hard to see. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't know what to make of this...

I stumbled upon this 'book' of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group being sold on Amazon, entitled 'Know Thy Enemy: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' by 'Richard York' and upon looking into it, I found that the book is a near identical copy to this Wikipedia article. See for yourself: [35]

Is something like this allowed? I mean, I know Wikipedia is free information, but does that give someone the right to essentially print out a screenshot of a Wikipedia article and announce it as your own copyrighted work that this 'Richard York' seems to be doing? Does Wikipedia have some sort of partnership with this author? --Ritsaiph (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can use the article freely. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ritsaiph Well, that's a laugh. I wonder which of the million versions of this article he used. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of events as a wikitable

I intend to turn the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Timeline of events into a wikitable. I can do some spreadsheet maneuvers to do that. I was just wondering, where should I do it? Apparently the list is updated automatically from other list... Huritisho 04:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is drawn from the article Timeline of ISIL related events Gazkthul (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
So, could I make a table there? I don't have enough confidence to do that because I'm afraid I will mess things up Huritisho 07:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the value in a table in this case. But if you want to try tables why not use your sandbox? Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Updates?

Could people please keep this updated, since it's missing September and October in its timeline, what the air strikes currently as well. — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@73.47.37.131: The timeline in full is at Timeline of ISIL related events, including September, October, previous months, and last year. They are transcluded month-by-month into this article. If I were to take a guess as to why the last two months weren't included, it's so that clutter can be removed and new content can be looked at to see what is notable enough for inclusion. But that's a guess, and I actually have no idea why it stopped being updated. I simply assume it's for a sensible reason. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Edit: A new sub-section entitled, "What the future holds in store"

ISIS’s successes on the battlefield, both in Iraq and in Syria, highlight the failure of nation-states in the Middle East, and bring the Middle East into a new era that transforms existing order, and which provides great motivation unto other radical groups to increase their acts of terror in the Middle-East and worldwide. The decentralized but flexible organizational structure that al-Baghdadi implemented, coupled with the weakness of Muslim rulers in their respective countries, were the decisive factors that led to the sweeping success of the organization, while its decentralization and organizational efficiency made it very difficult for the West to deal effectively against them. The international community’s lack of efficiency (principally that of the United-States) paved the way for the expansion of the Islamic State, and by all appearances it seems that Jordan is the next target of the organization, which can easily become the catalyst that sets in motion wars all throughout the Middle East (Dekel, Michael, 2014: 3-4). The great popularity enjoyed by the Islamic State during the years 2013–2014 has brought enlightenment to thousands of jihadist youths from around the world who seek to join the organization’s ranks. This process, as of today, still leads many Muslim youth into joining ISIS, something that breathes new life into the ranks of the organization, leading to the proliferation and augmentation of the organization (see Ottaway, 2015: 3, 8-9). As long as the organization’s leadership succeed in maintaining its great momentum which it had gained by al-Baghdadi’s unilateral declaration announcing the establishment of an Islamic State and his proclaiming of himself to be its official Caliph (see Chulov, 2014: 37–39), and as long as it continues to maintain hegemony over the territory it had captured in Iraq and in Syria, the organization will only continue to grow.

Although part of the ISIS and Al-Qaeda ideology states that secularism is reminiscent of the jahiliyya (Period of Ignorance before the advent of Islam) and must be forcefully brought to an end through jihad (holy war), most radical Islamic groups incorrectly interpret the revolutionary vision of Sayyid Qutb, believing instead that they must spread God’s sovereignty by the force of arms, or what is called in Arabic hakimiyyah (i.e. the concept that authority, power, supremacy, primacy, governance and command rest with God alone)(Khatab & Bouma, 2007). Since the West is perceived by the ideologues of all Islamic factions as being "morally decadent," there can be little hope for a peaceful resolution in the ongoing conflict.

SOURCES:

  • Chulov M. (2014), Isis: The inside story, The Guardian journal.
  • Dekel U. Michael K. (2014), ISIS Success in Iraq and Syria: Strategic Ramifications, INSS, Institute for National Security Insight No. 563.
  • Khatab S. & Bouma G.D. (2007), Democracy In Islam, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group Abingdon, Oxon, London.
  • Ottaway M. (2015), ISIS: Many Faces, Different Battles, Wilson Center, Middle East Program, Occasional Paper Series.

(If these edits are constructive, can we insert them in the main article? A good place might be directly after the sub-title "Goals"). ---Davidbena (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is mostly editorial content and a bit of crystal balling. I am not convinced it has a place at Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but what exactly is "crystal balling"? Do you mean "predicting the future"? I see it more as a common-sense analysis, given the obvious facts presently known about those organizations and about western culture.Davidbena (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)4
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball is what I mean. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You've given a satisfactory answer to my question. So, in this regard, the end conclusions in both paragraphs are the problem (crystal balling). Is there any way that we might want to incorporate part of the other statements in the current article? If not, so be it.Davidbena (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No. The content is inappropriate. Please read WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. You have stated your valid opinion, and I appreciate that. Be well, friends.Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
First time I have heard of an encyclopaedia speculating on future events. But perhaps editors no longer regard Wikipedia as just an encyclopaedia. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Known

Hi. Relating to the following 2 Pictures it looks like the same person: Is this guy known by name or is he a high command leader: See:

thx. 2001:7E8:C0CF:4A01:A8B2:1A:1E15:9849 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

2001:7E8:C0CF:4A01:A8B2:1A:1E15:9849: How does this relate to the ISIS article? ~ P-123 (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
So what? Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Editorial bias

The Lead reads throughout as if ISIL is a Very Bad Thing. Not exactly encyclopaedic, is it? ~ P-123 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Have attempted to modify this. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC
@P-123: Do you mean that it pushes POV?Mhhossein (talk) 14:25, 13

August 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Whether it is deliberate or not, yes! Though I don't believe it is deliberate, more accidental. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Back in March a two part edit was made with the complaint that the article "fails to mention anything positive about them" but another editor deleted the comment as satire. I reopened discussion in a thread now found at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 31#Has ISIL done any good? Content within the article is as it is found in RS and opportunity is always available for comment on what should be presented.
If you want a content to be changed it would be well to make a proposal. The most commonly used and I think valid descriptions used for the group are extremist and terrorist. The second was kept in by consensus but has since been edited out. There also has to be an element within which we directly present the group with clear and accurate description. GregKaye 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The The Holocaust article Lead reads throughout as if Holocaust is a Very Bad Thing. I assume we can consider it as encyclopædic as it is rated class B.
If you "fails to mention anything positive about them", this might depend on what you consider positive, but you can consider as positive for Daesh that «Besides the sectarian angle, Daesh appears attractive for young religious militants because of the territory it controls and the financial resources it possesses. » www.dawn.com/news/1160813 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.105.53 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that the essence of neutrality is to describe the subject as accurately and dispassionately as we can. If we do that, readers can form their own judgments as to whether it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing." EastTN (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
EastTN That is really what I was driving at. NPOV should rule, and it certainly does not in this article, IMO. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree - with the caveat that if you clearly, accurately and dispassionately describe something that most readers would objectively consider to be a "very bad thing," it's going to sound pretty bad. In this case, what ISIL says and does is evil enough to shock the conscience of the civilized world. We absolutely need to approach it dispassionately and encyclopedically, but if we also do it accurately (as we must) then the nature of what is being done will be evident. Neutrality means that we, as Wikipedia editors, do not offer our own judgment as to the evil or virtue of the subject. However, it also does not allow us to skew the discussion to make the subject appear in a more positive light than the available facts and sources justify. I'm convinced that with some editorial discipline we can portray ISIL dispassionately. I don't see any way to portray ISIL that is both accurate and positive. EastTN (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting to see an ISIL supporter in here trying to inject positive things, when the group spends a lot of energy trying to shock the world. Legacypac (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be very significant editorial bias against anything lending weight to US support to, or at least ambivalence toward ISIL. (Given the recent calls by prominent political and military leaders to support Al Qaeda, this is less shocking than some would profess). However, all kinds of allegations that the Syrian government supports ISIL are given prominent space, despite the premise being rather far-fetched (Assad is close to being toppled, according to most reports). I added (under 'Conspiracy Theories') a mention of the recent report by the Associated Press that the Greek government had reported that the US government had pressured it to refuse to allow Russia to use Greek airspace to supply military assistance to the Syrian government, ostensibly for use against ISIL and other related groups like Al Qaeda/Al Nusra. My post was removed 4 minutes later by a moderator who admits to be a US government employee (at least he is being honest). I can understand editing or even removing the conclusion that this could support the view that elements of the US government are possibly interested in perpetuating the conflict, such that no side wins (not so far-fetched, given the stated aim of removing Assad, as well as views of some neocons within government about rolling back Iraq, then Syria, and then finally Iran), but to remove the reference to a report by AP entirely seems heavy-handed. The editor's comment was that there is no credible evidence that the US supports ISIL; how can we judge the credibility of that assertion when any evidence that might support that assertion is removed automatically? It seems the editors feel that such assertions are 'silly' or 'ridiculous' on the face of it, with no further need for comment. Another editor mentioned that an entire server would be needed if all allegation about ISIL were to be included, but yet there was a claim (that I edited) that stated that ISIL sends terrorists to Europe posing as refugees; this was based on the say-so of one Libyan government operative, who happen to be fighting ISIL. Anyway, I really don't see how Wikipedia can expect to maintain any sense of credibility or objectivity with this kind of editing. I expect that my IP address may be banned from further Wikipedia edits for posting this comment, but at least this will (hopefully) remain in the Talk section (if you see no further comments from Kawika99, that is why).

here is my reference from Yahoo! News: http://news.yahoo.com/greece-says-considering-u-request-deny-airspace-russia-104110471.html Kawika99 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with IS one way or the other. Russia is massively upping it's military support to Assad in the wake of recent losses by his Army to various Syrian rebel factions, and the anti-Assad governments (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and to a lesser extent the US) are opposed to an influx of sophisticated weaponry to a Government that they openly oppose. Gazkthul (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This whole page reeks of editorial bias! Even the Infobox is the result of editorial bias and personal opinion. It's a mess! I would love to help make the article neutral in viewpoint, but at this point I don't know where to begin! Anasaitis (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Anasaitis is this satire or are you part of ISIL's cyber warfare operations? Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Another editor here complaining about bias, its not satire, and I'm only unofficial freelance part of IS cyber war division :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You do realize you just put yourself on someone's radar right? VerDan (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

idc, anyway a notable place for bias to present itself is in the 'recent events' section. this is often added to by random editors and often with very poor and unreliable citations of events that may very well never have happened but have been recorded here to try to make IS look bad for example i had a look just now, dozens of events are sourced from a single website called 'iraqinews.com' which does not qualify as a reliable source and is in fact a propaganda outlet disseminating false news, another common website cited for news is 'aranews.net' which again, is not a reliable source and is well known as a pro-Kurdish propaganda outlet giving false news in fact the majority of events cited only these two websites as their single citation, it seems to me pretty clearly to be an orchestrated propaganda campaign by an anti-IS editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

plus that section is too long, it needs to be a page in itself and have only a link from this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Most people on Wikipedia are unbiased when it comes to editing, just because they add something you or someone else doesn't like does not mean it is biased. If I murdered my mother and kidnapped the kid from across the street and then gunned down 15 people with a automatic rifle, people are going to use whatever *accurate* information they can, if something is professionally done and state sponsored it is a valid source. VerDan (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of us dislike IS. I sure do. This does mean we have bias, but we must strive to be neutral and not actively try to legitimise or de-legitimise them, rather cover the topic neutrally. I believe neutral coverage will lead people to come to the conclusion that IS is bad. Now, having said all that, can we look at this source and decide if it is reliable on this issue, and find a better one if it isn't? Banak (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

let me cite some things from the wiki page on 'reliable source'. One relevant line (under subheading 'news organizations') is "news reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." Iraqinews.com/aranews.net are clearly 'less established outlets' and therefore less reliable for statements of fact

secondly, i cite the 'questionable source': "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

it is my view that the two websites clearly constitute questionable source

lastly, as i originally stated, i know from my personal experience in reading their reporting that it is not merely biased, but consists of outright lies and false news in many circumstances and that both websites take a position that is explicitly not neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, find a unbiased and reliable news website and I am sure editors will use information from there. Secondly, if you do not sign your post I doubt people are really going to take you seriously. VerDan (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

its whoever edits in the information's responsibility to find reliable sources. what im pointing out is that the entirety of the 'recent events' section is culled from these two websites which are both unreliable sources. therefore it all needs to be removed and a responsible editor can put back in some of those events (the actually significant ones as opposed to fluff that is there now) with citations from multiple reliable sources instead of a single citation from an unreliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can find an unbiased source go for it, so far we are sticking to the websites that do not call for the death of infidels. That wasn't a personal attack on anyone. VerDan (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

like i said, im not going to edit it, but whoever adds the events has to use reliable sources, not iraqinews/aranews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

How silly. Of course it reads as if they are a very bad thing, they are best known for providing beheading/drowning/burning videos and blowing up nice and historical stuff. The day they being well known for saving kittens or making cakes, then perhaps the article will reflect that. Was the initial question some lame attempt are trolling? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

in many countries US is best known for invading dozens of countries, drone striking weddings, abu ghraib, Guantanamo etc does their country article focus solely and exclusively on this? those beheaded/burning/drowned were spies or soldiers, legitimate targets in any sense it is a reality that this article is highly biased even if you want to address say slavery why cant the article be honest and say islamic law allows it and a lot of muslims (all of them otherwise they are apostates) in the ME dont have a problem with it or throwing gays off buildings even muslims who arent pro-IS cheer about this, and that is the punishment in islamic law

these are facts, not opinions and an encyclopedia is for facts, not irrelevant opinions like this article contains — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.152.21 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an article talk page, not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Too long Artical

need to split it.מינוזיג (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've personally split off several articles, but this is a big topic and people keep adding info in. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be that much longer than Al-Qaeda at the moment, if you exclude the timeline section. (I counted the number of times I pressed "page down" on my keyboard on each article.) I'm guessing the timeline will be removed (currently it's imported from an article which is already being maintained as its own article) once this group stops being in the news so much. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"nominal control"?

It says in the lead that ISIS has "nominal control" over some areas outside Syria and Iraq. What is that suppossed to mean? The word "control" is precisely a matter-of-fact term used when "nominal authority" does not apply. For example the nominal authority of Baghdad in Mossul does not translate into control of Baghdad over Mossul. Either you have factual control, or you don't, control has to be control, there cannot be "nominal control". --181.164.97.184 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In case it gets edited, this is what we're talking about: "As of March 2015, it has control over territory occupied by ten million people in Iraq and Syria, and has nominal control over small areas of Libya, Nigeria and Afghanistan." - I think it's implying, or badly trying to imply, that the terrorist groups pledging allegiance to ISIL is in control there, in ISIL's name. ISIL does not have direct control there. I think I will change it to "[...] and through loyal groups, has control over small areas [...]" --BurritoBazooka (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. --181.164.97.184 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Events

Clicking on it in the TOC seems to be a dead link as the page freezes and jumps back up to the TOC.Giooo95 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The same doesn't happen to me. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Templates are malformed

It says "Template:Citation", "Template:Cite journal", "Template:Reflist" etc. in the bottom sections. I have looked on many diffs but can't find the problem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't quite pinned it down yet, but it seems to be the "Timeline of events" blowing stuff up, or at least removing this section fixes it for me. It may be there's a problem in a template elsewhere that is blowing up this article; or there's just too many templates used here.GliderMaven (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the template in that section from this article, it's already being included elsewhere- in the relevant main article for the timeline, and removing it means we have references working again.GliderMaven (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice find. Great it works now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

Add "Daesh" as one of the names of the organization. As it is what many leaders internationally refer to the group as. Nwest2001 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it has gained popularity as a name is mentioned in the "Nomenclature" section. I think it should be mentioned at the top, in bold as well, it's still in use by world leaders in English (and other European languages, I think French President Hollande used it in French). What do others think? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
France has long been using Daesh, which is a term the group hates. It's referenced in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it should be moved up from the 2nd paragraph to the opening sentence of the lead.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

Location of edit:

  • The name Da'ish is often used by ISIL's Arabic-speaking detractors. It is based on the Arabic letters <a href="/wiki/D%C4%81l" title="Dāl" class="mw-redirect">Dāl</a>, <a href="/wiki/%27alif" title="'alif" class="mw-redirect">alif</a>, <a href="/wiki/%EF%BB%8B_%D8%B9" title="ﻋ ع" class="mw-redirect">ʻayn</a>, and <a href="/wiki/S%C4%ABn" title="Sīn" class="mw-redirect">shīn</a>, which form the <a href="/wiki/Acronym" title="Acronym">acronym</a> (داعش) of ISIL's Arabic name al-Dawlah al-Islamīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām.<a href="#cite_note-daesh2-57">[57]</a><a href="#cite_note-daesh3-58">[58]</a> There are many spellings of this acronym, with "Daesh" gaining acceptance. ISIL considers the name Da'ish derogatory, because it sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes, "one who crushes something underfoot", and Dahes, "one who sows discord".<a href="#cite_note-DAESH_shift-36">[36]</a><a href="#cite_note-59">[59]</a> ISIL reportedly uses flogging as a punishment for those who use the name in ISIL-controlled areas.<a href="#cite_note-daesh-60">[60]</a><a href="#cite_note-61">[61]</a> In 2015, over 120 British parliamentarians asked the BBC to use the name Daesh, following the example of <a href="/wiki/John_Kerry" title="John Kerry">John Kerry</a> and <a href="/wiki/Laurent_Fabius" title="Laurent Fabius">Laurent Fabius</a>.<a href="#cite_note-DAESH_shift-36">[36]</a><a href="#cite_note-bbc-review-is-62">[62]</a>

    • Add text: The name Da'ish has also been used by activists and satirists to de-legitimise Da'ish the organisation's activities and ideology. Reference: [2] Reason: This reference adds further weight to the idea that "The name Da'ish is often used by ISIL's Arabic-speaking detractors." [As described under the existing heading. Nr0^2M (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ISIS or ISIL? The debate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/decoding-daesh-why-is-the-new-name-for-isis-so-hard-to-understand/

    Edit Request concerning downed Russian aircraft

    In the Sinai Province section of the article, it states that ISIL's Sinai branch is speculated to be behind the crash of the Russian aircraft. I would like to add that Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that there was a bomb attack on the plane, as the branch claimed. Here's the reference: [1]

    Seems reasonable to me. Maybe something like "an ISIL affiliate claimed responsibility for the attack, which it said was retaliation for Russia's airstrikes in Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin has also stated that the aircraft was a terrorist attack." Or do you have another proposal? TheBlueCanoe 04:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    That sounds fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC19:5C00:85F2:7C19:98E6:7FAD (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ "Putin Says Sinai Plane Crash Was Caused by Terror Attack". Bloomberg. 17 November 2015. Retrieved 17 November 2015.

    split suggested - Propaganda and social media

    The ISIS propaganda and social media section IMO should be its own article. ISIS's propaganda, online activity and recruitment has been covered extensively, and it seems like this section has been edited down for brevity. Now that we have the Anonymous war against them, it seems like it will only need more space. Thoughts? —МандичкаYO 😜 02:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

    The section has been trimmed heavily and such a split is very much in keeping with earlier splits offs of sections. Lots of material to expand this topic with. Legacypac (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'd support it, especially to make the overall article shorter. Gazkthul (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

    why no section on ISIS strategy?

    Long section on its Military_and_resources, long section on its Worldwide_caliphate_aims, nothing on its strategy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

    The lead is a mess

    No more virtual ink on this topic - go read the archives here. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The page title should be consistent with the first sentence of the article in the sense that it should appear as the main term, which is then defined and synonyms should come after (see WP:Lead). The way it is now, a reader who is not familiar with the term Daesh will wonder why the article starts with that word with no explanation given. Either the article should be renamed to Daesh (which I would appreciate but might not be justified) or the lead should be reordered. Daesh is introduced in the second paragraph anyway. Also, what's with the acute on the 'a'? The established spelling of the acronym seems to be Daesh without any accents, the way it is used throughout the whole article (see Nomenclature) --Walfisch5 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

    I agree the name of the article should be Daesh, and redirect ISIS to Daesh please edit request.Porkluuuva (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

    There is a one year moratorium on move proposals for this article Gazkthul (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    It looks like the hat note which says some of the terms redirected here is being referred to as the first sentence. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, I was talking about the actual first sentence the way it was at the time of my writing. But someone [[36]] it, so this has been settled im my view. Walfisch5 (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

    Agreed that the article should be moved to Daesh and all other terms should redirect to Daesh, permanently, regardless of any moratorium or lack of consensus. Coupdeforce (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Name

    No more virtual ink on this topic - go read the archives here. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I want to once again discuss the name of the article. To most Americans, and most of the people in general, the organization is known as ISIS. This is what 90% of newspapers and reporters use as well. According to this useful article, ISIL is also sometimes used by Obama. However, lately I've seen them being more and more referred to as Daesh, a name they themselves loathe. Can anyone first of all argue why for heaven's sake we're using the absolutely least common name, and then maybe second of all who shows support for either ISIS or Daesh? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

    The answers are at the top of the Talk page. There have been 14 Requested Move discussions in the recent past, none of which were able to receive consensus from the editors on this page. To your second point, a moratorium was put on all name change requests in this article for a one year period. Gazkthul (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    There are attempts to make the name uniform across Wikipedia, and they are based on "ISIL". If you're willing to change every article to say "ISIS", then you might get support for it... "Daesh" shouldn't be used as a POV name (although, sure, everybody hates them... except those who don't). LjL (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The article should be called Islamic State (IS)

    No more virtual ink on this topic - go read the archives here. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    In the article, it even says Islamic State (IS) is how it is to be known.

    ISIL seems redundant now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke.battersby (talk • contribs) 04:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    No thanks. If you read the article you will see this name has been widely rejected by the world, and by Wikipedia editors who placed a one year ban on such discussions.Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Widely rejected by "the world", or widely rejected by wikeditors? 192.0.158.233 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree that it's been rejected by the world. But this discussion is still pointless because of the moratorium. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    What about the word Daesh? Shouldn't be called this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.160.176 (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    English language media don't use Daesh much at all. We mainly use English language sources. Arab and French media use Daesh a lot though. Legacypac (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    It seems the Australian government (and much of the media there) adopted "Daesh" after PM Tony Abbott declared in January 2015 he would only use that term. Turkish government and media exclusively use "Daesh". So do Iranian media. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    By FAR the most common designation for this group is "ISIS" with "ISIL" also being widely used and with "Daesh" even being used in some circumstances. Evidence to prove this has been presented time and time again. Please check the archive for non rigged searches. GregKaye 16:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

    The rational for ISIL over ISIS was that ISIL is based on the article title which is a more accurate translation (proved with expert refs). Discussed to death. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal - Remove the Timeline of events

    Done. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    On my screen the Timeline of events section takes 46 pages to get through. It is currently close to 200KB in size and makes the page difficult to navigate. It also contains a lot of not-to-reliable sources, but that is a matter for that article's Talk page. Does anyone have objections if what is displayed is reduced from 1 August - Present, to 1 November - Present? (Ideally I would like to remove it entirely and just leave a link to the Timeline article) Gazkthul (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    Agree to full removal, leaving the link. The translucion does not work well ether. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

    I went ahead and reduced it to just November. I think having some content in that section is good, so it won't just be links and overly brief. Feel free to suggest something below if you have a good compromise. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

    For a long time the transclusion was only a few months from earlier this year. As I said above, I thought this was because content on that article needed to be properly filtered through before being acceptable here. I'm guessing that hasn't been happening even though the transclusion was moved down to the more recent months. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    Timeline of events section is not being kept updated - even with only November information. It is not good practice to have duplicate information in two places, both of which need to be maintained and updated. I support deletion of all timeline information from this section, and reduce it to just a link to Timeline_of_ISIL_related_events, which is being kept updated.--Jenglish02 (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    I went ahead and removed transclusion completely due to the consensus above. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Distinguish Between Private and Saudi Government Donations

    I noticed the article has kind of a blurry line between donations from the government and private donations. The article would be more trustworthy if there was a more clear distinction. There is absolutely zero evidence at this time that the Saudi Arabian government directly provides funding. Any evidence, though quite minimal, suggests they just turn a blind eye to private donations. Even then, most donations likely support Sunni rebels who associate with ISIS in Iraq.[1]

    Jakebarrington (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

    there are no 'Sunni rebels' in Iraq, IS consists of the entirety of the Sunni armed forces fighting the government of Iraq, any other insurgents (like Ansar al-Islam or the Naqshabandi Army were co-opted, absorbed or defeated by IS quite a while ago) And in Syria, IS is in conflict with other Sunni rebels

    The fact is there has never been any Saudi government funding of IS as you rightly point out, this is a complete propaganda myth which there is no evidence for, and any private donations, from the Gulf more generally rather than just Saudi citizens, only ever made up at most under 5% of IS income. All these sections (allegation of support etc) that allege things with no evidence need to be removed. This is a factual encyclopedia, not a place for people to air their conspiracy theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.152.21 (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

    I think the section at Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Donations_Saudi_Arabia_and_Gulf_states is pretty clear that there's disagreement over whether or not there are donations, at least. It clearly states who made the accusations, the fact that there were accusations (not in a matter-of-fact way). If you see any other mentions of Saudi donations in the article, please change them to this format: "[entity] has accused [other entity] of [action],[reference] but there are sources which stress that there is no evidence for this.[reference]". The fact that al-Maliki accused Saudi Arabia of something like this is politically notable. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    there isn't any disagreement. you can't disagree with a fact you can make an absurd claim without any evidence, like maliki did, but we can't accept that both views are worthy of recognition when this is a matter of fact either the saudi government did fund IS, or they didn't and they didn't my pet cat might think Saudi funded IS, should we put 'random wikipedia editors cat stated Saudi funds IS? no!' maliki was kicked out a long time ago and his crazy iranian conspiracy theories are not relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.152.21 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    The fact that Iran or whatever thinks this, is notable. Calling it a conspiracy theory doesn't make the fact that they said it any more or less true. Saudi Arabia has similarly called out Iran for backing the Houthis. Also probably called a conspiracy theory by people on the other side of the coin. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis

    added {{reflist-talk}} LorTalk 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Those who hide behind the name of God to commit murder, steal, or rape, They still remain dirty murderers, thieves and criminals in the eyes of God (أولئك الذين الاختباء وراء اسم الله لارتكاب جريمة قتل، سرقة، أو الاغتصاب، هم دائما القتلة القذرة واللصوص والمجرمين في نظر الله)

    Ibn Taymiyyah

    The scholar Ibn Taymiyyah is used as justification by ISIS Wahhabis etc. every time they commit horrific acts. Ibn taymiyyah is rejected by mainstream sunni Islam. This articles fails to highlight the important fact. Misdemenor (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

    What?! How is Ibn Taymiyyah responsible for the mess created by ISIS? In fact, even clerics working under Bashar Al-Assas had spoke highly of Ibn Taymiyyah, such as the late Said Ramadan Al-Bouti. ISIS are composed of Saddam Hussein's ex-Baathist officials, and the literature they used to justify their actions are mostly of Najdis origins, or more precisely, the fruit of thoughts that was started by the movement of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab.
    What mainstream Sunni Islam? Many ideas about Islamic financing were created by studying of Ibn Taymiyyah's fatwa, and several others of his fatwa are also used in mainstream sunni Islam Shariah court, such as the triple divorce rulings. The fact that the Asharis rejected him is negligible, since nearly the whole town came to his funeral when he died. That hardly counts as "rejected" by mainstream sunni Islam. Even several others non-partisan scholars from the Ashari-Maturidi theological sects have acknowledge Ibn Taymiyyah's scholarship, such as Mulla Ali Qari from India. Trying to tie Ibn Taymiyyah with today's terrorist ideology is a very far-fetched thought.60.53.227.135 (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    Although Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti had some good writings such as madhhab being mandatory etc. Al bouti made fatwas allowing suicide bombings which coincidently killed him. Mainstream Sunni Islam does not allow such things so Al Bouti is a deviant. If he supported Ibn taymiyyah he is no different then ISIS ideologically.
    Sunni Islam does not associate themselves with Ibn taymiyyah, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said "Ibn Taymiyyah is a servant whom God forsook, misguided, blinded, deafened, and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the Mujtahid Imam Abu al Hasan al Subki, of his son Taj al Din Subki, of the Imam al Izz ibn Jama and others of the Shafi, Maliki, and Hanafi scholars... It must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator and an ignorant who brought evil whom God treated with His justice. May He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions".
    If you knew anything about Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab you would know he is influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah. When ISIS made a video showing the burning of Jordanian pilot, guess which scholar they used to justify their actions? It was Ibn Taymiyyah. Go view the full video if you doubt me. Nigeria's Boko Haram which is similar to ISIS also strongly view Ibn Taymiyyah as their favorite. This touches the taymiyyah-Boko haram connection [37]. Mainstream Sunni Islam(the majority) are followers of one of the 4 madhhabs see here.[38]. Ibn taymiyyah's altering of the triple divorce rulings is not accepted by Sunnis. Lets be clear Sunnis believe Ibn taymiyyah and Abdulwahhab have made their own madhab(school of thought) and most recently Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani. Former mufti of egypt on Ibn taymiyyah [39]. Egypt bans books on Ibn taymiyyah, Abdulwahhab etc [40] Abdulwahhab takes the idea of easing takfir from Ibn Taymiyyah which isis is currently using see here [41] Misdemenor (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

    Article about war crimes investigation

    This article contains some serious insights useful in multiple articles. [42] I've read a lot on ISIL, but this pulls back the curtain. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    Daesh

    Not wanting to waste any more "virtual ink" on the debate in "Name" above, but UK MP Rehman Chishti, himself a Muslim, has written to David Cameron calling on the Government to start using the name Daesh: [43]. Should this be mentioned in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

    It might be worth mentioning, as more than one country are pushing for widespread adoption of this "disparging" name... but I'd like to be clear that mentioning this and starting to use the name ourselves on Wikipedia are completely separate issues (and I'd oppose the latter, on grounds such as WP:UE and WP:NPOV). LjL (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    If Cameron and HM Government started to use the word Daesh, there might be more of a case. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, there would be no such case. "Daesh" is merely an Arabic version of "Isil". It means the exact same thing, other than that it is not English. If a certain fellow desires that "Daesh" be used specifically because it disparages a group in a way that "Isil" doesn't, that implies that it is loaded language that isn't neutral. The only thing that could allow for such a change would be if "Daesh" became the most common name in English language reliable sources. It has not, and is in fact quite rare outside of certain cases where it is used specifically to delegitimise the group. Please note that I'm not saying that the group has any legitimacy, merely that it isn't for the encyclopaedic voice to take a jab at its subjects. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I was just imagining that if Cameron started to do this, and it became official government policy, the popular press would have to follow suit, and so it would indeed become the "common name in English language reliable sources." But I guess we might then have a big UK/US split. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    Since when has the British press become subordinate to the British government? The popular press would not need to follow any British government recommendation on how the group is named. Regardless, I find such discussions to be a waste of time, given the current moratorium. RGloucester — ☎ 03:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    I didn't really say that, did I. But thanks for the interesting waste of time. Do you think it should be mentioned in the article or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    My general opinion is that we should not be serving as a WP:SOAPBOX for the initiatives of minor politicians, and that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    Rehman Chishti's letter was covered widely by the UK press. I'm pretty sure he would not claim credit for this idea, as a "personal initiative". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    Again, we are not a newspaper. If something comes of the initiative, that would be worth including. Until then, it would be giving this minor piece of trivia WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    And it's not just UK press: e.g. IBT, The Independent Journal, The New York Times. And it's not just Chishti - from The Independent Journal: "Along with the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, top Pentagon Lieutenant General James Terry, French president Francois Hollande and more, Abbott’s new name for the group that murdered 15,883 people by Thanksgiving is catching on quick." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

    Cameron encouraged use of the name 'Daesh' in the Commons this morning, and most MPs followed suit. Perhaps time to reconsider this decision. DavidPKendal (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

    It's a ridiculous argument (by Cameron), Daesh is literally Arabic for ISIS/ISIL. Gazkthul (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    But they don't speak English, so they? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    English is pretty widely understood in Iraq and the middle-east by young people. Although maybe it's an improvement if it will stop halfwits from vandalizing bookstores because they have ISIS in the name [44] Gazkthul (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Or wil stop equally nutty marketting rules. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think what 'Daesh' really means is largely irrelevant. Wikipedia:UE seems to say that we follow the most commonly used name (with weight given to more recent sources). If Daesh becomes the common term, the article should be renamed. If it doesn't, no change. I suspect that with many governments adopting this term, it will soon be widespread. 86.153.240.15 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that is correct. In the mean time, Name of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is probably a better article to explore this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    Accusations of ethnic cleansing

    According to the article and Amnesty, "...Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale".".

    Cleansing of whom? I fail to see how there is ethnic nationalism within this organisation, its members include Arabs and Kurds locally, with all else across the wider world (pockets in North Africa, South Asia) which means IS is multi-ethnic. I don't doubt for a moment that an organisation that carries out arbitrary executions will indeed expel people from their land (maybe these "victims" should consider themselves lucky to be given passage out of IS-controlled territory), but which "ethnic group" has been cleansed out? And in any case, is it the ethnicity they are being driven out for (to qualify as "ethnic cleansing") or is there another reason? Given this organisation takes volunteers from across the globe (e.g. Kosovo is a major recruiting ground), I fail to see how any Salafist Sunni would be expelled on ethnic grounds from ISIL. --OJ (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

    "Assyrian Christians, Turkmen Shi’a, Shabak Shi’a, Yezidis, Kakai and Sabean Mandaeans" [45] Gazkthul (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you but I had already read that prior to my comment. Let me make it easier: Christianity, Shia Islam, Mandaeism, Yarsanism (for Kakai) and Yazidism are all faiths. I accept that the latter is ethno-religious meaning they identify as a nation based on their faith, and I have no problem with this, but it would appear that despite the headline used by Amnesty, the term "ethnic cleansing" is being used anecdotally because it is what masses are accustomed to when seeing systematic expulsion of groups. My point is that it is patently obvious that the source of the provocation to ISIL is the faith and not the ethnicity. With this I feel we should reword the statement, religious cleansing is accurate, or an extension to the effect of "expulsion of religious groups reported as 'ethnic cleansing' by Amnesty" which is better than Amnesty reported ethnic cleansing; they reported it but they haven't shown it to be the case. As I said, ISIL is multi-ethnic in its structure and provided one is Salifist, I believe he can be of any ethnicity, even from a true western nation (and there are some). --OJ (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Ethnic cleansing can refer to expulsion (or killing, etc.) of people on ethnic or religious grounds.TheBlueCanoe 22:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    I realise. The term itself is inappropriate for what it implies. I can't suggest any major change on that premise, but according to the first line of the article, the perpetrator needs to be a more powerful "ethnic group" and this as we know isn't the case. ISIL may predominantly be Arab but so are the Shi'ites of Iraq, so that is like calling the Soviets Russian. --OJ (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Within the territory that it controls, ISIS is the more dominant religious group. If we can agree that "ethnic cleansing" can refer to attempts to achieve ethnic or religious homogeneity, then I think its actions do qualify. However, I would feel more confident putting this on the page if we found some opinions from international legal scholars supporting Amnesty International's interpretation.TheBlueCanoe 23:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Do you mean you'd rather amend the statement until further legal opinions support the Amnesty claim? Or did you mean you'd like to keep it as it is until we find evidence that legal experts oppose the Amnesty view? I apologise for having misinterpreted your message. --OJ (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure what I meant to say either. I think it's fine to include the Amnesty position in the article as-is (i.e. with attribution to Amnesty). It's just that I would feel more comfortable asserting the ISIS is guilty of ethnic cleansing if this conclusion had support from other sources, given the seriousness of the accusation.TheBlueCanoe 23:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    Adding to this: A UN report also notes that ISIS may have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.[46] The notion of genocide is alluded to in the article, but with no such clear statements from such an authoritative body. It may be worth including this as well.TheBlueCanoe 18:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Flag

    The Wikipedia entry doesn't make any noticeable reference I could see where it explains the flag is used by Daesh but also has been used for centuries.

    Whilst Daesh do seem to rely on it, it is by no means their flag. In the same way that if I were to start my own country and used the St George's flag, it wouldn't make it my new country's:

    http://heavy.com/news/2014/08/islamic-state-flag-arabic-meaning-translation-mahdi-black-standard-banner-info/

    I'm hesitant to simply edit the main page as it's a sensitive topic and I don't want to get shouted at (given all the warnings on the talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.48.21 (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    See Black Standard Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    File:AQMI Flag.svg

    Changed flag of ISIS in this article File:Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant2.svg is correct flag.

    But other flag of ISIS File:AQMI Flag.svg uploaded by HalloweenNight is not official and not correct flag of ISIS.

    See cover of Dabiq Magazine Issue 10

    https://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/the-islamic-state-an-archive-of-dabiq-magazine/

    See this YouTube video 32:00

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94

    See this ISIS video 3:30

    http://heavy.com/news/2015/11/new-isis-islamic-state-news-pictures-videos-no-respite-english-language-propaganda-full-uncensored-youtube-daesh/

    See this ISIS video

    http://heavy.com/news/2015/12/new-isis-islamic-state-news-video-see-you-in-dabiq-rome-muslim-extremists-rome-crusaders-colosseum-malahim-meeting-at-dabiq-italy-west-war-uncensored-full-youtube/

    This file File:AQMI Flag.svg need revert to uploaded by Yascine 13:40, 16 January 2013 佐倉千代 (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    It's the same flag.. Gazkthul (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    Lead para

    The Lead says, "The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish or Daesh ... the Arabic equivalent of 'ISIL'." We know what that means, but the uninformed reader will not be able to make head nor tail of it. ~ P-123 (talk)

    Indeed. This seems to come up every other day. The current version seems to be a compromise between several viewpoints, but sometimes precision needs to give way a little bit to clarity. Any suggestions?TheBlueCanoe 23:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    The new rewritten Lead is full of infelicities of expression. For example, what does "Derived from its Arabic name ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎), the group is also known under the acronym Da'ish or Daesh" mean? ~ P-123 (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    This article made the Top 25 Report

    This article was the 6th most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 896,501 views for the week November 8 to 14, 2015. This is the 9th time this article has been in the Top 25 in 2015. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

    For the week November 15 to 21, 2015, this article was the second most popular on Wikipedia with 2,600,177 views. The world's eyes are upon your work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  07:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    Wikipedia should therefore be embarrassed about the illiteracy shown in this article. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Message

    Pictures from Syria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiyyWiO-IKY Happy Christmas, everyone. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2015

    I would like to add materials from following references for 'Origins of ISIS': http://truthinmedia.com/truth-in-media-the-origin-of-isis/

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

    http://www.crethiplethi.com/the-historical-roots-and-stages-in-the-development-of-isis/islamic-countries/syria-islamic-countries/2015/

    Thanks Maher Hussain. maher2004@gmail.com

    209.195.94.35 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Thank-you for your request. There is substantial coverage of the group's origins in this article and other articles dealing earlier versions of ISIL (like Islamic State of Iraq). Could you be more specific about what you feel needs to be added? Legacypac (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Name of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

    I have created the above article to document the various issues surrounding the different names for the group. Since the article is protected, I cannot link it from here. I fully appreciate that as of right now, it's not as detailed as the Name section is here, but my hope is that people will not immediately react to this new article by merging it as redundant or whatever - instead I would rather the Names section here was editted to only list the names used by the group itself, and summarise the various issues around what other names are used and why (with the detailed explanations gong into this new article). MojoHarry (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks. That's quite interesting and might be the best place for the concerns/ debate I raised above at Daesh. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    The name should be Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Who even knows what the Levant is anyway? 173.75.117.35 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    Syria has multiple meanings too geograohically. See Levant. Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Well, I think the article is factually redundant with this article's Name section, and it's hard not to think it was created as a WP:POVFORK because this article is currently "hard to edit". I am not too comfortable with that. LjL (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    @LjL: I'd consider it a WP:SPLIT rather than a WP:FORK, which is very welcome in an overly long article. The #Name section however needs to be shortened accordingly. PanchoS (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    The name of this radical muslim group is Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham, translated to English would be the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (still ISIS). Levant is not the correct translation for al-Sham but the translation for Bilad al-Sham. see full post of explanation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/06/18/isis-or-isil-the-debate-over-what-to-call-iraqs-terror-group/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.220.158 (talk) 10. Dez. 2015, 19:43:55‎

    Wikipedia's naming conventions follows common usage, and the common name for the group is ISIS. Only the US government and a few others call them ISIL. ScienceApe (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

    The commom name has been debated over and over - see the links in the header. ISIL has many advantages including its been proven to be a better translation. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    I completely disagree. ISIS is the by far the more accurate term insofar as it specifies the conquest of Syria. The group has itself corrected the Western media on the erroneous ISIL designation, and presently it is almost universally identified as ISIS. The translation point is now moot, since the group now calls itself IS. About the only adherents of the outdated term are Obama and his State Department. They can no doubt point to Wiki for corroboration, as Wiki points back to them for its justification! Persisting in the "ISIL" nomenclature makes the article sound increasingly quaint and dated, Why preempt common usage?Update. Note the following quote which I adventitiously came across just after writing the above: "In his message, Obama noted that "in some areas of the Middle East where church bells have rung for centuries on Christmas Day, this year they will be silent," adding that "this silence bears tragic witness to the brutal atrocities committed against these communities by ISIL," his preferred acronym for the Islamic State (ISIS)." Orthotox (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    Orthotox needs to try a Google News search for "[47]" to find recent stories like these that debunk their assertion that Obama and his State Department are the only ones using ISIL.Just a few examples by country Qatar [48] Australia [49] US DoD [50] Turkey [51] Salon [52] UAE [53] Ghana [54] Telegraph in UK [55] Kuwait [56] Canada [57] Iran official news agency [58] USA Todat/AP [59] and we can go on. In addition ISIS is a lot of things including a pharma company, first name of many people, Egyptian godess, etc while ISIL is nearly unique to the terrorist group. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    Support a name change. The names ISIS, ISIL and Islamic State could contribute to Islamophobic attitudes. I agree that it be changed to Daesh, as it is more neutral. Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

    Un-Islamic Non-state

    I just moved Un-Islamic Non-State from my draft to the main space. Mhhossein (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

    That should be in this article in my opinion. The page is unnecessary. Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

    Misleading diagram

    Per comments here ("ISIS created in the northeast of Syria and a long time didn't have significant front line with Assad's force"), "Allegations of Syrian support" diagram is a deeply misleading/outdated. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

    What, then, do you suggest? -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

    Edit Request

    In August 2014, a German minister Gerd Müller accused Qatar of having links to ISIL, stating "You have to ask who is arming, who is financing ISIS troops. The keyword there is Qatar". Qatari foreign minister Khalid bin Mohammad Al Attiyah reiterated this stance when he stated: "Qatar does not support extremist groups, including [ISIL], in any way. We are repelled by their views, their violent methods and their ambitions."

    This word, reiterated, it does not mean what you think it means. I would fix it myself, but the page is locked.

     Done Gazkthul (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

    JLaffy01 (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

    Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

    A state

    ISIS/ISIL is not just "a Salafi jihadist militant group". It is a country. Politicians opposed to it will not accept that publicly, and will portray it as merely a terrorist group. But clearly ISIL runs a country. Perhaps not for long, but I would suggest that it is unencyclopaedic and political not to refer it to a militant group and state.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

    Because becoming s country (rather then just a rebel group holding territory) is a REALLY BIG DEAL and there are no Reliable Sources that say they are a country. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
    ISIL's claims to statehood are covered in the article: Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Criticism_of_the_name_.22Islamic_State.22_and_.22caliphate.22_declaration. Not all occupying forces automatically are regarded as states. If you provide a good reference, we could say "so and so reference says that ISIL is a state. This is countered by all these other references.". --BurritoBazooka (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
    "It is a country"? and "clearly ISIL runs a country"? Can you support your claims by reliable sources? Mhhossein (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
    Please distinguish between "state" and "country", and take into account the known & uncontested facts about Daesh's territorial presence. Aflis (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's a de facto state; it has solid territorial and military control of an area larger than England, has its own laws, and obviously aspires to become a permanent state actor in the region. What more do you need? And yes, many people have pointed this out (but my feeling is it won't matter if ten or twenty knowledgeable and notable sources were amassed to back up that it is a state; you'd just get some editors contesting it by raking up any number of politicians and pundits who say or imply that it would *not* really be a state).
    See, the trouble is: in the political and diplomatic language of the modern world, state (a sovereign state) almost equals "a territorial political entity that is a member of the United Nations or which aspires to soon become one". Joining the UN has become the rite of passage of recognized independent states over the last few decades (South Sudan, East Timor, Kiribati, etc). There are de facto independent states that haven't joined and which aren't recognized by most other countries (Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabach and others), and there is Taiwan which isn't recognized by PR China and is not a UN member, but which used to be. And the Vatican City which has observer status. But UN membership is still (at present) a key yardstick for most politicians and political writers - though it has nothing to do with the formal requirements for statehood. ISIS, however, has no aspirations to become part of the UN and nobody wants them there, they flatly reject the whole international order that the UN is a part of. So political professionals and diplomats won't call them a state, and much of the news media follow the cue - but to many ordinary people and knowledgeable independent observers, it is plain that ISIS forms an independent state. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    The whole argument above by 83.251.170.27 is irrelevant. Aflis' point inviting us to consider "the known & uncontested facts about Daesh's territorial presence" is irrelevant. We cannot use logic to somehow finesse our way around basic Wikipedia policy.
    As Legacypac says, being a state is a Really Big Deal. Wikipedia policy is very clear. We cannot suggest that any body of independent and learned opinion considers ISIS a state unless we can demonstrate using reliable sources that this is the case. Anonymous Wikipedia editors do not count. No matter how knowledgeable we may consider ourselves, we are not reliable sources.
    This has come up repeatedly on several articles over the past few years. If as the IP claims, "to many ordinary people and knowledgeable independent observers, it is plain that ISIS forms an independent state", and those people were sufficiently expert to be relevant to this discussion, it would be trivial to find a cite. It is not trivial to find a cite. In two years nobody has found a suitable reference for this. Literally. We haven't seen even one. In that situation, Wikipedia policy is crystal clear. We should never be the first independent source to come to a conclusion such as this.
    Find reliable sources, that consider the law and come to the conclusion that a state in fact legally exists, and that might change minds (though you'd probably still not be able to call them a "state" in Wikipedia's voice). Your own original conclusions, no matter how logical you may find them, cannot be used on Wikipedia. They must be dismissed out of hand. Kahastok talk 23:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

    "solid military and territorial control" or not so much [60] Loss of key international border crossings and 14% of territory taken. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

    Well, no doubt there are enough notable people who have pointed out that ISIS is effectively a state, or who have clearly implied it by the way they discussed ISIS - but the trouble is that if I or Aflis or anybody else would invoke them, somebody else would run the exercise of listing a couple of other sources (diplomats or US news writers and pundits, no doubt) who have stated the opposite POV - and then saying: "Hey man! I've got these notable sources and they contradict your sources so we still can't use those guys as valid reasons to even call ISIS a "self-proclaimed state"". People at WP generally prefer to marshal "another notable source" rather than engage in any discussion about the merits or implications of what those sources actually say and how knowledgeable they actually are (hint hint: not everything that's printed on the pages of NY Times, or LA Times or issued by a university press is equally reliable or equally dead serious: they bring out many different kinds of material, with different intentions and target audiences).
    I've seen that happening at several other articles and I don't care for wasting my time in that kind of trade. When two sides have a stake in the discussion, here at WP, it tends to lead to month-long tug-of-war matches where one or both sides are trying to find more and more sources to cite, ad nauseam rather than take on the actual issues or discuss what the sources actually say, and why - nobody likes to admit that their line didn't hold up. If you can't engage with these issues in any other way than blindly listing sources you'll never get to grips with some aspects of a topic like ISIS. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    There is serious doubt that any notable people have pointed to ISIL as a state - cause wikipedia editor keep asserting the sources must be out there but have yet to present any. ISIL definitely tries to take on some state like trappings - talk of a currency, issuing edicts, taxation etc but these are mostly functions taken on by local or provincial level governments. They also reject all nation states and declare all governments void, which precludes them recognizing other countries. That creates a big problem because mutual recognition is important to becoming a recognized state. Nation state is a good place to start getting educated. Legacypac (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

    Just a short reaction to user: Kahastok's remark (see above) on my small contribution: (a) my point is that using indiscriminately the concepts "state" and "country" (as equivalents) does not help the analysis, but creates a hopeless confusion, (b) I did not say, nor imply, that ISIS is a state, but simply that all of us knoiw about a certain number of facts concernung ISIS' presence in Syria and Iraq (and Lybia, for that matter), and that any analysis has to mtake these into account - not ignoiring any of them, nor giving any of them a disproportional importance. Not to do so is simply not serious and leads us nowhere. If anybody thinks this is an irrelevant remark - well that tells us then something about him/her. Aflis (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

    The question of what is a "state" and what is a "country" is are potentially fraught with difficulty. California is a state, for a given definition of "state". Wales is a country, for a given definition of "country". It is when we treat either word as having one single absolute meaning that confusion arises. I believe we all know what we mean by "state" or "country" - an entity that is independent and sovereign - and in that sense the two words are indeed equivalent.
    I stand by my remark that "the known & uncontested facts about Daesh's territorial presence" are not relevant to this discussion. You say that "any analysis has to mtake [sic] these into account". I don't disagree. But we aren't allowed to do any such analysis. What we might hypothetically take into account in an analysis we aren't doing is not relevant. Kahastok talk 13:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    There are many reliable sources which show that ISIS is a state, I struggle to find any that suggest otherwise. I think that the problem here is that hatred of/opposition to ISIL gets in the way of objective analysis. Briefly, ISIL occupies territory, it has a government and administrative structure, it imposes taxes and conscription. It has an army, etc. Unlike rebel groups occupying part of a country, it does not purport to be merely occupying a "liberated" part of another country, it purports to have created a new state. I fail to see how we can conclude that it hasn't done precisely that.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    Becoming a State/Country/Sovereign entity is a BIG DEAL. only other countries can recognize a new country and extend diplomatic recognition.This is extremely unlikely in the case of ISIL. Since I doubt any editors here are countries, all opinions are useless. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    The difficulty here is that ISIL clearly controls territory, has a government and armed forces, and calls itself a state. People are presuming that it has to be agreed that it is a state before it is described s such in Wikipedia. Actually it should be described as a state unless it can be proven not to be one. On the face of it ISIL is a state. Statehood is not determined in Washington, by the news media, by the United Nations, or by Wikipedia editors. An entity is either a country/state or it is not, whatever others may think of it. ISIL meets all the characteristics of a stateRoyalcourtier (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    You say that statehood is not determined by Wikipedia editors, and then, as a Wikipedia editor, determine it to be a state. If statehood is not determined by Wikipedia editors, then you aren't in a position to say that. It doesn't take much to think of examples where "it should be described as a state unless it can be proven not to be one" gives rise to ridiculous conclusions. It doesn't matter. That's not how Wikipedia works anyway. It is for those people who want Wikipedia describe ISIL as a state to demonstrate that it is a state, using reliable sources. Kahastok talk 22:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Try this reliable source for starters: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/isis-not-terrorist-group. The title is designed to attract attention - the author is not saying that ISIS is not a terrorist group, but that it is a terrorist state. Incidentally the author is Audrey Cronin, Distinguished Professor and Director of the International Security Program at George Mason University. I think we have to agree that she is a credible source.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    Royalcourtier, Cronin may be a reliable source, but she is not the only source. I think the issue is that you are claiming "An entity is either a country/state or it is not, whatever others may think of it." Becoming a state is not a simple matter of filling out an application and having it approved; it depends in large part upon international and domestic recognition and legitimacy (even under the theory of declarative statehood). The whole discussion here is great evidence for why this article should reflect the *controversy* surrounding ISIS's statehood, rather than relying on a simplistic definition of territorial control, since the whole point is that ISIS's statehood is debated.[1] ISIS meets some commonly accepted declarative criteria for statehood, but does not meet most others. (It appears that political and scholarly consensus leans in favor of non-statehood).[2] Jim0101 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    All four of the following criteria need to be met to be considered a state under customary international law:
    • A permanent population
    • A defined territory
    • A government
    • The capacity to enter into relations with other states
    There are also arguments that a state only exists if it is recognized as such by other states, as well as stipulations that entities cannot use force to gain recognition of their sovereignty. Whichever way you cut it, ISIS does not fit the bill. Its 'borders,' such as they are, are in constant flux, and so is its population. It has some features of a government, but not an effective one. There is no evidence that it can enter into relations with other countries, nor is it recognized as a state by other members of the international community.TheBlueCanoe 23:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    Well, it does; but the relations it enters into consist of threatening to bomb the crap out of them! Know what I mean. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 23:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    1. ^ Joe Boyle, "Islamic State and the Idea of Statehood," BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30150681 (Jan. 6, 2015).
    2. ^ Joe Boyle, "Islamic State and the Idea of Statehood," BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30150681 (Jan. 6, 2015).

    Turkey section/Eren Erdem and sarin gas

    Guys, the source is Russia Today. RT is not serious. 84.59.177.140 (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

    Oh yes, removed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

    "U.S. intelligence agencies have found no specific plots or any immediate threat"

    This is completely untrue.

    I might find counterexample sources later when I'm more sober. --ScWizard (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

    The reference is from September 2014. It was presumably true back then, but is no longer correct. Gazkthul (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

    Accidental Vandalism

    I accidentally vandalized this page, replacing the word force with the word horse and other substitutions. This was because of a browser extension, xkcd substitutions, which I have since disabled. I was careless and I didn't notice it was happening and it was not intentional. I apologize for the disruption and look forward to working together and contributing positively in the future. Benjamin (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

    Proposed merge with Un-Islamic Non-State

    Would complement the ISIL article very well; as it stands it lacks a fundamental context. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 23:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

    That is the obvious consensus at the AfD [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Un-Islamic_Non-State] already. Someone just needs to do it. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    I suppose it would need a litle bit of tidying afterwards, if that can be done whilst keeping the page relatively stable. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 00:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Just insert any relevant info here (condensing it, and making sure it is not already covered here) and then redirect the other page here. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    It had already been done. Very nicely if I say so myself. But it was then reverted. Get that AfD closed and then we'll do it again. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    AfD has been closed. Fix it and I'll back up the changes if required. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

    All removed by this edit [61] I'll invitr the editor to discuss here. Legacypac (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

    @Legacypac and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I added it back here. Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

    The development of these articles is still hindered by bizarre deletions like File:Al-Furqān Media Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.png, made under the theory that it is "unethical" and violates the "moral rights" of authors like Al Furqan to delete their media if it is public domain in the U.S. only due to the lack of a copyright treaty. Ethicists are always like that -- I can scarcely think of a higher commendation of a man's character than to call him unethical. However, I strongly suspect that a propaganda outlet that tries so desperately to get its images out has actually free-licensed them or donated them to the public domain, if such a reference can be found. Can anyone point to such evidence? Wnt (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

    " U.S. intelligence agencies have found no specific plots or any immediate threat" NOT TRUE

    I have sources that directly contradict this unsourced claim that US inteligence agencies have not found any specific plots, so I've reverted this unsourced claim.

    Emanuel Lutchman who had plegged allegiance to ISIS, aka an ISIS member, planned a machete attack on New Years in the United States. The FBI (a US intelligence agency!) had knowledge of this attack were thus able to foil it.

    Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rochester-isis-wannabe-emanuel-lutchman-planned-new-year-s-machete-n488526

    I'm absolutely disgusted by unsourced bogus claims that ISIS is not a threat to the Untied States, implying that they seek to form a peaceful state. --ScWizard (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

    Removal of relevant text

    This edit. Please stop edit war and get consensus for removal. I do not see any reason for removing this text. What is it? My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

    What edit war? I deleted the section once that's not an edit war. If other people had previously deleted it I wasn't aware of that. My reasons for deleting the section is that it twists sources to imply that ISIS is not a terrorist organization, that due to them claiming territory in the middle east they are a "milita" and not a terrorist group. Or that there's "questions" about them being a terrorist group. No reputable source has called into question ISIS's designation as a terrorist organization. --ScWizard (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

    muslims support ISIS

    I want to add something along the lines of

    In the middle east, 63 million muslims support ISIS, 287 million if the undecided are included.[1]

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/pew-poll-63-million-muslims-support-isis-in-eleven-countries/

    to the supporters section,

    but a similar edit was recently reverted.

    I've since found a better source.

    What do you think?

    It is good enough?

    Benjamin (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

    Well, here is original publication that qualifies as RS and frames this in an opposite way (!): "Views of ISIS Overwhelmingly Negative". Simply providing some data (interestingly, it has significant support in Pakistan), without judgement ("positive/negative") would be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

    My edit was reverted again, because of The Gateway Pundit not being a reliable source. But It was only one of two sources, the other being Pew. I'd like consensus before I revert again. Benjamin (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

    I want to add something like this.

    Middle eastern muslims

    − The Muslim populations of various middle eastern countries have overwhelmingly negative views of ISIS, but a significant minority have favorable views.[1]

    What do you think? My very best wishes User:Djrun

    Benjamin (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

    Hello and thank you for reaching out for guidance on the talk page. As you mentioned below, the first step to make this edit is by identifying reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements (that is why your edit is being reverted). Do keep in mind, that the discussion of Muslims' views of ISIS is very complex and would require at least a paragraph to do it justice. For example, the edit speaks about Muslims in the Middle East however the blog post that was referenced included Pakistan (which is not in the Middle East but in South Asia). A one sentence summary will not be sufficient for something with much complexity. I hope that helps you in your edits. Best regards.Djrun (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

    ISIS is unislamic and the main victims are muslims forced to live in iraq and syria. No muslim in their right mind will support ISIS, your claims are futile. They claim that abu bakr al-bagdadi is a prophet you cant reason which those kinds of blockheads.118.102.228.2 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

    1. ^ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/ft_15-11-17_isis_views/

    Is it really appropriate to use this dated TIME source?

    In this source a US intelligence officer says:

    "This is not a terrorism problem anymore." This source is being used to push the viewpoint that ISIS is not a terrorist organization. However this source was from 2014, before the dreadful attacks in Paris. No one these days would say that "ISIS is not a terrorism problem anymore" so is it really fair to push sources like this? --ScWizard (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

    The full quote is “This is not a terrorism problem anymore,” says Jessica Lewis, an expert on ISIS at the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank. “This is an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain.”. I'd interpret this as something more like "this is not just a terrorism problem anymore", since what Lewis seems to be trying to convey is that it has escalated into an actual armed conflict with land conquers. LjL (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'm in agreement with LjL. Mhhossein (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with both ScWizard and LjL. The words "This is not a terrorism problem anymore" are very dated, and unfortunately quoting them barely like that gives an unintended slant to their meaning. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    Added a few words to pinpoint the context, which should eliminate it. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

    There is a typo in the sidebar under the "Strength" section. The values "Inside Syria and Iraq" read as "19,000+-25,000". I believe it should be "19,000 – 25,000"


    19,000 – 25,000[1][2] (CIA estimate in 2016)

    Cmarkson (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

     Done LjL (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

    Turkey funds IS

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-israel-turkey-idUSKCN0V421N

    : Yes but its not just Turkey. Blizzio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Shawwal, see investigation)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

    Is ISIS a theocracy?

    Hi, at Talk:Theocracy#ISIL, a user recently removed ISIS from our article theocracy, claiming it is not a state or government, and hence not a theocracy. I disagree, and think it should be included in our page on theocracy, but I'm no expert, and not that well informed on this. So I thought it would be nice to get some attention from editors better informed than me. While I respect a WP:BOLD move this seems too hasty, and I think we need at least a few more viewpoints to settle this content/categorization issue. Thanks for any input at that talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to one external link on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

    Khawarij myth

    "please do stop replying"--good advice. This talk page is not a forum. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I dont think an encylopaedia should relay extremist sunni propaganda which says that ISIL isn't sunni but "khamarij" (ahahahaha). There is virtually no Kharidjites in Irak, in Syria or in the entire area of ISIL operations. The only significant kharidjite community in the middle east is found in Oman, and follows the Ibabite school, which is radically opposed to ISIL's worldview, as it emphasize using one's brain. There is even unconfirmed rumors that their sultan, Qaboos, is gay.

    So yes, ISIL are sunni, even if at the far-right of sunnism. Proof? They are allied with sunni tribes, they live in an area inhabited mostly by sunni (and some Shia), they only quote ultra-radical sunni theologians on religious matters, they are financed by sunni islamo-conservative countries (Turkey, gulf states, etc...), and they have virtually the same penal code and beliefs as Saudi Arabia, center of the sunni world (even if they're too at it's far-right).

    So i think the article should be edited to remove the "see article: Khawarij" (It gives the false impression that they have some kind of strong link to kharidjism), and in-text to stop giving such credit to extremist propaganda (Weird, all the "scholars" are from the same branch of islam as ISIL). Most germans would also like to believe that hitler was a dictator ("the fall" movie), but he was elected by a majority, which has to bear responsability. An encyclopaedia document facts, it doesn't try to help people camouflage their shortcomings, or those of some members of their community. Moving forward implies looking behind. 86.200.163.57 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

    PS: A fine analysis shows, as i said, that the proponents of this "isil arent't sunni" theory are nearly all sunni, and very religious compared to average sunni (often salafi). Or have absolutely no command of islamic theology, like most muslims sadly (how do you think a conservative revival works?). Please make your own research.

    People are free to claim whatever they want but I dont think you understand the term "Khawarij". The term literally means those who leave Islam. The ibadi community in oman are not khawarij they are descendants of khawarij. The Ibadi sect has been reformed. Any sect can be deemed khawarij if its rejected by the muslim community. You have issues with identifying who or what are the Sunni followers. Do you know the gulf states religious sect has been deemed khawarij by Sunni? The Saudis are not considered Sunni by other Sunnis and vice versa. Khawarij is not an ancient term that is binded by a specific time or sect. Blizzio (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

    the khawarij are a specific sect of islam with their own specific characteristics you will note that the liars and conmen who like to call IS 'khawarij' can never define the beliefs of the khawarij nor give evidence that IS holds those beliefs the reality, the primary belief of khawarij is making takfir on SIN we have definitive proof the islamic state does not make takfir on sin through video and photo evidence as well as anecdotal. this is because we can see in pictures that when someone drinks ( a major sin) they dont say 'oh he sinned he is a kafir and lets kill him for apostasy', what they do is lash them according to shariah (shown in pictures). we can also see in a video, where according to the shariah they did have to apply the death penalty for homosexual sex (sodomy), despite this man comitting a major sin they still considering him a muslim (according to the beliefs of sunni) and washed his body and gave him a muslim burial so it is a theological fact and one borne out with evidence that the islamic state do not hold the beliefs of the khawarij and infact they have specifically rejected that many times

    Oh and blizzio, you dont know anything about islamic theology (nor from your wrong and ridiculous comment below about politics: No country funds/supports IS), so you would be better off not commenting about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

    ISIS follows wahhabism which is deemed khawarij by Sunni scholars. For example by Ibn Abidin [62] [63] ISIS's funding is not clear but whats clear is that they are walking around with books written by Saudi Arabian scholars. The terrorist entity called ISIS is not legitimate they are criminals who are hiding behind civilians to disrupt an established government. I dont see how you think they are a valid state when they never had a country to begin with. Therefore a sect can simply be deemed khawarij for not being accepted by the muslim community even if they dont do takfir as you said. Blizzio (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

    literally everything you wrote is wrong. why on earth are you trying to edit this when you are obviously an ignoramus? 1. there is no such thing called wahhabism, the scholar muhammad wahhab didn't bring anything new and he was a Salafi (which IS a movement and methodology in Islam) 2. nobody equates non-existent 'wahhabism' (or salafism) with the beliefs of the khawarij. 3. the wikipedia page you cite on the scholar ibn abidin while mentioning his views of 'wahabbism' (without clear citation) does not use the word khawarij at all 4. the entire Muslim word uses books by scholars born in Saudi, not sure of what relevance that is 5. finally no, they cannot be declared as khawarij because 'the muslim community' rejects them, though it is far from clear that the 'muslim community' have (who defines this? because hundreds of thousands of muslims have joined them in dozens of countries, so its a fact that far from rejecting them, many muslims have agreed with them) 6. we can only call someone khawarij if there is evidence that they hold the recorded theological beliefs of the khawarij, and as i demonstrated before, they do not hold the primary belief of the khawarij of making takfir on sin

    i will quickly show some other differences for you so you can get your ingoramus head around the fact they are not khawarij. 1. the khawarij believe that a non-qurayshi can be caliph. IS rejects this view (as sunni) and says the caliph must be of quraysh and abu bakr al baghdadi is 4. the khawarij abolish the ruling of stoning, whereas we have photographic proof that IS stones adulterers. just two ways, with evidence, that IS are not khawarij

    (your bias is showing because i never mentioned anything about whether they were a state or not: using non-neutral point of view terms like 'terrorist' and 'criminal' shows how unsuitable you are to edit this page') + anty other editors notice this guy has for a year and a half been only editing pages on IS and nusra trying to shove in the word 'Wahhabi' and adding nothing else??? someone needs to ban him

    i would seriously advise you to keep to editing pages you know something about (if anything) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

    No such thing as wahhabism really? Muhammed ibn abdulwahhab rejected the fours schools of Sunni and brought his own laws which made sunnis call him a wahabi, Go to the Khawarij page you will see wahabi is listed as the modern khawawrij as early as the 18th century. Are the islamic scholars making things up? Well lets see what Al-Azhar University said [64]. If you want other titles then khawarij then we can settle with perhaps "satanic" since that is al azhar's position. The Saudis keep printing books like paper towels because their oil revenue allows them to. Most muslims do not read those books. Only a minority follow the wahhabi or salafi religion. Salafi is a movement of ISIS which follows ibn taymiyyah who is also regarded as a kafir (non believer) by sunnis. Just read what Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said about ibn taymiyyah. Let me quote him "Ibn Taymiyya is a slave which Allah has forsaken and misguided and blinded and deafened and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the mujtahid imam Abu al-Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki, of his son Taj al-Din Subki, of the Imam al-`Izz ibn Jama`a and others of the Shafi`i, Maliki, and Hanafi shaykhs...In short, his words are not given any importance whatsoever; rather they are thrown aside into every wasteland and rocky ground, and it must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator (mubtadi` dall mudill) and an ignorant who brought evil (jahilun ghalun) whom Allah treated with His justice, and may He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions"' You can be banned for supporting a terrorist organization mate so dont worry about me. I have seen people get banned for support of ISIS on wikipedia. Blizzio (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

    @blizzio, i can see you are trying hard. but you fail again. 1.no there is not. 2. muhammad wahhab was a salafi and yes, the position of the salafis is to reject taqlid to a madhhab and make direct ijtihad of Qur'an and sunnah (i put these in links for your benefit), that is not the same as 'bringing you own laws' (what he actually did was look at law as it was originally given by muhammad). what do you think the views of the madhhabs are based on if not evidence form Qur'an and sunnah? 3. Al azhar is controlled the dictatorial Egyptian government and as such its opinion is irrelevant 4. many millions of muslims do read those books (which are why they are sometimes blamed for the current islamic revival!) 5. IS are salafis yes, and so was ibn taymiyyah, but your claim that sunnis regard ibn taymiyyah as a kafir is totally wrong and ridiculous. he is called the sheikh of islam by the sunnis and one of the most respected scholars in history! 5. you provide no source from your apparent quote from Ibn Hajar al-Haytami but funnily enough you should see Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah where he declares shia to be kuffar (maybe something you'd associate with your 'wahhabis'? will you not 'quote' him now? 6. refuting your uneducated, ignorant and totally wrongheaded beliefs about islamic theology is not 'supporting ISIS'. you are as incapable of logic in this regard as in all else, it seems 7. can someone really not ban this guy for damaging wikipedia by editing things he is *totally* ignorant about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

    Only wahhabis and ISIS call ibn taymiyyah "sheikh of islam". The Sunnis dont regard him as anything but an apostate. I provided no source? Everyone knows Ibn Hajar and many other scholars made a fatwa on Ibn taymiyyah. Ibn Hajar wrote this in his Fatawa hadithiyya [65]. No Wahhabis are not Shia but nice try. ISIS is not regarded as muslim organization. Sunnis never liked Wahhabis and they went to war with them. Read Ottoman-Saudi War and Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East . Your support for ISIS is clear to all dont try to backtrack. Your pushing for ISIS to be a legitimate Islamic movement by rejecting any motion that labels it unislamic, false or khawarij (outside the fold of islam) .Im not going to entertain this any longer I have said what i needed to say. You can pretend Al Azhar is lying but it only makes you look bad. Blizzio (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

    @blizzio-1.no, regular orthodox sunnis regard him as sheikh al-islam. 2. again you repeat this crap that sunnis believe ibn taymiyyah is an apostate, this is flat wrong and you provided no evidence for you claim (there isnt any) and no, your so-called 'fawta' you linked does not call him an apostate but merely an innovator 3. you didnt provide any source before and the fact a small minority of scholars may have once wrote a fatwa denigrating him means nothing in and of himself. 4. i didnt say wahhabis are shia. you are on drugs or can you just not read!? i said that ibn hajar wrote a book calling shia apostates just like your so-called 'wahhabis' consider shia to be apostates. so why are you taking the views of ibn hajar when he agrees with the 'wahhabis' about the shia being apostates? 5. hilariously the very opening paragraph of the book you cite says: It has been described as "apocryphal",[2] a "forgery", "utter nonsense" (very much like what you write!) 6.i am stating a theological fact that IS in an orthodox Sunni movement, again that is not the same as 'supporting' them. (PS: i am not even a muslim and no i dont support IS. I am a Christian educated in Islamic theology). 7. I provided you with three theological proofs that IS are not khawarij (the khawarj believe in making takfir on sin whereas IS does not (as i proved with evidence), and khawarij rejecting stoning whereas IS does not, and khawarij accepting a non-qurayshi caliph whereas IS does not and baghdadi is a qurayshi). all this time you provided no theological proofs whatsoever 8. the fact that the 'sheikhs' of al azhar will write whatever the egyptian government tells them is well known and far from making me look bad it makes you look bad for not accepting this simple well known fact. 9.please do stop replying because you will only make yourself look more foolish and waste my time educating you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

    Right under the "History" section title, the article says "Main articles: History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Clicking this link merely redirects to the "History" section. Either the link should be removed entirely, or changed to connect to something useful. 110.33.168.218 (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

    There is an error on this page. In the section that talks about foreign fighters in ISIS. the write up says 3000 from Tunisia. but the table says 5000. can the correct data be given please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notallan (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

    ISIL Propaganda

    youtu.be/hsofB89Fdfg tons of great info here about ISIL social media efforts. Legacypac (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

    Infobox size

    I removed the recent edits that added around 6kb of allies & opponents to the infobox. This information makes the infobox go on for page after page, and is particularly unwieldy when viewed on a mobile app, it also duplicates information that is already listed in the article. Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, "flag icons should not be used in infoboxes", but these edits added over 90(!) flags. Finally, there are numerous inaccuracies in the information added, for example al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al-Shabaab & the Caucasus Emirate are all listed incorrectly as allies. Gazkthul (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

    ISIS or ISIL or Islamic State

    I see both are listed. Do we have a manual of style guideline for which one to use so our usage is consistent? Rklawton (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

    It's been discussed extensively and the result is always to use ISIL since it matches the main article and a number of daughter articles have ISIL in their title. Legacypac (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

    Should we propose it as a matter for the MoS (not the debate, just the resolution) so that all our articles use the same convention? Rklawton (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    i'm wondering this as well. some niche articles are bouncing between ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh (itself still not widely recognized as a moniker of ISIL) Nucas (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

     Comment: What I dont understand is why it aint yet renamed as Islamic State (IS). It aint an issue of being for or against them, its a matter of common sense & NPOV. If we accepted the name they give themshelves earlier (ISIS or ISIL) -as we accept every name every militant/terrorist/guerrilla/paramilitary, etc... group gives itself-, why not accept it now? I could point even that using the ISIL/ISIL name is so outdated, as IS now doesnt control only territory in Syria & Irak, but reportedly in Libya and also a few in Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt & Nigeria. It has no sense, and only can be understanded in the view of trying to deny them everything, even the right of how calling themshelves...--HCPUNXKID 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

    @HCPUNXKID: actually the classic criterion on Wikipedia is to use the WP:COMMONNAME, not necessarily the name a group uses for themselves (although there are other, sometimes overriding, criteria). Not saying that ISIL is necessarily the common name, either, but at least around this part, IS is rarely used. LjL (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    @LjL: Well, in this case, the WP:COMMONNAME criterion is not met, as a Google search gives the following hits:
    "Islamic State": 91.700.000 hits
    "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria": 46.100.000 hits
    "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant": 2.050.000 hits
    "IS": 25.270.000.000 hits
    "ISIS": 243.000.000 hits
    "ISIL": 20.200.000 hits
    "DAESH": 14.500.000 hits

    Yeah, I know some of the results of "Islamic State" wouldnt refer to the yihadist group, but to recognized states who use that name (examples, Iran or Mauritania), but even though the number of hits is nearly double in comparison with "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", so the term "Islamic State" is clearly more used. Same issue happens with the acronyms. So, according to this, the most common name to refer to this terrorist group is Islamic State (IS).Its not me who assure it, but the web. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 18:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

    Sorry, but, even aside from the general fact that just counting web hits is often a misleading proposition, this search you made is atrociously flawed. Do you realize that if you search for "Islamic State", that also counts all the hits of "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"? So if anything, the hits for "Islamic State" alone are 91.700.000 minus 46.100.000 minus 2.050.000, which totals 43.550.000, which is less than the total for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria".
    Even more obviously, if you search for "IS", that finds all instances of the English verb "to be" in the third person singular present: "is". So the vast majority of those hits are spurious.
    Please read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers and Wikipedia:Search engine test carefully before presenting new search count-based evidence, and also keep in mind that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't really mean using any name found on Google, but particularly focuses on names most commonly used by reliable sources (as most things on Wikipedia do). LjL (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    It is better to shut this down now, before one heads any further down this fruitless path. There is a moratorium on page move proposals until September 2016. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    This section doesn't seem to be about the page's name. LjL (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

    Note: the proposal was to make the currently used name Wikipedia's MoS standard across all articles. Rklawton (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

    I strongly believe they should be referred to as Islamic State. It's not a NPOV if we don't refer to the group by that name. Additionally, it's what major news organizations such as Reuters (example), Associated Press (example), USA Today (example), New York Times (example), Wall Street Journal (example) and the BBC (example) use to refer to them. Also, it's the group's current name. Only in abbreviations, those news organizations might refer to them as ISIS, but when writing it out in full form, they use Islamic State in any recent articles. Simply because "Islamic State" could refer to something else other than this group is not a good reason why we shouldn't refer to the group with that name; we could simply make this article named "Islamic State (group)". Can we please change it already? Kjhsdo (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

    At this point I do begin to think that among "ISIL", "ISIS" and "Islamic State", Wikipedia is sticking with the absolutely least WP:COMMONNAME, for the sake of resistance to change. At the same time, if we want (and I do want, and this proposal wanted) to be consistent across articles, "just changing it already" may not be the best route to avoid confusion and fights. LjL (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    It is only English-Wikipedia that fails to call Islamic State by its WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the Wikipedia call the Islamic State what the Islamic State calls itself:
    * Spanish Wikipedia: Estado Islámico http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Estado_Islámico
    * Italian Wikipedia: Stato Islamico http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Stato_Islamico
    * German Wikipedia: Islamischer Staat (Organisation) http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Islamischer_Staat_(Organisation)
    * French Wikipedia: État islamique (organisation) http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/État_islamique_(organisation)
    It is well known, for instance, that the BBC calls the Islamic State "Islamic State," for example. http://www.bbc.com/news/24758587 XavierItzm (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    You know that there is a moratorium until September. Stop discussing it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    There is a moratorium on pointing out that Wikipedia is using the least WP:COMMONNAME for the Islamic State terrorist organisation and being horribly inconsistent with articles such as the Bruce Jenner article which was renamed as soon as the article subject started to call himself something else? XavierItzm (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    You should turn yourself to the WP:BLP policy for an explanation as to why the name of a living person is treated different from the name of an organisation. Of course, that distinction should be obvious, but I repeat that nothing productive can be done here until September. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

    These flawed Google searches and cherrypicked news refs have all been brought up before. ISIL is as common or more common then any other name used. ISIS is a close second but suffers from it being a less accurate translation and having other uses like Isis. Also very important is no government will use Islamic State, and most news outlets are careful to qualify IS with "group" "organization" or "so called" etc. I'm now tired of educating other editors while a moratorium is in place. Stop the attempts to change it. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

    Undue weight and questionable sources for government support claims

    The "Allegations of Syrian support" is, apart from being ridiculously titled (it is entirely about government support), a pile of biased sources ("tweets", al-Arabiya, a Saudi mouth-piece, and Daily Sabah, a Turkish AKP mouth-piece?!) and desperate conspiracy theories that should be cut down severely. Seriously, this is three times as long as the "Allegations of Saudi Arabian/Qatari support" sections? Way undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

    FunkMonk:So, do you think there's no other reliable sources making such claims? Mhhossein (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    This is not about what reliable sources claim, but about pruning out all the unreliable sources used there. FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    FunkMonk: I don't object removing them if these claims are not supported by other more reliable news outlets. Consider that being biased does not necessarily mean unreliable (see WP:BIASED). Mhhossein (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    It means we are giving WP:undue weight to dubious claims. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with reducing the weight of those allegations to the its due weight. --Mhhossein (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

    The name of this organization is now the Islamic State (IS) and not ISIS

    Since 06/29/2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham/Levant (ISIS or ISIL) has officially a new name : the Islamic State (IS). The name of the article must change. The IS is not only in Iraq and in Syria, they also control territories in Libya (Sirte for exemple), and they have a presence in many other countries.

    https://www.youtube.com/v/watch?v=v6-BUoX7uR0 (see at 0:50 for the new name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

    We are not even going to go there. See the massive messages when you post here. Please read the proposed page move discussions linked at top of this page. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    Well, Marsupilami128 is absolutely correct. In articles such as the one for Bruce Jenner, Wikipedia changed the name of the article's subject as soon as the subject claimed a different name. The terrorists are getting discriminated by Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    the OP's position could easy be mistaken for terrorist propoganda (or maybe it is?). Legacypac (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    I hate to repeat such an over repeated sentence, but I have to say. Here in Wikipedia, it does not matter what we call ourselves. Mhhossein (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

    Inaccurate map

    At this time Fallujah is still under ISIL control but the map shows that area under the control of the Iraqi government. 110.174.166.224 (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    Protect this page

    I honestly think anonymous users should be completely blocked from editing this page. 18:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrismTheDragon (talk • contribs)

    Done Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    There's a link under "history" to the main article on the subject but it's simply a link to this very page. I'll just remove it I guess because it seems there is no "ISIS history" page. PS: I can't remove it because the page is protected. I should've known.

    BeefDaeRoastLXG praat 11:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

    Removed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Added Russian acronym IGIL/IGIL?

    The disambiguation says,

    "ISIL", "ISIS", "IGIL", "Daish", "Daesh" and "Islamic State group" redirect here. For other uses, see ISIL (disambiguation), ISIS (disambiguation), Daish (disambiguation), and Islamic state (disambiguation). For the instrument, see Igil.


    Not to be confused with Islamic republic.

    [Emphasis added]

    What the heck does "IGIL" stand for. I can't find any reference to it in the article nor the article on an igil nor through Google. 71.223.131.94 (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    It was added in this [66] edit and is apparently the Russian abbreviation for the group. Gazkthul (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    Map

    A better map of ISIS territories would be this 88.1.113.213 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

    That map is from May 2015 Gazkthul (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    That map is outdated, like Gazkthul said. Also, it looks pretty ugly in my opinion. Land topography isn't necessary as we only need geopolitical boundaries and settlement names to show the extent of their control. Cganuelas (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    1. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/03/isil-fighters-new-estimate-25000-iraq-syria/79775676/
    2. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/isis-fighters-libya-syria-iraq/index.html
    Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_38&oldid=1249156119"