Misplaced Pages

Talk:Islamic State: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:30, 2 July 2015 editGMRE (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users771 edits Remove topics and words that glorify and give a sense of power to ISIL← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:50, 7 January 2025 edit undoOrebroVi (talk | contribs)373 edits Use of term 'terror group': ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pbneutral}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} {{Talk header||search=no}}
{{Notice|heading=Note 1| This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please check to see whether your additional content can be added to an existing discussion section, and please make new section titles as precise as possible.}}
{{talk header||search=no}}
{{Notice|heading=Note 2| Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) <small>(If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> – and it will display the guide.)</small>}}
{{round in circles}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Syrian Civil War sanctions}}
{{censor}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Calm}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{British English|date=December 2014}}
{{afd-merged-from|Ajnad Foundation|Ajnad Foundation|19 July 2020}}
{{Old peer review|reviewedname=Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|archive=1}}
{{Afd-merged-from|Worldwide caliphate|Worldwide caliphate|8 September 2022|8 September 2022}}
{{On this day|date1=2015-04-08|oldid1=655155477|date2=2017-04-08|oldid2=774405852|date3=2020-04-08|oldid3=949717701}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Mid|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Top}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=high|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|Salaf=y|Sunni=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Middle-Eastern=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes|African=yes|Asian=yes}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Syria|importance=high}}
}}
{{Press|collapsed=yes
| org = Olean Times Herald
| url = http://www.oleantimesherald.com/commentary/article_2d97b474-cd8b-11e4-993b-439f0998aecc.html
| date = March 18, 2015
| title= ISIS not the Islamic state it fiercely claims to be
| quote = "I approach Misplaced Pages cautiously as to whether its abundant information on a multitude of subjects is complete and authoritative. But I salute the site for its numerous citations concerning the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — specifically the "criticism of the name 'Islamic State' and 'caliphate' declaration" (found under its entry for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)."
}}
{{Gs/talk notice|scwisil}}

{{Other banners|collapsed=yes|
{{Annual report|] and ]}}
{{Top 25 Report|Aug 3 2014 (9th)|Aug 10 2014 (12th)|Aug 17 2014 (5th)|Aug 24 2014 (5th)|Aug 31 2014 (3rd)|Sep 7 2014 (5th)|Sep 14 2014 (3rd)|Sep 21 2014 (2nd)|Sep 28 2014 (12th)|Oct 5 2014 (12th)|Oct 12 2014 (12th)|Oct 19 2014 (24th)|Feb 1 2015 (14th)|Feb 8 2015 (20th)|Feb 15 2015 (11th)|Feb 22 2015 (15th)|Mar 1 2015 (18th)|Mar 8 2015 (17th)|Jun 28 2015 (22nd)|Nov 8 2015 (6th)|Nov 15 2015 (2nd)|Nov 22 2015 (10th)|Nov 29 2015 (20th)|Dec 6 2015 (13th)}}
{{Old moves
| list =
*See ''Older discussions'' (below this list) for a list of twelve earlier requested moves and discussions.
* ] '''Agreed''' 14 Aug – 19 Sep 2015
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → ISIS, '''Not moved''', 20 Oct – 27 Oct 2016, ]
* RM ] → ] '''Technical Close''' 4–23 July 2017, ]
* RM ] → ] '''Moved'''. 30 August – 22 September 2021.
* RM ] → ] '''Not moved'''. 18 May – 26 May 2022.
| oldlist =
# Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, '''Moved''', 13 August 2013, ]
# RM, Islamic State '''in''' Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, '''Not moved''' (but moved back to "Islamic State '''of''' Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, '''No consensus''', 29 June 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, '''Procedurally closed''', 31 July 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 8 August 2014, ]
# Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), '''Quick close''', 20 August 2014, ]
#Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, '''ISIL chosen''', 17 Sept – 26 Sept 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 7 Sept – 30 Sept 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), '''No consensus''', 17 Sep – 3 Oct 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), '''No consensus''', 9 Jan – 17 Jan 2015, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 19 Apr – 20 Apr 2015, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (IS), '''Not moved''', 15 Jul – 29 Jul 2015, ]}}
{{Merged-from|Khilafah.is|29 November 2015|target=ISIL#Propaganda and social media}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{section sizes}}
}}

{{anchor|FootnoteDirective}} {{anchor|FootnoteDirective}}

{{WikiProjectBanners|1=
<!--
{{WikiProject Iraq|class=B|importance=high}}
{{anchor|Moratorium on Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Moratorium}}
{{MILHIST|class=B|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Middle-Eastern=yes|importance=mid}}
{{Notice|image=Stop hand nuvola.svg|header=Moratorium on Requested Moves|1=Notice: There is an ] on Requested Moves (page renames) until 7 January 2015.-->
{{WikiProject Syria|class=B|importance=high}}

{{WPARAB|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=high|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}}
}}
{{notice|{{User:P123ct1/My template}}}}
<!--Archive--> <!--Archive-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(30d) | algo=old(60d)
| archive=Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive %(counter)d | archive=Talk:Islamic State/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=36 | counter=44
| maxarchivesize=100K | maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}} | archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadsleft=10 | minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=1 | minthreadstoarchive=1
}} }}
Line 31: Line 86:
|indexhere=yes |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|small=no}}
{{Calmtalk}}
{{British English|date=December 2014}}
<!--
{{anchor|Moratorium on Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Moratorium}}
{{notice|image=Stop hand nuvola.svg|header=Moratorium on Requested Moves|1=Notice: There is an ] on Requested Moves (page renames) until 7 January 2015.-->
{{Old moves
| list =
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 7 September 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), '''No consensus''', 17 September 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), '''No consensus''', 9 January 2015, ]
*Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, '''ISIL chosen''', 17 September 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 19 April 2015, ]
| oldlist =
* Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, '''Moved''', 13 August 2013, ]
* RM, Islamic State '''in''' Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, '''Not moved''' (but moved back to "Islamic State '''of''' Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, '''No consensus''', 29 June 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, '''Procedurally closed''', 31 July 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 8 August 2014, ]
* Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), '''Quick close''', 20 August 2014, ]
}}
<!--}}-->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes }}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2015-04-08|oldid1=655155477}}
{{hatnote|<big>'''NOTE 1: This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please make reasonable checks to see whether additional content can be added to existing threads and please make new section titles as general as may be practically helpful.'''</big>}}
{{anchor|Footnote_2}}{{anchor|FootnoteHatnote}} {{anchor|Footnote_2}}{{anchor|FootnoteHatnote}}
{{hatnote|'''NOTE 2: Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) <small>(If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> – and it will display the guide.)</small>''' }}
<!--Talk discussions must go below this line--> <!--Talk discussions must go below this line-->
== IS Map ==

First of all, thank you to whomever has been updating the map at the top of the article. I check in every other day or so to see how things have changed.

Is there anyone here with the expertise to combine these successive maps into a gif? I realize the image quality may have to be scaled back to make it a reasonably sized file, but it would be fascinating to watch the area progress in one animation. I have no idea how difficult this is to do. If I knew that much I would probably just try to make it myself. ] (]) 01:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

:I've seen animations on YouTube and one gif on reddit, but don't have the links to hand. ] (]) 07:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

=== Adding Hezbollah to IS map ===
Is it possible to add Hezbollah to the IS map? Thousands of Hezbollah fighters are taking part in the Syrian civil war but its very unclear what part of the country they are controlling right now. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I'd imagine it is almost certainly not possible, nor a good idea. They are on the same side as the Syrian Government.
*The number of Hezbollah troops is disputed from a tiny number of advisors to being "pretty much the entire SAA". It's a major propaganda point for the rebels that they claim that only Hezbollah and Iran are left fighting them. Similarly the amount of ground that is controlled by whom.
*They typically seem to have integrated into the Syrian Army to some extent, and therefore often don't fight alone.
*It's likely to cause major edit warring because of the difference of opinions of the extent of the army, and pro-opp sources may call "Hezbollah advances" what the Syrian Gov calls "SAA advances".
*When they're on the same side, it seems a massive waste to try to differentiate.
*The map has already got a ton of colours. It's not even funny.
*It's likely to cause the same shading colours as we got from splitting Al-Nusra from other rebels, because of their military cooperation.
*There'd be a massive scramble to go over every single red dot and figure out what to colour it.
*We'd need a ton of new symbols for the new colour, potentially unless we used blue.
:Just my opinions, if I thought this were practical I'd be completely for it. But reality means, for me, this seems like an idea that wouldn't work out well. May I ask why you'd want to do this? Is it for the purpose of the effects this would have on the Lebanese module, or did you not realise they were included in the red colour already? ] (]) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
:Hezbollah are involved in fighting in Syria, but they aren't exercising territorial control anywhere. ] (]) 05:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

=== Adding ] to IS map ===
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Lebanese_insurgency.png/300px-Lebanese_insurgency.png
Thoughts? It's just a matter of including Lebanon into the Iraq/Syria map, seeing as there is ISIS presence in Lebanon. I understand not including Nigeria and Libya, but I think Lebanon should be included. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I dislike the Lebanon map, because I believe it to be outdated and lacking in markers, as I've previously stated. However, we've previously had RFCs over map issues (notably Golan heights), so if you think enough people care, that might be the way to go. Previous changes also made a new file for changes to maps while discussion went on. ] (]) 07:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

=== Map of all territories ===
I suggest the primary map display all the territory that IS controls including the 'provinces' in Nigeria, Sinai, Libya etc. instead of only the territory of Iraq and Syria. ] (]) 06:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

==Categorized as "Theocracy"?==
It's true, of course, that they use religion to justify all their atrocities, and Baghdadi claims religious authority over all Muslims as caliph, but as far as I'm aware, very few if any of the people in charge can be considered clergy. Does a dictatorship being run by someone who claims that they're doing God's work automatically justify the designation "]"? ] (]) 03:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:The designation seems to fit the three sources given for the definition on ]. ] (]) 06:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::I guess they might be described as a "claimed theocracy" but similar might be said about other groups. It can certainly be debated whether any group is a true theocracy as a group governed by a god/God. I can also honestly say that I have not spent time in the presence of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but, on the one recent occurrence that I know of where pictures have been produced, he has appeared in clerical type robes. ]] 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Think of a theocracy as a group governed by theology, not so much a group governed by a god or gods. ] (]) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::::What do you call a group governed a military? ] what I think of when I think ISIS. ''The New York Times'' agree. ] ] 04:44, ], ] (UTC)
:Daesh has members claiming to be ]s, so they have a clergy of sorts. The biggest issue is whether or not the sources label it a theocracy. If they do, we do. If they don't, we don't. ] (]) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::Fair enough. So, what ''do'' the sources say? ] (]) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:::The ISIL article is currently in ]. I have placed this category into ]. The issue presented in the article is the group's claims to be caliphate. In lieu authoritative substantiation to declare it a theocracy then this direct reference should be removed. ]] 09:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

:::: People really should stick with wikipedia Reliable Sources. So, here is the Boston Globe:<br />"Starting last fall, ISIS began imposing its theocratic rule over a wide swath of Syria, then quickly wrested control of the emblematic Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. With the more recent attacks, it menaced the government in Baghdad; it also forced President Obama to reengage with a war from which he thought he had extricated the United States."<br />https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/06/28/the-surprising-appeal-isis/l9YwC0GVPQ3i4eBXt1o0hI/story.html ] (]) 12:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

== Facts, not emotionalism ==

The statement "is an Islamic extremist terrorist group controlling territory in...." should be edited to just state "is an Islamic group controlling territory in...." for accuracy as "terrorist" is an overused term that is now vague and virtually meaningless. Lets stick to information, not inflammatory opinions. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Facts, it is sad to say, are facts. They have their behaviours and we are here to provide descriptive content. Please see the ''very recent'' discussion where ''exactly'' I think bias was overruled at ]. We stick with sources as per encyclopedic policy. Please read options as mentioned. ]] 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The simplest thing to do is to refer to Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources. In this case, the BBC states simply:<br />Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group<br />http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144 ] (]) 12:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
::Re: "{{tq|The simplest thing to do is to refer to Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources.}}" If that is what you say then please note that '''the most often cited description for the group''' as shown in reliable sources is terrorist. This has been demonstrated time and again. You are still picking and choosing your sources ]] 10:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
::: Sources for the above statement statement? Here a canonical source is brought: the BBC's definition for "What is Islamic State?". This RS, by the way, resolves the issue raised regarding "Facts, not emotionalism". I am not sure what value the above statement, devoid of sources, adds to the discussion. ] (]) 15:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
::::I agree we need to present facts rather than presenting what is not fact. Please could someone define terrorist or extremist. Regardless we should not use such words in the lead at least because these are contention labels. Even if used we should provide attribution which is clearly not the case at the moment. I agree with XavierItzm that the BBC descriptor is better. Problem is editors come with these concerns about the contentious descriptor of 'extremist' or 'terrorist' but then leave the page after a while so it creates an impression that the current status quo is the consensus when in fact it is not if taken as a whole. Also for some reason the word terrorist has been slipped into the lead which is also a very contentious and absurd label. There was no consensus for the word terrorist. Why is it in the lead? ] (]) 23:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

==Propose merge from ]==
A stub that might be better incorporated herein. ] (]) 01:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
:I don't think the article does any harm being there. It provides a minimal but succinct summary which may, or may not, be expanded upon in relation to content of documented speeches etc. Certainly at present it doesn't amount to much. ]] 20:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

==Lead sentence==
The Lead states:
:"The new name and the idea of a caliphate has been widely criticised and condemned, with the United Nations, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups all refusing to acknowledge it."
What is "it"? The group, the new name and/or the idea of a caliphate? ~ ] (]) 12:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
::The new name (been nearly a year thought) has been criticized but I am not so sure about caliphate. Their idea of the caliphate maybe but the normative concept of a caliphate is accepted by traditionalist and orthodox Muslims. Maybe the sentence needs to be clarified. ] (]) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, it does need clarification. What about "refusing to accept the legitimacy of the group's claims", or is that still too vague? ~ ] (]) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
::::A very good point. "... refusing to accept the legitimacy of the group's claims" sounds good to me. Alternatively "it" be swapped for "them". ]] 19:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

==Declassified DIA Report - Various media allege this is proof that the US knowingly facilitated the rise of ISIL==

A Defense Intelligence Agency document declares that in 2012, the US considered the establishment of a Salafist organization in eastern Syria in order to further the downfall of the Assad regime.

Extracts from the declassified DEA document
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html

Various other sources, for instance
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42026.htm

In light of the whole subject apparently being rather controversial, I would like to get some of your views before making an attempt to include this. Do you think this is legit and should be referenced? And if not, why not? ] (]) 11:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
:Neither of those strike me as remotely credible sources for such an exceptional claim. (One is a blog and the other is, well, ; it appears to be someone's private website, makes no claims to editorial control or fact-checking, etc.) That particular claim is clearly ], meaning it probably requires coverage from ''multiple'' established, reputable mainstream news sources before we can include it. See ] for more details on what makes a reputable source. --] (]) 07:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

::Indeed. There are plenty of reliable sources that have described how U.S. policies could have inadvertently created conditions conducive to ISIL's rise (the same could be said of Iraqi government policies, Syrian policies, Iranian policies, and any number of other factors, like drought), but this is quite different from claiming that the U.S. government wanted or planned for the establishment of a violent, transnational terrorist group. may be of interest.] 19:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:::It has been on my mind for some time that this page may benefit from an exclusion of contribution from non registered users.
:::There is a huge difference between leaving a situation that had, with a variety of influences, developed the conditions for ISIL to evolve and the wilful "{{tq|establishment of a Salafist organization in eastern Syria}}". ]] 12:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is quite possible that some blogs made a sensational misinterpretation of the document. It is hazardous for untrained people (like most of us) to interpret primary sources on controversial topics, especially this one that is largely redacted. ] itself, that published the document from its FOI request, concludes the opposite of the above quoted blogs.. --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

::Why are you two acting like this is so unheard of? Aquillion, I do not agree at all. For one, Washington Time blogs are not just "a blog". They are merely opinion instead of news. Quality opinion blogs are perfectly allowed. I don't know the other source but, since we also use US-owned Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, it's fair to use RT and Iranian state news as well. Second of all, this is not exceptional. Don't abuse that common misconception. The Iraq war was just as faulty. ] (]) 12:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

== Bruce Jenner and Islamic State ==

Bruce Jenner declared he now has a new name, and the Misplaced Pages immediately renamed his page.
The Islamic State declared a year ago its name is Islamic State, and the Misplaced Pages does not use the name "Islamic State", which is used, for example, by canonical sources such as the BBC.<ref>{{url|http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144}}</ref>
{{reflist-talk}}
---] (]) 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

<small>(Note: I edited the above post per ] to fix some formatting errors. No content was changed or removed. For details see respective edit sums. - ] (]) 00:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC))</small>
::"Islamic State" is not a living person. Please see the ] policy. ] — ] 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

== Your Tax Dollars at Work: A Grossly Oversimplified, Overtly Optimistic Situation Map ==

The stench of this page reeks, of Pentagon and CIA propaganda. One example which serves to underline my contention quite effectively: the accompanying situation map portraying steady Pentagon progress against ISIS, in the absence of none. How to lie with cartography for idiots, 101: Not only does your situation map fail, miserably so, to depict the current situation, in Iraq and Syria? The information your situation map conveys, is patently false! Over the course of several months, illustrated in gray 2-cell cartography located in the right-whel accompanying this page, the cartographer of your handy-dandy "ISIS situation map" has, from December of 2014 to June of 2015, erroneously assumed, perhaps a function of wishful thinking, a constant progression of force sweeping ISIS away, magically materializing to a warm, reassuring, ever diminishing area of influence ISIS is portrayed to control in Syria and Iraq when, in actuality, total urban area plus total population under ISIS "control" (e.g., as opposed to ISIS "presence") increased significantly throughout what's left of Syria and Iraq.<small>-Previous unsigned comment by an anonymous user</small>
:So you believe the marks on the map are misleading, or the shading disingenuous? Unless you want rural areas to be somehow shown as such, I'm not sure what can be done. At any rate, you might want to mention this on the relevant module or image talk-pages, and please sign in future. ] (]) 11:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

== Lebanon in the map? ==

I find it strange for Lebanon to be on the map. Lebanon isn't in the war. Areas 'controlled' by Hizbullah aren't really controlled, it's more like 'protected' and this is how it has been since a long time. There is no conflict in Lebanon and I see the addition of Lebanon to the map as unnecessary misleading clutter. --] (]) 07:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
:if Lebanon and Hezbollah are going to be on the map could someone desaturate the colors to be in line with everything else on the map it looks atrocious ] (]) 08:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
::I have misgivings about this map, but a voice or two every couple of days has appeared asking for it. RFC time like with the Israel issue? ] (]) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Is the Islamic State involved in active engagements within Lebanon and is there enough data to support a map? If the answer to both is yes then addition of Lebanon is worthwhile. If not then it should be left alone. ] (]) 02:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:: I like it. The Islamic state IS in Lebanon, as you can see from the map. --]<big>_</big>] 05:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::The map, which by the way, still looks atrocious and like a bad ms paint job compared to Iraq and Syria. The colors are still offensively saturated. ] (]) 11:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

:But then that applies to Saudi Arabia too. DAESH had engaged with the Saudi borders guard some months ago, and they're bombing and trying to bomb a mosque there every week. Does that mean Saudi Arabia too should be added to the map? --] (]) 07:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::No. They aren't holding ground in SA, but they are holding ground (albeit very minimal) in Lebanon. --]<big>_</big>] 11:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' The page's protection level and/or your ] have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to ]. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.<!-- Template:ESp --> <span style="color: blue; text-shadow:7px 7px 7px blue">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 23:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

== Hezbollah ==

You guys added it to the map! That's great! Puts things in perspective. --]<big>_</big>] 05:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

== 1999 or 2003 ==

The section ] begins {{Quote|Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Jordanian Salafi Jihadist Abu...}} and contains no earlier dates. This doesn't sound a lot like it goes back to 1999, should the section be renamed? I've already done it, this just explains why in case of dispute. ] (]) 14:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
:] was around since 1999. It simply didn't get it's "big break" until the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. ] (]) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

== Infobox country ==

Is it a country? Is there any international recognition? In my eyes this box could cause a misunderstanding. -- ] (]) 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
:ISIS is not a state. This should be changed to use {{t|Infobox war faction}}. ] (]) 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

== Hezbollah ==

reedit the lebanon map yo,Hezbollah controls the all land in the south of litani river. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Russia ==

Please add information about ISIS activity in Russia. sources http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134206/ISIS-opens-new-Europe-s-doorstep-Chechan-jihadi-group-15-000-fighters-pledge-allegiance-terror-horde.html http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-europe-chechen-jihadi-group-pledges-allegiance-islamic-state-1507439 . ] (]) 12:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Axakov}}, this is already in the article. It states "Some commanders of the Caucasus Emirate in Chechnya and Dagestan have switched their allegiance to ISIL." As of now there is no "activity" just the same claim that these people support ISIL. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 12:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
::Updated to reflect the new Wilayat announced for the North Caucasus ] (]) 04:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

== Please discuss ] ==

Please discuss ]'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


{{old move|date=14 December 2024|destination=Islamic State (militant group)|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1264338464#Requested move 14 December 2024}}
== i propose name change from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to --------> Islamic State (group) or Islamic State (IS)==


== Requested Move 15 October 2024 ==
since it controls places outside iraq and the levant as well. ] (]) 06:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
*Look at the many previous name change discussions at the topic of this page please. Also if you are concerned about accuracy, it should be noted that it is not a state (nor is it Islamic, according to RS). ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' We normally keep RM discussions open for at least seven days with a possibility for prolongation via relisting. This discussion has now been open for more than four weeks. The request suggested a move to {{-r|Islamic State (organisation)}}, a target that for several years has been a stable and correctly ] {{tl|R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect to ].{{pb}}The proposal to move has seen no policy-based support. The opposers argue per ] and ] that the article should stay at the ], ''ergo'' the survey is closed noting a clear '''consensus not to move'''. <small>(])</small> ] ] 17:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I suggest you start a discussion on what disambiguation to use for the name "Islamic State (....)". Then we can start an RM as a name change is long overdue. ] (]) 23:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
----
::As this article is subject to arbitrary sanctions, and some people feel moving the article to "Islamic State" would violate NPOV, it would be wise to wait several months before doing an RM. There have been four failed attempts at an RM to Islamic State/Islamic State (disamb) since September. ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 04:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
]→? — Current name is just the "Islamic State", it’s can confuse readers with article about the ]. I don’t' suggest it to rename the article to ISIL, beacuse "ISIL" is not common name anymore and pretty outdated.


:To be fair, the current page name is enormous POV. It was only used by Obama to indicate the ones they were going to fight, as they wanted to keep Syria out of it. Uninformed name changes are not an argument in support of them. ] (]) 12:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC) So let's rename the article to ]. ISIS can be also suitable beacuse "ISIS" is currently common name to the group. ] (]) 06:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::] What are your thoughts on considering a name change? What name would you think more appropriate? ] (]) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': The current title already uses both proposed words and adds a ] disambiguator. Requests for parenthetical disambiguators have been rejected too many times in recent months. ] is a different topic from this article. ] (]) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' Islamic State is the common name for the organization, being the one used by the media. The organization is also the clear primary topic for the name "Islamic State" with this capitalization. The hatnote at the top of the article is good enough to clear up any confusion. ] (]) 19:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' - But there needs to be disambiguation used in the title. For example, '''Islamic State (group)''', '''Islamic State (Islamist group)''' or '''Islamic State (IS)'''. These are similar disambiguations used for the ].


::Hi ], Naming the article "]" would be a more appropriate solution, as it clarifies that the article specifically refers to the militant group commonly known as ISIS, while distinguishing it from the broader and more diverse theoretical concept of an "Islamic State." This title would help avoid confusion, making it clear that the focus is on the organization rather than the general political or religious concept. By adding the term "organization," it also provides a more neutral and descriptive approach, acknowledging that the term "Islamic State" has broader historical and theoretical meanings, which should not be conflated with this particular group.The normal readers are not supposed to distinguish this minute difference.
In relation to Misplaced Pages policy concerning article titles, as per ] the '''Islamic State (IS)''' or '''Islamic State (ISIS)''' designation is by far the most recognizable. These top English-language sources see more use of the Islamic State (IS/ISIS) term than any other term for the group:<br>
::--] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 18:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
]- <br>
:::Please convey your thoughts in your own words, chatbots are not helpful. - ] (]) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
] - <br>
] - <br>
] - <br>
] - <br>
] - <br>
] - <br>


* '''Oppose''' as per ] that is what the organization calls itself.] (]) 07:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I have only cited these institutions, becuase in my opinion, these are the most widely known and reliable English-language media sources. Media sources should be the ones used, and they will determine whether a term has broad recognition among people. You will find the trend to use the ''Islamic State'' and all its renditions such as ''Islamic State group'' or ''Islamic State (IS)'' as outweighing the usage of the ''Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'' in most English-language sources.
*:"that is what the organization calls itself"
*:Why we would use "]". Article about the concept is " ] ", about the group is " Islamic State ". Just ] is difference. That's why I start an RM. We can use " ] or "]. ] (]) 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I would rather move the article on the concept to ] if you think something needs to be moved. The organization is what most users are looking for when they type "Islamic State" into the search bar. ] (]) 12:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] Ok.
*:::I forget this opinion when I propose this in October. ] (]) 10:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - It is the common name. - ] (]) 02:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – I endorse ] proposal to modify the article title for enhanced clarity and accuracy. Currently, “Islamic State” as a title risks conflating the militant group with the broader concept of an “Islamic state,” a political or theological idea concerning governance within Islamic contexts. This ambiguity can lead to misunderstandings and unintentionally lend an inappropriate connotation to either the organization or the general concept.
*:] (]) 08:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@] This RM is not closed but you still moved article about the organisation as "]". You should wait until the problem get solution. ] (]) 10:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>


== "‘You are next’: online posts show Islamic State interest in attacks on US ahead of election" ==


] ] 11:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The search results for ''Islamic State group'':<br>
] - 13,300 results <br>
] - 25,200 results <br>
] - 6,553 results <br>
] - 18,564 results <br>
] - 3,980 results <br>


:@] Cite reliable sources to confirm it. ] (]) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The search results for the current term ''Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'' were as follows:<br>
::@] Why didn't you bother to look first? That would be the sensible idea and sholw good faith. The first hit is ] ] 11:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
] - 941 results <br>
] - 690 results <br>
] - 3,331 results <br>
] - 1,124 <br>
] - 87 results <br>


== Very small Minor edit request ==
Also remember as per ], that ''" the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense."'' This relegates any feeble excuse that naming the group to the '''Islamic State''' (with a disambiguation) as being against morals and principles to be meaningless. The argument that it may offend or it is politically incorrect is therefore null-and-void on this Encyclopedia, and holds no water.


{{edit semi-protected|Islamic State|answered=yes}}
Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure:
Add an collapsible list into groups infobox, it's very long. <br><small>(''this topic will be deleted after accepting'')</small> ] (]) 19:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Islamic State (IS)''' comes up with 82,000,000 results -
:{{done}}. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Islamic State (group)''' comes up with 78,200,000 results -
#'''Islamic State (Islamist group)''' comes up with 5,290,000 results -
# The current name used in the article, '''Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant''' only comes up with 1,310,000 results -


== First sentence ==
Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of ]. However, the current title is in violation of this very policy, as the intent on keeping this article from being named the correct title and more recognizable, as per ] is in order to ingrain a certain POV against this group, which violates the policy. At the end of the day, the current poposal is not only the groups official name, and therefore pertaining to ], but also to ], as shown above. ] (]) 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
:Per COMMONNAME a better case can be made for "ISIS", however both titles the ambiguous but concise "Islamic State" and the common acronym "ISIS" were rejected multiple times recently, in a short time period, for various reasons which can be found in the past discussions. ] (]) 19:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
::The proposal is to change the name to "Islamic State" with an appropriate disambiguation. "ISIS" is not proposed, and quite frankly, that ship has already sailed. Using an acronymization of a groups former name as the article name is ridiculous. This is especially the case when the reason to refrain from using the proposed name is to dissociate the group from what it claims it represents in a bid to POV-push. I remind you per ], that ''" the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense."'' Also, "ISIS" has too many other connotations placed upon it, see ].


I have removed, from the first sentence of the article, (uncited) text that calls ISIL an "] ]." It is true that, as of 2024, affiliates of the terror group hold territorial control over shifting areas of Africa (which we mention in the lead section), but the preponderance of sources (or at least the sources currently cited) don't seem to commonly use the "quasi-state" verbiage to describe ISIL presently - certainly not at a frequency sufficient to justify its inclusion in the lead. Neither of the two sources cited on the present situation in Africa (, ) use the term. Given all that, the "quasi-state" language is more likely to confuse readers than enlighten them, especially as it seems to conflate the situation a decade ago (2012/2013 era) with the situation today. (Note, too, that there are many terror/insurgent groups that occupy territory but are not commonly described as "quasi-states." ]<sup>]</sup> 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure. If we add in "ISIS" and the disambiguation of "group" or "Islamist group", we get this. However, adding in "IS" with the disambiguation of "group" gathers the most results:
#'''IS (group)''' comes up with 4,110,000,000 results -
#'''ISIS (group)''' comes up with 137,000,000 results -
#'''Islamic State (IS)''' comes up with 82,000,000 results -
#'''Islamic State (group)''' comes up with 78,200,000 results -
#'''ISIS (Islamic State)''' comes up with 41,600,000 results -
#'''Islamic State (Islamist group)''' comes up with 5,290,000 results -
#'''ISIS (Islamist group)''' comes up with 3,680,000 results -
# The current name used in the article, '''Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant''' only comes up with 1,310,000 results -


== Proposal to include IS-CP and Add a Section on Involvement within the borders of the Russian Federation ==
:Moreover, those sourced I cited still favor the term "Islamic State" and all its renditions such as "Islamic State group" or "IS" allot more than ISIS. If the title was to be changed to "ISIS", it would need to be "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" or "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" with the disambiguation of "ISIS" added in, e.g "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)".


The article shows a significant plurality of foreign fighters in Islamic State originating from The Russian Federation yet there is no mention of either IS-CP or the link to Chechan extremists/terrorists nor the direct involvemnet of Al-Qaeada fighters in the Second Chechen War and activities of IS-CP in Russia since inception of Islamic State/Daesh and it's military defeat two years later.
::Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure. If we add in "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and the disambiguation of "ISIS", we get this:
#'''IS (group)''' comes up with 4,110,000,000 results -
#'''ISIS (group)''' comes up with 137,000,000 results -
#'''Islamic State (IS)''' comes up with 82,000,000 results -
#'''Islamic State (group)''' comes up with 78,200,000 results -
#'''ISIS (Islamic State)''' comes up with 41,600,000 results -
#'''Islamic State of Iraq and Syria''' comes up with 29,700,000 results -
#'''Islamic State (Islamist group)''' comes up with 5,290,000 results -
#'''ISIS (Islamist group)''' comes up with 3,680,000 results -
# The current name used in the article, '''Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant''' only comes up with 1,310,000 results -
#'''Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham''' comes up with only 597,000 results -


::This is a rough indication that the two terms associated with the acronym "ISIS" are not as popular as the proposed "Islamic State" name, and both the disambiguations cited. ] (]) 07:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC) I prepose inclusion of links to the main article for IS-CP in the article summary as well as a summary of IS-CP operations within the Caucuses. I'm interested in any discussion/contributions before amending the article. ] (]) 15:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move 14 December 2024 ==
*'''Strong support''' - I strongly prefer "Islamic State"; the main issue is that we are letting too much depend on politics. The fact that many prominent news outlets have recently used a new name is not enough to warrant imitation. "ISIL" is a recent, primarily ''Democrat American''-term that U.S. President Obama first used in this speech:<ref></ref> <BLOCKQUOTE>In Iraq and Syria, American leadership – including our military power – is stopping ISIL’s advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.</BLOCKQUOTE> It has generally been seen as a political move to omit focus on Syria after the diplomatic "failure" with Assad in 2013. As he had promised not to have ground troops on Syria's soil, saying he was going to fight the Islamic State in Syria would likely garner a lot of criticism. My own country had an issue with the acronyms, and we have now long adopted ''Islamitische Staat'' ("Islamic State"). It takes the vital part of both "ISIS" and "ISIL" and can be used as a main article with perhaps the subarticles for IS in Syria and Iraq. I prefer "Islamic State" over "IS" for the simple reason that "IS" is far too generic.
:'''Two very informative articles''':
::
::
:] (]) 23:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support "Islamic State" as AT''' - ] Thank you for helping this move forward. I personally think stand alone "Islamic State" is the best name but I am happy to go with disambiguation if there is some sort of consensus on what disambiguation to use. I have no preference for IS or ISIS for disambiguation, though an explanation by yourself as to which is more appropriate would be most helpful. Also I should mention that Google searches can be difficult to interpret and they also make no distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. Our considerations should be towards the name being used by reliable sources for the group post 29th June 2014 (post name change) and in that regard the use of "Islamic State" is significantly more common than the other names. ] (]) 02:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::Unfortunately ], a disambiguation must be used. We tried before to change it to '''Islamic State''' and the common point cited against us was that those of us in favor of changing it to '''Islamic State''' could not agree on a disambiguation. We had (Islamist rebel group), (Islamist group), (group) or just (IS). We need to reach a consensus on this and then, using credible and reliable English-language sources, some of which have already been cited, we can vehemently push for the name to change. They will be able to use nothing to oppose such a change. I personally favor either '''Islamic State (group)''' or '''Islamic State (IS)''' as these two terms are used abundantly in English-language media, and had the highest search results through Google. In some articles they are referred to as the "Islamic State group" or "Islamic State (IS)" and then will be continuously referred to as "IS" for the rest of the article . Google searches do not filter out unreliable sources, but it is still a rough indicator on which terms are more commonly used in the English language through the worlds largest search engine. ] (]) 07:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
:::] I understand. I would go for "Islamic State (IS)" because then we can us IS as short form for the rest of the article but then again because "Islamic State" is more concise, we may not need to use an abbreviation. ] (]) 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
*"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (Isil) is not a recent term nor an American term nor an Obama term. It has been the standard long form name for the group in British usage from day one, before any western military involvement. You fellows need to stop now, whilst you're ahead. If you want to move the article, start an RM. Don't play little games here on the talk page for the thousandth time. The present title provides ] disambiguation, as specified by our article title policy, as "Islamic State" is ambiguous. ] — ] 05:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::As per the cited sources above, it is now abundantly clear that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (Isil) is no longer the favorite or commonly used term by many reputable and credible English-language media sources. I have cited the major ones, I can cite many more if you wish in order to ram home this point. "Islamic State" and all the main disambiguations such as "group", "Islamist group" and "IS" outweigh the current title in use, and it has been like this for a long time. Once a disambiguation has been reached among those calling for the title to change, you will have absolutely '''nothing''', no basis to prevent the name from changing. ] (]) 07:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
:::], for one. There's also the matter that ] disambiguation is always preferred to parenthetical disambiguation, meaning that any parenthetical disambiguator is secondary to the natural disambiguator currently used. Common usage is not the sole determination of whether we name an article a certain thing. Please see ], which says "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names". Even if the current title is not the most common, it is the most in line with our policies. ] — ] 14:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::::], you can't possibly think the current title is a stable one. The fact that is has been in use for about a year ] is not nearly enough to ensure its shaky status quo. Several times "no consensus" was assumed even though there has been a clear consensus from day one that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is far too POV. I do not know if you have any specific interests in this issue or if you are merely tired of it being discussed, but with an "almost moved" every two months there must be a good reason for our persistence (not that I had anything to do with any previous discussions, mind you). Read the two articles I posted and tell me what's wrong with them. I don't see why we need to alarm some sort of official authority group when TP goers are capable of discussing it. ] (]) 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::Every title that involves this group is a "POV" title, which is exactly why ] applies. Your repeated clamouring and "persistence" is only disruption, nothing more. You fail, once again, to recognise that the present title is a form of ] disambiguation, as specified by our policies. ] — ] 17:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::You mean the ] disambiguation which states that the entity is the "Islamic State (of Iraq and the Levant)"? This used to be the case, until around 8 months ago where IS has expanded to locations around the world leading this "Natural" disambiguation to be worthless, in that it leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it '''is''' an ambiguation. ] (]) 16:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Nonsense. ] disambiguation is specifically NOT parenthetical disambiguation. Please read the policy again. ] — ] 00:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::], you have failed to actually interpret what I had typed. The "Natural" disambiguation which separates the term "Islamic State" from the philosophical/Political concept of an 'Islamic State" is the phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant", that is why I typed "Islamic State (of Iraq and the Levant)", putting the "Natural" disambiguation into brackets for you. So I will repeat again: The phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant" which constitutes the "Natural" disambiguation you are ranting on about in the article title is worthless and meaningless now. It now leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence due to the fact it no longer confined to the regions of the Iraq and the Levant. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it '''is''' an ambiguation. The only possible reason you keep maintaining this "Natural" disambiguation is therefore to POV push, just like how western politicians refer to it as "ISIL" in order to intentionally de-legitimize the group then if they referred to it as "Islamic State". Because your "Natural" disambiguation is therefore worthless, (this is shown due to the all the change of name requests launched on this talk page to change it to "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation), you have no case to keep citing ] as an excuse. ] (]) 06:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
<small>(Comment by 217.39.62.99 moved from above for clarity)</small>
*'''Daesh''' comes up with 5,520,000 results - <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::"Daesh" will not be used, given its large irrelevance in western mainstream media and in English-language sources. The search results are still lower than that of "Islamic State (group)" and "Islamic State (IS)" so hence, through ], it is an inferior alternative. The fact that it was also conjured up by those with an anti-Islamic State POV breaches ], and it is always used in a pejorative and derogatory manner. ] (]) 14:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
:::"large irrelevance in western mainstream media ..." You haven't been reading the papers, or listening to PMQs - it is the most widely used term in Arabic discourse and they are neither a 'state' nor 'Islamic' <ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/they-are-neither-a-state-nor-islamic-why-we-shouldnt-call-them-isis-isil-or-is-10353365.html</ref> ] (]) 16:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::::In Arabic discourse it has sure been the main term, but that has little importance here. Fact remains that they declare themselves to be the Islamic State. That's why many Western Muslims are angry at them for their own reasons. English-speaking media has always used a variation of IS or Islamic State and - even though this is an international Misplaced Pages - our ]. ] (]) 16:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::It is ridiculous to assert that it is unimportant: recently, politicians from a number of parties and countries have proposed that it would be most appropriate to use of the Arabic name DAESH for the organisation and the BBC, for one, is reviewing the use of IS<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144257/BBC-review-use-Islamic-State-120-MPs-write-Corporation-calling-use-Daesh-terror-group.html</ref>.] (]) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::#'''Fact:''' The term lacks the amount of recognition in the English-speaking world as "Islamic State" and all its renditions of "Islamic State group" or "Islamic State (IS). This is shown though the google searches, and undoubtedly, the searches conducted on each of the main English-speaking institutions as cited above for Islamic State (group/IS) v. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Therefore, it fails ]. Also, the apparent fact that it is used frequently in Arabic media channels is irrelevant, given this is the English Misplaced Pages. Maybe if you hopped onto the IS page on the Arabic Misplaced Pages here you could make that point.
:::::#'''Fact:''' The term was created by those with an anti-Islamic State POV, based on a loose acronymization of its former name, The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Due to the fact that it also sounds familiar for the Arabic word ''Da'ish'' which means 'to crush' or 'to trample, it is used exclusively in a pejorative and derogatory manner. This therefore contravenes ]. In contrast the proposed term "Islamic State" with a disambiguation of either (group) or (IS) fails to express a POV, as this is the groups official name. We are not giving them a leg up, we are merely documenting the fact of the matter, however unfortunate that may be for you. You don't think it's fair, tough luck. It wasn't me nor anyone of these editors who chose to designate "Islamic State" upon this group.
::::::Now, I am not sure if you are aware, but this is an Encyclopedia, not a Pro-NATO, Pro-CSTO, Pro-Western, Pro-Eastern or Pro-anything propaganda publication. This means that the article will not be changed into a term which is politically one-sided, with its heritage embedded in a clear POV. If you seem to disagree, then my advice is that Misplaced Pages just may not be the place for you, if you wish to espouse your one-sided views on matters of Encyclopedic discussion. Also the BBC has stated it will use the the term "Islamic State group", which is one of the name change options . ] (]) 14:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - the number hits appear to be skewed because of use of abbreviations; this does not seem to be taken into account. For example, if an article refers to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, they are going to use this ONCE in the story and the 12 other references will be referring to it as ISIL. Additionally, this search doesn't consider disclaimers; note the BBC here says they refer to ISIS as the "So-called Islamic State." ]<sup>]</sup> 😜 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' changing name to 'Islamic State'. This is the name of the group. ] (]) 12:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I want to remind all users that saying "support" or "do not support" is irrelevant here, and this isn't an RM request. Save it for when one opens. ] — ] 13:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
::I thought we were jumping the gun. ] (]) 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
:::And when such a request opens, I am happy to just copy and past what I have typed here. ] (]) 16:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - '''Islamic State (IS)''' is neutral, well known and unambiguous. I agree that ISIS and ISIL are inappropriate as the group controls territory beyond Iraq and Syria/al-Sham/the Levant. ] (]) 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': There's no good reason to change the title and I oppose the change per ]. Many reliable sources still use the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. By the way, some sources such as ] are alleged to act so that the term 'Islamic State' is legitimized. Check sources such as , and to get the point. ] (]) 14:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::Your points for opposing have all been invalidated further up in the discussion. There are more reasons to change it than to keep the current title. The BBC is retaining using the term "Islamic State" and also in various capacities such as the preface "so-called" and "Islamic State group" , as it is impartial, something this Encyclopedia should be as well. And yet people like you still have a POV to push. That is unacceptable, and has no place here. ] (]) 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
==Currency used by ISIL?==
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
I had noticed the website on coins used by ISIL and they mint 10 and 20 fulus in copper (10 and 20 grams), 1, 5 and 10 dirhams in silver (2, 10 and 20 grams) and 1 and 5 dinars in 21k gold (4.27 and 21.25 grams). Price ranges from 5 cents for 10 copper fulus to about $700 USD for 5 gold dinar. Take note that metal prices fluctuate over time. ] (]) 03:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
==State offices and courts are now considered "factions"?==
----
What's up with the table in the section? It defines courts and international organizations as "factions". Surely there's a more suiting word for them. ] (]) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|Islamic State (militant group)}} – "Islamic state" doesn't indicates towards a particular group but whole Muslim community! And it makes confusion. There are lot of countries or state in past who used this name but not fair to target whole community as majority or almost all Muslims don't accept it as an Islamic state or caliphate. It makes confusion like in ] page. I think it should be moved on the basis of it targets a particular community who aren't accepting it and Misplaced Pages should not work on the basis of who claims the title.There is no problem using Islamic state name as per WP:COMMONNAMES But make a distinction.
:I don't see why that column needs to be there at all. Surely Australia and Canada are sufficient, what does adding Attorney-General for Australia and Parliament of Canada actually add. Some of these names don't appear in the sources either, so there may be some ] here. ] (]) 22:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the proposed title because the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria doesn't exists. And the main reason for this request is to make distinction.] (]) 23:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


:Disagree. The "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is no more as declared by former Caliph Baghdadi, who declared a global Caliphate. That is why now correct to talk of "Islamic State" when referring to the group's central activities and in general; then one can talk of "IS in Syria, in Iraq, IS-WAP, IS-SP, IS-GS etc. etc.
::I think that column used to be called "legislative body" in an earlier version of the article. What sane person would change it to factions? ] (]) 21:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
:None believe "Islamic State" means "worldwide Muslim Community". ] (]) 14:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' I was launched a RM in October to ''']''' but only one supported it, they argued that "Islamic State" is common name. So I think this RM won't succusful.
:But If we uses "ISIS" in most of area rather then article title, it will succusful. No one call the group as "ISIL" now. Reliable sources also use "ISIS". So ISIS is most popular term to refer the group. The " Islamic State" is second most popular term. ] (]) 14:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' When sources spell the name out, they almost always use "Islamic State" – , , , the list goes on and on. Readers expect to see "Islamic State", not a long and clunky alternative name. Almost nobody even knows what the second part of ISIS stands for. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 15:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::No. ], ] and this page makes confusion. And while saying the word "Islamic state" the thing comes on mind is the state of Islam and there should be no one particularly refered as Islamic state cuz lot of states claimed to be Islamic state and caliphate but it something that is/should be based on consensus of Muslims (Shura) like ] they can come to conclusion that is this an Islamic state, caliphate or not and no one accept them. They are salafi terrorist organization they have not right to claim that they are the Islamic state and how will someone make distinction between (] and isis ??? It's disrespectful and unfair that someone claimed the Islamic state or caliphate title and no one of that community accepts but based on people refers them giving the name doesn't make sense! If you think "Islamic state of Iraq and Syria" is not suitable then ]as suggest by @] or ] but the word "Islamic state" refers whole community not just a particular group it's a term. ] (]) 17:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nothing written above concerns Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, it simply appears to be your personal opinion based on your own sensitivity (] may be helpful). ] (]) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agree with Sira Aspera, ] may also be relevant here. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It sucks that terrorists have co-opted the name, but it isn't Misplaced Pages's job to WP:RGW and change article titles based on a Shura council. ] (]) 22:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] should redirect to ]. ] (]) 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': No reason to lengthen the title. The terrorist organization is exactly what 99% of readers expect to find when they type the title, even more so after the current events in Syria. ] (]) 22:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. An RM with basically the same rationale was discussed a month ago and the closer found a "clear consensus not to move". So why are we discussing it again? I'm often not the biggest fan of ], but in this case it works perfectly. ] is the organisation, capitalised as such and commonly known thus, while ] refers to the generic concept. Suggest a speedy close since nothing has changed since November. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' that is what the organization calls itself being the one used by the media and is clearly the ] and is the ].] (]) 01:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Then what will you say on ] ? How readers will distinct those pages? Or ] what does this page means the first state of Islam or first state of isis ? There is no problem using Islamic state name as per ] But make a distinction. ] (]) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. This is not an Islamic state but a terrorist organisation whose proper name is "Islamic State". The capitalisation difference is sufficient. ] &#124; ] 07:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No it's not sufficient for a normal reader ] (]) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Oppose'''. The Islamic State itself is not a militant group, but a global coalition of militant groups under Islamic State's central command. The Iraq and Syria province is the most well-known, but there is no group that's just the Islamic State and not a regional affiliate. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the article ] as that makes a better distinction between the org and the concept of an Islamic state.
==Rename article==
:Per WP:COMMONNAME as Amakuru points out, The Islamic State vs. Islamic state is the perfect example of a specific group commonly known as that versus the concept. ] (]) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The name of the article should be changed to Islamic State. That is the name that they have officially adopted. They have expanded beyond "Iraq and the Levant", so to qualify the name with the names of those countries makes no sense. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Think from the pov of a normal reader who wants to know concept but finds this group go on Google and search Islamic state it shows this article. And the isis don't operating now globally and Minor in Iraq and Syria. And it create confusion with ] too ] (]) 02:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per commonname. ] (]) 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Very clear primary topic. -- ] (]) 16:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Islamic State is a common name for the group. It’s the first thing that comes to mind. ] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:True, The name 'Islamic State' should be kept on the page, Nobody knows what ISIL, ISIS are anymore. ] (]) 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::But all the article in press mentions it as militant group or organization so why not make a distinction ] (]) 16:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>


== Use of term 'terror group' ==
==Remove topics and words that glorify and give a sense of power to ISIL==
I agree there should be a wiki entry for ISIL of course, information is necessary for research and reflection. I don't agree that the page should however contain information that in anyway eludes to it being a 'power' or 'state' or any other information that indirectly glorifies / shows the perceived strength of this small band of fundamentalists. Prospective joiners of ISIL will read this entry and may become seduced. All information of its 'leader' etc that in anyway shows it as a power or state should be removed I feel? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Per ], terms like terrorist are "best avoided '''unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject'''." I understand there was some confusion that led to the removal of the term based on a quick reading of the 'best avoided' part alone. The label terrorist is near-unanimously used by ]s in essentially every language to describe groups like ISIS and hence it is usable per ]. Using such a term would be justified in the lede as long as reliably sourced.--] (]) 22:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:What you're asking is a form of censorship based on your personal political views. Misplaced Pages couldn't be taken seriously as a source of information, if it purposely had obvious propaganda in it. Also, they are obviously much more than a "small band of fundamentalists". ] (]) 19:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


:I think something like "Islamic State has been designated as a terrorist organistation by the United States and many other countries" would be appropriate, per the requirement at MOS:TERRORIST for intext attribution. Note that news organisations like the BBC also refer to IS as a "militant group" rather than referring it to it in their own voice as a "terrorist group". ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
==References==
::The in-text styling is in the fourth paragraph of the lede. BBC also regularly uses the term terror and alternates between the two (terror and militant) rather than using only 'militant'. ] (]) 22:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:50, 7 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic State article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Note 1 This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please check to see whether your additional content can be added to an existing discussion section, and please make new section titles as precise as possible.
Note 2 Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) (If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – {{User:P123ct1/My template}} – and it will display the guide.)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islamic State. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islamic State at the Reference desk.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Which name is best: ISIS, ISIL, Daesh or Islamic State etc A: The article title is decided according to policy WP:Article titles

The discussion that resulted in the current name Islamic State was held in August-September 2021. The decision followed WP:Commonname section of WP:Article titles.

This question has been raised over 40 times on the talk page, without any proposal other than the September 2021 and August 2013 discussions resulting in a page move. Now archived, those discussions can be read here and searched here.

Past names, both used and considered, have included: "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "Islamic State of Iraq and (al-)Sham", "Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria", "Islamic State", "The Islamic State", "Islamic State (Middle East)", "Islamic State (Organisation)".
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Ajnad Foundation was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Islamic State. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Islamic State received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Worldwide caliphate was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 September 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Islamic State on 8 September 2022. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 8, 2015, April 8, 2017, and April 8, 2020.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconArab world Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime / Terrorism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIraq High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: African / Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
African military history task force
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconOrganizations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSyria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • "ISIS not the Islamic state it fiercely claims to be". Olean Times Herald. March 18, 2015. I approach Misplaced Pages cautiously as to whether its abundant information on a multitude of subjects is complete and authoritative. But I salute the site for its numerous citations concerning the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — specifically the "criticism of the name 'Islamic State' and 'caliphate' declaration" (found under its entry for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Islamic State, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

  • Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

  • Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
  • Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
  • An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
  • Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2014 and 2015.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 24 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Older discussions:
  1. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Moved, 13 August 2013, /Archive 1#Rename
  2. RM, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Not moved (but moved back to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, /Archive 2#Requested Move
  3. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, No consensus, 29 June 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move 2
  4. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Procedurally closed, 31 July 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move
  5. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 8 August 2014, /Archive 5#Requested move 8 August 2014
  6. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), Quick close, 20 August 2014, /Archive 5#Move
  7. Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, ISIL chosen, 17 Sept – 26 Sept 2014, /Archive 10#References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?
  8. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 7 Sept – 30 Sept 2014, /Archive 10#Move request - 6 September 2014
  9. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), No consensus, 17 Sep – 3 Oct 2014, /Archive 11#Requested move 17 September 2014
  10. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), No consensus, 9 Jan – 17 Jan 2015, /Archive 28#Requested move 9 January 2015
  11. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 19 Apr – 20 Apr 2015, /Archive 34#Requested move 19 April 2015
  12. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (IS), Not moved, 15 Jul – 29 Jul 2015, /Archive_37#Requested move 15 July 2015
The contents of the Khilafah.is page were merged into ISIL#Propaganda and social media on 29 November 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Section sizes
Section size for Islamic State (41 sections)
Section name Byte
count
Section
total
(Top) 86,495 86,495
Name 12,163 12,163
Purpose and strategy 27 41,372
Ideology 24,539 24,539
Islamic eschatology 1,734 1,734
Goals 7,287 7,287
Strategy 7,785 7,785
Organisation 1,359 50,589
Leadership and governance 19,704 19,704
Civilians in Islamic State-controlled areas 3,373 3,373
Military 101 10,951
Number of combatants 4,645 4,645
Conventional weapons 2,102 2,102
Non-conventional weapons 4,103 4,103
Women 3,680 3,680
Communications 69 69
Finances 7,841 11,453
Monetary system 2,516 2,516
Education 1,096 1,096
History 2,821 2,821
Territorial control and claims 10,277 10,277
International reaction 124 62,928
International criticism 2,287 2,287
Islamic criticism 531 31,798
Religious leaders and organisations 20,797 20,797
Other jihadist groups 10,470 10,470
Other commentaries 2,731 28,719
Designation as a terrorist organisation 22,676 22,676
Militia, cult, territorial authority, and other classifications 3,312 3,312
Supporters 3,865 3,865
Countries and groups at war with IS 672 28,869
Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 6,344 28,197
Other state opponents not part of the Counter-ISIL Coalition 5,338 5,338
Other non-state opponents 11,421 11,421
Al-Qaeda 5,094 5,094
Human rights abuse and war crime findings 4,279 4,279
Explanatory notes 38 38
Citations 29 29
General and cited references 3,466 3,466
Further reading 333 333
External links 5,413 5,413
Total 312,937 312,937


On 14 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Islamic State (militant group). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested Move 15 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. We normally keep RM discussions open for at least seven days with a possibility for prolongation via relisting. This discussion has now been open for more than four weeks. The request suggested a move to Islamic State (organisation), a target that for several years has been a stable and correctly categorized {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect to Islamic State.The proposal to move has seen no policy-based support. The opposers argue per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that the article should stay at the base name, ergo the survey is closed noting a clear consensus not to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sam Sailor 17:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Islamic State→? — Current name is just the "Islamic State", it’s can confuse readers with article about the concept. I don’t' suggest it to rename the article to ISIL, beacuse "ISIL" is not common name anymore and pretty outdated.

So let's rename the article to Islamic State (organisation). ISIS can be also suitable beacuse "ISIS" is currently common name to the group. Gaplow43286 (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Islamic State is the common name for the organization, being the one used by the media. The organization is also the clear primary topic for the name "Islamic State" with this capitalization. The hatnote at the top of the article is good enough to clear up any confusion. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi QuicoleJR, Naming the article "Islamic State (organization)" would be a more appropriate solution, as it clarifies that the article specifically refers to the militant group commonly known as ISIS, while distinguishing it from the broader and more diverse theoretical concept of an "Islamic State." This title would help avoid confusion, making it clear that the focus is on the organization rather than the general political or religious concept. By adding the term "organization," it also provides a more neutral and descriptive approach, acknowledging that the term "Islamic State" has broader historical and theoretical meanings, which should not be conflated with this particular group.The normal readers are not supposed to distinguish this minute difference.
--DelphiLore — Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Please convey your thoughts in your own words, chatbots are not helpful. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (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.

"‘You are next’: online posts show Islamic State interest in attacks on US ahead of election"

Doug Weller talk 11:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Cite reliable sources to confirm it. BangladeshiStranger🇧🇩 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Stranger43286 Why didn't you bother to look first? That would be the sensible idea and sholw good faith. The first hit is Doug Weller talk 11:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Very small Minor edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add an collapsible list into groups infobox, it's very long.
(this topic will be deleted after accepting) 178.81.55.110 (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

I have removed, from the first sentence of the article, (uncited) text that calls ISIL an "unrecognised quasi-state." It is true that, as of 2024, affiliates of the terror group hold territorial control over shifting areas of Africa (which we mention in the lead section), but the preponderance of sources (or at least the sources currently cited) don't seem to commonly use the "quasi-state" verbiage to describe ISIL presently - certainly not at a frequency sufficient to justify its inclusion in the lead. Neither of the two sources cited on the present situation in Africa (, ) use the term. Given all that, the "quasi-state" language is more likely to confuse readers than enlighten them, especially as it seems to conflate the situation a decade ago (2012/2013 era) with the situation today. (Note, too, that there are many terror/insurgent groups that occupy territory but are not commonly described as "quasi-states." Neutrality 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to include IS-CP and Add a Section on Involvement within the borders of the Russian Federation

The article shows a significant plurality of foreign fighters in Islamic State originating from The Russian Federation yet there is no mention of either IS-CP or the link to Chechan extremists/terrorists nor the direct involvemnet of Al-Qaeada fighters in the Second Chechen War and activities of IS-CP in Russia since inception of Islamic State/Daesh and it's military defeat two years later.

I prepose inclusion of links to the main article for IS-CP in the article summary as well as a summary of IS-CP operations within the Caucuses. I'm interested in any discussion/contributions before amending the article. Debiant (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2024

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra 🎄 uc 🎄 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


Islamic StateIslamic State (militant group) – "Islamic state" doesn't indicates towards a particular group but whole Muslim community! And it makes confusion. There are lot of countries or state in past who used this name but not fair to target whole community as majority or almost all Muslims don't accept it as an Islamic state or caliphate. It makes confusion like in First Islamic state page. I think it should be moved on the basis of it targets a particular community who aren't accepting it and Misplaced Pages should not work on the basis of who claims the title.There is no problem using Islamic state name as per WP:COMMONNAMES But make a distinction.

I have changed the proposed title because the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria doesn't exists. And the main reason for this request is to make distinction.Therealbey (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. The "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is no more as declared by former Caliph Baghdadi, who declared a global Caliphate. That is why now correct to talk of "Islamic State" when referring to the group's central activities and in general; then one can talk of "IS in Syria, in Iraq, IS-WAP, IS-SP, IS-GS etc. etc.
None believe "Islamic State" means "worldwide Muslim Community". 22Chev22 (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I was launched a RM in October to Islamic State (organisation) but only one supported it, they argued that "Islamic State" is common name. So I think this RM won't succusful.
But If we uses "ISIS" in most of area rather then article title, it will succusful. No one call the group as "ISIL" now. Reliable sources also use "ISIS". So ISIS is most popular term to refer the group. The " Islamic State" is second most popular term. RealStranger43286 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose When sources spell the name out, they almost always use "Islamic State" – , , , the list goes on and on. Readers expect to see "Islamic State", not a long and clunky alternative name. Almost nobody even knows what the second part of ISIS stands for. 🐔 Chicdat   15:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
No. Islamic state, First Islamic state and this page makes confusion. And while saying the word "Islamic state" the thing comes on mind is the state of Islam and there should be no one particularly refered as Islamic state cuz lot of states claimed to be Islamic state and caliphate but it something that is/should be based on consensus of Muslims (Shura) like OIC they can come to conclusion that is this an Islamic state, caliphate or not and no one accept them. They are salafi terrorist organization they have not right to claim that they are the Islamic state and how will someone make distinction between (Islamic state and isis ??? It's disrespectful and unfair that someone claimed the Islamic state or caliphate title and no one of that community accepts but based on people refers them giving the name doesn't make sense! If you think "Islamic state of Iraq and Syria" is not suitable then Islamic State (organisation)as suggest by @Stranger43286 or Islamic state (militant group) but the word "Islamic state" refers whole community not just a particular group it's a term. Therealbey (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Nothing written above concerns Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, it simply appears to be your personal opinion based on your own sensitivity (WP:NOTAFORUM may be helpful). Sira Aspera (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Sira Aspera, WP:RGW may also be relevant here. 🐔 Chicdat   01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
It sucks that terrorists have co-opted the name, but it isn't Misplaced Pages's job to WP:RGW and change article titles based on a Shura council. Jebiguess (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The Islamic State itself is not a militant group, but a global coalition of militant groups under Islamic State's central command. The Iraq and Syria province is the most well-known, but there is no group that's just the Islamic State and not a regional affiliate. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the article Islamic State (organization) as that makes a better distinction between the org and the concept of an Islamic state.
Per WP:COMMONNAME as Amakuru points out, The Islamic State vs. Islamic state is the perfect example of a specific group commonly known as that versus the concept. Jebiguess (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Think from the pov of a normal reader who wants to know concept but finds this group go on Google and search Islamic state it shows this article. And the isis don't operating now globally and Minor in Iraq and Syria. And it create confusion with First Islamic state too Therealbey (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2024 (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.

Use of term 'terror group'

Per MOS:TERRORIST, terms like terrorist are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." I understand there was some confusion that led to the removal of the term based on a quick reading of the 'best avoided' part alone. The label terrorist is near-unanimously used by WP:RSs in essentially every language to describe groups like ISIS and hence it is usable per MOS:TERRORIST. Using such a term would be justified in the lede as long as reliably sourced.--OrebroVi (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think something like "Islamic State has been designated as a terrorist organistation by the United States and many other countries" would be appropriate, per the requirement at MOS:TERRORIST for intext attribution. Note that news organisations like the BBC also refer to IS as a "militant group" rather than referring it to it in their own voice as a "terrorist group". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The in-text styling is in the fourth paragraph of the lede. BBC also regularly uses the term terror and alternates between the two (terror and militant) rather than using only 'militant'. OrebroVi (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: