Talk:Islamic State/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

RfC about the ideology in the infobox

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

---

Should "Wahhabism" be added under ideology in the infobox? Magherbin (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: per the abundant references provided above. "Daesh claims to be the true heirs and standard-bearers of Wahhabism" [1] Self label applies here as well. The article already includes the term Salafi which is essentially the same as the Wahhabi movement. This journal published by the National University of Malaysia explains Wahabi-Salafi in detail, it says "Although salafi and wahhabi are two different terms, in reality, both refer to the same doctrine or teachings" p.18-20 [2] Magherbin (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per discussion below and particularly this source _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC) 20:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• No: With the greatest respect, we need to be careful when using terminology we are at best not especially familiar with. "Wahhabi" can refer to a range of things, and is often used pejoratively/polemically, as noted in Natana J. DeLong-Bas's Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (Oxford University Press, 2004), which is actually cited in our article on Wahhabism (see the quotation). Wahhabism has become shorthand for Salafi movements in general, especially those sponsored by Saudi Arabia. If anyone happens to actually be interested in the scholarship, this is discussed extensively in Gilles Kepel's Jihad: the trail of political Islam (London: I.B. Tauris, 2006) (esp. chapters 2 and 3). As noted by the user above in the discussion below, the material that has been offered in support of including this field is either non-specialist or of very dubious quality. The article cited above is explicitly polemical. It is one thing to say that salafism/violent political Islam has been influenced by the Wahhabi tradition (such as in this paper which explains that "works by Ibn Taymiyya and the scholars of the Wahhabi tradition have become the ideological backbone of the movement [violent salafism]", p.9), and another to suggest that ISIS is a "Wahhabi state" as you might see in press commentary (and that can mean anything). Endymion.12 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• No. Most sources use Salafi. That ISIS sees itself as the "true" leaders of Islam in general or the strain of Wahhabism in particular should have little bearing on how we describe them.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• No Salafi seems to be the preferred term in WP:RS Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Yes The info box is not exclusionary, and an organisation like ISIL can have more then one ideology.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak no I know about as little about this topic as Endymion attributes to the non-specialist sources that say "yes", but Endymion has apparently brought the sources, and the idea that non-specialist sources confused on the subject use "Wahhabism" clumsily is compelling. If someone presents a source as good as Kepel that says otherwise I'd be happy to reconsider, mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• No, because that would be a contentious label. Khestwol (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment I'm currently leaning toward a Yes vote, although some of the sources provided are of dubious quality: none of them appear to be experts on the theology of Islam, and instead largely have backgrounds in international law. The source from the Italian university is an unpublished thesis, and Race to Armageddon is written by an author with almost no scholarly footprint (in addition to having a title that is hardly neutral). However, I have yet to see any clear evidence that they aren't Wahhabist. Given that clearly (based on the provided sources) it is a somewhat common perception to associate ISIL with Wahhabism, if this were incorrect we could expect to see coverage RS countering the claim. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Khaled Abou El Fadl studied Islamic law, he explains the ideological lineage of ISIS. Khaled equates ISIS with a more harsher version of Wahhabism which was suppressed after the Ikhwan revolt in 1927 by Saudi Arabia. [3] Magherbin (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this additional source, it is particularly persuasive in this context and clearly shows that ISIL's ideology at the very minimum includes Wahhabism as part of its intellectual heritage. While there remains a possibility that a group could follow an ideology with elements derived from a specific school of thought without themselves following that school of thought, without an RS explicitly making this argument I see no reason to assume that this is the case here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, we need to be careful when using terminology we are at best not especially familiar with. "Wahhabi" can refer to a range of things, and is often used pejoratively/polemically, as noted in Natana J. DeLong-Bas's Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (Oxford University Press, 2004), which is actually cited in our article on Wahhabism (see the quotation). Wahhabism has become shorthand for Salafi movements in general, especially those sponsored by Saudi Arabia. If anyone happens to actually be interested in the scholarship, this is discussed extensively in Gilles Kepel's Jihad: the trail of political Islam (London: I.B. Tauris, 2006) (esp. chapters 2 and 3). As noted by the user above in the discussion below, the material that has been offered in support of including this field is either non-specialist or of very dubious quality. The article cited above is explicitly polemical. It is one thing to say that salafism/violent political Islam has been influenced by the Wahhabi tradition (such as in this paper which explains that "works by Ibn Taymiyya and the scholars of the Wahhabi tradition have become the ideological backbone of the movement [violent salafism]", p.9), and another to suggest that ISIS is a "Wahhabi state" as you might see in press commentary (and that can mean anything). Endymion.12 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the analogy that Wahhabism is pejorative, the term denotes the followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. These are labels the early Islamic scholars termed the followers of for example the 4 Sunni schools of law, Hanbali, Maliki etc. It would thus be academically dishonest to claim Wahhabis are to be called Muslims, with no specific leader that invented their version of Islamic school of law/theology. Natana J. DeLong-Bas's book received severe criticism from the academic world, which is explained on her wikipedia article, it falls under WP:FRINGE. Wahhabi state means what it says, there's no confusions. Magherbin (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

1. It's not an analogy. 2. I know, and actually it doesn't refer to a particular school of Islamic jurisprudence, but to a particular heterodox tradition within the Hanbali school. It can indeed refer to many things: it might refer polemically to orthodox Sunnism in the tradition of Ibn Taymiyyah, or to Wahhabism as practised in Saudi Arabia, or the Wahhabi tradition more broadly, etc. 3. No, it's not fringe, even if was criticised by Khaled Abou El Fadl (DeLong-Bas didn't write her own Wikipedia article either, incidentally). 4. I'm not going to reply to you any further unless you actually offer us some serious scholarship. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Magherbin: Please reply here. Don't clutter up the survey. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we are running in circles here. Natana's argument that Wahhabism is a blanket term applies to those ignorant of the religion of Islam, and she has a point in that it is used (sometimes) to denote whats extreme. If people denote anything extreme to Wahhabism, it would be outright false but unfortunately you will find people who do this. Ibn Taymiyah is clearly tied to Wahhabism, its who Abdulwahhab borrows ideas from, to deny this would be wrong. Infact the encyclopedia Britannica says the following "Wahhābī theology and jurisprudence—based, respectively, on the teachings of the theologian Ibn Taymiyyah and the legal school of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal—stress literal belief in the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth and the establishment of a Muslim state based only on Islamic law". The Sunni scholars clearly believed Wahhabis had created their own school and named them Wahhabis or followers of AbdulWahhab. Its only fair to mention that Ibn Taymiyah is not considered a scholar of any prestige in mainstream Sunni islam, some scholars considered him an infidel. [4] According to Wahhabis Ibn Taymiyah was the "sheikh of islam", this sets them apart from mainstream Sunnism. Magherbin (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, and once again you have missed the point. Please don't feel the need to describe random facts about individuals or concepts as they come up in discussion in an effort to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about—we're already capable of making that call. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Endymion.12, can you provide any sources that directly say that Wahhabism is not part of ISIL's ideology? At this point, we have several middling-quality sources that claim that ISIL is Wahhabist, a few good sources claiming that Wahhabi is overused as a label, but none that actually argue that ISIL specifically is not Wahhabi. While it is possible to construct an argument against labeling ISIL as Wahhabi based on the sources saying that Wahhabi is overused, this is borderline original research. Based on the evidence currently listed in this discussion, it appears that the claim that ISIL is Wahhabi is verifiable, even if it is possible to argue that it is not true (see WP:NOTTRUTH). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: And why would you expect there to be published academic sources contradicting that specific claim? This isn't a confusion you would find in specialist literature. At the moment, we have precisely one source of "middling-quality"—an interview on the abc.au website, which is conducted in an explicitly polemical register. This doesn't meet any standard for WP:VERIFIABLE. If you want to make this claim, it's your burden to provide high-quality academic sources in its support, and it certainly isn't my responsibility to find sources that contradict it—especially when you are struggling to find sources that actually make it. I'm certainly not arguing that we should omit this field because "Wahhabi is overused as a label". I have explained that it is fundamentally an inaccurate/misleading field. Reading the academic literature I referred to might help. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A quick search for sources, [[5]], [[6]]. There are a few more, but is this enough?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The English readers are not aware of the term Salafi as much as Wahhabism. Bernard Haykel [7] says ISIL's ideology is directly linked to Wahhabism, it doesn't get ant clearer then that. This looks more like an attempt to censor the term Wahhabism, despite its usage by academics. Magherbin (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have access to the journal article cited above through my institution; presumably User:Slatersteven does. Could they please quote those parts of the article that support the claim that "Wahhabism" is the "ideology" of ISIS?

Bernard Haykel wrote the following: "The Islamic State's religious genealogy comes from 'Jihadi Salafism', a theological current that is very old in Islam that is quite literalist. [Followers are] extremely rigorous, and condemn other Muslims who don't share their theology. That gives them the hard edge when it comes to violence, because they can justify it theologically. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab is in that Salafist tradition. He was a religious reformer in Arabia who was able to create a religious movement that ended up creating a state."

This essentially supports what I have been saying. ISIS is a violent salafi movement with various different influences, of which the Wahhabi tradition is a leading one. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I cant seem to access it my self now, no idea why. So i shall provide m ore sources then [[8]], [[9]] (this at least can be said to put both sides, what it is influenced by but it hardley a good example of it), [[10]], what however some sources seem to say is that whilst it was informed and influenced by Wahhabism it has moved somewhat away form many of its ideals [[11]].10:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So you hadn't actually read the article? This is the problem with entering a discussion with little prior knowledge and making up your mind following a quick google search without actually reading the sources. The Weiss and Hassan book you cited above even says the following in relation to this exact issue:

"Other extreme wings of the religion are challenged by ISIS. Wahhabism, the school of Salafism founded by Mohammed bin Abdulwahab in the eighteenth century and officially enforced in Saudi Arabia today, is glibly used by pundits to account for the entirety of the organisation's ideological underpinnings."

The other sources, one of which is already cited in the article, essentially make the point that modern Salafi movements, like ISIS, are indebted to Wahhabism and Saudi sponsorship, which is not controversial. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2018 (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.

Hillary Clinton founded ISIS?

Uhh never been involved in wikipedia editing honestly, but it just seemed blatantly obvious that Hillary Clinton founding ISIS and al-Qaeda is a (malicious?) misinterpretation of the source, thought I'd let you people know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.126.190.203 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

ISIS has been defeated in 2019 Goszkimjut (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a source. Felicia (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

info box needs updating

Why is the map, number of civilians, number of fighters etc all show when "it was their max"? It should be what the figures are now. We dont show historical figures and maps in other groups (or countries) infobox, so why do we with this now nearly destroyed group? No is not true because still have in Syria

Given that ISIL has lost 99% of its territory and will lose the remaining in short order, the caliphate project has come to a close. For the article, I believe it is more adequate to show the territory it controlled at its height, as we are already talking about something that mostly exists in history. Whilst not acknowledging ISIL as a legitimate caliphate, I believe like the Ottoman caliphate page, or all caliphates before that, it is most valuable in an encyclopedia to show the height of its territorial control, not the 3 villages it currently controls. LyriaSiders (talk) 0:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Historically, what use would the map be if it did otherwise? At what point in their development do we freeze it? Britmax (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The max map is exactly the right one to show context. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments moved from top

It is now time to say that ISIS has come to an end in 2019 as the US and SDF confirmed the caliphate is completely dissolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.127.232.147 (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Also, please add to the status that Baghuz has been liberated, ending the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.127.232.147 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

When you want to suggest an amendment to the article, list Reliable Sources to back up your changes.50.111.22.12 (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2019

Isis (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), came to an official end on 23 March 2019. This is according to the US and UK governments, as well as Kurdish Democratic Forces (SDF) who liberated Baghuz. The article should update the existence existence from '1999-present' to '1999-2019'. As well, the status of the caliphate must also have the battle/liberation of Baghuz added. 142.127.232.147 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

When you want to suggest an amendment to the article, list Reliable Sources to back up your changes.50.111.22.12 (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mstrojny (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done [12]. ISIL continues to exist as a rebel/terrorist group in many countries even though they no longer control land in SYRIA. We can't declare the end of their existence.Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2019

In the section "Timelines of events", the page Timeline_of_ISIL-related_events_(2013) is linked twice. This redundancy should be fixed.

Disclosure: I'm registered, but uncomfortable with having this page in my edit history. 219.91.237.191 (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done aboideau^talk 13:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

ISI is the brother of ISIS

There is man rumour that ISI(Inter-Services Intelligence) is cooperating with ISIS.And In Jammu and Kashmir, many rioter are using ISIS flag which make rumour that there is a presence of ISIS in Jammu and Kashmir. Tyrant402 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. What is your source? Britmax (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan is supporting ISIS

Pakistan is secretly supporting ISIS to attack India.Some website have a proof Spartan locke (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Please remove the photo of Kurdish female fighters from the cover, because it is misleading (it gives the impression that they are ISIS fighters). 139.179.194.227 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The photo's caption is very clear that they're defending themselves against extremists. The photo also breaks up that large swathe of text, which seems good. – Þjarkur (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Time to split, at last

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

---

You STILL didn't rename the article over 4 years later? Incredible. Btw, even in 2013-2014 it was ISIS, not "ISIL", if you want to retain this article to cover that phase (similar to how there are separate articles for KGB, NKVD, NKGB, and other phases of the Cheka - or how there's actually separate article for the Islamic State of Iraq of 2006-2013). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Obstruction is more effective than argumentation. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It was always "Islamic State", and so it is known in most on the world and in most languages. The only exceptions are political: DAESH (official terminology of the French government, though now becoming less and less fashionable) and ISIL (official terminology of the Obama administration, though now even the NYT, which used to rigidly adhere to the government's dictum, is letting its guard down and using... "Islamic State"). XavierItzm (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

XavierItzm wrote above "DAESH (official terminology of the French government, though now becoming less and less fashionable)". It seems to be the current (May 2019) preferred HMG name (see "Daesh: UK government response") and has been since December 2015. In a BBC article published in 2015 "Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh? One group, many names by Faisal Irshaid it is reported:

"Frankly, this evil death cult is neither a true representation of Islam, nor is it a state," UK Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament in December 2015 when announcing that his government would be joining France in calling the group "Daesh" rather than "Isil". ... The label has gained currency despite or perhaps as a direct consequence of the irritation it causes the group, and is now used widely across the world by politicians and in the media

One often hears the term used on the BBC by British Government minsters and UK military sources. -- PBS (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It only came to be known by the anti-Semetic name "isil" in 2Ø1Ø. Even Barack referred to them as ISIS until it became expedite to HIS agenda (somewhere during the 2Ø11 year, during the Liyan Civil War). The continued use of this Holocaust Denier language is offensive, and should not only be removed from the title but listed as such in the text to the smallest possible degree (example "Other Names" bullet points ""ISIL": Name selected in early 2Ø1Ø to justify the destruction of Israel"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.167.21 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Six months later, no change. Of course. So I put the tag for something that is well over 4 years overdue. The reasons are obvious: ISIS existed only 2013-2014 just as ISI existed only until 2013, "ISIL" was used by some once (especially Obama's administration) but practically no one still does anymore and that's for long time. Not going to argue in the thread after that, because I don't think there's even anything to argue about it. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose it sounds like this is another move proposal, with a tweak that then a new article be created here about the ISIL name itself? If I'm understanding that right, the nomination doesn't explain what's changed since the last 14 (yes, 14) unsuccessful move proposals, the most recent of which that had discussion was closed in late 2016 with unanimous opposition. VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The so-called Wikipedians are about the only people in the world who use this fictious "ISIL" nickname of IS anymore:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22isil%22&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:h&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx5rrCn5HhAhVll4sKHfdQDLcQpwUIIQ&biw=1920&bih=888&dpr=1

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22islamic+state%22&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:h&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiamJLXn5HhAhXzAhAIHV9mD8YQpwUIIQ&biw=1920&bih=888&dpr=1

Not commenting or watching anymore, because it's just silly. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Google search results are not at all clear. The other names are all redirects to thos article amd clearly listed here. It's fine as is. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support - and recommend a name change. Google search results for ISIS=251M vs ISIL=19M - it is very clear that ISIS is the most common name. The readable prose size of this article is (text only): 113 kB (18,570 words). WP:Splitting advises splitting when > 100kB / 100,000 chars. Encyclopedic information can best serve its purpose if it's read. An article with 3050 kB of readable prose (approx 8,000+/- words) takes about 35+/- min to read. The avg concentration span is about 45+/- min. This article is nearly 4x the readable prose size which far exceeds the avg. concentration span. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What does the article name have to do with its size? If you want to reduce the article size, one or more additional spinouts are the way to go. We could also trim the text covering topics already spun out. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This is a weird rename proposal. "Islamic State" is not used by publications, it gives the group undue legitimacy. Nice4What (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is used by publications. Just google it. HonestManBad (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hell no - the name "Islamic State" implies they're a caliphate, which is what the group claims themselves to be - this would undermine neutral point of view in favor of them. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose – We've already had multiple previous discussions not to rename / reclassify (split) this article based on its "Islamic State" declaration rebranding on June 29, 2014. Even after ISIL declared itself to be merely a Global-Scale "Islamic State", nothing really changed, except for ISIL's self-applied name and its shift to a more global focus in operations. Other than these changes that I just mentioned, ISIL still remained the same organization, without any serious drastic changes within the organization itself. As for any arguments for renaming this article to "Islamic State" - we've already been through this one. I strongly oppose this as well, because not only is the name potentially confusing (there are many different definitions of "Islamic State" and even multiple historical entities that can claim this title), but almost no one has officially acknowledged ISIL's claims. Additionally, renaming this article to "Islamic State" would cause disambiguation headaches for readers searching for different topics, as well as removing the part of the current article title specifying ISIL's main region of operations (as well as their "home base"). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

See my later comments below for an update on my current position. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support renaming the article "Islamic State" or "Islamic State (group)". I was surprized to find that this article is *still* under the outdated and rarely-used name "ISIL". Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name. As many editors have shown, "Islamic State" alone is the most common name by far and it's used by hundreds of thousands of publications worldwide. Even "ISIS" is much more common. It's akin to having the United Kingdom (UK) article at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UKGBNI). Also, if naming the article "Islamic State" gives them "undue legitimacy" then surely we're *already* giving them undue legitimacy by having "Islamic State" anywhere in the name, and we should rename it something like "Evil Islamist terrorist non-state"? Should we rename Real Irish Republican Army for fear of giving them undue legitimacy too? Of course not. ~Asarlaí 21:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Your points have been refuted many times before in the numerous failed attempt to rename the page. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME isn't a point that can be refuted, it's Wikipedia policy. It's been raised many times that "Islamic State" is *by far* the most common name, "ISIS" is less common, and "ISIL" is much less common than that – yet the article is named "ISIL". Arguments for or against a name change must be based on Wikipedia policy, not whether editors like or dislike something. ~Asarlaí 23:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course it can be refuted, and has been multiple times. WP:COMMONNAME is one section of the naming policy (not the entire policy), and provides more nuanced direction than you imply. The difficulties with a search engine test for this particular case have been presented repeatedly in the previous discussions. VQuakr (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Support we should have two different articles, one when the group was called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and only claimed areas in Iraq and Syria and another one when the group converted itself into an international organization. 3bdulelah (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support Calling the article "Islamic State (group)" does not objectively imply that they're a caliphate. You'd have an equal or better case arguing that DPRK's article should be called "North Korea" so as to not bias the article by implying that they are the legitimate government of all of Korea; ditto with ROK and "South Korea". But the names merely reflect that both states lay claim to all of Korea; the article names do not imply any recognition of the legitimacy of these claims, but merely the recognition of the commonly recognized names of these entities. The only reason why this name change hasn't happened is that the opposing side has obstructed enough that they can effortlessly deflect arguments by referring to the supposed precedent of previous conversations which are so numerous and scattered that no one bothers to sift through them. Is is possible to get some sort of arbiter to weigh in? HonestManBad (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support calling the article "Islamic State (group)". Having "group" in the title is important to differentiate it from the idea/philosophy of an Islamic State; when you click on this link, it automatically goes to Islamic state (disambiguation), which would also need to be fixed? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly Support calling the article "Islamic State (group)". This term is used by various international news organizations including the Associated Press, BBC, France24, NBC, the Washington Post, FOX News, and USA Today. The term captures the transient nature of this "state" while recognizing the group's selfish effort to be seen as legitimate. TheNavigatrr (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Still propose "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" or "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" (both "ISIS"). Almost every single source uses "ISIS". The whole "ISIL" thing was only used temporarily by the previous White House. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support ditching the "ISIL" name regardless of whether we split per WP:COMMONNAME. People have rightfully pointed out that number of search results is not a perfect heuristic, but other methods also indicate that "ISIL" is by far the less common name. For instance, see https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=ISIS,ISIL. If one's concerned that "ISIS" is also including other topics in the Google Trends, he can instead use terms like "ISIS jihad" and "ISIL jihad" and see the same pattern. Furthermore, searching the Internet Archive's TV News, we see the same trend (see https://archive.org/details/tv?q=ISIS and https://archive.org/details/tv?q=ISIL). These links also reveal that the bulk of references to "ISIL" were during the Obama administration, and the term "ISIS" is still prevalent. Thus, both on the Internet and in television, "ISIL" is by far the less common term. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: It appears that this discussion has transitioned away from the original split/rename proposal to more of a discussion on just renaming this article itself. Under this new context, I could support a renaming of this article, provided that the new title is accurate and has enough consensus to support. I could support a rename to Islamic State (group), but we would need enough consensus. I still Strongly Oppose renaming to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - This name is outdated and no longer accurate, given the expansion of this group's operations into more countries in the Greater Middle East, such as Libya and Yemen. Splitting this article into the proposed titles, as originally suggested, would be grossly inappropriate. Should this article be renamed, whatever the final title is, it must meet these requirements: 1) Be a commonly-used name (one way or another), 2) accurately describe this group and the scope of its operations ("Islamic State (group)" meets this requirement), 3) be free of political influence (e.g., no ISIS or False Islamic Caliphate), and 4) receive enough consensus from the editors here to decisively rename. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Regarding the current direction of the discussion, I strongly oppose the original proposal, though I support renaming to "Islamic State (group)". Just to be clear, I'm not double-voting - I'm merely clarifying my stance on the various options that have come up in this discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Support calling the article "Islamic State (group)". Because the group has change its name long ago.If we want to call it 'ISIS' on basis that it is widely used in media then we should rename 'Islamic state of Iraq' article to 'AQI[Alqaeda in iraq]' because no one call it ISI between 2006-2013 rather AQI was used by all.

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.

Abkhazia

Hello, i read you artic about : " Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant " and i found one mistake. Please corect it its about Opponent(s) State opponents where mentioned " Abkhazia " as state, it is false, Abkhazia is a part of Georgia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zura Suliashvili (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done As our article on Abkhazia explains, the status of Abkhazia is in dispute, and we will not describe it here simply as a "part of Georgia", as to do so would violate our policies on neutral point of view. Its status is clearly explained in that article. General Ization ^Talk 20:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

Did you mention ISIS took over from al-Qaeda? 47.16.99.72 (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Iraq and Syria" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iraq and Syria. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

Change "an" in the sentence " ISIL also committed ethnic cleansing on an historic and unprecedented scale in northern Iraq." to "a". for correct grammar. Wilsonahrens (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not done: "[A]n historic" is at least as correct as "a historic", and less easily misunderstood. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Abu Mansour, unofficial "Ambassador of ISIS in Turkey"

Hello all, Any idea where could we add this article recently created ? Yug (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Does this information has a good source? Please note that ISIL has been classified a terrorist organisation by Turkey and many other countries. Khestwol (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Should the founder be listed in the infobox?

I noticed the original founder wasn't listed and was unsure if it was for a reason or not. If it should, I'll add it (or someone can).

untitled

18:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untitled.docx (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019

Leader : Unknown to Abu Ibrahim Al Hashimi Al Qurashi Heartwave47 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Duplication inside the template?

It makes no sense to keep "chief spokesperson" and "spokesman" as separate positions in the template. Both positions are merely duplicates which refer to the same position within the organisation. Abul Hassan al-Muhajir was the successor to al-Adnani, and that's it. Very confusing. By the way, it should be updated to Abu Hamza al-Qurayshi who is the new spokesperson. Fixmaster (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Changing a sentence to something more understandable

U.S. President Donald Trump stated in a televised announcement that Baghdadi had in fact raid during the operation and that American forces used support from helicopters, jets and drones through airspace controlled by Russia and Turkey.

Had in fact raid? I'm not sure what the appropriate change should be but maybe someone can clean this up. 24.241.122.105 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

US/Western propaganda

The US and its allies were late to the war against ISIS, as well as "al-Qaeda in Iraq." This page says nothing about the US/West let ISIS expand in the region, because they wanted to get rid of Assad. This is hardly unprecedented. Same tactic was used in WWII, with Germany and Russia being left to fight it out.

US/NATO-backed Israeli think tank: Don’t destroy ISIS; it’s a ‘useful tool’ against Iran, Hezbollah, Syria https://thegrayzone.com/2016/08/23/us-nato-israeli-think-tank-isis-useful-tool/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

International military intervention against ISIL is too big, it is breaking Wikipedia

Details and discussion are at Talk:International military intervention against ISIL#This page is too big after including templates, it is breaking Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

In the part with the opposition to ISIL it is mentioned that “Artsakh” is a state. This “state” is formed on internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan Republic and a million of azerbaijanis have been displaced from their place of living. The region of Nagorno Karabagh is a part of Azerbaijan and even Armenia itself does not recognize its puppet organization. 109.205.160.236 (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

change the name to "Islamic State (Organization)"

shouldn't we change the article name to "Islamic State (Organization)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.208.170 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, change to "Islamic State (Organization)" - per WP:COMMON. XavierItzm (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

For example, look at this headline from today:

U.S. Blacklists New Islamic State Leader XavierItzm (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

BBC article on Islamic State outpost in Mozambique

According to a BBC article that was published on May 5th, 2020, a recent insurgency in Mozambique is linked to the Islamic State. The BBC Africa correspondence wrote the following: "The idea that the rebellion in Cabo Delgado is, at its core, part of a global jihadist movement, has been given credibility by the militants themselves, who publicly swore allegiance to IS last year." Can someone open the article so I could add this important fact? --JohnBJP (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphan biography : Basil Hassan

Hello all, any idea where should this biography be cited and included ? Yug (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Why was the comparison with colonial/revolutionary france removed?

It is a relevant comparison for people to see to see the level of violence of ISIS, specifically those in Algeria and other former French colonies whose idea of violence is shaped by French colonialism. It also shows how ISIS's state building tactics resemble those of revolutionary France more than they do any Islamic government of the past, in that ISIS is an attempt to build a nation state like those after the treaty of westphalia where as the Caliphates of old were more akin to classical empires. I think that comparison is very relevant and very important to create the correct image of ISIS in people's heads.FullMetal234 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

extended

vandal is many..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.157.43 (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit

I reverted an edit here. It removed some well source and obvious ISIL ideologies. Aocloyalist please explain why you feel that content doesn't belong.VR _talk 22:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been over 6 years since ISIS turned into IS, and you still failed to either update this article or to make a new one

Despite the earlier Islamic State of Iraq having a separate article.

It was also never really "ISIL". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.108.161 (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It's anachronistic and was widely viewed as a political maneuver to absolve the Obama administration of any blame for not having interceded in Syria the year prior to their ascendancy. But you'll never see the article changed, no matter how erroneous or infrequent the term ISIL is used. 104.139.114.186 (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Execution vs murder?

The article mentions "execution" several times. Is this terminology proper? As far as I understand, an "execution" is a killing sanctioned by a government. If IS/ISIL was never a recognized state, then I would think it would be more proper to describe these killings as "murders" rather than "executions". SpectrumDT (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Operations like timber Sycamore and state allies

Add allies and timber Sycamore Farbne (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2021 - Redirect notice cleanup.

Neither "isis" nor "ISIS" seem to redirect to this article.

I suggest removing the WikiText string "|ISIS" from the redirect notice near the top of this page. Intralexical (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: ISIS is a commonly used abbreviation for the organization, and ISIS does redirect here, so the top line is appropriate. Bestagon (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Apologies, I checked the redirects by using a third-party search function (DuckDuckGo's bangs) that automatically changed "ISIS" to "isis". "ISIS" does indeed redirect to the article, and I agree it makes perfect sense for it to do so. My bad. Intralexical (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Kharijite and Khawarije

why is Kharijite changed to Khawarije? --142.163.194.106 (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Please change

{{cite news |last1=Saxena |first1=Vivek |title=ISIS vs ISIL – Which One Is It? |url=http://www.inquisitr.com/1306844/isis-vs-isil-which-one-is-it/ |date=16 September 2014 |work=[[Inquisitr]] |date=18 June 2014}}

to

{{cite news |last1=Saxena |first1=Vivek |title=ISIS vs ISIL – Which One Is It? |url=http://www.inquisitr.com/1306844/isis-vs-isil-which-one-is-it/ |date=16 September 2014 |work=[[Inquisitr]] }}

which removes the page from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls after the most recent edit by User:Darrend1967. from the link, we can see that the correct date is 16 September 2014. 98.230.196.188 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. Darrend1967 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Detailed and critical look at ISIL groups in Afghanistan (Tolonews 2020 video)

Some interesting take aways are that the main groups in the Middle East would not recognize them nor issue orders. Daesh in Afghanistan on YouTube -Technophant (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Basil Hassan : help to link/use this article

Hello, this article is interesting but poorly interlinked. Any idea where it could go ? Yug (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

جانم فدای سید علی 86.107.216.246 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 06:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Headquarters

Should the headquarters be listed as Mocímboa da Praia? It is the headquarters of the Central Africa Wilyah, which is the only one that actually holds territory. Would it be fair to list this as the headquarters of the Islamic State, or as a sort of Capital? I can see how there would be opposition to this listing, so I ask here. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 19:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I know this is very out of date but, yea Mocímboa da Praia is the biggest city they have control over right now, but it's only the capital for central Africa province at the moment not the Islamic state as a whole.--Garmin21 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The actions of the Islamic State in Afghanistan even if made by a subdivision, are actions of the Islamic State

Pincrete made two reverts in less than 24 hrs:

here and here

ISIS KP is part of the Islamic State, and as such, mention of its activities on the Islamic State page are pertinent. Since he reverted twice in less than 24, I'll be taking this to the noticeboard but I encourage Pincrete and others to pitch in here. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Almost all sources, including the source used here, refer to ISIL-KP as an affiliate of ISIL. The two are linked obviously, but given the fractured and fractious nature of such groups, it does not make sense to treat one as a subsidiary of the other. These are NOT branches of some orderly multi-national commercial organisation. Why not try adding sourced text instead of moaning about other editors. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

If your proposal is in good faith, please self-revert so I can add back the text and modify it as per your comment, with which I have no problem. If your proposal is not in good faith, I am prevented from doing what you propose because it would be a violation of 1RR. I don't do 1RR violations. XavierItzm (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the point of re-inserting inaccurate info? You don't need anyone's permission to insert text in the body of the article, which is where all info should be first anyhow. Particularly this info, since it is about "an affiliate organisation of ISIS", not ISIS itself. Pincrete (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Affiliates of ISIS are, by definition, part of ISIS. XavierItzm (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

name should be changed "Islamic State (organization)"

the name should be changed to " Islamic State (organization)", since no one, even not themselves calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is their former name. They are no called Islamic state and they are an organization.

Agreed. Name change is long overdue. The current article name is inaccurate. LandyYecla (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. XavierItzm (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Especially with the news of the recent attack in Afghanistan, our outdated use of "Iraq and the Levant" for IS and all its provinces makes things complicated, confusing, and contradictory. Please, start a proposal to move the page so we can finally push this through. IvanSidorenkoSG (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Change the name

Wikipedia is literally the only website on the entire Internet calling them ISIL. 2601:204:CF01:7470:31BF:DFA9:FCE2:637E (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist not militant

Replace militant with terrorist ArstotzkanGuard (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2020

@ArstotzkanGuard: I did try and make this edit but Britmax reverted me, and rightfully so it seems as past discussion has failed to gain concensus for this type of change as editors always brought up WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV. Accordingly we should keep it as it is, but if it's any consolation they are mentioned as such later on in the lede (that the US designates them as a terrorist organisation) - and this mention is in accordance with WP:LABEL. ParthikS8 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)