Talk:Islamic State/Archive 39

Map of area of operations
Since Islamic State has control of area, and have claimed the world as their territory, not just Iraq, Syria, and the Levant, but with allied groups in the Philippines and Nigeria, should we get a new map showing those areas? Cganuelas (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The map shows area of control, not operations. Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant. Since groups like Boko Haram pledged allegiance to IS, shouldn't we add their areas of control/claim to the map? Cganuelas (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Images seem utterly sanitized and dumbed down
Why no images or videos of beheadings, slave markets, mass graves, corpses, destroyed historical sites etc. in the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.136.194.20 (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why host Daesh propaganda? That's where many of those images are coming from, and they consider it a good thing.  The article already describes their sins and the rest of the world's condemnation of them.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think adorability(or lack of it) of the source is a valid criteria. Secondly, even if we don't want to use ISIS websites directly, same images can also be sourced through other reliable sources. Omitting those images means most readers would get a poor idea about the atrocious nature of the subject. As long as something helps the reader get a better idea of the subject, IMHO, it should be included.101.217.57.134 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You want Wikipedia to be hosting HD videos of people being beheaded? Gazkthul (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course. Do you feel this kind of imagery or visuals are unprecedented for wikipedia hosting?101.210.0.211 (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Some people use websites like Wikipedia for research and teaching and if someone were to be viewing an article full of snuff porn and someone were to see it, then they would get a lot of strange looks and maybe put on a list. Cganuelas (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dunno about porn. But looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women this http://www.rawa.org/zarmeena.htm seems quite usual and appropriate.101.210.0.211 (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Has everyone forgotten Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and above all has to be neutral? It is not like a TV documentary or an educational film, where different rules apply.  ~ P-123 (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Inacurracy on the "Countries and groups at war with ISIL" map.
The map currently shows Suriname as part of the Combined Joint Task Force. I think the original intent was to include French Guyana instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waxk0 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

rise of ISIS
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria also known as "ISIS" has been in the headlines recently as the top terrorist organization. Most people don't know that ISIS has actually been around since 1999, but pledged allegiance to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the fight against American coalition forces. For years ISIS followed in Al Qaeda's shadow until 2011. With U.S. forces pulled out of Iraq and the Syrian civil war, ISIS had the perfect conditions to gain power and territory to create their caliphate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.169.25.97 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to discuss here. Cganuelas (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I can discuas here, i already read and listen to now and old "ISIS" and what they say about itself and how they rise If anyone can't find what he want to know i could help ( because most of information and source are in Arabic language not in English ) Ahmed L.mousa (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Single source for Deputy Iraq Leader and War Minister
Only one source has been used for citing the names of ISIL's Deputy Leader in Iraq and War Minister. What's more the source is a blog (I'm not calling it unreliable), I haven't been able to find any other website that says the same thing as this blog. What's more this blog has been used 2 times but has been presented as a different source in case of Deputy Iraq Minister and War Minister respectively. I believe more than a single source should be used for this kind of information, especially when you can't find any other website repeating the same thing, it raises more doubts about it. 117.199.85.5 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, but you don't need much sources to prove that because all know the leaders of ISIL simply because they published there names and the speaker of ISIL mentions them in his speechs Like you don't want much source to prove that Barack Obama is the President of USA Ahmed L.mousa (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Map
Map of ISIS is stuck at May 1, 2016 and in the meantime there have been changes; when you update everything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.91.167 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The man who updates the map sometimes is disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.91.167 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Bosnia
What about the links with Bosnian muslims? Aflis (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Date
The date about the Military situation is not June 3, 2016, but June 7, 2016, in the Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.91.167 (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Smaller page please
Counting 777 references used. Table of contents more than a page. Crashes my tablet trying to scroll to the bottom. Surely some of these sections could be split off into their own articles like "history of ISIL" or similar? Ranze (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOLONG does say that articles larger than 200kb are generally split into two or more. I think this current page at >400kb could probably benefit being split up, especially if you experience crashes while trying to access it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016
Active 1999–present

Established under the name of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad: 1999 Joined al-Qaeda: October 2004 Declaration of an Islamic state in Iraq: 13 October 2006 Claim of territory in the Levant: 8 April 2013 Separated from al-Qaeda:[1][2] 3 February 2014[3] Declaration of caliphate: 29 June 2014 Claim of territory in: Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen: 13 November 2014 Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nigeria: 12 March 2015[5][6] North Caucasus: 23 June 2015[7]

Removing India in the Claim of territory as there is no territory captured by Isil in India. Neither Isil flourishes in India as compaed to other part of the world.

V vivek456 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is backed by this citation. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 01:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150704173057/http://news.yahoo.com/first-beheads-two-women-syria-monitor-073538672.html to http://news.yahoo.com/first-beheads-two-women-syria-monitor-073538672.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Country
Daesh occupies territory, runs an administration, collects taxes, and has an armed forces. It purports to be a state. I believe that it meets every criteria for being considered a state. Some commentators, and politicians, have described it as such. Others have avoided any suggestion that it is a state - for political reasons (i.e. not to give Daesh credibility). Whether or not one wishes to support or oppose ISIL, I believe that the facts speak for themselves. An analogy would be Nazi Germany. Few people these days would openly support that regime, and most would consider it illegitimate, but it was still the legal government of Germany. To pretend otherwise out of ideological considerations is not justified. Similarly Somaliland and Abkhazia, and such unrecognized or partially recognised states are nonetheless described in Wikipedia as states. I recommend that this article be rewritten to describe ISIL as a state, albeit an unrecognized one.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You are far from the first person to suggest this. Do you have sufficient reliable sources to draw material from and justify the change in description? Dimadick (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a terrorist organization, not a state. Also, Al Nusra is not a state. The two occupy territories of states. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No state recognizes it as a state, making it pretty much baseless. Nazi Germany was not an occupation, it was still Germany. And Somaliland is described as unrecognized. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

ISIL massacres
Full horror of the Yazidis who didn’t escape Mount Sinjar: UN confirms 5,000 men were executed and 7,000 women are now kept as sex slaves

Isis slaughter: Islamic State massacres 140 civilians in Kobani attack

IS Yazidi attacks may be genocide, says UN

yazidis massacre

UN: ISIS Massacred 700 Turkmen--Including Women, Children, Elderly

ISIS Tikrit Massacre

A massacre against the Türkmen by this terrorist organization ISIL in Emirli is imminent

Iraq’s besieged Yazidi and Turkmen minorities cry for help

Social media mention in summary
In the fourth paragraph/third sentence of the summary ISIL is described as "Adept at social media". This wording appears to make this subjective characteristic factual without any citations or reasoning, and could probably be improved by expanding with content and citations from the Propaganda and Social Media section; however, I couldn't figure a way to fit it in with the existing sentence structure. Any help? Distransient (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think we ca resolve it via attribution? --Mhhossein (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-correct graphic design of the flag
Either correct the graphic design either add a paragraph that explains the reasons why ISIS hates calligraphy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4109:BF00:C4A2:387E:F301:C52F (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Daesh
Just a request, but can someone bolden the romanized Arabic so people can see how it becomes Daesh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:D63:4B7F:A521:2B12 (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean how it become "Daesh" in Arabic or you just ask to change font to bolden? Ahmed L.mousa (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out how the letters form the acronym from the Romanized Arabic is next to impossible, because transliteration approximates sounds, not letters. The "a" in "Da'esh" comes from the "I" in "al-Islamiyah" -- because the Arabic letter is the same, and the difference in pronunciation is based on context and diacritical marks. 143.81.29.253 (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, can someone please correct the pronunciation? It's not an [i] after the stop, if anything it's a minimized schwa. Compare to the pronunciation of "da'es" (treader/trampler). 143.81.29.253 (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2016
ISIS was founded in 2013 not 1999

198.52.13.15 (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * . Its current iteration emerged in 2014, but it's been around in other forms since 1999, as per the sources presented in the article. GABgab 14:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Add Obama as possible founder
Should we include Obama as a 'possible' founder of ISIS, because of Trumps claim that he is, i.e see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734124/He-founded-ISIS-Trump-claims-Obama-deserves-credit-creating-Middle-Eastern-terror-army-names-crooked-Hillary-founder.html

Since Wikipedia is based on verify ability, I think it passes that test -- Eng. M.Bandara  -Talk  04:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC) talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 17:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Trump is not a reliable scholarly source for such a libelous claim. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as, of course, neither is the Daily Mail. Muffled Pocketed  09:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the name of seriousness....Aflis (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COMMONSENSE and founder. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 15:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and question sincerity and purpose of this patently foolish RFC. If serious, submitter should be required to carefully read WP:RS and be warned that further use of poor quality sources will result in a block.  Not the first time for this editor. Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even Donald Trump has tried to walk back that ridiculous assertion. He has said he was being sarcastic.Smeat75 ([[User

Change/clarification on Daesh pronunciation/Arabic IPA
I'm struggling to understand how "Daesh" is supposed to be pronounced.

The article says "Arabic: داعش‎‎ dāʿish, IPA: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]", but that can't be right. First of all, "ā" represents a long A (at least in English and therefore on en.wiki) but the IPA pronunciation given immediately after indicates it should actually be a short a. Second, "i" (by itself) is not even a symbol used in IPA for Arabic, so it's unclear whether it's meant to be read as "ɪ" or "i:".

— Rutebega ( talk ) 01:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Desh" means one's country or native land. I would say "Daesh" would be pronounced as "Desh", as in Bangladesh. It could be meant to cryptically refer to ISIS, as Desh usually refers to own country/native land !!! --Ne0 (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're saying about the ā. represents long a; the  is the length symbol.


 * The i is short. The IPA transcription isn't following the IPA help page. I just fixed that. Does it make more sense to you now? — Eru·tuon 07:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad to have the 'i' bit cleared up, but the help page indicates that "a:" should be short, as in father. Unless I've been pronouncing the word "father" very wrong my entire life, something doesn't add up. — Rutebega ( talk ) 09:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Treat ISIL as a real "State"
The comment might be surprising and I don't blame anyone. ISIL might not be recognised by anyone (it isn't the only one), it is in fact a "State" in a true term. The group is similar but not same as terror groups like Al-Qaeda. Unlike them, it holds territory. Therefore, it should be presented as a "State". There is no rational reason not to. I suggest that ISIL should be presented as both a country and territory, with two separate articles, one focusing on the governance of the territory (ie. the State) and another on the terror group in specific which I think can be merged with Military of ISIL. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguate ISIS redirect again?
FYI: On Talk:ISIS there are some opinions (including mine) about restoring ISIS as the disambiguation page (Currently Isis (disambiguation)) in lieu of the current redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. « Saper // @talk » 00:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * not a huge wiki user here. But every time I hear about ISIS in the news I come to wiki look up details and see it's listed as ISIL and it's confusing. The only person who uses that term is the prez, all of the news uses ISIS. At what point does the wiki community side with the news over the prez? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.132.192 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

edit: Since Wikipedia adds clarity to subjects, not aiding in even widespread propaganda or misinformation I thought this could be an important point


 * Theres a good argument for heading this whole section as Daesh.  Not through argument of primary use by a majority but through accuracy and it would be to the dislike of the actual terrorists.   Of course redirect those who search for ISIL or ISIS but the true main definition should be set as Daesh.
 * For the sake of accuracy, I think this correction should be made and as a faithful wikiite I'll give sources to consider for change please:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/123909/world-leaders-have-taken-to-calling-isis-daesh-a-word-the-islamic-state-hates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.70.95 (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * “Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from ‘to trample down and crush’ to ‘a bigot who imposes his view on others.’” Zeba Khan, writing for the Boston Globe
 * French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said, “This is a terrorist group and not a state. . . the term Islamic State blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims, and Islamists.”

Canada's smart decision
Perhaps Wikipedia can take the Canadian government as an example. Calling Daesh the "Islamic State" only serves their agenda: Canadian Gov’t Will no Longer Call Islamic State by its Name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC) See the archives of this talk page. Nota bene: all proposals to change the name of this page to "Islamic State", "Islamic State (organization)", "Daesh", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", etc., have failed so far.--89.173.36.108 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Another nota bene, the one-year moratorium on rename requests has expired. Go ahead and make a formal request. Media I pay attention to have stopped calling it "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and have opted for "So-called Islamic State", "the Islamic State organisation", the abbreviation "IS", and a bit more rarely, the acronyms "ISIS"/"ISIL" (never expanded). I have only heard governments, militaries, and non-English speakers calling it "Daesh". Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to make a detailed case and research media I don't pay attention to. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Map / Contested Areas
I have a suggestion regarding the "ongoing battle" concept. I visit this site regularly for the last 18 month, to check-up on the territorial situation. Even though I see the map every couple of days, when there is a new contested area, I cannot tell which side is on the offensive, and which is defending.

Could you update the template to include this information? There is a "(" position, when siege is underway, we could combine the siege and contest concepts to introduce three different kind of contest. 1. Siege, 2.Offensive, 3.Stalemate(which is what the current contested area template seems to represent).

Thank you in advance, Psubrat2000 (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I forwarded your request to Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
What is the point in including fruity loops in this article? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, first, they are nuts. Second, this article is about Islamic State, not about conspiracies about Islamic State. Does David Icke think Baghdadi is a lizard? Should this be included in the article? Article is long enough; just a complete waste of space. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

They have been restored again. Why are they being included? Again, should we include David Icke's take on Islamic State? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, this obviously should be removed, or at very least moved in a different section. Here is edit. First, this is not "Criticism" [of ISIL] as title of the section tells . Then, it tells for starters (the diff) this is all "rumors". According to next para, "many in the Middle East believe that...". Yes, they may believe in a lot of conspiracy theories, but why this should be included in the very large page? This might be moved to a separate section called "ISIL-related conspiracy theories", but this is clearly undue and WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, a proper subsection would be "Allegations of US support" here, but we should not include something which is quite obviously WP:FRINGE/untrue - according to vast majority of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I originally favored removal, but—considering the extremely prominent role conspiracy theories play in the political discourse of the Arab states and Iran—if reliable sources like The New York Times report on the widespread belief that Islamic State is an American-Israeli conspiracy, then a few short sentences describing this phenomenon in neutral terms is not necessarily UNDUE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I still favour removal, for the reasons I've already given (article length, who cares?, why restrict to Muslim-world conspiracies?). Anyway, I've said what I have to say. Let's see what others say and how the consensus comes out. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair to the peoples of the Middle East, there have been many real conspiracies by Western powers in that part of the world (see, e.g., 1953 Iranian coup d'état), and there is obviously some element of truth underlying even the more outlandish allegations (such as the claim that Baghdadi is secretly an Israeli actor named Simon Elliot). Israel, after all, has a well-known policy of providing medical aid to any Syrian rebels that request it, in return for quiet along the Syria-Israel border; there may also be some military assistance and intelligence-sharing—and there is no doubt jihadists have benefited from Israeli largess. Meanwhile, there is far more evidence that "moderate" rebels backed by the United States and its partners tolerated the rise of Islamic State than there is to support the theory that Assad is somehow to blame for the Syrian uprising turning Islamist. When we include ridiculous claims such as John Kerry's assertion that Assad "purposely ced[ed] some territory to them [ISIL] in order to make them more of a problem so he can make the argument that he is somehow the protector against them" (see Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), it's worth considering that the Western press may be more sophisticated than the Arab press but both can be guilty of propaganda.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Raqqa is spared an offensive
A joint offensive against Mosul in Iraq to get rid of Daesh has started, but Raqqa in Syria is spared. Even though Daesh can be rid of in a matter of months by militarily superior countries, we should note a lack of action by coalition forces delays the end of this organization. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved - there is consensus to keep the current title. Fuortu (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → ISIS – Having reviewed the last discussion about this from 2014, I propose to move the article to "ISIS" (rather than "ISIL" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant") because "ISIS" is now a more widely-used term for the group.

Google Books returns the following results (within the US):


 * ISIS: 240,000
 * ISIL: 82,200
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: 5,440
 * Islamic State in Iraq and Syria: 61,200
 * Daesh: 8,370

Google News returns the following results (within the US):
 * ISIS: 20,300,000
 * ISIL: 1,130,000

Google search returns the following results (within the US)
 * ISIS: 239,000,000
 * ISIL: 20,100,000

"ISIS" is now used by the following media organisations:
 * ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/clinton-trump-talk-syria-defeating-isis-42916167)
 * CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/five-questions-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-isis-terrorism-election-2016/)
 * CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/middleeast/mosul-isis-operation-iraq/)
 * Foreign Policy (blog) (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/12/unshackled-trump-isis-to-conquer-america-if-clinton-wins/)
 * Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/10/19/iraqi-general-calls-on-isis-fighters-in-mosul-to-surrender.html)
 * The Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/3421be7e-954f-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582)
 * The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/19/booby-traps-and-soaking-chickpeas-inside-an-abandoned-isis-tunnel)
 * NBC (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/will-isis-fighters-driven-mosul-launch-attacks-europe-n669071)
 * Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-isis-letter-merciless-mosul-tactics-battle-iraq-508719)
 * New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/world/middleeast/islamic-state-syria-iraq.html)
 * NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498292034/iraqi-forces-begin-offensive-to-retake-mosul-from-isis)
 * PBS (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/isis-falls-will-fighters-flee/)
 * Time (http://time.com/4525405/presidential-debate-donald-trump-sexual-assault-isis/)
 * Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2016/10/02/haunting-traces-left-behind-by-isis-in-libya/)

"ISIL" is used by the following media organisations:
 * Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/mosul-iraqi-general-calls-isil-fighters-surrender-161019145151832.html)
 * The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/isil-using-mosul-civilians-as-human-shields-pentagon-says-as-us/)
 * USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/10/19/latest-mosul-iraq-urges-islamic-state-fighters-surrender/92399662/)

I propose moving the article in line with WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Atiru (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Very strong support, Obviously. Term used by some of the top MSM orgs and second numbers don't lie. 119.159.37.9 (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why not use the full form Islamic State of Iraq and Syria? This avoids collision with other things called Isis.  ONR  (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ""ISIL", "ISIS", "Daish", "Daesh", and "Islamic state group" redirect here.", clearly the acronyms are not conflicting with things called Isis or Isil. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 05:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, I don't know when was the last time I saw "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" in reliable sources. They simply call them ISIS. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 05:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE, "if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." However, I think both forms are still applied. -- M h hossein   talk 06:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's still a lot of places using ISIL, so it's not an ideal move. I think WP:TITLECHANGES applies here - "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." There's no real confusion/reason to move this, as the redirects come here anyway.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 07:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: aside from the nominators evidence being very US-centric there is no reason to pick one acronym when so many are in use, given that the full name is easily recognisable. Organisations such as the BBC now favour just IS over other acronyms (see a recent example here) which haven't been included in the noms list. Ebonelm (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IS, ISIL and Daesh are all very common. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is no consistent use of any one acronym. Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE, the onus is on the nom to demonstrate that their preferred acronym has been exclusive and stable for a prolonged period of time. Stating that "I've googled it" only demonstrates this particular moment in time across the internet (which would include blogs, forums, plus every man and his dog). The 'evidence' presented demonstrates, in itself, that WP:RECOGNIZABLE does not apply. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There are any number of acronyms and abbreviations to describe this group and unrecognized state. However, the current name is by far the most proper, as it is the specific name utilized. I would surmise that we would get ten times as many name name proposals if we adopt an abbreviation. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 03:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No good reason to change was shown. Coltsfan (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - many outlets call them IS, Islamic State, "so-called" Islamic State, ISIL or Daesh. Unreal7 (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - once again, per arguments above. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per others. WP:TITLECHANGE applies. Khestwol (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Possibly move to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria but not the acronym title ISIS. There is too many acronyms (IS, ISIL, ISIS, Daesh) to be consistent enough to move to any of them. MarkiPoli (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Supporters
Prof. Efraim Inbar - add him to section supporters. "..campaign to eradicate the Islamic State (IS) organization. This is a strategic mistake." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose IS are truly bad guys, but few of their opponents are much better. The artical doesn't directly support IS, it just provides reasoning as to why their existance holds a place and what the potential backlash of military annihilation would be. IVORK  Discuss 03:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Come on. He just sees not eliminating IS completely as the lesser evil. Hardly amounts to supporting them. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Western countries, Gulf States, and Turkey have instrumentalised both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State as part of a proxy war against China, Russia and Iran - as indicated by an unclassified DIA report, which you can access here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf This information needs to appear in the main article as it is of utmost importance and relevance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:5B8:9400:D48C:EA2A:B004:32A5 (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Newly-Declassified U.S. Government Documents
Check out the internet for evidence such as newly-declassified U.S. Government documents which claims the West supported the creation of ISIS. Here's another detailed site documenting 26 things we did not know about the terrorist group. -78.171.180.160 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I linked the unclassified DIA report in question above. This information needs to appear on the main article. Could someone please update the article? It is of utmost importance. Furthermore, there are e-mails (part of the Clinton e-mails scandal) that indicate that the United States and "the West" had knowledge of the activity of ISIL and al-Qaeda and coordinated the recruitment, funding, training, and arming of both terrorist entities, either directly or indirectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:5B8:9400:85C:E0F4:9B0A:43CC (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

General Issues

 * Lead should contain a maximum of 4 paragraphs and describe in a concise way the various groups persecuted by ISIS as well as the fact that France and Turkey have been systematically targeted.
 * Anti-Zionist and anti-LGBT action is not mentioned at all in the article. Hula Hup (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hula Hup is correct. This lead is out of control. For your information, Wikipedia has style guidelines that cover the leads of all articles. Please read Manual of Style/Lead section. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't do it this week, but I can come back in early November and attempt to edit the lead to an acceptable length. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Atiru beat me to it. Great job, thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Neverending issues with the name
Hello, the article should be named DAESH - the name referred to in the region. It is even said the terrorist organisation considers the word "Daesh" to be condescending and prefers not to use it. If this is unnecessary then consider that The Levant is not even defined or linked in the article. Furthermore, the Levant contains Jordan, Palestine and Israel which are not areas the group claims or occupies. It only makes sense to change the name of the article to DAESH or ISIS. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"rejecting its statehood"
The statement "the United Nations, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups rejecting its statehood or caliphhood" is referenced by

Now I don't see the point of this reference. It seems to be a random journalistic opinion piece, it does not seem to evaluate or poll the opinion of "mainstream Muslim groups". As for the UN and "various governments", it is clear that IS is not recognized by any of these, but non-recognition is different from active "rejection". If we claim "the UN has rejected the IS's statehood" I would expect an official UN publication saying exactly that. Afaics, the UN has designated IS a "terrorist organisation", it has not even bothered to address the question of "statehood", let alone "caliphhood" (the UN would hardly try to make theological or religious pronouncements). As for "mainstream Muslim" opinion, I would suggest replacing the reference with something like this, suggesting that IS has at around 10% support in Sunni nations (again the phrasing "rejecting the statehood" isn't borne out by this, you can also "not support" an entity that you recognize as being a de facto state). --dab (𒁳) 21:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So, please see this section! -- M h hossein   talk 06:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What section? Your link just leads to the top of the main article. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please avoid making similar reverts unless you have built consensus over the issue. You need enough reliable sources for your claim. As you see Pannam2014, among others, is against your edit. -- M h hossein   talk 16:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dab. Also, the first line of State (polity) is "A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government." Does IS tolerate other systems of government in the territory it controls? I don't believe it does, and I know it's unrecognised by other states. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The Islamic Dinar is not in circulation
The part under "Monetary System" needs to be changed. There is no evidence that the Islamic Dinar is in any circulation whatsoever in ISIS territory. This is supported by Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi's article "A Caliphate under Strain: The Documentary Evidence" http://www.aymennjawad.org/18749/a-caliphate-under-strain-the-documentary-evidence

What's more, ISIS recently announced that it will only accept US Dollars as tax. This means that an "Islamic Dinar", even if it does exist, is not the fiat coin. This has been is reported in 'The Slate', among other sources. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/16/isis_will_only_accept_payment_in_u_s_dollars.html

The correct statement would be that the Iraqi Dinar and Syrian Pound are the coins currently used in ISIS territory, with the US Dollar used by ISIS to pay salaries. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUSKCN0VV1FO https://www.ft.com/content/2ef519a6-a23d-11e5-bc70-7ff6d4fd203a Jonathanec (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Referring to ISIS as ISIL is both offensive and inaccurate
Yielding in name The Levant to the Islamic State, is granting to them a greater field of operations & sovereignty than they have. Nations in the Levant not infected by ISIS Include, Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. It's highly suspect that specific government officials, including the President of the United States and the DOD members appointed BY him refer to it as ISIL, yielding the Levant to the Islamic State while the majority of Department of Defense, and the vast majority of the world population refer to it as ISIL. Even ISIS itself according to a BBC report no longer use ISIS, shortening it simply to Islamic State Please adjust the name accordingly to the Islamic State in Iraq & Syria, or the Islamic State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant LastFrontiersman (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a year-long moratorium for requests to rename the article. It recently expired, so anyone can now open a move request, though having another move request so soon after the last one may be met with sour reception. I would personally agree with any request to move the article to "Islamic State (organisation)" or something like that. In the media that I consume, this is how they are referred to (usually with a qualifier: "So-called Islamic State" (BBC) or "The Islamic State group", etc), or only by the abbreviated "ISIS" or "ISIL" (almost never expanded). The name "Daesh" holds little precedent in media that I consume, and they usually have to explain that this is the Arabic abbreviated name for IS.
 * I disagree with using Google search numbers to justify a move like what was done in the previous move request, unless more refined searches are used. There are many other things that Google might be counting as "Isis". It's like searching for "cloud". You'll be getting results for actual clouds, and cloud computing. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs  13:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not certain about the others, but what makes you say that Turkey is not "infected" (as you put it)? We have an entire category with Category:ISIL terrorist incidents in Turkey, including incidents such as the 2016 Atatürk Airport attack. Turkey is one of ISIL's favorite targets apparently. Dimadick (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to reconsider potential move to ISIS
Having reviewed the last discussion about this from 2014, I propose to move the article to "ISIS" (rather than "ISIL") because ISIS is now a more widely-used term for the group.

"ISIS" is now used by the following media organisations:
 * ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/clinton-trump-talk-syria-defeating-isis-42916167)
 * CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/five-questions-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-isis-terrorism-election-2016/)
 * CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/middleeast/mosul-isis-operation-iraq/)
 * Foreign Policy (blog) (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/12/unshackled-trump-isis-to-conquer-america-if-clinton-wins/)
 * Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/10/19/iraqi-general-calls-on-isis-fighters-in-mosul-to-surrender.html)
 * The Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/3421be7e-954f-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582)
 * The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/19/booby-traps-and-soaking-chickpeas-inside-an-abandoned-isis-tunnel)
 * NBC (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/will-isis-fighters-driven-mosul-launch-attacks-europe-n669071)
 * Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-isis-letter-merciless-mosul-tactics-battle-iraq-508719)
 * New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/world/middleeast/islamic-state-syria-iraq.html)
 * NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498292034/iraqi-forces-begin-offensive-to-retake-mosul-from-isis)
 * PBS (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/isis-falls-will-fighters-flee/)
 * Time (http://time.com/4525405/presidential-debate-donald-trump-sexual-assault-isis/)
 * Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2016/10/02/haunting-traces-left-behind-by-isis-in-libya/)

"ISIL" is used by the following media organisations:
 * Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/mosul-iraqi-general-calls-isil-fighters-surrender-161019145151832.html)
 * The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/isil-using-mosul-civilians-as-human-shields-pentagon-says-as-us/)
 * USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/10/19/latest-mosul-iraq-urges-islamic-state-fighters-surrender/92399662/)

"ISIS" returns about 20,300,000 results on Google news in the United States. It returns about 239,000,000 results on Google search. "ISIL" returns about 1,130,000 results on Google news in the United States. It returns about 20,100,000 results on Google search.

I propose moving the article in line with WP:RECOGNIZABLE.

Atiru (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ - Various RMs have happened and all have more or less been opposed and I see nothing different here, By all means start an RM but I don't think it'll get very far. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I second the proposal to rename the article to ISIS. A hmer J amil K han 10:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Daesh uses US-made anti-tank TOW missiles, footage reveals
Hi, the use of US-made weapons and how they ended in Daesh hands needs to be investigated and added in the article. All I can say is some U.S. agencies have supported ISIS in the past. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe user 213.74.186.109 has confused this with the Turkish support for ISIS. 2003:77:4F14:1172:1D60:4420:778F:ECFD (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt they've been using the weapons—captured from "moderate" Syrian rebels—but that hardly proves that America is intentionally supporting Islamic State.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your own source points out that they prolly got them from the Iraqi Army, which had US weapons galore. If IS had to live off the weapons leakage from various rebel groups (with whom it is at war btw), it would not exist. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had this source in mind: "The United States has supplied several FSA groups with TOW missiles, which have sometimes fallen into the hands of jihadist groups or have been used to assist jihadist groups. The TOWs used in Palmyra and Hasakah were likely captured from battles with the FSA in other parts of Syria." Of course, both could be true: There are hazards to being the world's largest arms dealer.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly am not surprised. They, among other rebels and paramilitary groups, use whatever they can get their hands on. This thread is not notable at all. Cganuelas (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815183741/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324603/20140627-List_of_Proscribed_organisations_WEBSITE_final.pdf to http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324603/20140627-List_of_Proscribed_organisations_WEBSITE_final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028111035/http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2178%20(2014) to http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2178%20(2014)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Equipment
Are there any sources/estimates about tanks, artillery guns, assault guns, and even at least 1 or 2 helicopters/jets they got?! Not really or? But today, from Space they can see something in the Sahara, so why not "ISIL territory" in HD?! Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox country
Could we change the infobox to the one that the articles Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic use? Comments and debate below if that's necessary. Wrestlingring (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It would be interesting to see information on Islamic State as if it were a nation. Cganuelas (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not agree. I believe it was a country Infobox before but changed to the current Infobox on consensus. Khestwol (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right! Here is the discussion. It should be raised as a RfC if anyone wants to change the current (very clear) consensus. --T*U (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only consensus I can see in that discussion is that the infobox ought to remain a country infobox (which it had been) until consensus could be reached. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you read that? The closing comment is "Consensus is clearly against retaining infobox country at the top of the article." Then it is left open if it should be a "war faction" infobox or a special (newmade) one. --T*U (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. The closing comment is "So it isn't closed. Blast it! I'm sick of this endless arguement! I guess my thanks was pre-mature. By the way, by consensus, I was referring to the way the infobox was left the last time this conflict flared up. Although this debate predates my time on Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure it was the country infobox. The debate is somewhere in the archives of this page, but it's so long I doubt I'd be able to find it again". Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment you quote is the last comment in the discussion, made by User:Anasaitis at 04:28, 23 August 2015. The closing comment you will find in the box at the top right of the bluish frame just below the heading "RfC:infobox country?": Consensus is clearly against retaining infobox country at the top of the article. There is a limited consensus to replace it with infobox war faction, or create an entirely new one for these circumstances, with certain perimeters needed to achieve this., made by User:Mdann52 at 16:10, 24 August 2015. Clear now? --T*U (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I've just noticed that that discussion is over a year old, and going by the opinions expressed in this section it seems there's been a shift in opinion since then. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be the case. The only acceptable way of finding out, is through a new RfC, which was my initial point.
 * And just for the record: I disagree. --T*U (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

ISIS infobox country created
Let me know what you think. AHC300 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty interesting. Needs some more info like an estimated population. I think a military dictatorship or theocracy would be a better government description. Cganuelas (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Estimated population is a tricky one. Since the Islamic State has no established borders per say, how can we have an accurate estimation of it's population?  Like half of Mosul, ISIS' largest city is now liberated from their control. If you could find me a good source for a detailed estimation of the population living under ISIS rule that would be great. I mentioned it was a theocracy and a dictatorship in the government section.  Not much of a military per say, because you can hardly call them a military force. AHC300 (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting addition, but I have one concern. On what article or source is the list of ethnic groups based on? Dimadick (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Afghanistan_ethnic_groups_2005.jpg
 * https://www.stratfor.com/sites/default/files/main/images/Nigeria_ethnic_v3.jpg AHC300 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Map update?
Why hasnt the map been updated since November last year? I think it is time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:500:D200:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexual violence and slavery - request link and suggestion
With relation to the block:

''Sexual violence and slavery ''Further information: Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency and Slavery in 21st-century Islamism ''See also: Islamic views on slavery, Ma malakat aymanukum, Raptio, and Wartime sexual violence

''Sexual violence perpetrated by ISIL includes using rape as a weapon of war;[479] instituting forced marriages to its fighters;[480] and trading women and girls as sex slaves.[481]

''There are many reports of sexual abuse and enslavement in ISIL-controlled areas of women and girls, predominantly from the minority Christian and Yazidi communities.[482][483] Fighters are told that they are free to have sex with or rape non-Muslim captive women.[484] Haleh Esfandiari from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has highlighted the abuse of local women by ISIL militants after they have captured an area. "They usually take the older women to a makeshift slave market and try to sell them. The younger girls ... are raped or married off to fighters", she said, adding, "It's based on temporary marriages, and once these fighters have had sex with these young girls, they just pass them on to other fighters."[485]

Can we please link temporary marriages to Nikah_Misyar.

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

A comprehensive map
It would be nice to have a map which shows all the areas where ISIS or its affiliates are actively fighting or have a presence. Right now the closest map would be the combined Iraq-Syrian war map, but that leaves out many areas in which ISIS or its affiliates are active. GBRV (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly with you on that. Would be pretty interesting to see how much territory they control/claim. Maybe have it black for areas they control and some shade of grey or white stripes on black for areas they claim. Cganuelas (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

In not sure if it's worth the hassle, considering that the area they control/might control/are fighting in, is changing all the time. It would take some upkeep to mantain the map, since the ISIL 'area of operation' is shrinking constantly. Aguyintobooks (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert
your revert haven't made sense because it is important to have the name of the previous organizations. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiding the link to article Islamic State of Iraq under "declaration" is WP:EASTEREGG as people might think they will come to an article with explanation of the word "declaration". And to link to the nation is WP:OVERLINK. Qed237&#160;(talk)</b></i> 00:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still, I have seen links presented in this way in other articles and nobody has reverted. If not, do you have a proposal for the names of the groups? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE, and sorry I have no good suggestion. Not everything has to be linked, and it is already linked on other places. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Founded by President Obama
Hi, didn't President Trump say former President Obama was the founder of ISIS, or that he was behind it in some way or another? I think this is critical and needs to be included by an experienced user. Thank you. 4world2read (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, his word is infallible and complies with all WP:Standards, lets add that in. IVORK  Discuss 03:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Obama being the "founder" of ISIL is an unproven conspiracy.79.246.13.80 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017
In the paragraph about Non-combatants it is advice to add Daesh recommendation approach to other non combatant roles:

"Although ISIL attracts followers from different parts of the world by promoting the image of holy war, not all of its recruits end up in combatant roles. The organization emphasizes the need for literal Jihad and offer many solutions for those who are ready to support the cause. Six main areas of support can be identified based on the organization communication. These include thinking about the ‘Caliphate’, financial support, providing help for ‘Mujahedeen’ families, focusing effort on jihadists, dealing with the media, and committing oneself to the cause (Daesh Recruitment. How The Group Attract Supporters.). There have been several cases of new recruits..." CVEResearcher (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Morphdog (t - c) 17:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

ISIS vs ISIL
Why is the article not titled ISIS? That's its name... 72.226.2.15 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you read the section #Name in the article? --David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Because the ideologues at Wikipedia have chosen, like the Obama regime, the name "ISIL." That explains it about as well as anything. Not even a mention of "al-Shaam" in this article. 75.170.42.21 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to revisit this choice. No one calls it "ISIL". Wikipedia should not adopt a slanted term favored by a former president over the more common name, especially now that that president is no longer in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.181.10 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The title should be Islamic State of Iraq and Syria per WP:COMMONNAME. Here's the Google Trends search data. I'm getting about 14 times as many results for ISIS than ISIL on a Google search. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably not going to use either abbreviation, but the full name. Google Trends still shows "Islamic State of Iraq and syria" ahead.

But how's "Islamic State" trending these days? Google trends for this query isn't helpful, as "Islamic State" is contained in the other two candidates. Anyway, Requested moves says to prioritize for books, news, scholarly papers over other web results, and Google Trends shows search interest, not results.

OK, lets count regular search results. Trouble is, "Islamic State" is going to get a load of hits unrelated to the terror group. Searching for "Baghdadi" "Islamic State" should be specific enough:

Well "Islamic State" wins with books, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" wins with news (marginally over ISIS), *but* over the last year "Islamic State" is trouncing the other names. Looks to me like Islamic State is WP:Commonname now! Anyone like to point out the error in my logic? Batternut (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You have to be careful with searches to see if the string you search on is a part of a longer string "so called ..."
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11712359/BBC-decides-dropping-Islamic-State-would-be-unfair-to-terror-group.html
 * https://www.indy100.com/article/why-isis-will-hate-it-if-we-start-calling-them-daesh--bkC822p_zl
 * -- PBS (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, "so-called Islamic State" is pretty popular. I've updated the table above to take that into consideration, I've also done some Google Scholar searches, replaced some Google max-1000-viewable limited results with Google total estimates (yes, they can be pretty wild...). And for curiosity I tried Bing's news search, with a remarkably odd result for plain "Islamic State". (Maybe Bing can't do -"some phrase" very well.) Batternut (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I proposed a name change last year and there are some persistent editors of this page who nixed it, even though all Wikipedia policy indicates a name change is appropriate. The whole argument was then archived. It was a frustrating waste of time. If you formally propose a name change I will strongly support it. Atiru (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Too many citations
There seems to be an excessive amount of references for the designation of the group as Sunni. From the lead: ... is ... a group that follows a ... doctrine of Sunni Islam.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. Perhaps an editor more familiarized with the sources could improve the situation. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Having taken a quick look through some of the sources, a number of them do not support the fact that they are Sunni or Wahhabi, but instead support the fact that they are a "Salafi jihadist unrecognised proto-state". Some could be shifted around to earlier in the sentence and/or combined with Citation merging though. Alcherin (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

ISIS Budget
I have a quite strong concern relating to the currency of which the ISIS budget is composed. If it is really is the Islamic State, the currency suppose to be Islamic Dinar, not the US Dollar. Whose values one's support, theirs interests they serve.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.172.224 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2FRES%2F2178+%282014%29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140925193528/http://lettertobaghdadi.com/index.php to http://lettertobaghdadi.com/index.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/isis-social-media-post-cites-singapore-possible-target-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Formation
This page claims ISIS was formed years before there was an ISIS. Major cleanup needed and I recommend getting rid of the partisan editors that are currently running this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Still not changed and the page is locked. Please cite some kind of source talking about ISIS prior to 2012 or take this false claim out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is one from 2006, and one from 2010 Gazkthul (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

ISIL existed under earlier names. Stop posting confusing comments. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)