Talk:Islamic State/Archive 41

Re: Capitals
So I have noticed in that since ISIL is nearly territorially destroyed and cities keep being liberated that the page keeps announcing a new "capital" based on which cities have not been captured yet. I anticipate that will change within a few days or a week or two. Are these cities actually serving as capitals? By the way, as of 11/11/17, Abu Kamal has not been fully captured yet, despite earlier reports. . It is also rumored that al-Baghdadi is hiding within the city (though disputed), so wouldn't that make it the capital? I don't know if we can keep moving where the capital is on the page because does ISIL really have time to build up a new capital so quickly? Were they actually de-facto capitals or were they just edits based on the fact that ISIL still had control of those cities at that time after the full capture of Raqqa? Are they actually making those cities the de-facto capital? Granted some of them might actually have served as de-facto capitals. I am not sure on this. I am not an expert on this, but elements seemed weird to me.

As of 11/11/2017, the capitals section reads: Headquarters Baqubah, Iraq (2006–2013) Raqqa, Syria (2013–2017) Mayadin, Syria (June–October 2017)[38][39] Al-Qa'im, Iraq (October–November 2017)[40] Abu Kamal, Syria (November 2017)[41][42] Rawa, Iraq (8 November 2017–present)[43]

TenorTwelve (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Map colur
The article is about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, yet their colour on the map is the least visible one. Surely one should be able to see at a quick glance what are(s) it controls? Thanks, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Map is incorrect as it doesn't correspond with the wiki map concerning the Syrian Civil War - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War. Opposition forces / Syrian Rebels do not control the areas between Afrin and Manbij. That is territory occupied by Turkey and should be shown as such on the map. Turkey also occupies territory around Darat Izza. ~ Prince of Catalonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.82.38.252 (talk) 20:54, 16 November 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518171047/https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/tarkhan_batirashvili.html to https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/tarkhan_batirashvili.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150212174907/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/mh370/news/iraqis-saudis-call-shots/1178866.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/mh370/news/iraqis-saudis-call-shots/1178866.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906175013/http://video.pbs.org/video/2365356572/ to http://video.pbs.org/video/2365356572/

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) 09:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

ISIS at peak territorial extent (2015)
Now that ISIS has been nearly defeated, it only holds a few border towns. Even these should fall in a few weeks. For posterity, I think it would be a good idea to include a map of ISIS at its peak territorial extent in late 2015, alongside the current map. Something like the map for Nazi Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#/media/File:German_Reich_1942.svg

I can do this myself, but I'd like consensus before I go ahead (otherwise one of you will revert it and ban me).
 * I could generate one from archive data. It would be ISIL in December 2014 or May 2015, when ISIL peaked in Iraq or Syria. To combine territorial control for both peaks would take me much longer. In either case, I don't have the time to generate such a map for about another year. (The existing "max territorial control" map I have on my computer right now is of poor color quality too, so I don't think that you will want to see me upload it.)  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
There is so much information in this article! Maybe the lead section should cover a more broad range of what is contained in the article and then let the Name and History section take care of the specifics of what was mentioned in the lead section. I would have liked to see the explanation of the ISIL name history included in the Name section. I think that this article has a great timeline, which shows what was happening in various parts during specific time periods, which makes the series of events clear to follow.I do think that more international criticism needs to be included since that section was pretty short, and more diverse nations should be included there as well. I like how the article covers all of the different provinces, but some could be expanded on since they all differ in length quite dramatically. There was some biased wording used when talking about the most successful ISIL branches as well as Social Media usage opinions of one expert. The point of view of the ISIL is really captured here. There were a few places where weapons were mentioned, which can be organized better and combined into one section. But overall, this article pulled from good sources, bringing in great detail! Terir (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)terir
 * I think that the international criticism section is of appropriate length, but the Islamic criticism section could be transferred to its own page. Obviously, it would have overlap with other pages focused on international reaction and Operation Inherent Resolve.  But I think the article is quite long as is, and doesn't require any further expansion.  Unrelated, agree on the name history inclusion! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sham or Syria?
Now the intro only mentions that the last s in ISIS stands for Syria, which is not correct, as that would be "al Sham", but I guess it's because English sources somehow make this translation. But if they also say Sham, which is equivalent to the term Levant/"Greater Syria", I see no reason why we should say Syria specifically. Anyone know why this decision was taken here? FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the article history. You are correct regarding Daesh and al-Sham - which caused the ISIS/ISIL split in English. In English use, the S has come to represent Syria - however this is not technically correct in the original Arabic.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think Sham should at least not be glossed over in the intro. Yes, the intro could be too long, and "Syria" may have become common usage in English, but if it is simply incorrect, it should probably be pointed out early in the article, at least in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And maybe the article will finally be moved to ISIS again once they're gone. I have yet to hear anyone outside news sources quoting the White House use "ISIL". Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this "incorrect"? Aside from the name of the modern state, "Syria" is also an English term referring to the entire Levant. It's not a mistake, it's a variant translation. And I fail to see how the "original Arabic" is relevant here. So the word is "al Sham" in Arabic, so what? NONE of this (ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām) is English. Going by your "not the original Arabic" statement we shouldn't use the English words "Islamic" or "State" either. --Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

ISIL v IS
Hi Why the article Islamic State in Somalia is not named Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Somalia ? I think there are consensus for the name ISIL per WP:COMMONNAME, and IS is not mostly used by the sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be silly to name it that, since Somalia is not part of Iraq or the Levant. StuRat (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * we have Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Libya, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Algeria Province, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Yemen Province and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Caucasus Province.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are equally as silly. They should be "Islamic State in...". StuRat (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The revised question makes good sense. StuRat's point is not correct. There is long stabding consensus for the form ISIL "province name". Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What does consensus matter here? It is worse than wrong, it is RIDICULOUS. Somalia, Khorasan, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, and the Caucasus are demonstrably not in Iraq or the Levant. --Khajidha (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Territorial control map
Perhaps the territorial control map in the infobox should now just show Syria? Since Iraq claims it has full control over the border that would suggest that there are no longer any ISIL areas in Iraq (as our map shows). Showing Syria alone would provide an extra level of detail. Alternatively, perhaps it'd be better to show the global extent of ISIL on the infobox map given that most of their pockets of control are now tiny and isolated rather than one large and coherent area. The existing map could stay on the article, perhaps as a side by side comparison of "maximum extent of ISIL" and "ISIL today". Maswimelleu (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

At this point it would likely be a good idea to keep the current map but also include the maximum territorial extent of ISIS on the map, since its geographical control is merely token at his point, little more than a historic fact that should be documented here. Denver45 (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's denoted elsewhere in the article, so I don't think it actually needs to be in the infobox too. I think the most sweeping summary would be a map of the world with active and defunct ISIL linked insurgencies marked on. Within the next month or two I would expect the extent of ISIL in Syria to be so small that their pockets of control would be difficult to spot. Since this is an article about ISIL specifically I think the first image shown of their territorial control should be a summary of all their insignificant pockets of control rather than a map of a civil war in which they are no longer a major player. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the remaining amount of land held by the movement have already reduced to relatively trivial compared to its peak, would it be a good idea to replace the map in the infobox with the one showing the max extent of its influence? C933103 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's a decent idea, although I think since ISIL is expected to continue a non-territorial insurgency for a long time it would be better to show a world map with areas of active ISIL insurgery marked on with dots or icons. That most accurately sums up the question "Where is ISIL"? A map of just Iraq-Syria in 2015 might not be relevant if the focus of ISIL insurgency shifts to conflicts in Yemen or Sinai. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20170101091249/http://aranews.net/2016/12/islamic-state-replaces-syrian-officials-foreign-jihadists-raqqa/ to http://aranews.net/2016/12/islamic-state-replaces-syrian-officials-foreign-jihadists-raqqa/

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) 16:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160504224105/http://aranews.net/2016/01/isis-use-syrian-civilians-as-human-shields-against-russian-strikes/ to http://aranews.net/2016/01/isis-use-syrian-civilians-as-human-shields-against-russian-strikes/

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) 03:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call ISIS' ideology Antichristian exactly which is currently shown in the glossary. They enslaved all women equally for example.If anything it is more like Anti-Shiism. They killed them on sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.251.95 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Move portions of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to Collaboration with ISIL
The latter article is rather lackluster and could be expanded from content from this section. —SpanishSnake (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Foreign fighters / Country
Is there a suitable section for writing about IS militants who are returning to Europe or travelling from Europe to join? Or perhaps another article? AadaamS (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of anything exactly like that. We have ISIL Brussels terror cell but that is a specific subset of what you are asking about. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a section named Foreign nationals, I think I'll add information there. Also there are probably articles on violent extremism in each of the foreign countries, info could be added in those articles. AadaamS (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

In this section, a statement about UK citizenship is listed under the Swedish category. It should probably be moved down to the UK category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.200.228 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

US involvement
I added some info that was available online but it was immediately reverted because apparently it hit a patriotic nerve. I have no intention to go about on an edit war. But I do want everyone to know that Wikipedia is a biased community. No doubt about it.

Check out what I added here. Notice that one of the sources is the New York Times. Although I do not agree, it is referred to as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Notice here how a privileged editor calls my contributions "unreliable sources". Phew! HEICOgel (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * HEICOgel, the problem I see with your inclusion is that it consists of several not too strongly related claims. Two of them are not reliable and one is somewhat misrepresented. Regarding the first one, there's no explanation in either of those articles for Trumps claims that Obama "literally founded ISIS", that he is "the founder of ISIS" and that "the co-founder would be crooked Hillary", making it rather meaningless. Speeches at political rallies are most certainly not reliable sources. He wasn't even President yet, so it wasn't like he could know anything the general population doesn't. As for the second, I don't think globalresearch.ca is (generally) a reliable source unless the author is of itself notable, which doesn't appear to be the case here. The Wired source is more interesting but you didn't provide much context there. The article is extremely long and traces their weapons to many countries for a variety of reasons, but you may have focused on this part:

So how exactly did American weapons end up with ISIS? Spleeters can’t yet say for sure. According to a July 19, 2017, report in The Washington Post, the US government secretly trained and armed Syrian rebels from 2013 until mid-2017, at which point the Trump administration discontinued the program—in part over fears that US weapons were ending up in the wrong hands. The US government did not reply to multiple requests for comment on how these weapons wound up in the hands of Syrian rebels or in an ISIS munitions factory. The government also declined to comment on whether the US violated the terms of its end-user certificate and, by extension, failed to comply with the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, of which it is one of 130 signatories.
 * This can be used, but not to support claims of direct state support. It rather points to US-supplied weaponry eventually falling into the hands of ISIS soldiers. You'll be very hard-pressed finding evidence of US support for ISIS, but there are dozens of reliable sources that argue the US shares responsibility for its rise due to the invasion of Iraq. That seems to be a much more productive direction for that section, although the section title wouldn't really make sense anymore. By the way: when discussing a revert, you should probably ping the editor like so. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, even after he became President, Donald Trump and his administration have not proven to be reliable sources. For example, he claimed 5 million fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

the truth
real muslims believe they are not real muslims and they do not know Allah. they make a new religion and call it Islam.


 * I believe you are saying that "real Muslims", which presumably you define as non-ISIS, do not consider ISIS members to be true Muslims. While this may be true of most Muslims, there are also non-ISIS Muslims who sympathize with ISIS.  And note that Muslims often do not consider other branches to be true Muslims.  For example, the Shia may not consider the Sunni to be true Muslims, and vice-versa.  Also see no true Scotsman for a logical error in your argument, essentially, that who is and isn't a "real Muslim" or "true Scotsman" is entirely subjective. StuRat (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * All of which is irrelevant to the issues the OP has raised (however ambiguous it may be just what change in content they were pushing for). We don't predicate our content on what we, the editors of an article, think is the rational description of the topic.  Rather we relate what WP:reliable sources say about the topic.  And if, in this case, the WP:WEIGHT of our sources clearly described ISIL as non-Muslim, we would say as much, no matter how many formal logical fallacies we might be able to marshal to defend our individual idiosyncratic views on the topic.  Of course, the reality here is a lot more complex; ISIL clearly has a basis in fundamentalist Islamic (and Islamist) ideology, but has been decried as abhorrent to the basic religious creed of Islam by the vast majority of Muslim religious groups and authorities across the globe.  And as a consequence, virtually all of our sources on the topic of ISIL's religiosity reflect these stances.


 * The article does attempt to address this issue in two places: the "Ideology" and "Islamic criticisms" section. I can only presume the OP missed the latter of those sections, as it is quite long, quite detailed and represents many of the damning views of ISIL held within the broader Muslim world.  That said, arguably we could stand to have a little more detail in the Ideology section which further clarifies just how broadly ISIL's views and objectives are rejected in the Muslim world, since we do describe the group in local religious terms in our own voice in the Ideology section, while the Islamic Criticism section (which nuances those descriptions) is buried far below, near the very end of an exceptionally long article. Snow let's rap 21:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"ISIS 2.0"
currently redirects here. I find this very odd CNBC and New York Times uses this terminology to mean the successor to ISIS and not ISIS itself. (CNBC even infers that ISIS is "al-Qaeda 2.0", so that would not be pointed at the al-Qaeda article under CNBC's conditions) -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What else should be done ? If there was a clear successor to ISIS, we could redirect to an article on that.  Lacking this, we could create an article about all the mentions of "ISIS 2.0" and list potential successors, but this would make for a lot of guesswork.  Perhaps the defining characteristic of ISIS, as opposed to the many other Islamic terrorist organizations, is that it attempted, and for a time succeeded, in holding vast territories and populations.  No successor seems likely to do that any time soon. (Incidentally, "al-Qaeda 2.0" is a poor description of ISIS, as the former's goals seemed to be to attack the US mainland, and not to hold major territory.)  We could add a section to this article about potential ISIS 2.0 organizations, and point the redirect there.StuRat (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It'd be a start to call it by what everyone in the world except for the Obama administration and Wikipedia call it; ISIS. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The Levant is a region, and only two countries in the Levant have open cities controlled by ISIS, Iraq, and Syria. By implicating all of the Levant you're smearing a dozen innocent countries. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what, I have to agree with the IP. Still think it's ridiculous that it ended up at "ISIL". Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I recall, there were a number of back and forth moves of the page early in the article's life; presumably 'ISIL' won out as the most common usage in sources at the time (which is what is appropriate on this project, regardless of our editors' own subjective assessments). But even if it was at a time consistent with WP:WEIGHT, I suspect you are correct and that 'ISIS' is now the clear leading WP:COMMONNAME acronym in English sources. Sn<b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 11:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2018
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – per WP:COMMONNAME Google has 12,800,00 hits for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and 117,000,000 hits for its acronym ISIS vs 854,000 hits for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and 16,600,000 for its acronym ISIL. עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments. First, this request seems to be based upon a search error. It's necessary to put search terms in quotes when using Google. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" then gets 546,000 hits, while "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets 525,000 hits. For Google News, the numbers are 62,300 and 54,700––there's not much indication that either is preferred. There are also a lot of hits for "Islamic State in X", including CNN, the BBC, the NYT, etc. Also, note that many things are called "ISIS" or "Isis", so a Google search for that term alone doesn't tell us much. And this page has been subject to at least a dozen previous move discussions, which are listed near the top of the page. Dekimasu よ! 22:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just searched with the "" and i get 1,160,000 hits for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and 893,000 for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you exclude Wikipedia? Dekimasu よ! 16:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per comment above by Dekimasu.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  03:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed per COMMONNAME Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 11:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dekimasu's argument. Dimadick (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I believe that "and Syria" may be the common name, but I seriously doubt there's consensus on the matter.  ONR  (talk)  22:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It's sad that neither of the editors above knows how to do one of these searches right. When you are getting over 10,000 hits, you doing it wrong. Does anyone think that Google can really count up 178 million results in 0.56 seconds? For the past six months, I get 1,203 news stories that mention "ISIS" and "Islamic," 387 for "ISIL" and "Islamic". (I added "Islamic" to screen out the Egyption goddess.) Thirty one times more readers are searching for ISIS than for ISIL, according to Google Trends. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When you perform a search, Google presents a statistical estimate of the number of results based upon its database. The statistical estimate is not necessarily accurate, but it is an apples-to-apples comparison. All such online searches have their drawbacks (I don't believe that there are only 1200 news stories making reference to ISIS in the last six months, either), but they can present useful data. Here, please note that the move request is not to move the page to "ISIS". Dekimasu よ! 16:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I got 156 million ISIS results and the nominator got 117 million. That's not apples-to-apples. That's an irreproducible result. It all depends on how much computer time Google allocates to the search. If more time is allocated, more possibilities get eliminated and the result number declines. Today I get 200 million results in 0.55 seconds. With an extra 0.01 seconds of computer time, the algorithm was able to eliminate 44 million possible matches. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that is not how it works exactly; I get 112 million in 0.38 seconds, and the same number on a search a few minutes later that takes 0.58 seconds, so time does not appear to be the main factor. My "apples-to-apples" statement was in reference to a single user putting search terms consecutively into the same search engine. It's well known that Google presents different results based on location, user history, etc. But this isn't the place to be challenging an established way of finding a baseline estimate, is it? More importantly, it is still the case that there isn't evidence to show "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is the common name. Dekimasu よ! 18:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Airstrike in Mosul.jpg

Wahhabism
This should be removed from the ideology parameter. The two references are non-specialist opinion articles. The Kirkpatrick article is perhaps the most silly, describing the announcement of the formation of the Caliphate and then alleging that ISIL has arisen from Wahhabism, to which the former is an anathema. Also significant is that neither article actually claims that "Wahhabism" is the/an "ideology" of ISIL, but rather that ISIL was influenced by Wahhabism.

Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, the KSA's most senior cleric and descendant of Abd Al-Wahhab, denounced ISIL in August 2014. The Council of Senior Scholars in Saudi Arabia, have also denounced the ISIL practice of takfir.

I'm afraid Wahhabism is not a synonym for violent political Islam, which I'm sure plenty of editors here imagine it is. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018
There is a quote from ISIL's Dabiq magazine in the "Goals" subsection of "Purpose and strategy":

"Blessed flag...covers all eastern and western extents of the Earth, filling the world with the truth and justice of Islam and putting an end to the falsehood and tyranny of jahiliyyah [state of ignorance], even if American and its coalition despise such."

The grammatically incorrect "American" is indeed present in the reference provided, but the source it's quoting—the magazine issue in question—uses the correct "America."

"American" should be changed to "America." 108.34.206.74 (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 21:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nujabaimage.jpg

Infobox map changed to June 2015 map (greatest extent)
As ISIS-controlled territory is now so small as to be almost impreceptable on a 230px-wide map, I changed the map in the infobox, and the associated caption, to one of the greatest territorial extent. --LukeSurlt c 10:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pzpyramid16.jpg

RE: "Why did you remove it yourself?"
Because they violated the 1RR community sanction, for which they were taken to WP:ANI (they have since been blocked as a sock puppet after a checkuser investigation).

I removed the content originally per my rationale provided here. You might also like to self-revert. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Wahhabism and ISIL
User:Endymion.12 I dont see why this was blanked The islamic state follows Wahhabism, here is more references   Now kindly self revert. The bit you mentioned about KSA rejecting ISIL is largely irrelevant as Wahhabism is practiced differently depending on who you ask, there's specific beliefs that academics have pointed out. Veteran scholar of Sunni jihadist groups, calls ISIL a "Wahhabi state" Magherbin (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I won't self-revert. There is an enormous difference between the claim that the emergence of ISIL is related to the spread of "Wahhabism", and the claim that "Wahhabism" is the "ideology of Islamic State". Endymion.12 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read any of the references I posted? one specifically says "Wahhabism as the ideological roots of Isis". Why leave in Salafism in the infobox, do you think, Wahhabism and Salafism are different? Magherbin (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Missed the point. And yes, Salafism and Wahhabism are not the same thing. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This source is very clear, that ISIL prescribes to the teachings of Abdulwahhab (wahhabism). Salafism disguises the fact that Wahhabis follow Abdulwahhab however its almost identical with minor differences. Magherbin (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-specialist author clearly uncomfortable with the vocabulary he is using. Please edit an article on an area you have some knowledge of. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the academics have any knowledge on the topic. It seems its only me and you, which is why im editing the article which I have knowledge of, What about you? Magherbin (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)