Talk:Islamic State/Archive 44

Requested move 18 May 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. The opposers have a significant numerical majority and make reasonable arguments rooted in policy (e.g. WP:DIFFCAPS), so there is consensus that the article should not be moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Islamic State → Islamic State militant group – A WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the much more notable WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with long-term significance, Islamic state (in both the medieval and modern era); also, internationally-recognized modern countries including Saudi Arabia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Mauritania and at least 22 others (see: State religion) are essentially "Islamic States" and are more notable. The official names of several of these countries start with the word “Islamic”. In reliable WP:RSP sources, some like Al Jazeera continue to call the militant group as "ISIL" (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), while some like The New York Times call it "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" ("ISIS"), but more sources like The Guardian, BBC, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, NBC News, NPR, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post have started to use "Islamic State militant group" to refer to the militant group in an unambiguous way. Therefore, the proposed title has became the WP:COMMONNAME and a clearer title than the ambiguous and contentious current title. In fact, even though there was consensus for a move from "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" in the move request (30 August 2021), the closing admin admitted that his move to the concise but ambiguous title "Islamic State" was contentious, so this discussion is much needed. Khestwol (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Capitalization comment: The uppercase letter 'S' here may make a difference. "" is a different article than "". —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DIFFCAPS is clear on that: when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered. In our case, the 5 WP:CRITERIA (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, Consistency) are very much fulfilled. Khestwol (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But it is not only Islamic state that the militant group should be disambiguated from, there are also other multiple topics that "Islamic State", a term with little long-term significance, may refer to. In fact, as far as the first criterion is concerned, at least 27 highly-notable modern countries may be described as "Islamic States" because their state religion is Islam, as mentioned above. So adding the qualifier "militant group" only improves WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Khestwol (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't think "Islamic State", with that capitalization, used by itself (i.e., not "Islamic State of X" or "Islamic Republic of X"), would refer to some different topic. None of the particular examples that were given seem to fit: "Saudi Arabia" and "Islamic Republic of X" are not even close to "Islamic State". I also think that adding "militant group" as a method of WP:NATDIS seems awkward, and that is part of why I oppose this. I'm not usually fond of using capitalization to distinguish different topics, but I don't think this proposal is an improvement. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per WP:DIFFCAPS the capitalization difference combined with hatnotes is sufficient. Proposed title is less concise. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The current title seems too concise. Question: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. In our case, how much long-term significance and how much educational value does the militant group have, as compared to Islamic state and the countries listed under state religion? Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Islamic state is a distinct title, so comparing the significance of the two is irrelevant. Countries with Islam as their state religion are naturally disambiguated by their commonly recognizable names. Please avoid replying to everyone here. VQuakr (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No proper distinction actually, because "Islamic state" has been referred to as "Islamic State" in many reliable English-language secondary sources. Check even The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Khestwol (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't usually agree with distinctions of capitalisation in article titles as being the sole method of distinguishing articles. The distinction is usually too subtle and not a service to our readers unless there is overwhelmingly a primary target in the lowercase form - since searches are usually made without a conscious distinction in capitalisation. Having said that, I don't think that this particular proposal is an improvement or that there is a better alternative. This page has about ten times the traffic of Islamic state, so our readers seem to be getting here OK. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. RS call the group ISIS, ISIL or consistently use some other qualifier.  The Arabic wikipedia page presents https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/تنظيم_الدولة_الإسلامية_(داعش) Islamic State Organisation (ISIS). The Persian article presents https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/داعش, ISIS.  I would support any alternative to an unqualified reference to Islamic State which is wrong to present in Wikipedia's voice.  GregKaye 15:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not "wrong to present in Wikipedia's voice" because that's what reliable sources call it. We are not here to set the agenda or pass judgement on the morals of particular organisations, we are simply here to reflect the world as it is described in reliable sources. Your argument sounds a little like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * GregKaye: And do you think "Islamic State" should be a disambiguation page, or should it be a redirect to Islamic state? Khestwol (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources typically refer to the group either with a qualifier or with an alternate name. If reference is used as a noun then reference is made to something like the Islamic State militant group.  It's only typically when the name is used as an adjective that we read about things such as Islamic State fighters.  Britannica uses: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islamic-State-in-Iraq-and-the-Levant which I think we should revert to.  I don't see why others should get WP:Commonname right while we get it wrong.  I think that ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State and other related titles should all direct to a title such as Islamic State militant group or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. GregKaye 09:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, pretty much per what Cinderella157 said. I am very often not a fan of DIFFCAPS for cases like Red Meat and all that, but in this case I think this is a clear primary topic for the capitalised term, at least in terms of page views, and it would not be helpful to anyone to add more guff to the end of the title at this point. It isn't really broken so let's not fix it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, creates as many problems as it solves. The disambiguation hatnote in the article is sufficient. Obscurasky (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is more concise and commonly used, and the capitalization Islamic State resolves most ambiguity. Glades12 (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cinderella157 and the organization calls itself Islamic state and is the common name and primary topic.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Alleged arrest of Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi
Latest Caliph is labelled "arrested", but it's been several months and Turkish autorithies are yet to prove such claim with any evidence. I therefore suggest to remove this label, also considering that Turkey is used to release wild claims on IS when one of their high ranking members is caught within their areas of influence. 22Chev22 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022
Misogyny is not an ideology, it's a specific part of their extreme reactionary beliefs, so therefore "misogyny" should be removed from the ideology box Comeandsee93 (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. –– FormalDude   (talk)  21:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The ISIS Calligraphy
I have been unable to find the ISIS calligraphy vis-à-vis the flag fully cited. Does it duplicate the flag, albeit more artfully? For that matter, what is the term for this Arabic art form? kencf0618 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the flag but we should remove at least the emblem and anything else cited to "jihadi primary source material" Emeksefer (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Emblem primary source
Why does the emblem need a non-primary source? It's *their* emblem, if they say it's theirs then it just is. You can't fact check that. 31.217.41.116 (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * We need a reliable secondary source to actually say that they use that as their emblem. None of the sources there say that, it's just pictures of the emblem Tristario (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Banner of the Unicity of Allah cover art.jpg
 * My Ummah Dawn is Looming audio cover.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bomb What You Like cover art.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * AlFurqan-Media.svg

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023
The citation for Anti-communism under the ideology list of the info box needs a closing as this is currently causing an error.

Additionally, the groups listed in the info box should be moved to a “Groups” list rather than being in the ideology list. The previous version seems to be formatted well. Goeze (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I've reverted the edit that made that change since none of the sources provided supported the addition of that ideology. Tollens (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

More information on how this group came to be
The origin of ISIS production (If you are not sure about the given information, you can do a little more research on this topic.) I suggest adding the description at the end of this article.

In fact, ISIS was created by America. Michael T. In a televised interview with the Al Jazeera channel, Flynn, the president of the Pentagon's defense intelligence, announced that the direct support of the United States has grown from the Syrian rebels, whose central fighters were called Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The US president-elect, also in speeches from the Obama administration, actively supported the extremist Salafist groups that became ISIS. The champion of Kurds also said one thing, I want to say that Hillary Clinton is one of the founders of ISIS. Vice President Mike Pence also announced in a statement that the policies of Obama and Clinton created ISIS. Hesamfanaei (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

more information Hesamfanaei (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You're going to want to read WP:RS pretty thoroughly Cannolis (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Website informing us about a political/religious counterbalance to Judaism.
 * This has captured a larger, lion 's share of power in the world . Also . In the superpowers of the world. In the USA and the Russian Federation. Despite the fact that "the salvation of the world lies in the Jewish nation." You are not alone. Besides Mossad Israel there are others. From this point of view. ISIS deserves the utmost attention of the Wikipedia.org public.
 * Or, the web-site Admin have a different opinion?19 50Cannolis (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023
Deniz.Sulay (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/10/20131010-1-1.pdf Page: 81

The Cabinet decision published in the Government Gazette stating that Turkey considers ISIS a terrorist organization can be added as a source.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Where in the article do you want to add it as a source? Lightoil (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Flag change
This variant of the flag has been appearing since 2016 (1436 In hijri date) so they wouldn't be confused for al qaeda or other militant groups using the same flag PopMonsterPopMonster (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Flag of Afghanistan
Taliban Afghanistan doesn't oppose ISIS, I request to change it to the old US-backed flag 95.57.53.151 (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Subject on opponents
why are countries like Canada and the European Union considered prime opponents while countries like Egypt are considered additional opponents? This doesn’t seem promotional to the topic? Bobisland (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

proportionate* Bobisland (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Can someone remove the American propaganda from the article?
Can someone remove the American propaganda from the article? 2A00:801:409:A941:FD60:2AFD:5926:D4F2 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Tell us what in particular you want changed and removed and what you want it changed to, and why that's factually inaccurate so we can understand and possibly consider your suggestion. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2023
Daesh is not a salafi group but a khariji. 31.160.251.190 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad is the origin group
The fact that IS was originally created by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 1999 as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad has been replaced in the first paragraph and it's origins falsely changed to the Jaish al-Ta'ifa al-Mansurah group in 2004. The edit was done by Shadowwarrior8 and implemented various other changes to the article without actual justification provided. The source does not mention the latter group and could not be clearer in listing the former as the original name of IS in 1999 in a table on the very first page. This is a falsification of the source and should be reversed. The fact that IS was formerly part of al-Qaeda has also been deleted. 92 Emery (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 92 Emery There are plenty of sources which state that ISI was an independent group which was allied to al-Qaeda during 2006-2013. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi had no oath of allegiance (bay'ah) to Osama Bin Laden. For example:
 * "The Islamic State: Leaving al-Qaeda Behind"
 * I am ok with mentioning al-Qaeda in Iraq as a predecessor organisation, though. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with mentioning al-Qaeda in Iraq as a predecessor and I'm also ok with simply listing al-Qaeda as an ally of IS considering the source you quoted has convinced me. However you made other major changes without proper explanation including the main issue which was removing Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad as the origin group. The source by Aaron Zelin is very clear in listing them as the origin of IS. In fact in your latest edit to the History of the Islamic State page you note Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad as the earliest origin group in 1999 but you also added Jaish al-Ta'ifa al-Mansurah and Jamaat Jaysh Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaah as the two other origin groups. Do you have a source describing these groups as origin groups of IS? You used the same Aaron Zelin article as the source there but these two groups aren't even mentioned in the source. 92 Emery (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with mentioning al-Qaeda in Iraq as a predecessor and I'm also ok with simply listing al-Qaeda as an ally of IS considering the source you quoted has convinced me. However you made other major changes without proper explanation including the main issue which was removing Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad as the origin group. The source by Aaron Zelin is very clear in listing them as the origin of IS. In fact in your latest edit to the History of the Islamic State page you note Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad as the earliest origin group in 1999 but you also added Jaish al-Ta'ifa al-Mansurah and Jamaat Jaysh Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaah as the two other origin groups. Do you have a source describing these groups as origin groups of IS? You used the same Aaron Zelin article as the source there but these two groups aren't even mentioned in the source. 92 Emery (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talK MY MESSAGE TO you DED islmc usa you MOST PARPAR FOR MY WAR TO CITY &CITY YOU ARE IN USA YOU MOST BELIVE 77% OF YOU IWILL KILL IN USA BY ATOMC NUCLAER EXPLOING PARPAR FOR MY ATTACK ONE THNGS IPRMISE YOU you & your family IS DED IN USA 2024

Proposed merge of Islamic State – Saudi Arabia Province into Islamic State
The article to be merged seems only to list the activities of a specific chapter of the IS. These activities could very well just be part of the article on the full Islamic State. AriTheHorsetalk to me! 18:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not an improvement. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:9C92:9D4C:5A41:247A (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not an improvement. IS-SAP should be individually listed as a distinct, though less-active wilayah. Isn't to say the article couldn't benefit from some work. RightQuark (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added and made fixes to the article to include the majority of information published on the group. It won't ever be the size of ISWAP or ISIS–K, but it is certainly enough to form its own independent article. RightQuark (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not an improvement Islamic State – Saudi Arabia Province is a distinct group and less active and it would be undue to add it here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems as though I misjudged. Should I remove the tag from the article? AriTheHorsetalk to me! 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * sure, go ahead. There seems to be unanimous consensus against the proposal right now, so fine for you to withdraw it. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Add the African countries to opponents list
https://theglobalcoalition.org/en/partners/#africa

We are missing a number of countries on the coalitions list. 2601:1C2:C083:1C80:F2BD:F546:3872:6E8E (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Realistically, everyone is their enemy? But listening every country and evey irregular militant group will get out of hand, is there a way to prioritise? BottleOfSoup (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's easy, we just lost the The Global Coalition against Daesh as an enemy itself? BottleOfSoup (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Change
Let’s be honest here,

the Infobox is INCREDIBLY uncomfortable to read. Is there any things we think we can do to shorten it? With the insane amounts of dropdowns, mobile reading is essentially impossible. I guarantee a ton of this is not needed in the infobox. IEditPolitics (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @IEditPolitics someone below linked "The Global Coalition against Daesh" possibly we could write that in place of several countries that are currently there? BottleOfSoup (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Page Title Change
To Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 2601:84:837F:9970:D1FF:8C88:4754:B9F5 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What?? Why? Freyheytlid (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

ISLAMIC STATE —> ISIL? where is the Islamic State proper?
Today, Dawla has no more territory in "Syria and the Levant". This was never an accurate nickname but today it's lost every crumb of empirical basis. Therefore, this article should be reworked, or a new master page should be created, which would describe Islamic State in the most general sense, rather than localizing it in the first sentence. Freyheytlid (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Also "Syria and the Levant" is incredibly confusing as using those terms together forces "Syria" into the sense where it delimits the modern nation-state, which is sure to confuse readers, as that's not how Dawla means it. Freyheytlid (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

“Of greater importance”
While the use of either one or the other acronym has been the subject of debate, the distinction between the two and its relevance has been considered not so great. Of greater relevance is the name Daesh, which is an acronym of ISIL's Arabic name ad-Dawlah al-Islamīyah fī l-ʻIrāq wa-sh-Shām"

Who considers it not so great? The author of this section of the article evidently thought that linking to the 2 dec 2015 BBC article ''Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh? One group, many names'' is enough to settle the matter. It's absolutely not. First, the article doesn't support the assertion. In fact, all of the points made in the article are about the importance of the question of IS' local names and their English translations.

Moreover, the very existence of such an article supports my assertion that the difference is important, and knocks down that assertion to the contrary. Why is this idea a part of such an important article? Why is a self-defeating sentence introducing the section of the article which should not exist if the sentence was true? I don't want to remove it without making a post about it first saying this should definitely be removed. Freyheytlid (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I realize in that passage I refer to the Wikipedia article as important article and the passage I am critiquing as "important section of the article", but there I am referring to the Wikipedia article.
 * However, when I say the very existence of such an article proves my assertion, I am referring to the news article. Freyheytlid (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This section of the article wikipedia
 * The article doesn't support the assertion  news Freyheytlid (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Short description, Propose change from militant to terrorist
Short description ought to describe in short the organization. ISIS is considered a terrorist organization by a grand majority of nations. It is important I think to include this in the description. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Any response? Homerethegreat (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * MY MESSAGE TO you DED islmc usa you MOST PARPAR FOR MY WAR TO CITY &CITY YOU ARE IN USA YOU MOST BELIVE 77% OF YOU IWILL KILL IN USA BY ATOMC NUCLAER EXPLOING PARPAR FOR MY ATTACK ONE THNGS IPRMISE YOU you & your family IS DED IN USA 2024 24.86.145.245 (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Homerethegreat
 * Absolutely not. RotoBanana (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Homerethegreat
 * Isis is a terror organisation by all definitions, including Wikipedia's. RotoBanana (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:TERRORIST - Wikipedia does not call organizations terrorist. PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.
 * It does say this though. And since it's widely referred to as such, perhaps it ought to be referred to as such? Homerethegreat (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Homerethegreat It's not only referred to as such, but by all definitions it is. Including Wikipedia's own. If something needs an editing, it's Wikipedia's rules about writing "terror". Online encyclopedia must not publish misinformation. RotoBanana (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In short, can we changed the short description so that it says terrorist instead of militiant? Homerethegreat (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * MY MESSAGE TO you DED islmc usa you MOST PARPAR FOR MY WAR TO CITY &CITY YOU ARE IN USA YOU MOST BELIVE 77% OF YOU IWILL KILL IN USA BY ATOMC NUCLAER EXPLOING PARPAR FOR MY ATTACK ONE THNGS IPRMISE YOU you & your family IS DED IN USA 2024 24.86.145.245 (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Homerethegreat @RotoBanana @PhilKnight No, don't label them terrorist. If you make an exception for the worst of the worst, it will end up causing problems with people trying to apply the term "terrorist" to more controversial groups. Stick to just saying that they are a "designated terror org" by everyone and enemy of everyone. BottleOfSoup (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC) edited BottleOfSoup (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

ISIS vs ISIL
It is probably of note that only the White House referred to ISIS as ISIL to start with, and after many years only few media outlets began using ISIL. It was a means of knowing the level of bias of the story, a dog whistle if you would, whether it was straight from the White House typewriter or not. It's sort of how now they're doing the same with Kiev to Kyiv. You know when you see 'Kyiv' it's going to be a very particular political piece, where when you see Kiev it could be just about anything.

In a few hundred years no one will know who they are, but in the short term there's probably a lot of people who don't know that no one besides CNN, MSNBC and Obama ever uttered the word 'ISIL' for quite a few years. And the obsessive pushing of this weird dog whistle (especially odd given ISIS themselves never used ISIL) just seemed absurd and weird because back then it wasn't normal for people to randomly redefine words or meddle with language to control information. 2001:8003:2956:4300:5848:7501:95E2:4A48 (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * They actually never used Isis. In Arabic the group was called "Ad-dawlah al-Islamiyyah fil-Iraq wash-Sham”
 * See? No mention of Syria because in the group unique terminology,￼they refer to Syria as ash-Sham. Now this name is used by many to encompass the countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. One English equivalent of it is the term Levant. Now, IS have abandoned this name since 2014, and refer to themselves as only IS or as "the Caliphate" 188.161.10.191 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So people referring to the ISK attack on Moscow as ISIL is a spectacular dog whistle?
 * But it sounds like for the previous entity Levant was a much closer translation?
 * Did they ever have their own abbreviation?
 * BottleOfSoup (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Levant would be a faulty translation. Use "Iraq and Syria" and "Syria". Probably the safest translation is "Syria". The most common is probably "Iraq and Syria". If you want to be special, "greater Syria".
 * One organization widely seen as having created IS, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, used "Land of the Two Rivers" and "Mesopotamia" often.
 * "Bilad Al Sham" meaning Syria (as in the region, not the country) is sometimes translated as Levant, and media even reports that "ISIL" used this name (by quoting as if verbatim!) but they didn't! They called themselves Dawla islamiyyah fi al Iraq wa al-Sham. This should be translated as "Islamic state in Iraq and Syria" or "Islamic state in Bilad al sham".
 * The other term which Al qaeda certainly used but I'm not sure if Dawla did is "Bilad al-Rafidayn", aka Iraq/Mesopotamia.
 * In general, "Levant" is an awkward term.
 * And all this has absolutely zero to do with "Khorasan", or IS-K, and if people are still using the term ISIL on the news, I don't know what sort of style guide they use. Freyheytlid (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)