Talk:Islamic State/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"War"

Can anyone whose Arabic is better than mine check on the original source for the "cabinet" list? Is it "war" (harb or whatever it is in the Iraqi dialect) or jihad? This would be an important difference. Dysmorodrepanis 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Commander of the Believers

I don't think "Abu Abdullah Rashid" and Abu 3Umar al-Baghdadi are the same person at all, like this Wikipedia page suggests they are. That first alias should really be deleted from there. Earlier in 2007, the Crusader and puppet forces killed "Abu Abdullah Rashid," and for a couple of hours they mistakenly believed him to be the leader of ISI. That's where the confusion comes from, but he is not him.

Take that to Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi. Claims by Coalition/IMI about the death of Islamist personnel are fairly often bogus, and when they're not, it usually tankes 24 hours or less until this is apparent, if you known at what to look. Dysmorodrepanis 11:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting sentence

"The Islamic State of Iraq and its allies possessed de facto control over the Anbar and Diyala governates forming the majority of its local governments by September, 2006."9/11, 2006 Situation Called Dire in West Iraq Washington Post. Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker 11/28, 2006 Washington Post. [1]. [http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/17/32969.aspx.

All four of these sources do not even state The Islamic State of Iraq and two of them are webblogs that do not contain any subject matter relevant to this topic. After additional rresearch, I could not find a source that supports the statement of de facto control.--DrRisk13 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I also think that this sentence is potentially misleading. The phrase 'de facto' is admittedly tentative, but it nonetheless implies that ISI has some sort of regulated, overarching control; which I'm not sure is the case at all (there are security forces in those provinces after all, and I'm sure they have more of a presence that ISI does!) Barflyuk 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The information "minister"

In this article is said that the "information minister" of this shadow terrorist state is Abu Muhammad al-Mashadani. CCN says that their information minister was Abu Nizar until he was killed in April 2008[2]. Could those two be same person (who is now dead)? --80.223.146.227 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Name?

It wants to establish a Sunni Islamist caliphate but, by the name, does it consider it self not only a revolutionary group but the Iraqi government itself? Such questions brought by the name are not answered. 216.105.64.140 (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC) i would like to see one coming up as islamic state of india as well... if you what i mean! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.43.41 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "naharnet":

• From Al-Nusra Front: "Al-Nusra Commits to al-Qaeda, Deny Iraq Branch 'Merger'". Agence France Presse. 10 April 2013. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
• From Syrian civil war: "Al-Nusra Commits to al-Qaida, Deny Iraq Branch 'Merger'". Agence France Presse. 10 April 2013. Retrieved 10 April 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• What happened is that Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi the leader of islamic state of Iraq AKA Al Qaeda in Iraq announced that Nusra Front was established by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and shared the budget and the Leader of Nusra front Abu Mohammad al-Golani was appointed by Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi himself who decided to incorporate the Nusra Front with the Islamic State in Iraq under the Name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. YouTube Video of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLTyKI941XQ)
• Abu Mohammed Goulani refused to merge and announced survival named victory Front and announced the renewal of Bay'ah to al-Zawahiri (Al-Qaeda leader)ز YouTube Video of Al-Golani (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMBOpSj5w-Q)
• Zawahiri announced the dissolution of the islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and to keep Nusra Front and its leader Goulani + the Islamic State of Iraq and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi refused that and announced the continuation of the name of the islamic state of Iraq and the Levant and moved most of his fighters to Syriaز YouTube Video of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7AvJvC8vfs)

• What is happening now (de facto) that there is Nusra Front loyal to the international al-Qaeda org and its leader Ayman al-Zawahiri + the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant loyal to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

I hope it's clear now. 3bdulelah (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Rename the article

it's now named Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant the old name is not used anymore. the group is active now in Syria more than in Iraq. Also we should merge this page with Al Qaeda in Iraq page.

Here is the story of Nusra Front and Islamic state of iraq:

• What happened is that Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi the leader of islamic state of Iraq AKA Al Qaeda in Iraq announced that Nusra Front was established by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and shared the budget and the Leader of Nusra front Abu Mohammad al-Golani was appointed by Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi himself who decided to incorporate the Nusra Front with the Islamic State in Iraq under the Name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. YouTube Video of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLTyKI941XQ)
• Abu Mohammed Goulani refused to merge and announced survival named victory Front and announced the renewal of Bay'ah to al-Zawahiri (Al-Qaeda leader). YouTube Video of Al-Golani (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMBOpSj5w-Q)
• Zawahiri announced the dissolution of the islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and to keep Nusra Front and its leader Goulani + the Islamic State of Iraq and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi refused that and announced the continuation of the name of the islamic state of Iraq and the Levant and moved most of his fighters to Syria. YouTube Video of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7AvJvC8vfs)

• What is happening now (de facto) that there is Nusra Front loyal to the international al-Qaeda org and its leader Ayman al-Zawahiri + the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant loyal to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

3bdulelah (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@3bdulelah: I would support moving the article to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. See sources: [3] [4] [5] --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Google News results:

• "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria": ~326,000 results
• "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant": ~ 1,640 results

Clearly Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is often used, so per WP:commonname, that's what the title should be.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

AL Sham in Arabic means (Levant) the Area of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan See Bilad al-Sham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3bdulelah (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

True, but "al-Qaeda in Iraq" can be more accurately translated as "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia", but newspapers and WP use the more common name (the one with "Iraq").--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, do what u think is better but don't forget to redirect the related pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3bdulelah (talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Per WP:COMMONNAME, I propose we rename this article to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Not only is the current name a mistranslation which masks the symbolic weight and geographical spread of the original Arabic, it is also not the most common name in the sources:

• "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant": 1.8 million hits, 5,790 in news
• "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria": 546,000 hits, 821 in news
• "Islamic State of Iraq and (al-)Sham: 85,600 + 182,000 hits, 240 + 93 in news
• "Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria": 11,500 hits, 9 in news.

Thus, the first name has clearly taken precedence in the sources. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Apparently it's the most widely used translation right now. This might change might change in the future though, but we can start another move request then if needed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - It's a more accurate translation and apparently more commonly used. Gazkthul (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham

The Economist says [6] that (autumn 2013) al-Qaeda in Iraq has been renamed the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. I don't know enough to make major changes, but have just added a redirect from Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, which is already mentioned in the article. Onanoff (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the point here is that Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham are one and the same -- just different translations from the Arabic (see archived "Rename" discussion above). I think the opening sentence should also refer to Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham -- at the very least, the abbreviation ISIS (which is already listed in the opening sentence alongside ISIL) is confusing without further explanation. Happy to make the small change if there is no opposition. gergis (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

---

I propose that Al-Qaeda in Iraq be merged into Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. I think that there is duplication of information between articles and it is inherently confusing maintaining them as two pages, given that Al Qaeda in Iraq ceased to exist under that name in 2006, when it united with other groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which then merged into a brand new organisation called the Islamic State of Iraq. The background of AQI can be folded into this page, which in turn can have material trimmed to maintain an acceptable article size. Gazkthul (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly agree as Al Qaeda in Iraq ceased to exist under this name in 2006.3bdulelah (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - According to the US govt, AQI and ISI are the same.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Agree - two names for the same thing.--141.105.81.2 (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per above.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as it does appear to be the same organisation. But I'm not exactly clear on how the merged article would look. Would it have separate subarticles for (history of) activities in Iraq and Syria? Podiaebba (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support ISIS and AQI are the same organization.XavierGreen (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Hold on - It might be appropriate to keep the articles separate if we change the scope of the articles. We could make the AQI article about the group before the 2006 merger and name change. And make the ISIS article about the group after 2006 merger.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I have to say I am very confused right now about what the difference is between ISI and Al-Qaeda in Iraq NT1952 (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Addition as a group in Lebanon

I'm not sure how to interpret this [7] —SPESH531Other 18:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Acronym standardization

Because the issue was brought up before in the long-form name (the result was that the article was moved to become Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), I think that all mentions of 'ISIS' should be changed to ISIL. There should be some standardization as to what the true acronym of the organization is. It's far too confusing to outsiders not on top of the war to know that ISIS and ISIL are actually the same group, especially with the fluidity of the battle conditions and the sheer number of organizations that are fighting in Syria. As such, I'll be editing all mentions of ISIS to ISIL. Infernoapple (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, although it grinds my gears just a little, since I always use ISIS in personal communication. The encyclopedia certainly needs one standard form, which should the title of the article; and for that we seem to have settled on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that the article on Syrian opposition–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant conflict‎ currently uses ISIS predominantly. Should this style be standardised across Wikipedia or on an article-by-article basis? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Linjks

>> ISIL retreats from parts of north Syria(Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)).

Map of territory claimed and subdivisions

This article includes an ISIS produced map of the area it claims as well as its first order political divisions of which there are 16 called wilayats. [[8]]XavierGreen (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

great, i just cant find a way to upload its map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.151.190 (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Superfluous sections

This article as a "History" and a "Timeline" section. Shouldn't they be merged? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Romanization and pronunciation of Arabic acronym for ISIL: Daish and /daɪʃ/

I cite two sources for this addition. One is phonetic: 2m 32s of an interview with Omar Dahi on The Real News Network found at http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11423. The other is spelled in an article online: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4477688,00.html.

I made this addition on 4 Feb, but it was undone 5.5 hours later by Jorinu. He made several edits, leaving the edit comment "citations". If I made this addition improperly, please advise me. Otherwise, I will reconstitute my addition, since Daish is a useful word for an English speaker to know when listening to someone who also speaks Arabic discussing the ISIL. Adelphious (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like /ˈda.ɛʃ/ to me, but with the ɛ pronounced very quickly. I think I've seen the spelling Da'esh on Joshua Landis's blog. I'd prefer to find something like an authoritative source for how Da'esh should pronounced, and we should also try to find out what the most common romanisation is. The pronunciation will, of course, vary depending one whether one is thinking of fuṣḥā or about any of several Syrian dialects and accents. In any event, I think /daɪʃ/ is fine and I'm certainly not going to dispute its inclusion in the article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I was also surprised to find that the article offers no information on the Arabic moniker, "Daesh". You can search the internet for "Daesh" and find plenty of information provided from the group's supporters and opponents in the region. The term ISIS or ISIL is one that is used by western authorities, but reveals a lack of familiarity with the situation on the ground. -K 6/11/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.106.48.10 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New june map ISIS

new map I found online posted few hours ago, is it any good?

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/qi5398f0bc.jpg 86.26.230.122 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent 'conquest' of Musul needs to be added the current map. That one might be controversial due to incoming operations by Iraqi Army etc. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 00:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Separation from Al Q

When (a) In February 2014, after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties to ISIL (b) news stories claim link http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/isis-militants-expand-across-northern-iraq/5517046

Any thoughts about where the link/tie - journalistic claims are correct or not? satusuro 01:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's shoddy reporting; using a well known name like Al Qaeda in a title gets lots of social media shares and page views. Plenty of mainstream news stories (including ones that still refer to them as Al Qaeda) have reported on the split ie: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] etc. Gazkthul (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Islamic State of Iraq.jpg

The image Image:Islamic State of Iraq.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to suppose these guys have in fact copyrighted their flag. I have seen no reason to suppose they actually recognise western copyright law, let alone make use of it. Rhialto (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Current new News

Headline-1: Iraq army capitulates to ISIS militants in four cities

• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states

QUOTE: "Half a million people on the move after gunmen seize four cities and pillage army bases and banks" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Iraq crisis: al-Qaeda militants push toward Baghdad - live

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10892299/Iraq-crisis-al-Qaeda-militants-push-towards-Baghdad-live.html

QUOTE: "US and UK speak of deep concern as al-Qaeda take swathes of northern Iraq, sparking exodus of civilians - follow latest developments" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-3: Mosul emergency: Anarchy in Iraq as militants seize northern capital and free 1,200 prisoners in jail break

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/militants-seize-key-sections-of-iraqi-city-mosul-and-free-1000-people-in-prison-break-9520982.html

QUOTE: "...The victory by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) is likely to transform the politics of the Middle East as foreign powers realise that an al-Qa’ida-type group has gained control over a large part of northern Iraq and northern Syria. The US said it supported a “strong, co-ordinated response to push back against this aggression”...." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-4: 'They lined the streets with the decapitated heads of police and soldiers': Iraqi refugee reveals the horrors of the jihadi takeover as Baghdad vows to fight back

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2655977/ISIS-militants-march-Baghdad-trademark-bullet-head-gets-way-control-north.html#ixzz34S7xiERz Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2655977/ISIS-militants-march-Baghdad-trademark-bullet-head-gets-way-control-north.html

[No words!] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS: Click down a dozen times for another very excellent map.

Conflicting references

I see few references with conflicting and in one case inaccurate information. Can we make sure that references are accurate with the majority of the other references? It appears that some claims are being pushed with weak or inaccurate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.162.4 (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Which references?David O. Johnson (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey David, I found this one to be inaccurate: http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/838463/les-liaisons-dangereuses-de-la-turquie-avec-certains-rebelles-extremistes-syriens.html. The reference mentions an allegation of a Turkish political leader, but a wider research reveals that the leader didn't mention this particular group but another one. The other problematic reference is this one: http://web.archive.org/web/20140125024543/http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-president-urges-shift-syria-policy-190623639.html. It simply states that there are allegations but it doesn't specify which country made the allegation. A better reference would be an article with more specifics, e.g. which countries made the allegation. 96.250.162.4 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Flag/Coat of Arms

I don't know if it is just my browser, but in the infobox the flag is captioned "coat of arms" and the coat itself is uncaptioned. I can't see anything in the source code to change this. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

For some reason {{Infobox country}} omits the flag caption if neither |common_name= nor |linking_name= nor |name= is defined. I'll check that out there. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now; see bottom of Template talk:Infobox country. SiBr₄ (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazing new video

This is one of the greatest jihadi vids i've ever seen. It has everything you could possibly want https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95r4gugiubw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.108.54 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Taken down - here's a copy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJtmaVKensk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.108.54 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Current situation of the 'state'

Did those men really established a 'state', cause it doesn't strike me as there is a functional 'country' scheme going on those lands.

After checking the List of states with limited recognition article, this 'organization' is not considered as a state per declarative theory of statehood and that.

Also there are no 'definite' sources that implicates a 'state' is ruling those 'claimed' lands.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Neither is Somaliland, which isn't recognized by any UN Member, yet it is still considered a unrecognized state. On January 3, 2014, an Islamic state was proclaimed in Fallujah following its seizure by the ISIL. They now control a large portion of northern Syria and Northeastern Iraq. They consider themselves an Islamic state, basically a theocracy led by Emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It controls a defined territory, which is inhabited by a permanent population. It receives aid from Saudi Arabia and Qatar in it's struggle with the Iraqi government, which I would say counts as relations. It is an unrecognized state. Toolen (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It was not proclaimed in 3 January 2014, this is nonsense, and based on one poorly written Reuters report. They have been actively governing territory and referring to themselves as a state long before this. In addition, are there any sources for your claim that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing them with aid? Gazkthul (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

True, they have been an insurgent group longer than that, but according to this source (http://www.voanews.com/content/iraqi-city-in-hands-of-alqaidalinked-militants/1823591.html), the independent Islamic state was proclaimed following their seizure of Fallujah.Toolen (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but there isn't much context in that article, no quotes for example. Compare to this report from 2006 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/10/18/us-iraq-qaeda-idUKL1229983620061018) 'Dozens of al Qaeda-linked gunmen took to the streets of Ramadi on Wednesday in a show of force to announce the city was joining an Islamic state comprising Iraq's mostly Sunni Arab provinces, Islamists and witnesses said...."We have announced the Islamic state. Ramadi is part of it. Our state will comprise all the Sunni provinces of Iraq," he told Reuters in a telephone interview.'

That reads like a proclamation of a state to me. Gazkthul (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok then could you please discuss this matter on the Talk:List of states with limited recognition too, for convincing the majority consensus of Wikipedia. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 07:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion there goes as such:

It's been discussed several times before. On this list, we need evidence either of diplomatic recognition by a UN member, or that some outside authority or reliable source considers it a state according to the declarative theory of statehood. In the latter case, that means that the source has to actually apply the theory - Wikipedians' interpretations of whether the theory is met or not do not count. Kahastok talk 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I also found this:

This expert opinion definitivly says it's an unrecognized state. “It also runs the equivalent of a state. It has all the trappings of a state, just not an internationally recognized one.” I found another article where the theory is applied and the decision is "unlike Al-Qaeda, ISIS is on its way to controlling a quasi-state, exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community." So, it looks like it's a little premature to declare it a state, however it looks like that's what is happening. The last condition of "declarative statehood" is having relations with other countries. That's yet to be seen. - Technophant (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

I see someone has changed the heading of one section from "Name and name changes" to "Etymology". Etymology is the study of the origin of words, not names. Wikipedia will be accused of ignorance for this. I think "Name and name changes" describes this section accurately. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree.  Done. - Technophant (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

what's the technical name for the "study of names"? Jonpatterns (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Onomastics, however I don't think that's appropriate to use in the article. - Technophant (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Al-Nusra Front - ally or enemy?

With the recent announcement of a truce between al-Nusra and ISIS, could they now be considered an ally? Most sources seem to indicate they are in cooperation, and ISIS's recent success is a result of this. - Technophant (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Developments in June 2014

I notice there have been additions to the Lead and to section 7.7.5 in the past few days. During the latest hostilities in Iraq, Wikipedia should not be acting as a newspaper or bulletin board, in my opinion. I don't know what Wikipedia's stance is on this. Perhaps this article should be given semi-protected status as from now. Can we have a ruling, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't do "rulings". But we do have a policy that says "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". DeCausa (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand the policy now. I remember you gave some useful links on Wiki guidance - though unfortunately not the WP:NOTNEWS link re newspapers - when I raised this matter among others on the Max Clifford Talk page some time ago! (This is not a criticism - it is useful to get any help on finding info in the Wiki help pages!) --P123ct1 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also the policy WP:UNDUE. A recent event should not be described in detail that makes up 1/2 of the article space when it's only 1/20th of the story. Most new events can be summed up in a sentence or two. It's hard to know the true weight of a recent events. Overly lengthy sections can later be trimmed down later, or if they are notable and lengthy then be made into their own articles. - Technophant (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

About the map

There is a map made my BBC News in that and that link which is different than the Wikipedia's, BBC News' source is Institue for the Study of War, well I don't know this isntitue but sounds cool and it is BBC so I believe that is a reliable source. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 06:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a good map at http://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/mapping-iraq-june-15th-2014/. I tweeted the author to ask if he would grand permission for reuse. - Technophant (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

But is his/hers sources are as verifiable or trustful as BBC's ?elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 14:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No but is well-done and well illustrated. @arabthoness gave his permission for reuse here. If he gives permission for CC license it can be uploaded to Commons and be available to all. - Technophant (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit to box on first page

@Technophant: Have just noticed someone has made what looks like a MAJOR edit to the first box on the first page, which I would imagine needs immediate attention, given how many daily hits this article is getting. (Thanks for your message, btw.) --P123ct1 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Do you mean changing al-Qaeda from enemy to ally? That's second box, I didn't touch the first one. If that's wrong it should be reverted.  Done From what I've found al-Qaeda is a competitor but not really an opponent. Maybe it shouldn't be listed as either? - Technophant (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: No, it wasn't your edit, it was made by someone today at around 21:00 UTC (see "View history") where they say why they made the change. It was about proclaiming independence, at the bottom of the first box. I am no expert on Iraq and the current crisis, so I wouldn't know how to handle this. (My edits are only copy-edits, not factual ones.) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1:Yes, I see this diff. It seems changing "established_event1 = Islamic State of Iraq Proclaimed" to "Independence Proclaimed" and also changing the established_date1 to 3 January 2014 with a different ref. It's already been undone. - Technophant (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, it was a vandal! --P123ct1 (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia

Re: "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers." At one point this was translated in the west as "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" rather than the literal. The article also says the organisation never called itself "al-Qaeda in Iraq." Perhaps that is worth a mention somewhere. 71.34.240.167 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned under section "Name and name changes" - Technophant (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Query re section 6.3.2, Rise and decline of AQI

Twice in this section, the AQI is seen as separate from the Islamic State of Iraq, BUT according to the "Name changes" section at the beginning of the article, "AQI" is said to be a name given to the group in any of its incarnations, the Islamic State of Iraq being one. The two instances are:

• "AQI-led Islamic State", in para 3 (which given the above is a tautology)
• In the last paragraph, where the AQI and the Islamic State of Iraq are equated in the passage beginning "AQI has long raised money ..." and ending "... the Islamic State of Iraq has been stepping up its fund-raising campaigns".

I do not know how to resolve this conflict. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and edited this myself now. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning re editing

On the Editing page it says, "editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users". Does "reverting" mean undoing an edit completely (using "undo"), as opposed to changing/deleting some words in that edit? --P123ct1 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well @P123ct1, from WP:3RR we get " A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Is there something happening on this page you wish to discuss? -Technophant (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to be clear, as I have been making a lot of changes and am fairly new to Wiki editing. I looked up Help on reverting, but WP:3RR is in a completely different section. Thanks so much for your clarification. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable ISIS communications and propaganda

I've started a page in my userspace User:Technophant/sandbox/ISIS (military group) to help start a section on notable press releases and Al-Furqan Media Production. All contributors are welcome to edit. - Technophant (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have come across quite a few footnotes that do not really back up the text (if at all sometimes), are in a foreign language (Turkish, Arabic), or are dead links. What is the best way to highlight them - here on the Talk page or in the text? If in the text, what is the best wording to use? I was thinking of something along the lines of the superscripted "dead link" or "citation needed" sometimes seen beside the blue footnote number in the text. (Attempts to mend dead links with Reflinks are not alway successful, either that or I'm not very good at it!) --P123ct1 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If the link is dead, put {{dead link}} after the closing </ref>. As for foreign languages, see WP:NONENG for the policy. If the language is not indicated, it should be either using the language parameter of the citation templates or one of the {{* icon}} variety (alternatively, {{link language}}). If the source doesn't support the claim, use {{failed verification}}; if it's completely irrelevant, use {{irrelevant citation}}. Also, please add new topics at the end of the page or use the New section link at the top. — Matěj Grabovský (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Pending revision

Can we please get rid of it? WP:Pending: "Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered." AntiqueReader (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

IP users are contributing in this article too. No need for semi-protection but someone has to patrol changes they make.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 19:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason they are contributing is because there is no restriction on their doing so. One could say the same about any article without semi-protect on. Also ignores WP instruction about not having pending on articles undergoing significant amount of editing. If IPs aren't vandalising, no need for pending; if they are, semi-protect it so we don't have 17 edits awaiting review. Well, last word is yours, since nothing more for me to add now. AntiqueReader (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The majority of IP edits I've seen are constructive. Semi-protection should only turned on when there's a significant problem with IP vandalism, which there isn't at this time. - Technophant (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I know I said I would leave it there, but want to emphasise again WP:Pending: "Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered." If the IPs aren't vandalising, why on earth is pending even being used, let alone on an article with such a large amount of daily editing? AntiqueReader (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You have a good point. After reading the Pending page I agree with you. There also seems to be a pattern of users using IP edits that have a high level of Wikimedia expertise, or inserting edits that were discussed and rejected on the Talk page. The one revert rule can't be enforced if everybody isn't playing by the same rules. - Technophant (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Positioning of "Pending review" ribbon

Please do not put the "Pending review" ribbon right over the "Edit" tab for the Lead. Sometimes the "Edit" tab is completely obscured, making it impossible to click on it when I need to. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

Why do so many of the footnotes have the "Retrieved" dates beside them? Are they really necessary? I can strip them out if you like. (I copy-edit.) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The olde name, ISIL, is being resurrected by President Obama today

In his statement from his Teleprompter, and in his Q/A after with supporting press, US President Barack Hussein Obama is repeatedly saying "ISIL" rather than the abbreviation of 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria'. I'll leave it for other Wikipedia editors to see and read the dots and the tea leaves. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the introduction, ISIS stands not only for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, but also Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, where al-Sham is the Arabic name for the Levant. — Matěj Grabovský (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice; thanks (knew that) ... Obama always tries to impress with world-understanding. What does this mean for the name of this Article/page? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does this discussion have to be peppered with right-wing dog whistles: "teleprompter", "Barack Hussein Obama", etc.? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't have known what you had known. Anyhow, there's a discussion above on this exact topic, so I don't think it's necessary to fragment it. — Matěj Grabovský (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it for other editors to sort out in the discussion above, as you suggest; and just mention here that I refer to President Barack Hussein Obama because that is his name, and he uses it that when when it pleases his purposes. Also, because he demonstrated he favors the world view, apologized for USA around the world and supported the Muslim Brotherhood; but that is another discussion for a different WP page. Just Saying, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC) He even used the Telepromter when talking to elementary kids this month.

Oh brother—drop the talking points ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Obama was using the recently assigned official name.[14] In the speech he used I.S.I.L several times without explanation, then CNN and NPR next had to explain that ISIL and ISIS are the same thing. It may show that Obama isn't watching the news, and I think it's a gaff, but moreover shows the ongoing debate/confusion about the name, which is discussed in detail above and is now also in the article. - Technophant (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Territorial claims

According to the map, there are two sections of Syria that they are not claiming, one in the south and one on the west coast. This seems a bit odd, but I suppose there's a reason for it. If anyone knows that reason, it would make a good addition to the article. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They are the Alawites heartland of Tartus, and the Druze heartland of Suwayda. Much like the Shia majority South Iraq, ISIS has no meaningful presence there. Gazkthul (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AQ

salaam to day india s graet hindu terrorrist country In the news you usually hear this is an "al-Qaeda front group". Is there any evidence that this group takes direct orders from al-Qaeda? Sambae 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did AQ have a command structure able to pass orders to cells? AQ is "opt-in" terrorism; it has no command structure (else it would be gone by now). The closest thing to an AQ "order" was the letter from az-Zawahri to az-Zarqawi asking him not so nicely to stop killing moderate Sunnis for the time being. AQ is not an organization; it is an ideological "platform" or "base" (qāʕida). The "orders" that are by the movement's poster boys like OBL and Zawahri come in the form of sermons and their function is to elaborate upon the ideological foundation uniting the cells. Operational control is >98% at the discretion of each individual cell.

Note that calling the ISI an "al-Qaeda front group" is entirely wrong if taken literally (AQI is only one major constituent part of the ISI). But the implications of that statement are right on target: the ISI is the closest thing in existence to how the question of governance would be approached under the AQ ideology. Were it an actual and not a "shadow" government, it would be an AQ "model state". Dysmorodrepanis 20:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As per a Jan 2014 statement from Al Qaeda, ISI was linked to the group, but as a result of it's expansion and action in Syria, Al Qaeda has disavowed any affiliation or organisational relationship with them. Al-Qaeda disavows ISIS militants in Syria BBC 3/02/14 Gazkthul (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article says that al-Qaeda called the group "too extreme", and uses quotation marks to indicate that that is a direct quote. Neither of the references (34 and 35) back that up with an al-Qaeda press release or anything substantial, they just speculate. You hear in the news the scary "too extreme for al-Qaeda" label but is that really the case? If so we should have better citations. 173.238.131.76 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If I had a nickel everytime "according to an al Qaeda (spokesman/memo/leader/expert)" popped up in an English story, I'd have about $69,500 (according to Google's wild result estimate). And if anybody paid me this, I'd probably also be considered "linked to al Qaeda". That term gives about $332,000 worth of hits, or over twice as much as the allegedly popular idiom, "If I had a nickel".

Probably the least exclusive club there is, to hear the news tell it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Boxes on first page

How appropriate is it to have two ISIS flags depicted on one page? Also, would it not be a good idea to have the Syria/Iraq border marked on the map? Not all readers will be familiar with the geography of the area. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thats the point of those maps, to familiarize the reader with the geography that they exist/operate.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 07:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the first things I looked for was which part was Syria and which was Iraq, which is not unreasonable, I think. You can't tell from looking at this map. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I think para 2 of the Lead is too confusing for someone coming fresh to the subject. First, AQI is mentioned in "Name & name changes" as a generic name for the group "through its various incarnations", not an actual group, and second, ISI is not mentioned as an originating body here although it is in the second box on this page. That is easy enough to rectify, but there are other questions:

• What were the Jaish al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba and Katbiyan Ansar Al-Tawhid wal Sunnah? Early insurgent bodies? Yes --P123ct1 (talk)
• If they were early insurgent bodies, then what does "and other tribes that profess the Sunni faith" mean? Doesn't that just mean "various tribes"?
• What does "later expanding this to include Syria as a result of the spillover from the Syrian Civil War" mean? (The link does not help) Does it simply mean that one reason for ISIS involving itself in the ongoing Syrian Civil war is to acquire land for a future Caliphate?

If someone could answer those questions, I could make a stab at rewriting the paragraph. If the answer is "yes" to all of them, rewriting it will be easy. Can anyone help? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to all 3. Gazkthul (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Somebody has beaten me to it. I had something else in mind, but won't alter the new edit. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Another proposed source

• Brecher, Gary. "The War Nerd: Here’s everything you need to know about “too extreme for Al Qaeda” I.S.I.S." (Archive). Pando Daily. June 16, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC

This isn't what Wikipedia considers a reliable secondary source. This is a blog post by 'the War Nerd' and it is full of inaccuracies and bias. - Technophant (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you certain of this? I looked into it, and here is his article: Gary Brecher (seems to be the same as John Dolan (writer)). Since a third party is publishing it, this is not a "blog" in the sense that is applied. I'm assuming PandoDaily exercises editorial control. @Technophant:, please explain "it is full of inaccuracies and bias." WhisperToMe (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Starting off, we have a giant "HYPE" being blatantly associated with Hollywood bullshit. In case it wasn't blatant enough, we're then explicitly told "Don't believe the hype". What's hype, you ask? Good question, even though you didn't ask it.

Hype is a fat slob who spends approximately eight hours a day on the internet searching for war news convincing a Wikipedian he's reliable. Try spending eight hours a day Googling "war news" (with or without quotes) and see what kind of mixed conclusion you reach after even a week, either about war or "the outside world" in general.

Of course, I don't know whether the fat, lonely slob claim is true, because it's uncited. But I'll assume it is, because I read it on the Internet, just like I read Dolan calls Brecher " a more honest version of who I really am". If the real guy is the dishonest version, and the fake guy is only the more honest version, that's at least three warning bells. If you still choose to believe he has a genuine clue about how ISIS works, you're deceiving yourself. That's fine, but don't expect to Wikipedia to follow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Independence Date

ISI was declared on 2006 and ISIS was declared on 2013 There is nothing as Independence declared on 3 January 2014. Anbar Wylaiah was declared on 2006 and raising the flag is just a declaration of Liberation of what they believe is their occupied land not declaration of Independence.
we shouldn't add wrong information just because of a journalist who knows nothing about ISIS.3bdulelah (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Camp Bucca and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

I have removed the whole entry for 16th June in the "2014 events" section re Camp Bucca, as the story from Kenneth King is unreliable. Please see the article on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for details on his detention in Camp Bucca (in the "Militant activity" section) and the Talk page, which shows why this story is spurious. Also, the second statement in the 16th June entry, that US intelligence analysts have begun to monitor for 9/11-type threats, is not backed up by the citation given for this. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)

There is some confusion in section 6.3 over the use of the name "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) which I am sure will bother readers new to the subject. Most of section 6.3 ("As Islamic State of Iraq") seems to do with Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) rather than the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). I know that at one point AQI became the common name for the ISI (as it says in section 6.3), but seemingly in the earlier part of section 6.3 and definitely at the end of section 6.2, AQI is spoken of as a distinctly separate group. I don't know anything about this beyond what I have read in the article, and to me the use of "AQI" with two different meanings in section 6.3 is sometimes very confusing. Is there an expert who can either reorganise section 6.3 or change the names in it so that it is clear when "AQI" means "ISI" and when it means ISI's precedessor, Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn (as described in "Name & name changes" and section 5)? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can take a look at it when I get some time. Basically, "AQI" and the Mujahideen Shura Council it was a part of ceased to exist when the Islamic State of Iraq was declared in 2006. However many media outlets and Government officials continue to referred to it as Al Qaeda in Iraq (or just Al Qaeda) until very recently. Gazkthul (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I realise all that. (Sorry, I should have said AQI-MSC, not Tanzim Qaidat etc - I jumped a stage.) That's exactly why the terminology in section 6.3 is so muddled. It's often hard in that section to tell when "AQI" means "ISI" and when it means "AQI-MSC". Even when it is clear, there is no way AQI-MSC and AQI-ISI can both be called "AQI" in section 6.3 without confusing the general reader. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Article written as a group or state

A while ago there were two pages for this group, one for the group and one referencing their self-proclaimed state. The state page ended up (correctly) being merged into this page, as was decided here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. However I came to this page today to find it written again completely changed to POV push the idea that this is a functioning state. The idea that the article for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be written as a state with a governing body as a opposed to an active militant group boggles my mind. Can there please be some clarification here so that there can be some actual constructive edits made? I believe this should be written as a rebel group, like any other Jihadist militant group. I don't think this meets the threshold to warrant a country infobox and the like. I have reverted the biggest edits making this page out to be a country, but there are still some glaring mistakes. For uniformity this page should be written entirely as if its a state or a group. I'm under the opinion that the first sentence should read that the ISIL is an active militant group (differing from what it currently says which is "self-proclaimed unrecognized state"??).

Infernoapple (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If Azawad and Bangsamoro Republik were considered De facto states the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant or Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) should be considered too. The Area which is under their control is larger than many countries. They have a flag, government, administrative divisions, Emir but there is no capital declared. It's system is close to that of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. I believe we should add a country infobox 3bdulelah (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We need sources which discuss how they are a state in order to do so. So far we only have sources noting a declaration and a couple about their attitude. CMD (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - per information available, like this, it seems ISIL is a self-proclaimed state, trying to enforce its rule in certain areas. Its relevance is certainly no less than Azawad and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. I wonder however what is the exact criteria to put ISIS among states, not recognized by any other state.GreyShark (dibra) 22:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems apparent that the ISIS is doing what it can to start an administration. Whether that makes it a state or not is down to opinion, but I've yet to see any sources say it is. As it is it's described like many other Islamic groups, which also tend to enfocrce strict interpretations of Sharia in areas they control. CMD (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I notice too that someone added the Category:States and territories established in 2014. Seems a bit premature to assign such a category or status. Thoughts on removal of that category tag? Lestatdelc (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be two standalone articles, the current article has nothing about the geography, the administration, the demography or the economy (important as they have occupied some of the largest oil reserves of Iraq) of those areas held by ISIL, these things can be covered in the article for ISIL as a state. Besides, the existence of a country and war faction infoboxes in the same article looks purely absurd. Nomian (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This question was formally put to bed during the AFD referenced in the first original post of this comment thread. Without strong consensus to the contrary on this talkpage, I don't think forking this article into two separate ones will fly. Lithistman (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: change hyphen to en-dash

In the Analysis section, and in the Infobox "Strength" line, "3,000-5,000 in Syria" should be "3,000–5,000 in Syria".

Likewise, in the "Conflicts with the other groups", "estimated at 65,000-80,000 fighters" should be "estimated at 65,000–80,000 fighters" 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)