Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Founder of Daesh is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi

[edit]

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is not the founder of Daesh but he did invent the name "Islamic State". The real founder is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi under the name Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. He founded the group in 1999. 188.91.146.206 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"terrorist organization and an unrecognized quasi-state"

[edit]

Is there any reason why the organization and the quasi-state aren't two seperate articles? Trade (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the descriptor as MOS:TERRORIST requires that the description of "terrorist" be attributed (note the use of "in which case". The "quasi states" are controlled by subsidiary groups like Islamic State – West Africa Province which have their own articles, so I don't see a need for a spinout Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I readded the "terrorist" label while attributing sources, similarly to how it is applied in other universally recognized terror groups. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArthananWarcraft

[edit]

@ArthananWarcraft why do you oppose the new infobox? BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem was that the disambiguation hatnotes and the protection lock template were somehow removed by your edit and they were needed to be added back. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well can we add the new infobox back if we keep the disambiguation hatnotes and protection lock template. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can add the new infobox back. :) ArthananWarcraft (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The Infobox expansion was quite unnecessary. There's no need to have all the mottoes and seal etc. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE we're looking for key facts only. It's not meant to be comprehensive. Less is more. DeCausa (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EXACTLY!!! this is already on the "territory of the Islamic State" JaxsonR (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
read the discussion. i was going to remove it from "territory of the Islamic state" to here. Whatever i found a better solution BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
why though.. JaxsonR (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. me and a few other people thought it would make the article better but after we got consensus all of a sudden people jumped in afterwards and opposed it. I guess since ISIS is terrorist they don't wanna make ISIS's claim of being a state look legitimate, despite this article in the first place calling ISIS a quasi-state. I don't know why people got upset and why they care so much about a terrorist organization's article. Kinda sad how I wasted 3 or 4 days of my life. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackAfrican2006: you need to self-revert. You don't have consensus. DeCausa (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How come you join the talk page right after consensus is achieved? Whatever. I believe we should use mottoes, currency, and seals etc because ISIS isn't just a group, it's also a quasi-state. I'm not saying this because I like ISIS, ISIS killed thousands of innocent people, ISIS is Mossad, but it's not just a group, but also an unrecognized quasi-state. Should we remove the seals and the infobox on Nazi Germany because the Nazis killed millions? No. Should we remove the infoboxes of United States and Israel for committing war crimes and being terrorist countries, No. In my opinion Wikipedia should contain all the details. The more information, the more people get educated which is the purpose of Wikipedia. Your currently out numbered in consensus and me and ArthananWarcraft reached an agreement. So please make a good point on why we shouldn't use "infobox country" when pages about terrorist organizations like Israel have them? BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all there was no "consensus achieved". Where on earth have you got that idea? I was one of the editors who reverted you. You can't declare a consensus after leaving a talk page open for less than 2 hours. That is ridiculous. Secondly, the Infobox is not to be filled up with trivia. We don't need 4 poorly sourced mottoes. That's also ridiculous. And your six sources for the supposed seal are no good. None of them are WP:RS. Thirdly, the Infobox country just doesn't work. It results in nonsense like having Shura being its legislature. ISIS is much more of an organisation than a country. Fourthly, if you continue to make inflammatory statements on a CTOP talk page like "terrorist organizations like Israel" you'll end up blocked. DeCausa (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was achieved. If an agreement happens before you decide to join the talk page right after we come up with an agreement, that's consensus and then you broke the consensus right after I made the edit. There's not a "two hour" rule. Secondly the infobox is actually filled up with more trivia right now than the infobox I proposed, naming all former ISIS leaders, listing all the wars, listing all countries that oppose isis which is literally every country, if anything there's more trivia on the infobox right now. Also you're saying the infobox I propose doesn't use "reliable sources" for the Seals and mottos and stuff, ok then why is the same infobox on Territory of the Islamic State. I was going to remove that infobox and keep it on this page. If there's no reliable sources why is the infobox on that article? Also you say ISIS is more of an organization than country. I never said it was a country, it's an un-recognized quasi-state with a currency, seals, motto, and capital. It's not a country, but an un-recognized quasi-state which is why state is in the name. Lastly saying Israel is a terrorist organization is correct, if I said ISIS is there would be no problem. The Gaza genocide is an act of terrorism by definition. How is that block worthy? BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol you say the "Infobox is not to be filled up with trivia. We don't need 4 poorly sourced mottoes". Yet I just checked, the mottos are on the current infobox you wanna keep. Not only does the current infobox have more trivia, it also has the trivia you complain about not having reliable sources. By the way your still out numbered in consensus still. What's your argument now? BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what consensus in Wikipedia means. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Also read WP:OTHERCONTENT - what's in another article is irrelevant - especially when WP:BLOGs are being used as sources. This thread needs to be left open for a few days (at least) to let others chime in and to see if a consensus emerges. If it doesn't (which is often the case) then the existing text is retained. DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word consensus means an agreement. We came to an agreement before you showed up. And if no other editors show up we should change the infobox back because right now you're outnumbered BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
me personally, i would go with the new infobox per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. the current one has a lot of useless trivia, all the countries that oppose daesh, the wars, etc. I think we should remove the slogans from the new infobox because it's by a terrorist entity, but hey that's just my opinion, I don't care either way. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:CONSENSUS? It's not a vote. DeCausa (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read WP:Consensus. It says word for word "we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached." Two people in agreement with me, so far no one has showed up to agree with you. So it's three on one. Why do we have to wait a few days. And once I make the edit in a few days, is someone going to jump in when consensus is reached and say, "even though I jumped in right after you guys achieved an agreement, you dont have consensus anymore" like you did. We should give it 24 hours or so to see if anyone comes in agreement with you, if not that should be consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. If anyone wants to jump in, do it before the 24 hour period because if not, you joined after the discussion and the discussion is over. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that one cannot say to have reached talk page consensus in such a short a time as this Czarking0 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CzarKing0 So we'll wait 24 hours to wait for someone to jump in. If not we should add it back, unless you wanna jump in or if you have an opinion you haven't expressed yet. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked Territory of the Islamic State as well, someone removed a little bit of information from the infobox. now it has even less trivia. this makes me agree with black african more. though im not sure we should keep the slogans because like I said earlier daesh is a terrorist entity and we shouldn't promote them GloryToCalifornia (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
23 hours left. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work like that. I see now that you are a new editor - so no reason why you should understand how it works. You can't set a deadline. Also, whatever is the output of this thread can be changed by subsequent editing/consensus at any time. The thinner the original consensus the easier it is to subsequently change. My recommendation is to just chill - Wikipedia:There is no deadline. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here is what I'm going to do. I gonna put the edit back when the time comes since your the only one who opposes the edit and your outnumbered by 3 or 4 at this point. If someone wants to jump in right after we reached a wide agreement (we already have) we will restart the discussion. But right now no one has come to agreement with you, and WP:Consensus says go with the widest agreement on the discussion, so yeah I'm just going by the rules. There's no two day rule BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
like I said earlier i agree we should add the new infobox back, but I don't think we should have the mottos, if they aren't WP: ReliableSources and remember daesh is a terrorist organization and a terrorist entity. that's the only thing I disagree with you on GloryToCalifornia (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll remove the mottos and slogans BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackAfrican2006: I do not have a strong opinion on the info box itself, but I do think you are not "just going by the rules". As much as "There's no two day rule" there is no one day rule either. I think you are trying to rush an early consensus and you keep acting like there is a vote when it is not about how many people agree or disagree. If this was any typical page I think your behavior would be find but given that this is a contentious topic, I think you are outside the norms of wikipedia. "If anyone wants to jump in, do it before the 24 hour period because if not, you joined after the discussion and the discussion is over." This is not how wikipedia works, concensus cna change at any time. Comments like "Lol you say the ..." are uncivil on a contentious topic.
I agree with the points made by DeCausa above - this proposal doesn't work well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See I knew this was going to happen where there's consensus, and then someone wants to say something when we all think it's over. What if we delete the infobox on territory of the Islamic State for this article. And by the way mind explaining why this proposal doesn't do well? BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out, I think you are trying to rush an early consensus and you keep acting like there is a vote when it is not. The subject here is an organization, and the present template doesn't do a good job in appropriately summarizing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS is also an unrecognized pro-state too. And the former infobox didn't do a good job at summarizing it. They occupied land and had their own terrorist government, flag, currency, anthem, etc. lots of people just call ISIS a group because ISIS is very evil, and they don't wanna recognize the state, rightfully so, the organization tortures and kills people. But Wikipedia's job is ultimately to educate people, and if it's also a proto-state, that should be displayed for educational purposes BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BlackAfrican2006 - I also agree with the points made by Nikkimaria and DeCausa. Wikipedia is not on a deadline, so please stop trying to rush the discussion and impose arbitrary time restraints on the discussion. In addition, because of your hastiness, in this edit seen here, you introduced multiple cite errors into the article, seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. AnomieBOT has fixed several of them, but six of the cite errors remain, so you need to fix the mess you created. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ill go ahead and fix them, since I agreed with this guy it's also my fault the cite errors exist GloryToCalifornia (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the nonsense anthem (the source just says it's the most popular ISIS song and "arguably" an anthem) and the garbage about the legislature etc The infobox is a square peg in a round whole. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa the song Dixie isn't the official anthem of the Confederate States of America, but it appears on the article's infobox because it's one of the most popular songs, so it's the de facto anthem. When political entities don't have an anthem, Wikipedia commonly uses what people call the "de facto anthem", the song the political entity goes by the most but hasn't officially declared the anthem. Also what do you mean "garbage about the legislature"? How come you didn't do anything when the infobox is also on the article Territory of the Islamic State. I forgot to delete the infobox on that article since I moved it here, but whatever, too lazy BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GloryToCalifornia keep going there's a few more BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The land they occupied has its own article, detailing its population, government, etc. This article is about the organization, and we shouldn't be conflating them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This article should focus on the militant organization, not the "state" aspect that's already covered in the relevant article. There's no need to duplicate that here. Skitash (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to delete the infobox on that article, and keep it here BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
moved the infobox back, and deleted the infobox on that article for this one. I did get consensus. If editors decide to join after there's consensus established, per guidelines, they're the ones who have to get consensus now. Can you please read the rules and follow them. By the way my friend told me you ghosted him on the talk page of Saddam Hussein so if you're going to do that again I don't know why you're here if you're going to ghost me, so please don't BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we're not friends, i just agree with you here because I do think the infobox for the quasi-state should be represented. But yeah I was ghosted on that talk page like 25 days ago or so GloryToCalifornia (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok whatever. Let's keep this on the talk page for now before we make another change to the page. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this reasoning, and do not support the "infobox country" being used in this article. The Islamic State is not a country, they are a terrorist organization. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with black african on this one because daesh is also a quasi-state and not just an organization. me, ArthananWarcraft, BlackAfrican2006, seem to be fine with or agree with this, at first it was just DeCausa opposing this, but now you might out number us by one or two. I got a solution. What if we add a new section of this page called "proto-state" or "quasi-state", and then put the infobox there or something. ive got school in the morning so i have to go to bed now, bye. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got my own solution and I'm doing it right now. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda in Opponents needs updating

[edit]

The Al-Qaeda section under opponents is severly outdated, it doesnt even mention the Ongoing Conflict between the two. JaxsonR (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go change it then BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay man, i understand that you are frustrated with your Infobox being removed but you dont have to be rude.. JaxsonR (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see if people will agree with this change. JaxsonR (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to be rude. That wasn't my tone. You read my message wrong. Per Wikipedia rules, you're allowed to make an edit without getting consensus. If someone reverts your edit, then you need consensus, but your allowed to make an edit first before going on talk BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

[edit]

@Skitash once again reverted my edits TWICE and sent me the warning for edit warring. I'm going to add new information to the page since it looks terrible right now, then I'm going to edit more about black history or the Roman Catholic Church. If Skitash reverts my edits again I'm going to add new info to make the page look good. it doesn't count as "edit warring" for me because I'm adding brand new information to make the page better and not reverting back to old information. If Skitash reverts I'm not edit warring they are. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Skitash (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if I make a brand new edit like I did that's not edit warring it's only edit warring if I revert back to old information so please I'm begging you to not drag me into another edit war BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is "dragged into" an edit war. By the way the CTOP guidance is to "err in the side of caution" when editing a CTOP article. You seem to be trying to see how far you can push it. You would be well advised to slow down on making edits to this page. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to push anything. I'm just trying to make pages look good, after I'm done i move on. I was dragged into an edit war if you read the edit summaries where I said I'll remove the infobox in one section. I tried that because it was a suggestion by @GloryToCalifornia and no one said they oppose it. I shouldn't get topic banned, warned, or advised to slow down because I was dragged into the edit war and I would've stopped editing the page completely today if Skitash didn't roll back like 40 edits just to remove one infobox they could've done manually. It's common sense. I know you guys are independent individuals and you put your interests above all, but can you please also consider the points the other side is making, I said before the edit war I'll remove the infobox I tried to prevent it the best I can BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia

[edit]

@Hemiauchenia the first paragraph is spaced out. Can you please fix that? BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly cannot see the issue you are complaining about. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ill do my best to explain it. Where it says "Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see blah blah blah" the first paragraph is spaced out like it's not close to disambiguation.BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia {{Use dmy dates| date=March 2022} and {{Islamic state infobox} are spaced out if you go to source editing. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State&oldid=1297845124"