Talk:Islamic State

In the section "The group has perpetrated terrorist massacres in territories outside of its control, such as the November 2015 Paris attacks, the 2024 Kerman bombings in Iran, the 2024 Crocus City Hall attack in Russia, the Hanukkah massacre of Jews on Bondi beach in Australia and the knifing of Jews outside a British synagogue on Yom Kippur" on the introductory page, "the Hanukkah massacre of Jews on Bondi beach in Australia and the knifing of Jews outside a British synagogue on Yom Kippur" should be changed to "the 2025 Bondi Beach shooting and the 2025 Manchester synagogue attack", assuming that these two are the attacks being referred to here. Pineways (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Improper wording for attacks perpetrated by ISIS

In regards to the following section:

The group has perpetrated terrorist massacres in territories outside of its control, such as the November 2015 Paris attacks, the 2024 Kerman bombings in Iran, the 2024 Crocus City Hall attack in Russia, the 2025 Bondi Beach shooting in Australia and 2025 Manchester synagogue attack on Yom Kippur.

I believe this is incorrect and misleading. While the Paris, Kerman and Crocus City Hall attacks are obviously ISIS perpetrated, there is currently nothing indicating the Bondi beach shooting and Manchester attack were “perpetrated” by ISIS themselves. In fact, in the source used for the sentence the title quite literally says “inspired” referring to the Bondi attack. While both attacks were obviously inspired, these two attacks should be removed or replaced. Aussienerddawg (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Good point, thank you, I read the source and changed the text. Lova Falk (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

On second thought, I deleted it - the lead is big enough as it is. Lova Falk (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Leade

in leade, replace "militant" with "terrorist" with blue link to "Terrorism". Stop the whitewashing of terrorist organizations! El Ouwet el Lebnani (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2026

To add Bruxelles Bombings to the external operations. ~2026-38540-94 (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

corrections: to add them to the text: The group has perpetrated terrorist massacres in territories outside of its control, such as the November 2015 Paris attacks, the 2024 Kerman bombings in Iran, the 2024 Crocus City Hall attack in Russia" due to the fact that the attack was carried out by the surviving members of the 13 November cell after the belgian police raids, and claimed by isis. . ~2026-38540-94 (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2026

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.

---

Islamic State → ISIS (terrorist organization)ISIS (terrorist organization) – ISIS is WP:COMMONNAME but there is also a goddess named Isis so this name clarifies it is about the Islamic terrorists. ~2026-38391-81 (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article has come up for RM many, many times, and I urge all editors to read the 2021 discussion that resulted in the article's current title, which I believe still holds up today. The current nomination cites no reliable sources and should probably be withdrawn unless an actual well-researched argument is presented. 162 etc. (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per MOS:TERRORIST. We do not say terrorist in wikivoice, ever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - ISIS is only used after the full name (Islamic State) is mentioned beforehand. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

OPPOSE - Islamic State is its name, so that's what we should use. "Terrorist"/"terrorism" etc are ontologically incoherent concepts, are emotionally charged, and are subjective and thus subject to perspective bias. Must be avoided at all times.

Plus Islamic State is the name, not "ISIS" anyway. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral - ISIS (terrorist organization) has something that is not necessary, but I would come to a conclusion that ISIS (organization) is a better title to suit this case. It adheres to WP:COMMONNAME, and has a fair disamiguation parameter. IShowSammy (discussion | contributions) 00:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:TERRORIST. ISIS (organization) also fails WP:COMMONNAME because there is no clear common name, with the group being primarily known by multiple names: the target, ISIL, and Daesh. Raskuly 🐰 01:25, 14 July 2026 (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.

Requested move 17 October 2026

Islamic State → Islamic State (militant group)Islamic State (militant group) – this and Islamic state page creates confusion as both has no distinction except a capital "S". Also, most of mainstream sources nowadays call it as group.

References

A$ianeditorz (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

see WP:DIFFCAPS Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but look into whatever Kowal was saying. Not too experienced on this.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes but also look at sources and it's mostly referred with mentioning "group". There is no need to use WP:DIFFCAPS without any reason. A$ianeditorz (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:DIFFCAPS is policy, meaning one would tend to need a convincing reason to not apply it. Blippy1998 (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

For which the sources are given. A$ianeditorz (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

You said there's no need to apply it without reason, and I was rebutting that; there is an indication (because it's policy) to use WP:DIFFCAPS without reason and to override it only with good reason.

It sounds like you're now raising a separate point. As to that, see WP:PRECISE for when parenthetical disambiguators should be used. Blippy1998 (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

How that goes against my move request? A$ianeditorz (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:PRECISE states that "[u]sually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." That raises two out of three possible questions: "Is 'Islamic State' unambiguous?", "If 'Islamic State' is unambiguous, does it fall under an exception?", and "If 'Islamic State' is ambiguous, how should it be disambiguated?"

1. Is "Islamic State" unambiguous? Here, WP:DIFFCAPS instructs us to say "yes, as long as there are navigation aids", which there are.

2. If "Islamic State" is unambiguous, does it fall under an exception? Not that I know of. None of these policies or guidelines seem to indicate that we should give it another name if it's unambiguous given WP:CRITERIA. Perhaps "ISIS", I guess, but that's an abbreviation, and moreover was rejected (again) just a few months ago, and "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" fails, at least, the concision criterion when considered against "Islamic State".

3. If "Islamic State" is ambiguous, how should it be disambiguated? Even if it were ambiguous, per WP:NCDAB and WP:DIFFCAPS, we should a. try to avoid using parenthetical disambiguators and b. ensure readers are directed to the article they are by far the most likely to be searching for if such a leading article exists.

In principle, before looking into the policies and guidelines here, I was pretty neutral on your proposal, as I was sympathetic to the notion that readers can indeed be confused by just one letter being capitalized. But the policies and guidelines are clear on this and convinced me that it's not the way to go. Those do exist by consensus and the reasons seem sound to me and there certainly doesn't seem like there's enough here to go against that. Blippy1998 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The current situation isn't wrong but I do agree that it could be confusing. The notes at the top of each page do a lot to resolve the confusion and to send anybody who has gone to the wrong article by mistake to the article that they actually want. Probably that is good enough. The proposed move could help to slightly reduce confusion but I am not sure that it is necessary. I do wonder whether the other article should be called Islamic states to make it clear that it is about a type with many entities. That said, I know that we try to avoid plurals in article titles so maybe that's not going to fly. Anyway, I'm not strongly opposed to the move but, on balance, I think it is probably better to leave it as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

there is a page called military of the Islamic State and territory of the Islamic State. This page is supposed to be about the Islamic State in general after those 2 separate pages. If we rename the page "Islamic State (militant group)" then why do we have a page called the "military of the Islamic State". This is also about the quasi-state not just the militant group, there's already a page for that. And this Wikipedia article has been called "Islamic State" for years now why is it a problem there's another page with the same name "Islamic state" that talks about the system of government. If that was a real problem that needs fixing why didn't it get changed in 2014 when this page was called Islamic State, 12 years ago Kpop777 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Its not suddenly after 12 years! It was proposed several times in those years. Thing is it creates confusion with the Islamic state which is the system of govt according to Islamic laws. It creates problem in search results unless someone adds more keywords. It was a quasi state but sources call it group now. It's the common name or descriptive word used. A$ianeditorz (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

"It's been that way for 12 years therefore it's not a problem" is usually not a good argument. Blippy1998 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

okay. A$ianeditorz (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

im ok with changing the name of the article, but if we do we should merge the military of the Islamic State to this article if we call this article "Islamic State (militant group)" Kpop777 (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Kpop777 okay I got you and I agree. A$ianeditorz (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. It is the primary topic for the term "Islamic State". PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Current sources still using this name Shadow4dark (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the above !vote misses the point. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Incomplete ideology section (specifically anti-something)

simple as. it does not have to include every single microcosmic thing IS hates, but at least an anti-western sentiment label is welcome, as well for other, more militarily significant countries, like america, russia or france. what do other editors think? 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 06:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@Demeseriecroitor 100%. This is a recurrent problem. That parameter should only include one or two ideologies at maximum. Feel free to remove it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you guys talking about categories? In that case, less is probably better (opinion).

-- LightningThrower (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I have not read it in its entirety, but maybe making such a broad (some people may use this term) "blanket" statement is discouraged? Maybe the nuance actually does add to the article and if it's well-sourced, I don't see a reason to remove it.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2026 (UTC)