Jump to content

Talk:Territory of the Islamic State

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

Orphaned references in ISIL territorial claims

[edit]

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 ISIL territorial claims'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 "newname":

  • From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Withnall, Adam (29 June 2014). "Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East". The Independent. Retrieved 29 June 2014.
  • From Islamic state: Withnall, Adam (29 June 2014). "Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East". The Independent. Retrieved 29 June 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

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⚡ 21:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List/Table of Wilayat

[edit]

I don't know why this was deleted! anyway I'm reposting it again:
I think it would be better if we make a color coded table with list of Wilayat diclared by IS with the name of the Wilayah then cities under IS control and cities which was previously controlled then the date of creation and a color that till in which country this Wilayah is in e.g Red for Iraq, Green for Syria black for Iraq and Syria etc. I made this draft list of Wilayat and cities and I want somebody to help me with the table.

name of Wilayah - cities under IS control - cities which was previously controlled - Date of creation - country
Wilayat Baghdad - Al Mada'in - 70% of Baghdad - 2006 - Iraq
Wilayat North Baghdad - N/A -Al Tarmyah - 2006 - Iraq
Wilayat Al Anbar - Hit, Rutbah - Ramadi, Haditha - 2006 - Iraq
Wilayat Kirkuk - Hawija - Daquq - 2006 - Iraq
Wilayat Salah al-Din - Tikrit, Al-Shirqat - Samarra, Baiji, Sulaiman Bek- 2006 - Iraq
Wilayat Nineveh - Mosul, Sinjar, Tal Afar - Rabia, Makhmur - 2006 - Iraq
Wilayat Al Janoob - Farisiyah - Jurf al-Sakhar - 2006 - Iraq
Wilayat Diyala - Muqdadiyah - Sadiya, Jalawla, Al Adhaim, Baqubah - 2006 - Iraq
Wilayat Al Barakah - Tell Barrak, Ash-Shaddadeh - Ras al-Ayn - 2013 - Syria
Wilayat Al Kheir - Deir ez-Zor, Mayadin -Full control- 2013 - Syria
Wilayat Ar-Raqqah - Raqqah -Full control- 2013 - Syria
Wilayat Al Badiya - Al-Halbah - Al-Sukhnah- 2013 - Syria
Wilayat Homs - Jubb al-Jarrah - N/A - 2013 - Syria
Wilayat Halab - Al-Bab, Manbij, Ayn al-Arab - Azaz - 2013 - Syria
Wilayat Idlib - N/A - Saraqeb - 2013 - Syria
Wilayat Hama - Masoud - N/A - 2013 - Syria
Wilayat Damascus - N/A - Mesraba - 2013 - Syria
Wilayat Al Sahel - N/A - N/A - 2013 - Syria
Wilayat al-Furat - Al Bukmal, Al-Qa'im - Full control - 2014 - Syria and Iraq
Wilayat Fallujah - Fallujah - Amiriyat al-Fallujah - 2014 - Iraq
Wilayat Sinai- N/A -N/A - 2014 - Egypt
Wilayat Barqah - Derna - N/A - 2014 - Libya
Wilayat Fazzan - N/A - N/A - 2014 - Libya
Wilayat Trapols - N/A - N/A - 2014 - Libya


http://studies.aljazeera.net/files/isil/2014/11/2014112363816513973.htm

was posted 16:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

3bdulelah (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This content - the political subdivisions of a terrorist organization - has been soundly rejected by the Wikipedia community. Posting it here is not constructive. See these discussions as of which rejected such content:

Closed Deletion Discussions

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Dimashq_%28ISIL%29
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Barqah_(ISIL)
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Baghdad_(ISIL)
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Hama_(ISIL)
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Nineveh_(ISIL)
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24#Wilayat_Homs_.28ISIL.29
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Template:Provinces_of_ISIL
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Raqqa_(ISIL)
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_1#Wilayat_ar-Raqqah_.28ISIL.29
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29#Wilayat_Algeria_.28ISIL.29
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Category:Areas_controlled_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

So you can post it, but there is really good justification to delete it.Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use MFD to close this discussion Shii (tock) 03:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... you will conquer Rome"

[edit]

It's a translation mistake, the guy didn't mean Italy's Rome, he meant Rûm, which refers to Christian World in Islamic context. --Z 12:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for POV template and a suggestion on consistant map usage

[edit]

Hello Mhhossein. I see that you attached a POV template onto this article on 2 January 2015. Would you please outline the main issues with the page in regards to POV so we can work towards correcting the problem. I would also like to ask other concerned editors and also yourself, if there would be objections to using the map from the main ISIL page in place of the current one, next to the lead. This last alteration is being suggested because the other map is more frequently updated and also that, using the same map across the wiki for related articles, would achieve consistency on the wiki. Mbcap (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbcap: The article is still having the POV problem in my opinion. For example section "Worldwide aspirations" is just like a text published by ISIL propaganda outlets. There's no balancing view and criticism beside those words which are describing the goals of the group. The title of this section also should change to some thing more neutral. After all, lead will change due the changes which may occur in the body. By the way, I have no idea in the map. Mhhossein (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein I agree with what you said. I have renamed and edited back the "Worldwide aspirations" section to attitude to borders. I think that problems have arisen due to an original, I think, misnaming of the article as will be explained below. GregKaye 14:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the POV tag as the only POV issues raised on the Talk Page were addressed 5 months ago. Gazkthul (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article title

[edit]

I've long wondered about the name of this article.

Possible titles might include: ISIL territorial control and ISIL territorial acquisition. I thought that the second title might have some validity as the group had early expansions as groups joined it and had further recent territorial gains as groups such as in Sinai and Derna have had memberships that have joined it. However this title may go a little far in its emphasis on this manner of expansion. I was also wondering of ISIL territorial extent or perhaps a similar title idea could be developed. Control if also a one sided verb and may not reflect that the group has had contractions as well as expansions. GregKaye 14:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A change of name is in order so that we can incorporate other areas outside Iraq/Syria and also to incorporate content regarding their international presence. I have no idea about what name would be most suitable. Mbcap (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious solution is to use the name the group goes by, i.e., Islamic State. Funny, hardly anyone calls Bruce Jenner "Bruce" anymore, because he himself says his name is Caitlin or some such, yet here in the Wikipedia the Islamic State is called other names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that we look to the articles on earlier periods of Islamic expansion for guidance. There are separate entries on "Early Muslim conquests" and "Spread of Islam" - which incidentally should probably be merged. By analogy this article should be either "ISIL Conquests" or "Spread of ISIL", I prefer the latter.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in ISIL territorial claims

[edit]

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 ISIL territorial claims'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 "ISIL gains supporters":

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⚡ 23:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

The map is in need of update--the current version is several months old. Utahwriter14 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 November 2015

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No prejudice against a new RM with a more concrete proposal and neutral notifications for wider input. Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


ISIL territorial claims → ? – ISIL territorial claims is a very clunky name, and is not a natural title for an article that is essentially a list of ISIL affiliates outside of Iraq & Syria. Also, technically ISIL has a territorial claim on all Muslim lands, and even the whole world. I propose either ISIL International Branches or ISIL International Affiliates Gazkthul (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It started as a section in the ISIL article spilt out to reduce the size of the main article. The group claimed specific areas parts of Syria and Iraq, then more places then more places. Then they claimed the whole world. The article lays out that progression. It was interesting intended to follow the title, not be a list of affiliates per se Legacypac (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed merge with Administrative divisions of ISIL

[edit]

ISIL territorial claims and Administrative divisions of ISIL contain overlapping content, but the former also provides context. It would be useful to have all the information on the same page. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and see the RFCs I posted above. The divisions list is highly POV. ISIL is not a country so can not have provinces. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it can have international branches that include the word "Province" in their names. Their franchises are organised on a geographical basis. Gazkthul (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If ISIL set up Province of British Columbia we would never set up an article under their chosen name.Legacypac (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ISIL territorial claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

infobox dispute

[edit]
Going nowhere. RFC opened. --NeilN talk to me 17:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Panam2014, please write your concerns here, in order that the WP community can reach a consensus about how to deal with the infobox. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not reverse the roles . This is fort the IP to have a consensus to change the page and add the controversial infobox. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're responsible for the deletions in the first instance, so you should account for your behavior without consensus - instead of throwing dirt on me. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're responsible for add of the infobox in the first instance, so you should account for your behavior without consensus - instead of throwing dirt on me. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you don't really have a single argument. Case solved, i.e. you have no case. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You provoked the edit warring because you added the infobox. Okay, so you don't really have a single argument. Case solved, i.e. you have no case. I demand a return to the ante bellium version and if this is not done , I would do it tomorrow. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When do you present actual arguments instead of spewing ad hominem? It's your deletion. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would not argue before a return to ante bellium version. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how we deal. You make a drastic insubstantialized degenerations of the article without consensus. You should be able to explain yourself. If you're unable to, then your edit cannot be implemented. Simple as that. I haven't still heard an argument for your enormous deletions from you yet. Amazing. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach is a foutage of mouth . It is you who have added the infobox , gather consensus to add it. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox was there before you degenerated the article the 14th of August. Which is the reason for the dispute in the first instance. I restored it, because you had no consensus. The burden of arguments relies on you, considering you're taking initiative of reducing the article unnecessarily heavily, removing certain key informations. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copying this message over (partially) from RFPP, so that there is no doubt about this. Both of you: to make it absolutely clear, if either of you makes any further reverts at any point before consensus is reached on the talk page with respect to this dispute, you will be blocked for edit-warring. This is also not a license for anybody hitherto uninvolved to jump in and start making reverts: the 1RR restrictions remain in place. Also, please be aware of WP:NPA. Vanamonde (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Wikipedia does not work that way. The pre- war edition version included no infobox . So while waiting to find a consensus , remove the infobox . --Panam2014 (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Panam2014: I am not getting involved in a content dispute here. I am warning you about what will be construed as edit-warring, in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, and that's the end of it. You need to reach a consensus with the IP address, not with me. Vanamonde (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93:Except that before reaching a consensus , the rule is to return to the previous version. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... which was the version before your immense, unexplaind removals without consensus the 14th of August. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will just stop taking me for a fool . You added the infobox August 1 without consensus. You are therefore spent force. I request the return to the previous version. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did what? You removed very important information the 14th of August as per [1]. You're full of lies. I did not make a single edit to Wikipedia before 5th of September 2016. How can I edit something August 1 then??? Explain yourself. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Vanamonde93, you beat me to it. 80.63.3.167, Both of you should bear in mind WP:INFOBOXUSE: Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. This has most certainly not taken place, and on such a contentious topic area it could be seen as not far short of trolling to attempt it without a very clear consensus. I will remove the disputed IB as the article history demonstrates that so far it has done without one; and in any case, it is probably the wrong one to use. The main ISIS article doesn't even use it- it uses the 'War faction' infobox. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 13:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is dealing with the terriorial claims and territorial control of ISIS, which is the first reason why it should have another infobox. So should it be built from discussing here. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You lied and you changed the page by adding the infobox without discussion on 1 August. This infobox should be removed , period. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? Show me the diff. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[2]. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which was made by the IP address 135.23.145.163. You see, my IP address is 80.63.3.167. Look, we are different persons. Don't you know what's an IP address? *sigh* --80.63.3.167 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IP addresses change . In any case , the consensus was not respected . --Panam2014 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm still not 135.23.145.163. Can't you understand? No, you had no consensus to remove key informations. Just keep babbling. Fortuna has got a true point, which's why it's relevant for me to discuss with Fortuna. You're just very unconstructive. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) For goodness sakes, would you both stop arguing about which version of the article should stand while you argue, and make some policy-based arguments about why there should or should not be an infobox? WP:3O might be a good option here, or an WP:RFC. If the page were protected due to a content dispute, the protecting admin would not pay attention to which side of the content dispute is "correct:" the situation is similar here. Figure out what it should ultimately look like, not what it should look like here. I should also warn you that infoboxes are a matter that has caused much grief around here: so tread carefully, make comments about the content, not the editor, and remain civil. Vanamonde (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93:- see my (uninvolved) comment above, written before I saw your first comment. Muffled Pocketed 13:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is all alone against two contributors and according to the established practice of the encyclopedia, we must return to the version without infobox . --Panam2014 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the discussion with Fortuna alone. You're hopeless discussing with and not interested in being constructive. I will ignore you now. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the discussion with Fortuna alone. You're hopeless discussing with and not interested in being constructive. I will ignore you now. I haven't time to spend with a pov pusher. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up. Pov pusher. You did'nt respect WP:CONSENSUS. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, are you going to keep parroting my comments? ...cause it's getting kinda awkward. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't time to spend with a pov pusher. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No time blahblah. Yet, you bother to answer me. Sort of ironic. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In all time, you did'nt respect the consensus and you aren't in right. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on projecting your own flaws onto me. What a dream world. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on projecting your own flaws onto me. What a dream world. Go out. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panam2014, your behavior here is markedly worse than the IP's. Do not refer to good faith edits as vandalism and do not revert good faith edits without giving an edit summary. [3] Refusing to discuss while the article is not at your preferred version also has no basis in policy or guideline. --NeilN talk to me 14:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:I do not expect a return to my favorite version , but a return to consensual version because the ip edited the page without consensus. That is the rules. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Panam2014, no, actually, that is not a rule. It might be preferred and good practice, but not a rule. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN:Good practices should be respected against the pov pushing. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Panam2014, good practice also mandates civil discussion, not the childish mimicry you posted above. Note the sanctions also refer to expected standards of behavior. As this is now focusing on your behavior, I will reply on your talk page to any further response here. --NeilN talk to me 15:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: Except I did was answer his pov pushings. Y was nothing childish, it's just that about the ip destined me apply to him actually. He accused me of his own behavior. For the rest, I do not want your messages on my talk page. Finally, you are irrelevant since you say to apply good practices, it had to respect the IP. Except that I have done so because he refused good practices. So I maintain that I ask the version before non-consensual insertions. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Panam2014 Please do not call seasoned editors here 'irrelevant'- or demand that editors respect you when you do. Muffled Pocketed 15:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Panam2014, could you *please* let go of that immature self-righteousness? Just because you claim that I do perceived X, doesn't mean you should throw toys around like a toddler in a temper tantrum. You're getting on my nerves. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no lesson to receive a pusher POV, which does not even bother to follow good practices. The rest is in your head. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RfC on inclusion or otherwise of an Infobox

[edit]
CONSENSUS FOR INCLUSION
There is consensus FOR an infobox to be included in the text. However, there is not yet consensus for which infobox to be put in. I suggest either starting another RfC or starting an informal discussion, notifying the previous voters. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should the article 'ISIL territorial claims' contain an infobox; and if so, which should be used? Muffled Pocketed 14:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
it is not a state

ISIL is not a state because it is not a state according tot the convention of Montevideo. Also, FARC, PKK and Al Nusra are not a state but they control a territory. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, I would probably support the inclusion of an infobox if it was accurate; e.g. 'war faction' or the like. I agree that an infobox claiming it to be a country would probably be giving it WP:UNDUE. Can I also point that this discussion should be policy based, and hopefully not descend into the slanging match we saw above. Muffled Pocketed 14:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, on Wikipedia, the proto- state have no infobox . The People's republic of Donetsk is a State therefore has a infobox and the Western Sahara is just a geographic region. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Republic of Donetsk is a partial state, which is probably about half-way between a proto-state and a state. In the case of Donetsk, I'd reduce that to about a quarter or a fifth of the way between proto-state and state. This sub-thread however is going in circles and nobody is going to convince anybody of anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the country infobox, but I'll gladly be compromising with regards to what type of infobox, the exact contents etc. But one thing is for sure, I will never accept removing an entire infobox. Panam2014 doesn't understand compromise. You cannot reason with Panam2014, he has himself decided that proto-states cannot have an infobox to suit his case, even though he didn't know what a proto-state is until now - and he cannot further elaborate on his stubborn stance. His statement "ISIS is not a state so they should not have an infobox" does not explain WHY important informations like capital, leader and key dates must not be displayed. Wikipedia doesn't have a requirement to only apply infoboxes to full states. Panam2014's immature behavior such as imitating my comments proves the emptyness of his case, and he also has a history of edit warring and being a troublemaker. Panam2014, you should read WP:BATTLEGROUND, your stubbornness and immaturity will not solve anything. Do you have any new inputs or are you going to repeat yourself once again? --80.63.3.167 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only one who is not ready to compromise is this ip from nowhere and whose only purpose is to make POV-pushing. It is himself who decided that the proto-state must have a infobox while infobox is for a state or region. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To compromise means to find a middle-ground that satisfies both parties. This is a rather stark black and white situation (infobox or no infobox), the only available "compromise" is in the specifics i.e. fields/parameters. Now, let me present a precedence based response. All of the articles that are found here List of active rebel groups have infoboxes, some examples include; Al-Qaeda, Donetsk People's Republic, FARC, ISIL, Luhansk People's Republic and Syrian opposition. Now, clearly there is a precedence to give rebel state's an infobox, it seems to be common practice to do so. Moving on to some policy based comments, first refer to WP:INFOBOX for the following; The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. meaning that any article may have an infobox or may not have an infobox. So any claim that this article cannot have an infobox is unfounded; i.e. A proto State does not deserve a infobox is a falsehood. You merely feel that way without policy backing so refer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In deciding whether an infobox is pertinent [t]he most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia. So whether or not we include an infobox on this article should be down to whether or not the reader will find it useful. I contend that they will for a number of reasons; 1. This article is about ISIL territorial claims, so, we're going to need a map (presented in infobox). 2. Status, what is it? a state, a rebel state, a partially recognized state etc. (presented in infobox). 3. Who's in charge? and what type of government? (presented in infobox). 4. Other general factoids that a reader might want to know, where are they located? what's their flag? etc. All of this is currently presented in the infobox and is the easiest most accessible presentation of that information. Which leads into the purpose of an infobox: to summarize ... key facts that appear in the article which the current infobox sort of does but could be more effective. ISIL is a rebel state and nobody is packing their bags to visit, so why is this parameter filled out; "drives_on" = who cares? Further, I don't know how useful these are; "calling_code", "time zone", "utc_offset", 'utc_offset_DST" and "time zone DST". I honestly don't think any readers are going to care about this information. It is "trivial". Finally, which infobox is the most appropriate here? it's going to have to be a country based one, regardless of the actual statehood situation of ISIL the fields/parameters that are needed for an infobox article on this page are for a nation sized area. Perhaps, albeit unlikely, a compromise could be made to {{infobox settlement}} alternatively and perhaps most usefully {{infobox war faction}} could suffice and is used on both Al-Qaeda and ISIL. Otherwise I think infobox country will have to do. Finally, what is the function of this article? who created it and why? I am most sincerely curious. That is all I have for now. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have an answer to both my questions; the reason for this article's existence is to create a suitable sub-article (fork) from the main ISIL article to prevent overburdening that article. Makes sense, it doesn't appear to be an exercise in POV-pushing and I'll AGF that this article has some use. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lie is not to take into account that the use is to use an infobox for a state. Somaliland and Donetsk are States according to Montevideo Convention. The FARC, Al Qaeda, the PKK and not of Daesh infobox country because they are not countries. And so that's why it is necessary to nothing. The infobox "war faction" would fit in the main article of Daesh, pâs here. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I haven't the foggiest idea what it is you are trying to convey here. As already explained, any article is eligible for an infobox, one more time "any article" can have an infobox. I am happy to have the country infobox switched out for the war factions one (that is by definition a compromise and also a logical one and my preference would be the war factions infobox). If during the course of the RfC a solid policy-based argument is given against any infobox then I will of course support that. So far, and continuing on, we're going in circles. My thoughts have been presented, make of it what you will. I am aware of the Montevideo Convention and note that none of the articles of the convention specify that this article must not have an infobox. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention is useful here is the map it not needs an Infobox. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not going to take a position in the RfC, but I do want to make a comment here. Several arguments presented above sound like they are saying that ISIL territorial claims does not "deserve" an infobox, because it is not a recognized state. This argument has no foundation in policy: an infobox is a way of presenting information concisely, not a trophy or recognition. The legal status of ISIL has a bearing on which infobox is used; but whether or not there should be an infobox at all, needs to be decided on the basis of something else. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Map & infobox - I firmly agree with Editor Vanamonde. The info box is intended to help our reader understand, more clearly, what is contained in the article...any article. In the case of this article, a visual map helps the reader locate "where in the world" is the area of the entity being discussed. Whether its a proto-state or a pseudo-state or a mental state...it makes no difference. Buster Seven Talk 07:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the inclusion of an infobox for this article. I defer the particulars of which infobox, and which parts thereof, to the discretion of those editors directly involved in building the article. I will say, however, after a very cursory review, I am seeing a tendency, across Wikipedia, to use infobox war faction for entities such as is this article's subject.--John Cline (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Article title

[edit]

Why does the name refer to the territorial claims of the Islamic State, when the article concerns its territorial acquisitions? Konli17 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its territorial acquisitions...and subsequent losses. So it was acquired, but not held, I guess. ——SN54129 15:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. IS claims cover the entire Muslim world, not just its acquistions or losses. We could have an article about its claims, but this certainly isn't it. Konli17 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else want to chime in before its moved? Konli17 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s unclear what your proposed title is; perhaps use the requested move request template? — MarkH21talk 00:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to move it to both ISIL-controlled territory and Territory of the Islamic State. I don't have any strong preference, as long as the title matches the contents. Konli17 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 November 2020

[edit]
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: Unopposed move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


ISIL territorial claims → Territory of the Islamic State – The current article content describes the territorial acquisitions of the Islamic State, not its territorial claims (which are much more ambitious). Konli17 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Territory_of_the_Islamic_State&oldid=1252366442"