Talk:Territory of the Islamic State

4185:. 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 1225: 1204: 1071: 4099:

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. Knowledge 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

1781:. 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. 802: 3682: 1055: 1120: 1099: 4190:

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

1130: 201: 1407: 1382: 822: 465: 3025:. 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 940: 1314: 1293: 617: 607: 4355:- 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. 586: 351: 1012: 1001: 990: 979: 736: 726: 691: 409: 382: 842: 898: 870: 1869:. 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 518: 497: 3861:, which utilizes the country infobox. An infobox like that of the Western Sahara article is acceptable as well, my primary issue is whether this article has an infobox or not. Panam2014, you've misunderstood something, business as usual - ISIL does control real territory, which makes it a, using your terms, "geographical region". -- 968: 4317:

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

4132:

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

1937:

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

4247:

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

3622:

an infobox if it makes sense in the article. Let's not get hung up on categories of "state" versus "not a state" -- it's an insurgency with some territorial control, just like others that are mentioned in comments here, as well as the "People's Liberation Army of Nepal".... and best to date any map

3372:

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

2632:

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.

2205:

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

4189:

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"

4098:

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

4262:

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

4232:

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.

1575:

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,

1803:

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

3856:

I'm also open to a compromise like the infobox of Western Sahara. I think that an infobox is certainly relevant for a topic of ISIS claiming territory and actually controlling very large swathes of territory in the Middle East, and currently being a proto-state trying to organize a true state.

2661:

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

4021:

And as such, there should be an infobox to describe the ISIL proto-state. It's a simply a stage in state formation. I don't care about it's future stages. WP should describe what's present. Tell me honestly, what is it with you and that infobox? I sense it has nothing to do with the state vs.

4381:

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 Knowledge, to use

2170:→ ? – 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 4084:, 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. 2708:

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

1903:

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 Knowledge the Islamic State is called other names.

3351:, 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. -- 2753:: 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. 2990:

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.

1062: 880: 2589:

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.

3563:

Whether or not ISIL is deserving of an infobox is a red herring. This article is a list of their current holdings, territorial ambitions, and affiliated groups, not an article about ISIL the proto-state; all it needs is a map and a caption.

1821:

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.

3470:

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.

474: 392: 164: 3409:

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.

4117:

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.

1653:

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

1517: 1492: 1888:

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.

3772:

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

312:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page

3901:- by which I mean their intent to create a full theocratic state but inability to do so a) because they're at war with everyone and b) because terrorist organizations rarely make for stable governments. 4267:

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

3016:

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?

1078: 884: 4003:

Firstly, it's completely irrelevant whether this stage of state is going to change or not in the future. In 2016, ISIL is a proto state not a state. Mali is a state and have an infobox. Please read

455: 4748: 811: 701: 316:

Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.

3971:

Do not reverse the roles . It is for you to show that it is normal to put a state infobox a proto state. Mali became a true state so we can put the infobox . Not for the terrorists of Daesh . --

2888:

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. --

4658: 4743: 3879:. But Daesh is a terrorist organization that thinks it's a state. DNR and Somaliland are not a pro-state but a state. "Proto state" didn't made sense. Your proposition is a pov pushing. -- 420:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 3105:

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. --

2851:

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

4668: 568: 558: 158: 4065:

Technically, on Knowledge, 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. --

421: 4218:. 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. 55: 4673: 3842:, not here. For the infobox used for Western Sahara , it has no place for " territorial claims ISIL " because it is not a geographical region instead of " Western Sahara " . -- 4628: 291: 2802:

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. --

851: 709: 534: 416: 387: 4663: 953: 910: 4161:. 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 4723: 4648: 2087:

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.

1554:

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.

479: 287: 2946:

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* --

1873:

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.

4698: 4638: 2433: 2429: 2415: 782: 445: 2381: 939: 525: 502: 3529:

My proposal is editing status section from 'unrecognized state' into 'unrecognized state, de facto proto-state' or simply 'proto-state'. This is more exact. --

2561:

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. --

3077:

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 . --

1329:, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 4653: 2819:. You're full of lies. I did not make a single edit to Knowledge before 5th of September 2016. How can I edit something August 1 then??? Explain yourself. -- 1962: 1461: 1413: 1387: 831: 705: 4457:

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.

2547:

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. --

1804:

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.

4798: 4758: 4738: 4708: 1364: 1354: 90: 4597:– The current article content describes the territorial acquisitions of the Islamic State, not its territorial claims (which are much more ambitious). 3373:

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. --

4768: 4643: 4440: 3586:. What the actual template is called in the wiki markup seems supremely unimportant to me as long as the image and caption make the situation clear. - 1186: 1176: 2287:

Yes, but it can have international branches that include the word "Province" in their names. Their franchises are organised on a geographical basis.

1719:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Category:Areas_controlled_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

4728: 1966: 1465: 2736:

Knowledge does not work that way. The pre- war edition version included no infobox . So while waiting to find a consensus , remove the infobox . --

4803: 4753: 4693: 4633: 4169:

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.

3091:

I'll take the discussion with Fortuna alone. You're hopeless discussing with and not interested in being constructive. I will ignore you now. --

4783: 4773: 1275: 1265: 905: 875: 792: 4718: 4683: 2861:. 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 914: 673: 663: 179: 96: 3587: 3565: 2866: 2038: 1486: 1330: 146: 1576:

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.

4548:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

4103:, your stubbornness and immaturity will not solve anything. Do you have any new inputs or are you going to repeat yourself once again? -- 2138:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

4793: 4788: 4733: 3623:

of supposedly controlled territory and make the caveat that such maps are not totally accurate and change quickly through time as well.

1152: 2518:

Panam2014, please write your concerns here, in order that the WP community can reach a consensus about how to deal with the infobox. --

4763: 4713: 4688: 3795: 3734: 3669: 3511: 3400: 3068: 2879: 2063: 4104: 4023: 3990: 3958: 3930: 3862: 3530: 3411: 3208: 3180: 3152: 3120: 3092: 2992: 2947: 2917: 2889: 2820: 2789: 2696:

Copying this message over (partially) from RFPP, so that there is no doubt about this. Both of you: to make it absolutely clear, if

2663: 2634: 2605: 2576: 2548: 2519: 2258:

contain overlapping content, but the former also provides context. It would be useful to have all the information on the same page.

2902:

You lied and you changed the page by adding the infobox without discussion on 1 August. This infobox should be removed , period. --

2341:. It's very useful to know the way the group divides territories under its occupation and territories where it has sleeper cells. 2255: 2245: 2068: 2044: 2017: 1992: 1920: 1241: 758: 4414:

Why does the name refer to the territorial claims of the Islamic State, when the article concerns its territorial acquisitions?

4263:

compromise and also a logical one and my preference would be the war factions infobox). If during the course of the RfC a solid

1518:"Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East" 1493:"Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East" 1070: 140: 4778: 4703: 1663: 1321: 1298: 1224: 1203: 639: 110: 41: 2382:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150213191753/http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2025445123_apxafghanistanislamicstate.html

4678: 4594: 4506: 1143: 1104: 213: 115: 35: 31: 3897:

stages of development. In a sense that may actually be an apt description of ISIL in terms of their political development -

2273:

Agreed, and see the RFCs I posted above. The divisions list is highly POV. ISIL is not a country so can not have provinces.

3492: