Talk:Islamic State: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 261:

::::Not just 'SIL but other similar groups may well have an aim to establish what they would describe as an "Islamic state" or what they would describe as an "(Islamic) caliphate". However to say that such was the aim of [[Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād]] would need confirmed citation. The fact is that the group have undertaken a wide range of War Crime type actions that are, by no means, required for the formation of either of the above. When there are citations saying that the group are targeting and killing the Shia, should we declare the groups aim to be the denuding of Shia populations? We can't crystal ball on these issues. We are not thought police. We can only present facts. [[User:Gregkaye|GregKaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 08:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::* [[User:Gregkaye|GregKaye]]: I am not clear why you are making these points. It has already been decided that citations have to be found. I had an exchange with Gazkthul about this some time ago; the matter has to be taken up with him on his return. He is very knowledgeable about the history groups like ISIL as you probably know. Observation: your constant return to the iniquities of ISIL, brought in at every possible opportunity, is very telling about your attitude towards editing this article, IMO. [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]]) 09:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::::[[User:P-123|P-123]] It is fine to raise question of motive but I find it curious, when you have repeatedly protested against perceived "thought police" on instance when the content of your edits have been challenged, that you raise this type of issue here. ''[See my comment removed by Gregkaye to collapse box below [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]])]''

:::::::The first point I made was in reply to your mention of pro-ISIL bogeys. I responded.

:::::::The iniquities of ISIL are a major topic in relation to the group. In relation to article content there have been what you have described to be surreptitious attempts to edit the article which have had the effect to remove critical content; There are currently attempts to declare in Wikipedia's voice that the group are (Islamic) caliphate despite several "facts": that the claimed authority of the group is extremely widely disputed; that they are widely regarded to be un-Islamic; that, when RS use the word caliphate in connection to this group, they typically qualify the use of the term and that other groups with similar but less extreme claims to Islam are fighting against them. Accurate heading descriptions in relation section content have been disputed. I think that various issues are being pushed in the article and that they are telling, IMO. ''[See my comment removed by Gregkaye to collapse box below [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]])]''

:::::::Thanks for mentioning the point about other references in this article. I was interested to see a primary source text dating back to 2005 (in the goals section) in which the establishment of a caliphate is mentioned 6 times and state is mentioned (in the context of becoming one) is mentioned 4 times. There is also an interesting justification of slaughter amongst other things. The Shia are mentioned 19 times. Again I have to wonder whether the aim was to build a "caliphate" or destroy the Shia. What do you think? [[User:Gregkaye|GregKaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Refactoring muddle}}