Content deleted Content added
Line 28: [[User:Gregkaye|GregKaye]]: Made that seemingly tangential comment deliberately. No real wish to continue an exchange with the editor. Had looked at some of those links but not in any great detail. Am not really interested into getting into it, wanted just to make a broad observation. Obviously RS sources have to be followed on this for a general statement in WP's voice, but it seems none can be found. Anything else will be OR, even my comment. Difficult. Better to spend the time looking for some RS than arguing technical points on what is and is not a state, unrecognized state, etc. I think, then reflecting them fairly in the article. The spark has gone of out my interest in ISIL and this article, I'm afraid. Really do prefer to keep to copy-editing it, though I may briefly add support to any editor's view I share. Good luck with Anasaitis; didn't realize they were anti-you until I saw the comments. [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123#top|talk]]) 17:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC) :[[User:Gregkaye|GregKaye]]: Ate my words! Did respond as the editor made an interesting point. ~ [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123#top|talk]]) 19:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC) ::I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but you continue to argue dirty. Lastly you made unfounded insinuation regarding consensus. Now its you state "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me"." You know enough about [[WP:OR]] not to have needed this point pointed but I honestly suspect that your pro-ISIL sympathies overrode all. You also mention "Any lawyer can weasel out of it" and infer that ''"facts''" are being "twisted or denied" and then claim the use of sophistries. PLEASE see [[WP:INDCRIT]]. In regard to sophistries, if you are to make criticism on issues like rethoric then you should do so directly. You state that, "these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article". Sure. They are dealt with in the article. The article is here to present facts directly. However, you also state, "It is also a caliphate with a caliph, whether or not this accepted by anyone else". Read [[Caliphate]]. Would you state something like, "It is also ''the'' caliphate with ''the'' caliph". Please don't ignore all the objections. I appreciate that you only went as far as to suggest '"unrecognised state" seems a good description'. What happened though since the time that I was also questioning this, you added the tag ''"how?"''? Amongst everything else we ''can't'' just ignore [[WP:RS]]. You know this and yet you still advocate a view that you "Cannot justify". Please, we have mentioned POV so many times. Please consider the above. I predict that I am likely to delete it anyway. You have mentioned that it is better to defer disagreement to User talk pages so here it is. You have gone from you making attacks without substantiation to now pushing content that, by your own words, you can't justify. There are some really basic principles of Wikipedia involved here. I really think you need to consider POV issues here and, yes, I do want to pin you down on this. [[User:Gregkaye|GregKaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 21:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||