Template talk:Caliphate

message: This template is under development. --Striver 10:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I would like to strongly dispute the listing of the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) as a "shadow caliphate" on this template from a historical perspective. At no point in history did this state or anyone associated with its leadership ever claim to be a Caliphate, and in fact on both the English and Arabic articles here on Wikipedia that isn't even insinuated. It's a clearly false claim, and I suspect there could be an element of religious bias behind it; there is a certain romanticism for many Muslims to imagine an unbroken chain of religious governance since the beginning and so perhaps some editors sought to fill in the gap between the Abbasids and Ottomans in a way that wouldn't leave any period of time without what they view as a caliphate. Or maybe that isn't a reason, though I suspect it is.
Whatever the reason, I strongly feel that this needs to be changed, and in fact I posit that the Mamluks should be removed from this template entirely. They did not claim to be a caliphate and no historians have claimed that about them. There are other issues as well - for example, why the other caliphates are merely considered contenders to the Abbasids when from an Islamic legal perspective the Abbasids and the others didn't fulfill all the conditions of Caliphate anyway - but that can be dealt with after this. I am going to be bold and simply remove the Mamluks myself. If anybody is concerned, please discuss things here - because I really can't imagine how someone could see a reason to include the Mamluks here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was no shadow caliphate 

message: I'm wondering on what basis some caliphates are considered "main" and others are considered "contenders." It seems totally arbitrary, as even in terms of length of reign, all three supposed "contenders" reigned for longer periods of time than the first two "main" states. This sectioning doesn't appear in mainstream literature I have found and it seems without real purpose or direction. I advocate remoing the distinction of "main" and "contender" as terminology without mainstream precedent.
In lieu of that, several things could be done. There is the possibility of sectioning off the first, second and last caliphates as they had no challengers, while containing the rest in a middle category as many of them existed contemporaneously with other claimaints to the caliphate and thus they were disputed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree same. The caliphates should should be specified as per its geographic location and time period.Rukn950 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Contender" Caliphates? 

message: I'm not sure ISIL constitutes a caliphate yet. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC).
===Should ISIS/ISL be listed as a caliphate?===
Should ISIS/ISL be listed as a caliphate?  09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ISIL

message: Should ISIS/ISL be listed as a caliphate?  09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Should ISIS/ISL be listed as a caliphate?

message: *I suspect this is the caliphate most readers are interested in. King of all fruit (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC).
* Totally agree with Rich ; imho the same applies to Ahmadiyya --Omar-toons (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: Could you tone it down with the animated gif? I'm trying to read here. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The Caliphate should be more appropriately stated by its geographical locations then mentioning it as Main and Parallel, Since it is highly controversial.Rukn950 (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caliphate 

message: 175.110.139.246 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014 

message: 175.110.253.131 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also note that most changes to a template such as this also require consensus. - Arjayay (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014 

message: Since there is so much buzz in the media about ISIL's self-proclaimed status as a Caliphate, and since ISIL's claims to a Caliphate have been rejected by all sovereign nations and pretty much every single mainstream Muslim group, I though that ISIL could be included as an "Unrecognized Caliphate" in a completely separate category. There is a lot of debate about whether or not ISIL qualifies as a "Caliphate" aside from the international rejection of the status, and due to the unique nature of the topic, ISIL should probably be listed in an unofficial category, which I have taken the liberty to do.
Since the previous discussion was about whether or not ISIL should be included as a "mainstream" or official Caliphate, and not whether or not it should be mentioned as an "unrecognized" Caliphate, I believe that the previous discussion has little to no bearings on the recent change I made. Also, since consensus can change, and since this change does not include listing ISIL as an official Caliphate, I believe that it is acceptable. However, if for some reason it does cross the lines, comments on the inclusion of ISIL (in the "unrecognized" category) are welcome below. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not "ignoring consensus." I just didn't see it as applying to this specific case. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISIL inclusion as an "Unrecognized Caliphate" 

message: User:Khestwol, there was never a consensus to add any element of the list. That doesn't mean that it's OK for me to remove the entire list. Instead please give a reason as to why you reverted my edit. Here is my take: If a caliphate is sufficiently notable to be placed in the article Caliphate, then it is sufficiently notable to be placed in this template. Secondly, "spiritual caliphates", or "non-political caliphates", is a reasonable category which parallels with subsections inside the article Caliphate.--Peaceworld 16:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Well there have been discussions here before at #ISIL, where the clear consensus was to not include ISIL to this template. So I do not see how Ahmadis can be added here. For any major additions to the current template, you will need a WP:Consensus where multiple editors agree with your arguments, or otherwise we can keep the current list in the template. Thank you. Khestwol (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Khestwol, What does ISIL have to do with Ahmadiyya Caliphate?--Peaceworld 16:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Both have been opposed for their inclusions in the template here at the Talk page, hence the relevance. Khestwol (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Khestwol ISIL is a terrorist group. Ahmadiyya Caliphate is a spiritual caliphate. Both are poles apart. There has only been one editor who has opposed the addition of Ahmadiyya, who only appears to have raised a general question over the classification of caliphates. As for yourself, you have not given a reason. Please bear in mind consensus is not voting. One should give a reason for their view.--Peaceworld 17:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual caliphates 

message: *Early history:
**Rashidun Caliphate
**Umayyad Caliphate
**Abbasid Caliphate
**Fatimid Caliphate
**Caliphate of Córdoba
**Almohad Caliphate
*Modern history:
**Ottoman Caliphate
**Sokoto Caliphate
**Sharifian Caliphate
*Contemporary caliphates:
**Ahmadiyya Caliphate
**ISIS Caliphate
Reasons for change:
*1)If a caliphate is sufficiently notable for the article Caliphate, then it is sufficiently notable for this template.
*2)The template has few links, it requires expansion! (otherwise it is somewhat pointless to have a template with few links)
*3)The list subjectively defines what a "main caliphate" is and what a "parallel caliphate" is. Infact according to the article Caliphate, the parallel caliphates are only parallel to the Abbasids!
*4)The current list seems to give the false impression that these are the sole caliphates.
*5)The concept of a caliphate primarily (at least to a reasonable extent) is a consequence of a belief system, i.e. Islam. Just as no formal attestation is required for the recognition of Shia and Ahmadi beliefs as Islamic here on Wikipedia, no 'outside' attestation should be required for a caliphate to be 'recognized' and thus to be placed on the template. See WP:Self-identification.
*6)Finally, please don't fall into the false impression that this list is giving validation for such and such caliphates, for example, adding ISIS caliphate does not mean that the template is validating it.
There has been issues with what is meant by the phrase that a "caliphate is recognized". If you discuss whether a caliphate is "recognized", "widely recognized", "unrecognised", please be specific what you mean, for the term 'recognized' has various distinct meanings in the context of caliphates:
*a)'Recognized' in the sense that a caliphate is considered legitimate to the extent that people are willing to subjugate themselves to it. E.g. In this sense ISIS is not well recognized. In this sense the Rashidun Caliphate was unrecognised in the early history of Islam, though today it is recognized by perhaps 20% of the world (It is recognized by Sunni Muslims but not non-Muslims and Shia Muslims). In other words no caliphate is well-recognized in this sense.
*b)'Recognized' in the sense that it is widely referred to as a caliphate. In this sense pretty much every caliphate listed in the article Caliphate is recognized.
Please Agree/Disagree.--Peaceworld 10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: AmatulićHow do you justify the discussion of ISIL in Caliphate in the lede as well as an entire section devoted towards it? If that does not refer ISIS as a caliphate, how does a template? As I attempted to point out in (6), templates do not necessarily certify a particular position, they give links to relevant/related material. As far as chronological listing without age boundaries is concerned, that is an alternative.--Peaceworld 19:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussing ISIL in the proper context is entirely different from categorizing a group as a caliphate without any context. The Caliphate article need not devote so much space in the lead section to ISIL in my opinion, but the space it does devote is careful to say that they declared themselves that way, and that this isn't an accepted designation outside the area they control. I have no objection to the template listing ISIL as a related subject, but I oppose including it in the same list as actual caliphates, when zero reliable sources refer to it that way. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I should add that the politically correct attitude that exists today to not wanting to acknowledge the self-declared caliphate of Islamic State is itself entirely disingenuous.  Wikipedia acknowledges that the caliphate of the Ottomans was self-declared since Murad (governed from 1362) and onwards.  Well, go ask the Mamluks if they recognised the turk caliph.  The Mamluks and their subject the Sharif of Mecca neglected to acknowledge the turk caliphate, for 155 years.  Yet the turk caliphate existed all that time, and the territory of the Ottoman caliphate extended for up to 1.3 million square kilometres in the decades prior to the Mamluks and the Sharif of Mecca being subjugated.  Well, same thing now. XavierItzm (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Khestwol, please explain here why "Ahmadiyya Caliphate" and "ISIL claim" should not be added, per request in the discussion here.--Peaceworld 17:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you must wait and wait for other users' input before such major changes. Your proposal in above section were opposed. Anyway, I am not reverting you for now. Pending other users' comments. Cheers. Khestwol (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Khestwol Please don't avoid the discussion. You have no issue with major changes as you have stated here. Your only issues are the additions of "Ahmadiyya Caliphate" which only you have an issue with and "ISIL claim" which again only you have an issue with. Don't conflate the consensus on labeling ISIL as a Caliphate with ISIL claiming to be one. You appear to be avoiding the discussion, yet you are quick to revert when you disagree with an edit.--Peaceworld 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my 2¢, whether those "caliphates" under disputes are really caliphates is not a trivial matter to be decided by two or three editors, there are always going to be disputes. Better consult an expert or hold a proper structured RfC after reverting to the last stable version of the template. (BRD) --Fauzan✆  talk✉ mail 19:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree , consulting an expert or holding a proper WP:RfC after reverting to the last stable version will be the solution. However, the last 2 times Peaceworld111 made changes, I myself reverted him both times. So this time I leave it to you (or anyone else) to do it. I think that the arrangements he made, and the links he added, are not uncontroversial. They can be only accepted in the template only if an expert or a proper RfC says so. Khestwol (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Khestwol, an RfC only appears to be relevant if there had actually been a discussion, not just reversions. Fauzan, thank you for your input, however, no-one here is asking for ISIL to be labelled as a caliphate. The only reason why Ahmadiyya Caliphate is seemingly controversial is perhaps because it is considered to be a "non-Muslim" sect, "outside the pale of Islam", by certain Muslim groups which is often is the reason for vandalism and censorship on Ahmadiyya-related pages, not that I am saying it is the case here.--Peaceworld 11:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Typically, religious sects have no veto power over Wikipedia entries.  So, for instance, Wikipedia reads:  "Evangelical Christians continue to argue that Smith was either fraudulent or delusional," and cites a bunch of critics that disavow the Mormons as Christians.  Their objections, however, correctly do not prevent the Wiki on the mormons to begin the lede as "the Mormon Church) is a Christian restorationist church...".  Furthermore, Wikipedia states: "Opponents generally allege that the church's claims to divine origin are false, that it is non-Christian, or that it is a religion based on fraud or deceit on the part of its past and present leaders."  Why should anyone pay any attention to "certain Muslim groups" is not entirely clear, unless such groups have been granted special status at Wikipedia for reasons of political correctness.  Is this the case? XavierItzm (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 

message: It appears you have no idea what is going on here. There is only one editor who has an issue with the addition of "Ahmadiyya Caliphate" and/or "ISIL claim". Since my changes here did not include either of of the two, I could not have possibly be edit-warring. So please stop your unfounded accusations of edit-wars such as you did here.--Peaceworld 20:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sakimonk