Talk:Raqqa campaign (2016–2017) order of battle

"Regular forces"
the forces of ISIL are not "military of ISIL", it is a pro ISIL label. After, a state army has a regular forces but terrorist organization couldn't be called as regular forces. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because ISIL is not a recognized state does not mean that they don't act like a state - in fact, ISIL's military is organized like a regular army, and to simply dismiss this is ignorant. One can find lots and lots of sources for the complex organization of the ISIL military, with several distinct branches (namely the regular forces/regular army: "infantry, snipers, air defence, special forces, artillery forces, army of adversity", and the special forces, the "Calphate Army"); here are a few:, , , , , , , . As you can see in these articles, ISIL's armed forces are not only organized like a regular military, but also described by the media that way: "Within the group’s shadowy military structure is an elite special forces division that runs parallel to the regular army. Sometimes called the Caliphate Army, its only priorities are to export the Islamic State abroad and defend it anywhere it may be under threat", to cite one example. You should also note that not recognized states like Somaliland still can have a regular military, that is not only "regular" in name, but also in regards of its organization. This is an encyclopedia, and we have to describe the things as they are, not like we would want them to be. Applodion (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, nothing reliable source said it is a "regular army". Also, ISIS is a proto state, not an urognized state like to Somaliland. Your proposition is not neutral. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sryl? I just listed several sources that say ISIL has a "field army" or a "regular army". Did you even read them? Your position is POV, and if you don't give more arguments than "I don't agree", then I will remove the "neutrality" tag. Applodion (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * your position is not sourced by reliables sources such as NYT, etc. Your position is a POV pushing and you will remove nothing. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ... You really didn't read any of them, did you? Ok... The Independent describes the ISIL military as "field army", the International Business Times says ISIL has a "regular army". These are very reliable sources. The sources of Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi I listed, on the other side, show that ISIL's military organization is not just for show, but really existent. Applodion (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the first source is reliable and said it is a field army, not regular. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The second is also reliable, the IB Times is highly respected. Anyway, my point is that even though ISIL is a terror group (nobody disputes this!), this terror group does have a military / army that is organized and operates just like a regular army, and is even called as such by reliable sources. If you want to, we can change "regular army" to the official ISIL name for these forces, namely "infantry, snipers, air defence, special forces, artillery forces, army of adversity", though in all honesty that sounds even more like a normal military than simply "regular army". Applodion (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We should replace regular army by field army. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, then I will change the article accordingly. Applodion (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So military of ISIL should be replaced by ISIL forces. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No wait, that would be incorrect. It is ISIL's military after all - "forces" would be false, as for example the Hisba (ISIL police) and the administration security forces are part of the ISIL forces, but not of the ISIL military. Unlike our previous discussion, where the problem laid in "regular" (insofar as, is ISIL's army in any way "regular"), "Military of ISIL" does not imply that it is a recognized, regular military, but simply that it is a "military" in regards of its organization. Which ISIL's armed forces clearly are. Applodion (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * please see the talk page of the article "military activities of ISIL", the term is not neutral. Have you got another proposal ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "ISIL military forces", as this would a) distinguish these forces from the ISIL police etc., and b) would sound less formal than "Military of ISIL". Other options would be "ISIL de facto military" or "self-declared military of ISIL", though these sound awkward. We could also take the official ISIL name, "Diwan al-Jund" (trans. "military department"), which sounds better and does not imply a formal military, but still sounds relatively state-like. Applodion (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first option is better. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I will change it to "ISIL military forces", and to clarify it further, add "Diwan al-Jund" in brackets. Despite the initially heated discussion, I am happy that we found a consensus. I feel the changes we agreed upon, even though they are minor ones, will indeed enhance the article's neutrality and quality. Thank you for your cooperation. ^^ Applodion (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)