Talk:Worldwide caliphate

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- The concept clearly exists represents a threat to the west and should be easily accessible to any person who wishes to look it up. 23.248.154.61 (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... every bit of it is true! --Marbee (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything more substantial then the screeds of sub-par/compromised hacks that are addressing this issue? The bits about the ISIS and the likes of Hizb-ut Tahrir are true, but the ranting of Gabriel and Karsh and Pipes and others of their ilk aren't very valuable as far as this is concerned.

70.48.47.147 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... Obviously not a hoax, nor did I invent it. --Darkness Shines (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Any better sources?
I can imagine that I'm more interested in the whole ISIS situation then any of the other commenters on this talk page-- but do you have any better sources apart from the likes of Efraim Karsh (fundamentally worthless as far as a balanced, realistic analysis goes) and the likes of Daniel Pipes and Brigitte Gabriel?

This needs a lot more then the ramblings of rabid Israeli Jews and those who seemingly make it their life's mission to "stand with Israel" and accuse all the Arabs/non-Jewish Middle Easterners of being in lock-step with the likes of ISIS with zero basis for it.

70.48.47.147 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfounded topic - Call to discussion
The basic source for this article, the book "The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, p 32"; the word "caliphate" is used as such: "... in its march toward the caliphate or imamate". Does this look to you as "Worldwide Caliphate"? That is an invented concept. (If the Caliphate is or should be universal is a discussion for the scholars of Islam or the Muslims, it has no place here.) The creator of the article, user Darkness Shines, as far as I could see from their other edits, is a reasonable, intelligent and intellectual person. Therefore I cannot understand how or why they made this article. My suggestion is to redirect and merge it to Caliphate and if that does not satisfy the others, delete it and write another article on the said book. The New York Sun news article (the minor ref in the intro, nr 2) has used the two words (worldwide and caliphate) together, but the caliphate within inverted commas, which means "worldwide" is simply an adjective there. It has also used, and within commas, "caliphate" in another sentence. Ladies and gentlemen, cutting a long story short, the so-called concept "Worldwide Caliphate" does not exist. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it exists, it is one of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood. A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad p 129. Or Radical Islam in Central Asia: Between Pen and Rifle p 1 "The Islamists from the HTI admit that the construction of the worldwide Caliphate may be started in any individual country and then spread to other states" Bin Laden wanted to establish a worldwide Caliphate The Banality of Suicide Terrorism: The Naked Truth About the Psychology of Islamic Suicide Bombing Whatever makes you think this is an "invented concept"? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that book say "worldwide Caliphate" or "Worldwide Caliphate"? Using an adjective does not create a new concept. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a new concept, it is something radical islamists are aiming for, I still am not getting why you think it an invented concept when we have reliable sources which discuss it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe because I have difficulty in appreciating those sources. Caliphate is caliphate and the other adjective is just what it is, an adjective. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, why do you think it an "invented concept" when we have reliable sources which discuss it? It is obviously not an invented concept is it? If you are of the opinion the article ought not exist then AFD it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, I understand you don't have sources on "Worldwide Caliphate". We have articles here on "Socialism", "Democracy" and "Social Democracy"; because we have multiple independent reliable sources on these concepts. It is not like "Worldwide Caliphate" because we don't have multiple independent reliable sources on "Worldwide Caliphate". As you began this article the burden is on you to show us that the concept exists and is notable; not that when some people were talking about Caliphate they added to it the word "worldwide". I want references to "Worldwide Caliphate" just like in the topic of this stub. Got it? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean other than the sources in the article and the ones I have mentioned here? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. You want it that way: Look into my eyes and say it; do they exactly use the words "Worldwide Caliphate", just like this, together and both of the words capitalized or not? Please give me a one-syllable answer. "Yes" or "No". Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the sources have both in lowercase. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And generally not "together", right? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, they are together, as in worldwide caliphate. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What`s with the question marks? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * !!! --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe Why should I have a User Name? doesn't see that if he asks for a "yes" or "no" answer to a question that is in two parts, he might get an answer that is both "no" and "yes": no they are not capitalised, but yes they are used together. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing sources (that are on the internet) using "Worldwide Caliphate" in caps. This source uses "worldwide Caliphate". This is an concept, not an organization, so as per MoS naming conventions I think this should be Worldwide caliphate and "worldwide caliphate" in the lead.~Technophant (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Here's a source that does use caps.~Technophant (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it again it could be The Worldwide Caliphate. There can't be multiple ones, just one, so it could be considered a proper title.~Technophant (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted the Efraim Karsh section
I did so because what he has to say is fundamentally worthless when it comes to the issue of anything other then accusing the world's Muslim population of being "in on" the supposed master plan of creating the "worldwide caliphate". If whoever thought Karsh a reliable source can find some kind of astute commentary on his part on those who actually actively do seek a worldwide caliphate a la the likes of the "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham", then by all means add it as it would actually have some kind of substance, much unlike the writing of his that I deleted.

70.48.47.147 (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for Pending Revisions
I requested protection at Requests for page protection but it was denied. This is way too controversial topic to just leave unprotected. It's a lot easier to approve pending changes than it is to constantly patrol the page. The request is still open. Please go there and add your opinion.~Technophant (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim "Because extremists often commit acts of violence in pursuit of this goal, it lacks appeal among a wider audience." appears not to be backed by the source cited
The claim "Because extremists often commit acts of violence in pursuit of this goal, it lacks appeal among a wider audience." appears not to be backed by the source cited (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301816_pf.html)?

What I did find from the source cited was "Numerous polls show the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have sharpened solidarity among Muslims and antipathy toward Americans. "To tell you the truth, I don't see even see them as humans anymore. America is a pig," said Orel, who is in his eighties. The trend appears greatest among the very people whom the radicals aim to mobilize.", which seems to be the exact opposite of the claim made in the article (it seems that the radicals are rather successful in their recruitment and find increasing support for their aims, according to the source cited).

Should the claim (= sentence) be a) deleted or b) rewritten as "Though extremists often commit acts of violence in pursuit of this goal, it still seems to find support among a wider audience." or c) something else? Gleb713 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)