Islam: Muslim history Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the Muslim history task force.

This template is under development. --Striver 10:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typo? Should "Kingdome" be "Kingdom"? 70.36.197.12 (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Resolved

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)

Yes

• I suspect this is the caliphate most readers are interested in. King of all fruit (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Even though it's only recognized by it's members/supporters, it's still recognized. I'm certain there were past caliphates that were only recognized by it's own members as well. --Cganuelas (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No

• 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)Reply[reply]
• No, for the reasons above. So far reliable sources do make it clear that nobody else takes their claim seriously. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No, per Rich, et al. Couldn't find any RS to show they've been identified as a caliphate. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No ISIL is not calphate in true sense. it is insurgence with unrealistic and un-humanitarian agenda.Rukn950 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No universally rejected by muslims - they are a terror organization. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No, not accepted as a caliphate. Khestwol (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No, for the above reasons Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 05:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Threaded discussion

It is not recognised as a caliphate by anyone other than itself, as far as I can tell. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

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

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)Reply[reply]

I have taken initiative and changed the listing of Caliphates as per precedence of date and also as per above consent regarding ISIL I have removed it from the list. if any one wants to insert it please get consent of other editors first.Rukn950 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Since Bornu and Sokoto are self-proclaimed Caliphates and that they never had any influence outside their respective communities, imho they do not fill in the conditions of the Caliphate and should not be included in the template, unless we add a third section for "unrecognized Caliphates" which will also include ISIL and Ahmadiyya.

Then, the question is simple: should the template include:

• 1- all political/religious entities/movements that claim Caliphal status (thus including ISIL, Sokoto, Ahmadiyya, Bornu, 16th century Al-Mansur's claim, and 20th century Sharifs' claim) ;
• 2- only the entities that are widely regarded as Caliphates, claiming Khilafah over the whole Ummah and exercising it over a large part of the "Muslim world".

We really need to decide if the template should include everything or if it should only include concrete information, but certainly not mixing everything and showing misleading information for non-initiated readers.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop removing Ahmadiyya Caliphate. It is a recognized Caliphate and is not comparable to ISIL which has a meagre 30,000 members and is a designated terrorist organization.--Peaceworld 10:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ahmadiyya community "numbers between 10 and 20 million", out of 1 billion Muslims worldwide, and out of 400 million Muslims in Southeast Asia, and their leader is only recognized as Caliph by Ahmadiyya adherents. Even, they are regarded as heretics by many Muslim scholars, thus I can't see how we can consider them as legitimate as the Fatimid Caliphate!

The question remains, should we include every entity/group that claims Caliphal titles, or only the ones largely recognized as Caliphates?

Btw, for the comparison between ISIL and Ahmadiyya, may I say that, at least, the first one has effective control over a territory, but not the second. What does that mean? Simply that Caliphates had always been a political system, thus meaning that Caliphs had effective control over their Caliphate's territory (most of the time), or that they were recognized as Caliphs by the effective ruler (like Abbasids after they moved to Cairo or Ottomans between 1922 and 1924). That is not the case of Ahmadiyya. --Omar-toons (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, whether some Muslims consider Ahmadis heretics or not is irrelevant. Secondly, it is not for us to define what is a Caliphate; that is, it is not for us to limit a Caliphate to a political system. What is important is what is considered to be a Caliphate by external sources. By that standard, ISIS is a Caliphate, and so is Ahmadiyya a Caliphate, though both on a totally different sphere, e.g. 1,2 Note the claim "With over 10 million followers scattered throughout 206 countries, it is currently the largest caliphate in existence." Hopefully that dispels the myth that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate is insignificant. For example, the Caliphate of Cordoba, which you didn't dismiss, is not any larger.--Peaceworld 16:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: should the template include:

• 1- all political/religious entities/movements that claim Caliphal status (thus including ISIL, Sokoto, Ahmadiyya, Bornu, 16th century Al-Mansur's claim, and 20th century Sharifs' claim) ;
• 2- only the entities that are widely regarded as Caliphates, claiming Khilafah over the whole Ummah and exercising it over a large part of the "Muslim world".

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

175.110.139.246 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Since, apparently, there's still no consensus, we have to decide: should the template include:

• 1- all political-religious states/movements that claim Caliphal status (thus including ISIL, Sokoto, Ahmadiyya, Bornu, 16th century Al-Mansur's claim, and 20th century Sharifs' claim) ;
• 2- only the entities (political-religious states) that are widely regarded as Caliphates, claiming Khilafah over the whole Ummah and exercising it over a large part of the "Muslim world".

We really need to get a consensus in order to avoid further disputes.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should probably add a third one: all large political-religious states/movements that are Caliphates (per description of external sources). Please don't add your own definition that they must claim to exercise their dominion over a large part of the Muslim world.--Peaceworld 08:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the proposal number 1, unless you give us a consensual definition of "Caliphate"?

Btw, we can rely on the definition of a Caliphate according to the article, or Britannica, or Larousse (in French), and Ahmadiyya just doesn't fit any of the given definitions... unless we include everything claiming Caliphal status (proposal 1) :-)

So, proposal numer 1 or number 2?

--Omar-toons (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My proposal is not proposal number 1. There is a difference between those systems that claim to be Caliphates and those that are Caliphates. To discern those systems that are Caliphates, we need to look at reliable and external sources. If they are described as such then, Wikipedia is to take them as Caliphates. For the case of the Ahmadiyya Caliphate, I have gives two sources above. Moreover, definitions are not necessarily exhaustive, and this particularly applies to Encyclopædia Britannica.--Peaceworld 15:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Man, I just came back to this talk page after not checking it for a long time. I guess I will skip past discussions that seem done and try to catch up with this one.

I would have to agree with User:Peaceworld111 regarding the choices; I personally don't like either of them, and I think that users should check with the community regarding what the potential options are rather than dictating them and then requesting a vote.

I also must agree - very strongly - that the bottom line is that what is or isn't a Caliphate depends on reliable sources, not our own deductions as editors.

I suggest that we make a section here on this talk page compiling all the controversial states, and then we just post the citation info for reliable, academic, mainstream published sources and whether they consider said states a Caliphate or not. It's the simplest and most logical choice, as well as the most in conformity with Wikipedia policies. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Omar-toons, It is only fair that you respond, and not leave once you have made your edit at the article page.--Peaceworld 21:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hum... Britannica and Larousse were given as examples, among many other encyclopedias that don't cite Ahmadiyya as a Caliphate... maybe because that movement is only recognized as a Caliphate by itself? Oh, wait... isn't that the reason WE users rejected ISIS/ISIL?

And, talking about sources and WP policies, we should not forget WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE and WP:CONS.

So, the same question should be asked (not only to MezzoMezzo and Peaceworld111, we understood their opinion after all that, but to everybody): what should this template contain? Every entity/group describing itself as a Caliphate? Or only some? Then, which ones?

note: since there's no consensual definition of a "Caliphate" (for example, see The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought), thanks to avoid giving answers like "entities that are Caliphates", that doesn' mean anything regarding the nature of the subject ; there are "undisputed caliphates" -per consensus- such as the Umayyad and the Abbasid, and "less undisputed" ones... To which degree? Thats's what we are discussing here!

--Omar-toons (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all User:Omar-toons, you should be a bit more respectful when dealing with disagreements with other editors here. Responding with sarcasm and passive aggressive jabs isn't really appropriate, especially when nobody has spoken to you that way as of yet.

Second of all, you don't know my opinion. I only said that I don't agree with either of the two opitions you posted, or with you deciding the limits of what all other editors must operate within. I never actually said what my own opinion is.

Third of all, regarding your last line...I have an idea. Could we just section the template into three tiers? One for undisputed caliphates, one for disputed caliphates (some people recognize them, some don't) and then one for caliphates only recognized by themselves? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Omar-toons talking of WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE, a caliphate with a following of 20 million is by no means fringe or undue. To give an example, had that been the case, many if not majority of the faiths would not have been mentioned in Template:Religion topics. Secondly, as I hinted earlier, encyclopaedias are by no means exhaustive. In particular, Britannica does not mention Almohad caliphate nor caliphate of cordoba, (which you have no issue with) but does devote almost a paragraph to the terrorist organization.

Dear MezzoMezzo, dividing the caliphates into disputed/undisputed/self-recognized can be somewhat subjective. To give an example, Rashidun caliphate is not generally recognized as a "legitimate" caliphate by many Shia Muslims. In that sense, all caliphates are to some extent disputed. The point is if a system is referred to as caliphate in literature/journals/media then we should recognize it as such. The shia Muslims will still refer to the Rashidun Caliphs as caliphs. The Isis caliph is still referred to as a caliph, albeit unrecognised. Same is the case with Ahmadiyya. Many non-Ahmadi Muslims do not recognize Ahmadis as Muslims, and thus they do not recognize the Ahmadiyya caliphate as a "legitimate" caliphate, but do sometimes refer to Ahmadi caliphs as caliphs. I believe that we should keep the structure as "main caliphates", "other/small caliphates". That is to some extent more objective.--Peaceworld 11:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peaceworld111: Discussion above (#Should ISIS/ISL be listed as a caliphate?) shows that WP users don't see it that way.

Now, if you want to make a parallel between the Rashidun Caliphate, unrecognized by the Shia community who represents nowadays some 25% of Muslims but recognized by most of the remaining 75%, and the Ahmadyya, (only) recognized by 20 million out of 1 billion Muslims while most of the remaining 98% don't even know the existence of "something called Ahmadyya", I'm sorry but I don't get it... and yes, most sources don't include it among Caliphates (and I'm not talking about sources that are typically talking about Ahmadyya) and that's why it is WP:FRINGE.

@MezzoMezzo: Sectionning it into three tiers... I don't agree, but... (calling the last one "Fringe Caliphates"?)

Btw, take a look on #Should ISIS/ISL be listed as a caliphate?: most people (including you) agreed to not include ISIS/ISIL because "It is not recognised as a caliphate by anyone other than itself" (same case for Ahmadyya) ; seek for a new consensus then the template can be edited to include a third section.

--Omar-toons (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Omar-toons, did you read what I said above? My reference to Shia Muslims was only there to demonstrate to MezzoMezzo that labelling of Caliphates into disputed/undisputed sections was not objective. Ignorance of people is not a substantive argument. As far as numbers are concerned, why did you ignore the example I gave above of Template:Religion topics which gives multiple examples of tiny religions out of a religious population of 6 Billion religious people? Are they not fringe? why do you repeatedly ignore the somewhat small Almohad Caliphate and the Caliphate of Cordoba? why do you ignore the sources that I presented above that do mention Ahmadiyya Caliphate? Why do you give sources that do not mention Ahmadiyya Caliphate and then overlook the fact that they neither mention Caliphates that you have no issue with?--Peaceworld 08:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever the final outcome, could we take it as a given that ISIS does not belong in the section 'Main Caliphates'? I don't see either side's arguments supporting that, but that is how it was listed on the template. I have removed it from that section. ISIS's position can't be compared to the Abbasids or Umayyads, and it shouldn't be in the same section of the template as them. -- 31.51.232.91 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Ahmadiyya was added (again), I repost my question (again):

should the template include:

• 1- all political-religious states/movements that claim Caliphal status (including all those who are only recognized as Caliphates by themselves such as ISIL, Sokoto, Ahmadiyya, Bornu, Hafsids, Marinids 16th century Al-Mansur's claim, and 20th century Sharifs claim) ;
• 2- only the entities (political-religious states) that are widely regarded as Caliphates (according to RS), (eventually) claiming Khilafah over the whole Ummah and exercising it over a large part of the "Muslim world"?

--Omar-toons (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Omar-toons would you mind responding to half a dozen questions that I have raised above?--Peaceworld 18:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peaceworld111, would you mind responding to the sole question that I raised before? --Omar-toons (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omar-toons I have already responded to that question on 25 September. I have posted a few questions above for which I am awaiting your response. It is uncivil to discontinue the conversation above and repost your original edit above.--Peaceworld 17:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your 25 September comment wasn't an answer to the question. So, I ask it again: should the Template include any individual, movement, dynasty and political entity claiming to be Caliphs/Caliphates, even if they are only recognized by themselves (then, including Ahmadiyya, ISIL, Sharifs, Borno, Sokoto, Marinids and Hafsids), or should it only include entities that are widely regarded as Caliphates?

--Omar-toons (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I repost my response: There is a difference between those systems that claim to be Caliphates and those that are Caliphates. To discern those systems that are Caliphates, we need to look at reliable and external sources. If they are described as such then, Wikipedia is to take them as Caliphates. For the case of the Ahmadiyya Caliphate, I have gives two sources above. Moreover, definitions are not necessarily exhaustive, and this particularly applies to Encyclopædia Britannica--Peaceworld 08:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not an answer; read the whole discussion again.

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

175.110.253.131 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, ISIL is a terrorist group as per RS. It is not a caliphate. There is a consensus above among wikipedia users to not add it to this template. Now if one users wants to add it we can still not ignore that consensus to remove it. Khestwol (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

User:Khestwol, What does ISIL have to do with Ahmadiyya Caliphate?--Peaceworld 16:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• Strong Oppose. As per consensus and arguments in the section #ISIL above, ISIL is not a caliphate, and the minor coverage that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate gets in reliable secondary sources is too small and doesn't warrant its inclusion in the main template. Other than that, the Ottoman Caliphate was not entirely within the modern age. It started and first prospered in the medieval era, i.e. the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, which can't be considered modern age. Hence the proposed age division is flawed. Khestwol (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Consensus can change and no substantial "arguments" have been presented, with mere exception of 'not a caliphate.' Secondly there is no "main template" and non-main templates. It's a template on caliphates and thus warrants inclusion of all caliphates. You stated that "ISIL is not [recognized as] a caliphate," yet you fail to define what you mean by such and such is not a caliphate, despite my general request above. Nevertheless, I have addressed this issue in point (5), (a) and (b). Finally no categorization is perfect, but is way better than the subjectively defined current one. The Caliphate article lists Ottoman caliphate beginning in 1517, contemporary to the early modern historyperiod.--Peaceworld 13:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per my points above.--Peaceworld 13:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Just because someone decides to call themselves a caliphate doesn't make it so. When reliable sources regularly refer to ISIS as a caliphate, then so can Wikipedia, but not before then. But at the moment, all reliable sources refer to ISIL as "self-proclaimed.." or "the group calling itself..." and Wikipedia has no business in setting precedents in such terminology. I also agree with Khestwol about the flawed age divisions. It would be best simply to list them chronologically without arbitrary age boundaries. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• Support - Encyclopaedic knowledge is best distributed when properly and consistently organised; this is the impetus behind the creation of templates on Wikipedia. A template suitable for the various caliphates that have existed, exist, or may exist in future is simply a healthy and advisable thing to have. XavierItzm (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• Support. Million are not small numbers. Even for earlier ones there are the Shias who did not recognize them. Then there had been parallel ones. Then there was an Ottoman one whose genealogical claims from Quraysh were questionable. We should be objective. I acknowledge people disavow slavery and brutal killings, though. William285 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong oppose : per the whole discussion above --Omar-toons (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Edit Sokoto, Sharifian, Ahmadiyya and ISIL are self-proclaimed Caliphates that never obtained large scale recognition. --Omar-toons (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong support : There are a very large number of RS which agree that Ahmadiyyah is a caliphate, therefore it should be included. I am neutral on ISL, if RS can be provided to show its recognition, then as per WP:NOTCENSORED it should be included FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT 2

• List
  • Rashidun Caliphate
  • Umayyad Caliphate
  • Abbasid Caliphate
  • Fatimid Caliphate
  • Caliphate of Córdoba
  • Almohad Caliphate
  • Ottoman Caliphate
  • Sokoto Caliphate
  • Sharifian Caliphate
  • Ahmadiyya Caliphate
  • ISIL claim

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I agree Fauzan, 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@Sakimonk: 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)Reply[reply]

Perhaps some editors view that the Ahmadiyyah caliphate cannot be called a Caliphate, therefore presented here are Reliable sources which support this claim that the leadership of Ahmadiyyah muslims Caliphate and their leader is called the Caliph. Removing Ahmadiyyah from the template should be done after someone presents reliable third party sources which say that they are not a caliphate 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, 8, 9, 10, [http://www.examiner.com/article/khalifa-of-islam-talks-about-world-peace-at-the-dutch-parliament 11, 12 Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a source issue, it's all about WP:CONS.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If RS says that Ahmadiyyah is a caliphate, they should be in the template. I think that is quite simple. What is your problem with the inclusion? I see no rationale provided by you, or anyone else for that matter, against an inclusion. Why are you against the inclusion? The Ahmadiyyah are not fringe because they have been termed one of the fastest growing sects of Islam, and are currently the only international sect to have the Caliphate i.e the only Caliphate recognized by Reliable Academic sources which stretches across borders is held by them. So what are your concerns about the inclusion?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If RS say that Ahmadiyya is a Caliphate but WP users say that it is WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE, they shouldn't be in the template. --Omar-toons (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No WP users have to "prove" that it is fringe. I have given the arguments "for" the inclusion , which also includes the fringe discussion. If the only thing you can bring is Fringe then I have already answered this and we can add the Ahmadiyyah. I would like to add that the importance of Ahmadiyyah Caliphate as being non-Fringe has been discussed countless times and everytime the consensus was that is "not Fringe". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:CONS and WP:BOLD --Omar-toons (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is what you should read. As far as I can see you have quoted no policy which deems it inappropriate to add the Ahmadiyya caliphate. Furthermore you have shown not a single debate where a consensus was reached to remove it, therefore I will add it again , if you have nothing further to add to this debate. There are only two things which prevent an addition to text, one is its being against a wikipedia policy and the second is that some previous consensus shows that it should not be added. As Ahmadiyya Caliphate does not come under any of these, you should stop reverting or provide some argument against the inclusion. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply because you got no consensus, and this is not a WP:DRNC issue. Period. --Omar-toons (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FreeatLastChitChat, William285, XavierItzm, Amatulić and myself do not have an issue with the addition of Ahmadiyya Caliphate into the list. It's just you and Khestwol. Khestwol has failed to justify his/her position till this day, in spite of numerous discussions. As for yourself, you used the same "fringe" claim on the article Caliphate, which clearly didn't pass. In fact you haven't understood WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE. These policies are concerning "viewpoints/theories/perceptions." Ahmadiyya Caliphate as a Caliphate is a fact, which needs no recognition from the worldwide Muslim community as along there are sufficient RS. Similar failed attempts have been made by a number of editors to remove Ahmadiyya from Template:Islam.--Peaceworld 21:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Omar-toons: do you actually have a response to my above comment, other than a revert? Failing to discuss is not going to be helpful in the long term.--Peaceworld 09:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already answered before: it is all about WP:CONS, and obviously the is no consensus about your (controversial) edit --Omar-toons (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Omar-toons: I find your stonewalling and that of another user somewhat disruptive which has been on-going for an unnecessarily length of time. I think it's pretty clear that you don't have anything else to say, or provide some valuable addition to the discussion. I shall wait a little longer and then I, or someone should take this to DRN.--Peaceworld19:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's try an alternative.--Peaceworld 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC