Jump to content

Talk:Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 353: Line 353:


'''Support'''- The Taliban are not going to give up power in Afghanistan any time soon without a fight, so I think this option is wiser. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan of today and the one of 1996-2001 are simply not the same. For one, we know that China is planning to recognize the Taliban government as official. [[User:Vulcan300|Vulcan300]] ([[User talk:Vulcan300|talk]]) 09:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
'''Support'''- The Taliban are not going to give up power in Afghanistan any time soon without a fight, so I think this option is wiser. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan of today and the one of 1996-2001 are simply not the same. For one, we know that China is planning to recognize the Taliban government as official. [[User:Vulcan300|Vulcan300]] ([[User talk:Vulcan300|talk]]) 09:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

*'''Strongly Oppose''' The specific information governing policies within the 1996-2001 Islamic Emirate can easily be remedied by what the page looks like now i.e sections/sub-sections within the article delineating between different time periods. The case that these articles need to be split is ridiculous, there is no good reason for it. The Islamic Emirate (1996-2001) is the same entity which continued as a government in-exile from 2001-2021 during a hostile campaign against the U.S-appointed Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan (2002-2004) and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2004-2021). There was no treaty or peace agreement which highlighted the fact that the Islamic Emirate ceased to exist or renounce its claims to the country. In other words, there has been a strict sign of continuation. Those pointing to the variously numbered French republics as support to split the pages are using incorrect logic. Those entity's officially proclaimed themselves as the first, second, third, fourth etc. French Republic's. A more correct comparison would be if this Islamic Emirate was officially known as 'The Second Islamic Emirate' which is not the case. Not to mention that all those French Republics were set-up by different governments each without a relation to the previous republic before it (i.e same political party which was in office at the time of the previous etc.). Additionally, the argument that Wiki-users will somehow become confused that there is only one Islamic Emirate page when the Taliban operated it in different periods holds absolutely 0 water. In fact, it is the complete opposite. Any detail over political recognition (like China potentially recognising the Islamic Emirate) can easily be added in the article itself with one referenced sentence that they did not do so in 1996-2001. The Taliban of 1996 is no different than the Taliban today in terms of political-leadership, goals, aspirations etc. So why then split the pages? [[User:Donenne|Donenne]] ([[User talk:Donenne|talk]]) 10:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


== who changed the anthem portion? ==
== who changed the anthem portion? ==

Revision as of 10:02, 16 August 2021

Template:Vital article


Red area on the map

The red area on the map (Northern Alliance held territory) is woefully inaccurate. The Panjshir valley was never taken by the Taliban, in fact, Northern Alliance front lines were several km south of the valley's opening immediately north of Bagram Air Base. Really the map should have a peninsula shaped area of red extending from the area of Badakhshan province, the entire length of the Panjshir valley, to immediately north of Kabul (about 30km). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.104.224.136 (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borders

I assume the borders of the Emirate are different than the borders of present-day Afghanistan. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be any different? --Soman 18:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I can tell the borders are the same, I've removed the request.Kmusser 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria recognition

I'm going to post this on the talk pages for all three articles in question to try and get some consensus.

  • From the Taliban article: despite having diplomatic recognition from only three countries: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the unrecognized government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
  • From the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article: Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized the Taliban government.
  • From the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria article: There are no countries that officially recognize Chechen independence... it was recognized by the Taliban, but the ChRI never recognised the Taliban in turn

So did they recognise the Taliban or not? --Horses In The Sky 20:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yandarbiyev did (in 1999), as a former president. --HanzoHattori 23:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Yandarbiev did it in 1999 is worthless- he wasn't president anymore. Maskhadov was, and Maskhadov refused to recognize the Taliban, calling them illegitimate. --Yalens (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

This article provided no useful information, and the term iself was not notable. The "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" was better known as the "Taliban". All of the info here should be merged into Taliban.Bless sins 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad idea because the Islamic State of Afghanistan is over, but the Taliban still exists.--Patchouli 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" was a part of Taliban history. The Taliban started as an anti-Soviet gorup, moved to power, and then after the collapse of thier gov. have started an insurgency.Bless sins 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMIRATE?

I don't think we need an article for this term. I reccommend closing this and opening a small subsection under "Afghanistan" simply mentioning the usage of the term by the Taliban militants. Mehrshad123 06:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former incarnation of the state and needs its own article covering the period. User:Dimadick this is tight to call them islamic emirate of afghaninstan because they trully govern the hearts of afghans indeed.and furthermore, they rule the afghanistan even now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.6.99 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I hate to advocate in favor of the Talibhan, but it seems to me the article is pretty biased. For exmaple, "murder" is a pretty loaded term which implies it is a very wrong act, as opposed to a more neutral word like "kill". I think the article should be more factual in nature, and that a lot of it needs to be rewritten because of this. Knight of Truth (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I would argue that utilising the word murder does not break the principle of neutrality as murder merely refers to killing in a premeditated fashion that violates the law. The Taliban were planning his death and entered the compound in order to kill him and in addition the killing as unlawful due to violating international law. The word murder is apt due to being more or less what was perpetrated. Project QWERTY (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC) waheedulla ahmadee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.6.99 (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

I propose that this article be merged with the Taliban article, since it contains more indepth detail about the Taliban's rule over Afghanistan. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the islamic emirate is the best of all in the history of afghanistan. Waheedullah Ahmadee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.6.99 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not read "Dowlat-e Eslami-ye Afghanestan"

The article falsely transliterates "د افغانستان اسلامي امارات" as "Dowlat-e Eslami-ye Afghanestan" (Islamic State of Afghanistan); that is not what the text says, and it doesn't translate to "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". The text is correctly transliterated as "Da Afghanistan Islami Amarat", and it should be corrected to reflect this. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Totalitarian"

I kind of doubt it qualifies as a "totalitarian". It was a restrictive theocratic dictatorship. But to call it "totalitarian" would mean that any country before the recent secular trend would be "totalitarian" as well, especially Geneva under Calvin, for instance. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bacha bazi

There are already mentions about Taliban cracking down on the opium industry. According to Wiki's own article, this was another questionable practice that they tried to end. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is this propaganda?

this article was written in 2017 using language that seeks to re-write history from what i can see, using words such as "islamic state" to describe a group who called themselves "mujaheddin" - a group who shot at the real islamic state when they came to afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.249.185 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem

See also: Talk:National_anthem_of_Afghanistan § Taliban_regime

I am not sure where this information comes from, but Russian Wikipedia states that the anthem of IEA was a nasheed called "Da də batorano kor". The idea that national anthems would be banned because of the Islamist ban on music is a bit strange to me, because anthems, like any hymns, can be sung without music. Are there any people with more knowledge on the matter? TheImperios (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most Likely it acted as a Unofficial Anthem as the Song itself seems to be a Nasheed

--140.190.51.233 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian revisited

A few years ago a user questioned whether or not this state was totalitarian, as currently presented in the introduction. I think we need to revisit this. The sources aren't particularly strong. Afghanistan is a highly tribal, third world society; I doubt the Taliban ever had the scientific and technological abilities to run a totalitarian state as say the Third Reich in Germany did, or various Marxists governments such as the Soviet Union under Stalin. "Totalitarian" isn't just a stand-in for "mean". Ishbiliyya (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it does mean "a system of government that seeks total control of its citizens", which is fairly accurate. The Taliban dictated who could and could not participate in the basic trappings of human society, including being literate, receiving an education, participating in political discussions, choosing a vocation, singing and playing music, etc. The penalty for violating these dictates was harsh and often lethal, demonstrating that these rules were not merely social guidelines, but demands for compliance. 67.8.203.16 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag and coat of arms

According to its official websites, Taliban/Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA) uses slightly different flag and coat of arms. - صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

  • From this article:
  • According to official websites of IEA (1,2):

Coat of arms

  • From this article:
  • According to official websites of IEA: 1, 2

Orphaned references in Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan recognition of IEA

This is my first edit to Wikipedia so, I apologize if I make any mistake. The issue I have is with Turkmenistan being said to recognize the government of IAE. Everywhere I look online mentions ONLY Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the UAE as having formally recognized the government of the IAE. In footnote 34, the first citation for the claim that Turkmenistan recognized the IAE, the closest I could find to that statement was "The government worked closely with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan until September 11, 2001, and until that time had a growing cross-border trade with the regime in Afghanistan." This is far from official recognition of the government. And as for citation 35, that website contains no information regarding IAE or anything for that matter. There is the headline "Turkmenistan Takes a Chance on the Taliban," but there is no corresponding text. So, unless someone can provide better sources for this claim, I recommend the mention of Turkmenistan recognizing the legitimacy of the IAE to be removed. CuriousLayman (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National anthem

the taliban regime had banned musical instruments but not the nasheed the islamic emirate of afghanistan had a national anthem "da dai batoran nokor" le nom de la vidéo YouTube est « Afghanistan national anthem 1994 » donc s’il vous plaît changer l’information sur l’hymne AfghansPashtun (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So please change the information for the anthem AfghansPashtun (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Taliban did not control Afghanistan in 1994, and I cannot find such a video. Do you have any more information? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although you're like referring to anthem of the Islamic state, but taliban does Infact have nasheeds and only ban musical instruments and sounds, not songs AbdurRahman AbdulMoneim Userd898 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Totalitarianism" part 3

Let's look at the two sources currently cited. The Michael Whine source is a comparison of Islamism and totalitarianism "noting similarities and differences." It mentions "the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan" in passing as a "current strategic-religious concern" but does not identify it as totalitarian or otherwise discuss the IEA at length. The Arnett source is an article primarily about Turkish politics that uses the phrase "totalitarian Taliban" in passing. This is some rather weak sourcing on which to base a categorical claim. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page to “Afghanistan”, merge with Taliban, and rename current Afghanistan article to “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”

This government, which never truly ended and continued with the Taliban, is about to retake power. Thereby, the Islamic Emirate would be the one with the “Afghanistan” page(and it’s the same entity, they just lost power in the capital for quite a while), while the Islamic Republic would be the past tense government that will probably exist in exile, and should be titled as such.

Obviously a lot of info on the current Afghanistan page would be lifted over, but still.

A succession of some sort is clearly underway, although it is not complete and we don't know what form it will take. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree but the Taliban article should remain separate as it’s the organization. (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if that occurs. Wait for reliable sources.Manabimasu (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this. The existing "afghanistan" page should just be renamed "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" then we should edit the infobox to say "2004-2021". But I am unsure when we should do this. Do we wait for the taliban to "officially declare victory"? Bwmdjeff (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this page should be renamed to "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996-2001)"

I agree, the Islamic Republicans have fallen, I don't think they will even form a government in exile. They should rename this article Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996-2001), turn this article on Afghanistan into an article on the current Islamic Emirate and create a new article on the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2004-2021), which already exists.--Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban officials will soon be declaring the existence of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from the presidential palace. Since this is the end of the republic, this article should be renamed to have a date range, all links to it should be redirected, and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan should be redirected to Afghanistan within a short while. Master of Time (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:31C8:9F3C:4939:FFA3 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC) The years thing implies their separate entities, but they aren’t. It’s the same government as this one retaking power. Hmm. Perhaps some sort of compromise, where the new Afghanistan page says the years operating are “1996-2001, 2021-present” and has a short summary of this page with a link redirecting to the main article. So we split it into two articles, but the end of this article, start of the main one, AND the infobox with the years all show them as the same entity So we have two articles, one for this era and one for the new stuff, but both make it clear it’s the same entity split for convenience and the infobox treats it as such showing both sets of years even on the new page.[reply]

we can't do anything until they declare their new government which they have said will happen from the presidential palace. If they are declaring a new Islamic Emirate then this page should remain as is and a new page created. It's not for us to write what we think is true, we just follow the reliable sources. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 19:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:31C8:9F3C:4939:FFA3 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC) It’s not a ‘new’ Emirate though. The Emirate that ruled in 2001 never ceased to exist, it simply lost ground in a civil war, slowly got the ground back, and eventually won the civil war. Zoom out and ignore all the mission accomplished BS, that’s what happened. Timescale makes it always, but it’s the truth.[reply]

The 2004 - 2021 period was a civil war, but The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan continued to fly their flag within their zone of influence and continued enforcing their laws. The IEA never stopped being a state, their territory simply shrank for a period of time. This is all the same emirate, they just control a large amount of territory again. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Afghanistan

The Islamic Emirate did not cease to exist on December 17th as the article states. This was a 20 year civil war, and while they temporarily lost control of the capital, they won the civil war and reclaimed the capital. It’s the same entity, not two.

--The Gentle Sleep (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I agree with the above[reply]

"Totalitarian" in infobox

This has been discussed before; see above. Such a label requires sources, preferably ones that explain its use with regard to the Emirate and do not merely apply it in passing. It is contrary to NPOV to insert the word "totalitarian" for the purpose of expressing personal judgements about the state's legitimacy. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree, if we used such a threshold, people could put whatever pejorative for whichever government they can get derogatory political commentary. Else every argument could cite some source calling even the United States authoritarian over say policing disputes. If people want to establish that, better they show human rights abuses than tell people what adjective to use. Freepsbane (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, authoritarianism is a spectrum and the term "totalitarian" isn't to be thrown around lightly based on personal feelings. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate 1996-2001 and present-day Taliban rule into different articles

Wouldn't it make more sense to split the two regimes into separate eras/pages instead of trying to connect them together, despite having a 20-year gap in-between their rule?

I agree on this, I can't recall if this happened before but I think it'd just make the article much cleaner and easier to read and edit Spiritual Sausage (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would agree, once there's a critical mass about the "new" Taliban rule. They haven't yet even officially announced it, so let's not jump the gun. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agreed. As an example, the French Fourth Republic was pretty much a recreation of the French Third Republic after a 6 year interim, but we have separate articles for a reason. Today's Taliban government will not be the same as the one that was deposed in 1996. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not really a good comparison. Vichy France is the direct continuation of the government of the Third Republic, which is why the Fourth Republic has a separate article, as it is a completely separate entity from the Third Republic. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -47.33.186.77 (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We just came to an agreement on this on the main page. It’s the same entity. The Islamic Emirate never ceased to exist, they’ve existed continuously since 1996. They lost control of the capital temporarily during a civil war, but eventually regained it and won said civil war. Treating them as separate entities is dishonest and fudges the truth of the situation. The Islamic Emirate ruled the country, got into a civil war, retreated to the countryside, slowly regained ground, and eventually won the civil war. Zoomed out with full hindsight of how things turned out, that’s what happened. They never lost, and the Republic never won. It was a 20 year civil war, the government that was in charge at the start eventually won despite setbacks.
Oppose - The modern Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a direct continuation of the one that existed from 1996 to 2001. It is not comparable to situations like the Baltic states claiming to be successors of their pre-invasion counterparts, as they are actually the direct successors of their soviet counterparts. Nor is it comparable to the French Fourth Republic and the French Third Republic, as the direct successor to the Third Republic is Vichy France, which was a direct continuation of the Third Republic. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, on the other hand, has been in constant existence from 1996, despite not controlling any land for a period after 2001, it is the same entity as the 1996-2001 iteration. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/taliban-to-declare-islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan-official-297971
why would they need to declare something that already exist (and has existed for 25 years, supposedly)? BlackYaroslav (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:31C8:9F3C:4939:FFA3 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Also, THERE IS NO 20 YEAR GAP. They never stopped existed, they just stopped ruling the cities for a while. The “Taliban” is the Emirate, the same entity. We need to think of this as a long, 20 year long civil war. The Emirate won. It’s the same Emirate that ruled in 1996-2001, the same Emirate that fought in the civil war from 2002-2021 and slowly regained ground(the one the media called the Taliban) and it’s the same Emirate that won that civil war.[reply]

Oppose - The Islamic Emirate is the Taliban, the Taliban is the Islamic Emirate. Official name versus unofficial nickname. There is no break in continuity. The entity in question has existed continuously since 1996 and has held land in some degree since.

Support - While the entity has continued to exist, the new page should simply be titled the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan with the former incarnation being named by the years it controlled in parenthesis, whilst adding a "not to be confused with" disclaimer as well as referencing in the infobox the initiall fall of kabul in 2001, and subsequent collapse of the Islamic republic/re-establishment. Wikipedia should serve to reflect the de facto situation as it existed, rather than the de jure existence of Islamic Emirate forces throughout the civil war.

We must remember this. The only reason we treated the Taliban and Islamic Emirate as separate in the first place is because we assumed the Republic had won, which was incorrect. The Emirate absolutely existed, continuously, since 1996. It’s just during the civil war period we called them by their unofficial nickname, the Taliban, and not their official name, the Islamic Emirate. But it’s always been the same entity. The Islamic Emirate got into a civil war, suffered losses, retook ground, and eventually won the civil war. We changed what we called them due to geopolitics and things that were wrong in hindsight, but make no mistake, there is no break in continuity. Break the artificial distinction between the Emirate and Taliban, and it becomes clear they never went anywhere.

  • Oppose This is the same government that got pushed out of Kabul in 2001, back where it started. Though leadership has shifted, its the same organization that has been fighting the same fight for over 20 years. BSMRD (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Splitting would hide the insurgency of the underground emirate. Not separated by history if the government was in hiding. May I ask why it would be harder? How much info is 5 years of rule? I think appropriate headers will not confuse readers and Infobox already explains the dates.Manabimasu (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste existed only for a few days in the 70s, after that East Timor was an Indonesian province, and in 2002 it became an independent country again (under the name of Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste), and it is not splitted.. Salvabl (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As others have stated - although being a continuation of the same government - these are two separate states that have come to power in two distinct periods. RoadSmasher420 (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support- The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan while sharing the same name with the state that existed from 1996 to 2001 is not a direct continuation of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan established in 1996. MogasTheThird (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a direct continuation of the 1996 entity. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the Taliban refer to the same thing. One is an official name, one a nickname. It never went away, it was there for the whole civil war

  • Support Even the Taliban is yet to announce an official declaration of the Emirate, clearly signifying the break in its existence. And articles about the insurgency do exist, the Republic was internationally recognised no need to treat the intergenum as completely irrelevant. Gotitbro (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SUpport While the Taliban is the same group that controlled the original Emirate, the state was partially recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the same countries that recognize it would later support the post-2001 government. Besides, it's better for the sake of readibility. For example Republic of China redirects to Taiwan and Republic of China (1912–1949) is a separate different page. LordLoko (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The 1996-2001 government was, by the meaning of "1996 to 2001", discontinued in 2001. Another government was put into place after that. Although the previous Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the current Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have the exact same, well, really everything, they were two separate governments. I would certainly be very confused if this was the first time I read this article. Matthewberns (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Our honourable friend Salvabl brought up a great point about how the Wikipedia handled the Timor-Leste situation and their reasoning convinced me. The way we handle these situations should be consistent. The government of Timor-Leste before and after Indonesian occupation were in fact two separate governments and the Timor-Leste article was not split. But that's just my opinion. :-) Historicamatic (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to refer to itself by that name in official communications and has carried itself as a government in exile. Although the international community didn't recognize their authority, they have continued to enforce their laws upon the people and act as an official government regardless. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan never stopped existing, there was simply a parallel government fighting with them for territory. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most of the article is already split between 1996-2001 and 2021-present, though nested across separate sections. As the "present" sections are expanded in the future, it is likely to lead to issues with readability. Additionally, I believe the contents to be disparate enough the justify separate pages. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 04:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's two different periods of Afghan history, although it's the same organisation as the previous one, the first Emirate was 20 yrs ago now. The 2nd Emirate has also a completely different history in terms of it's foundation (20yr war etc). I think this article should be in past-tense to talk about the pre-war government and the new article to mention whatever it is this new Emirate of Afghanistan does. I think there should be an article in same way there are different articles on the various French Republics etc.ThePaganUK (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support It should be two different articles . The period difference as well as different circumstances . Romdwolf (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to my previous opposition, I would add that the real time difference between the first period of the Emirate administering territory and the second period is not as big as some are saying. The first period where the Taliban would have recaptured territory is probably around 2002, and they would have a governing structure to administer said territory, giving the Islamic Emirate a territorial existence from 1996 to 2001 and from 2002 to the present day. This fits in with the counterpart of the Islamic State of Afghanistan having only one article. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 06:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The recent changes to the topic of this article should be reverted. This article is specifically about the state ran from 1996 to 2001. There is already a higher-level article encompassing both this period and the period beyond, at Taliban. Changing the concept of this pushes it towards being a WP:FORK of that overarching page. However, I don't think 2021 needs to be split into a new article. Presumably such content will be on the main Afghanistan page once things settle down. CMD (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose reverting the changes as per my previous arguments above


I am giving my final argument for Oppose, which addresses the primary arguments against it and relies on solid facts.

Let me make one thing dead clear. The Taliban and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan are the same entity and always have been. One is a common name, one is an official name. The usage on here of ‘Islamic Emirate’ for the 96-01 period and Taliban for the 01-21 period is misleading and is built off bad assumptions made in the 2000s on where things were going.

There is no break in continuity. The Islamic Emirate (Taliban), even in their darkest days of 2002 and 2003, still held on to land in the country near the border. Not much, but they never lost. The situation from 2001-2021 was a civil war as far as Afghanistan government is concerned. The Islamic Emirate lost control of the cities and much of the land temporarily l, yes, but they clawed their way back in the late 2010s. The Islamic Emirate won the civil war, having maintained continuous existence since 1996 with some territory. We just switched to calling them the Taliban and treating it separate since nobody in the 2000s thought they’d make a comeback and win the civil war. Other countries have been brought to the brink in a civil war only to eventually make a comeback and win. Assad comes to mind. Sure, this is an extreme example timescale wise, but it still is one. We need to look at this in a vacuum and ditch our preconceived America centric notions built on a bunch of bullshit that often predates Wikipedia. We need to stop getting bogged down in the exact name and accept the continuity of the organization, which held land in Afghanistan and maintained leadership with no true cutoff of continuity, whether you call them the Emirate or the Taliban.

There is no big gap. There is a civil war where the Islamic Emirate got pushed to the brink, but eventually managed to win after 20 years. They never stopped existed. They never lost. We just called them by their nickname.

Here’s the way I say we should do it. One entity. One page. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan(Taliban redirects here). There are three main sections in their history. Pre-Civil War, Civil War, and Post-Civil War. Everything is covered neatly in one place(though the transition would be initially messy, I admit) and it would showcase the literal fact that the group who ruled the country in 1996-2001 are the same group who fought a 20 year civil war and are the same group that eventually won it. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or unofficially, The Taliban.. All else, is just silly Westerners changing the way we addressed them. They never changed. They never broke continuity.

  • Support - We cannot and should not assume that a state which existed 20 years ago is the same one as the current regime. We already know that the current regime will have several distinct elements such as a very different military (thanks to 20 years of insurgency and the capture of so much U.S. military equipment) and economy (the modern Afghan economy was greatly transformed in the last two decades). In regards to the claims of "its the same state, it never ceased to exist" - the same argument could be used for dozens of states in the last few hundred years. Like, the Kingdom of France also never truly ceased to exist until its restoration in 1814, being continued by long-time insurgencies, governments-in-exile, and a massive exile movement. However, the years in between fundamentally transformed both France as well as as royalists. The same applies here; continuity should not be overplayed. Applodion (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Applodion made a great point. Just because there is technically continuity does not mean that there have not been massive changes. It is also much more readable, and as LordLoko said, China does the same thing. It divides Republican rule between Taiwan and the Mainland. VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The era break is significant, whatever state is forming post-Taliban miltary takeover it will be effectively distinct from the previous entity. BTW, is this really even a question we should be asking? The need for clarification in the title for this page seems obvious to me. - Wiz9999 (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My final argument for Oppose is that The United States could be similarly split into two pages based on the fundamental changed to the nature of state vs federal power during and after The American Civil War. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to use the same name officially, enforce their laws, and fly their flag within their controlled territory between 2004 and 2021, and as such have remained a continuous state regardless of how others refer to them. A continuous state is fundamentally a singular entity, it makes far more sense to contain different eras within collapsible sections rather than pretending this isn't the same entity. Keeping the article together is the correct answer for this reason and the reasons stated in the large unsigned post above. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support if Taiwan ever conquered all of China again, would we consider it the same entity as the republic of china in the 40s? ArabMan719 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The 'Taliban' have officially been the Islamic Emirate since 1996. They lost power in 2001, continued calling themselves the Islamic Emirate in their official communiques. It is the same entity, the same group, the same ideology. There is no reason to change it.Vhstef (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support- The Taliban are not going to give up power in Afghanistan any time soon without a fight, so I think this option is wiser. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan of today and the one of 1996-2001 are simply not the same. For one, we know that China is planning to recognize the Taliban government as official. Vulcan300 (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose The specific information governing policies within the 1996-2001 Islamic Emirate can easily be remedied by what the page looks like now i.e sections/sub-sections within the article delineating between different time periods. The case that these articles need to be split is ridiculous, there is no good reason for it. The Islamic Emirate (1996-2001) is the same entity which continued as a government in-exile from 2001-2021 during a hostile campaign against the U.S-appointed Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan (2002-2004) and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2004-2021). There was no treaty or peace agreement which highlighted the fact that the Islamic Emirate ceased to exist or renounce its claims to the country. In other words, there has been a strict sign of continuation. Those pointing to the variously numbered French republics as support to split the pages are using incorrect logic. Those entity's officially proclaimed themselves as the first, second, third, fourth etc. French Republic's. A more correct comparison would be if this Islamic Emirate was officially known as 'The Second Islamic Emirate' which is not the case. Not to mention that all those French Republics were set-up by different governments each without a relation to the previous republic before it (i.e same political party which was in office at the time of the previous etc.). Additionally, the argument that Wiki-users will somehow become confused that there is only one Islamic Emirate page when the Taliban operated it in different periods holds absolutely 0 water. In fact, it is the complete opposite. Any detail over political recognition (like China potentially recognising the Islamic Emirate) can easily be added in the article itself with one referenced sentence that they did not do so in 1996-2001. The Taliban of 1996 is no different than the Taliban today in terms of political-leadership, goals, aspirations etc. So why then split the pages? Donenne (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

who changed the anthem portion?

i thought it was funny that it said music was outlawed and so there was no anthem. we should change it back! -camdoodlebop Camdoodlebop (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for something related and reliable to develop. Try not to escalate in-Wiki stuff without understanding it. 2603:9000:A703:1EFD:1CEC:C584:46FD:C30 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone confirmed that the ban on music still stands? It has been 20 years since their government was internationally recognized so their policies may have changed. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister missing

Mohammad Rabbani and Abdul Kabir are not being linked from the article as Prime Minister no longer exists. How to resolve?Manabimasu (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthem Question

Is it not redundant to specify that the Islamic Emirate has no anthem. Surly this can be inferred through the lack of an anthem in the info box.--Kappasi (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan_(1996–2001)&oldid=1039045682"