Jump to content

Talk:Taliban

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.111.32.130 (talk) at 18:26, 18 August 2021 (So much western propaganda is filled in this on Article!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Wrong, America was not involved in starting the Taliban

This paragraph is wrong:

British professor Carole Hillenbrand concluded that the Taliban have arisen from those US-Saudi-Pakistan-supported mujahideen: "The West helped the Taliban to fight the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan".[101]


This is from the BBC Website "The Taliban, or "students" in the Pashto language, emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. It is believed that the predominantly Pashtun movement first appeared in religious seminaries - mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia - which preached a hardline form of Sunni Islam."

The Americans supported the mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan, some of whom later became Taliban. But most of the early Taliban came from the Madrasas in Pakistan. They were started by Pakistan's ISI, who wanted to use them as a tool to gain influence in Afghanistan.

The Taliban did not even exist when the Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan. They started in the early 1990s. It is very rare for the BBC to make a mistake on something like this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11451718

The opinion of one professor is not a strong source. I just look at several trusted sites, and none claimed the Taliban fought in Afghanistan. It is not up for debate.

Also, I have never seen any concrete evidence that America was involved with starting the Taliban. How would that further American interests? The war in Afghanistan was over. If anyone has access to Economist Magazines from that period, I remember that they covered the carefully Taliban rise. I was in Pakistan in the early 1990s, and leaned about these things, which might add a tiny bit of veracity to my earlier points.

"In fact, neither bin Laden nor Taliban spiritual leader Mullah Umar were direct products of the CIA. The roots of the Afghan civil war and the country's subsequent transformation into a safe-haven for the world's most destructive terror network is a far more complex story, one that begins in the decades prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan." https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/who-responsible-taliban

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrchurch (talkcontribs) 20:33, 25 July 2021 UTC (UTC)

I agree Harrchurch. The book is an overview of the whole history of Islam by an academic whose specialism is the Crusades, plus I can't find the quoted text in the book. Will delete. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate

Now that the Taliban seems to have reasserted themselves as a state entity, or at least could very well happen soon, what do we do with the articles? Should the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article be made to reflect it's renewed existence from 2021 on? Should the Taliban article be used? Should there be a new article for the modern Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, renaming the old one to reflect it's existence form 1996 to 2001? Serafart (talk) (contributions) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following suit with a single Islamic State of Afghanistan article covering its entire history, it makes sense for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article to be a continued article if the Taliban take over Afghanistan and declare a continuation of their Islamic Emirate.ElderZamzam (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veryproicelandic, Clovermoss, Dwiki, Elli, KRtau16, SakibArifin, LilBillWilliams, CentreLeftRight, 51412techno, Triggerhippie4, Aquatic Ambiance, Mndata2, NomanPK44, Kwamikagami, Mac Dreamstate, Adoring nanny, BrawlyTheContributor, JCJC777, TheTimesAreAChanging, H7opolo, Llll5032, Ready12hope, Evert, and SunDawn: Pinging recent editors to this article as this is quickly becoming an issue. Given that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has reestablished itself as a proper state or state-like entity, what do we do with these articles? Serafart (talk) (contributions) 05:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has the new Taliban government re-cast themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan? I think we need a new article for "upcoming" Taliban government (if they succeed) instead of merging to an existing article, but I think for now it is still WP:TOOSOON. SunDawntalk 07:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They never stopped refering themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and see themselves as a continuation of that government. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How things roll so fast, eh? Kabul has not fallen when I type the above message. I think we should wait for couple of days to see how the new government formed up. SunDawntalk 10:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't know a lot about the whole thing but Should the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article be made to reflect it's renewed existence from 2021 on? - Yes, why not? People are probably interested in that. Should the Taliban article be used? - I don't think so, the Taliban article considers it more of a "movement". Should there be a new article for the modern Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, renaming the old one to reflect it's existence from 1996 to 2001? - Yes BrawlyTheContributor (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan never stopped referring to themselves in that way in all official communications and public statements.[1] The IEA have continued to fly the same flag and enforce their laws within controlled territory for the entire 20 year civil war, which is what this has always been. When we think about the situation critically, the IEA never stopped being a state, they were just extremely small at some points. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we continue writing in the existing articles. In the end this is a movement in Afghanistan history. I mean what if later on Taliban was defeated and withdrew,will we again remove articles and create new ones. Ready12hope (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

The taliban ( talibs) are not from Afghanistan they are from Pakistan. Please correct this information as you are putting out false information. 2A02:A458:722B:1:3188:48E3:EC7B:E945 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Membership Estimates

Citation 60 estimates 75,000 fighters in 2021, but then the right-hand sidebar estimates 85,000 from citation 21. Perhaps it would be better to list 75,000-85,000 and reference both sources?

Flag

The flag of Taliban (image) is visibly different from the Jihadist flag. The flag of Taliban appears as the Flag of Afghanistan from 1997-2001. Should there be a section about the flag of Taliban in this article, or in the Flag of Afghanistan article? Thanks. Mateussf (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist designation

The Taliban have been designated as a terrorist organisation by Canada, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and the United Arab Emirates. 188.206.72.78 (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Taliban now be listed as the government of Afghanistan?

I’m no expert on the situation but it seems like the Afghan government just surrendered and the Taliban are forming a government. Should they be listed as the ruling party of Afghanistan? 李艾连 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably in the very near future, yes ([1]). GABgab 16:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban TakeOver of Afghanistan.

15th of august 2021, the terror group Taliban Took the leadership of the goverment of Afghanistan

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has won the civil war and currently holds majority control, as they did prior to 2001. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

Update "2002-present (insurgency)" to "2002-2021 (insurgency)"

Below that - "2021-present (government)"

Transition of power to Taliban-led government occurred 8/15/2021 2600:387:F:4A13:0:0:0:7 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Although it seems clear the Taliban will take over the government soon, probably within the next few hours or even less it's not clear that they've actually taken over yet and it doesn't seem they claim to have. They control pretty much the whole country including Kabul and the presidential palace and the previous government has completely collapsed. The current situation seems to be where the Taliban have complete victory but have not yet formed/taken over the government. We're an encyclopaedia so it's fine to wait until it's clear from sources that the Taliban are the government. Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The taliban has taken control of the government now - https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08/15/world/taliban-afghanistan-news

Good enough?

  • "The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community and the Afghan government to have provided support to the Taliban".
    Comment: Now, the Taliban are the de facto government. 89.8.152.94 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Taliban and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan pages should be merged.

Both pages openly admit their the same entity. The Emirate was often called the Taliban, the Taliban never stopped calling themselves the Emirate. When it seemed as though they were beaten forever and the Republic had won, splitting them in twain made since. Now, with hindsight, it doesn’t.

The entity, known officially as the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, and unofficially as the “Taliban”, ruled the majority of the country from 1996 until American backed intervention triggered a civil war with the newly founded republic. The Emirate lost the cities, but held the country side and gradually regained ground, eventually winning the civil war and regaining the capital.

Treating them(The Emirate/Taliban prior to the American intervention and the Emirate/Taliban that fought the civil war for 20 years) separate no longer makes sense, now that we can see with hindsight that they never lost the civil war and the Republic did.

They are one entity. They had power, they fought a 20 year civil war with lots of ups and downs to keep that power, and they won that civil war. Call them the Islamic Emirate or call them the Taliban, they are one, continuous entity, and with hindsight, should be recognized as such.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to refer to themselves as such since 1996 in all official statements and communications, has always flown the same flag, has always enforced their laws in areas which they controlled, and has always behaved as a state[2]. The west referred to them as "The Taliban" during the civil war to try and distance them from the fact they were the dominant government prior to the US interference. "The Taliban" could be considered to be The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or it could be considered their military, but either way the two articles should be merged. Islamic State of Afghanistan held majority control from 1992 to 1996, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan held power from 1996 to 2001, and then the Islamic State of Afghanistan held power from 2001 to 2002. Shoudn't the IEA/ Taliban be treated the same way since it's a very similar situation in the same region? --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who becomes a Taliban?

It is my understanding that the Taliban appeared from the refugees who studied at madrasas. Is that still valid? Are today's Taliban former refugees? The children of 1st-generation Taliban? Recent recruits from some ethnic group? --Error (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Article, "The", is not a Prefix

Although the definite article is applied to the steam as a prefix in Arabic, and not present at all in Pashto, this is not the case in English. Modern English has not undergone an agglutinative process by making any indexed article an affix of any kind. This mistake can be corrected by simply replacing "prefix" with "definite article."

In American English, a "the" prefix is used thereby referring to the group "The Taliban" rather than just "Taliban". Meanwhile, in English language media in Pakistan, there is often no prefix used.

In Worship

Not related to building a better article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While standing in prayers, worshipers recite the first chapter of the Quran, al-Fatiha, followed by any other section.

The first surah of the Quran is repeated in daily prayers and on other occasions. This surah, which consists of seven verses, is the most often recited surah of the Quran:[3]

A Sufi Tale

How effective are religious rituals and spiritual practices? Very effective, according to the Mulla Nasruddin, who performed a peculiar ritual every evening at 5 p.m. sharp. Sitting under a particular tree in his garden, he whistled a tune, mumbled some words aloud, raised his arms to the the Heavens, then lowered his hands, closed his eyes, and sat in silence for about twenty minutes. He concluded the ritual by spreading bread crumbs on his flowerbeds. Eventually, his neighbour asked if he did this to make his plants flourish. "No," replied the Mulla, "I do it to keep away ferocious tigers and wolves." "But Mulla," said the neighbour, "there are no tigers and wolves for thousands of miles." "I know," said the Mulla. "Effective, isn't it?"

considering they are a religious entity, elaborating on their religious practices makes a more complete article. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map in the infobox

Is the map in the infobox any good? It shows which parts of Afghanistan are under control of the Taliban; it's probably outdated. 67.54.186.80 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” and redirect Taliban there

Withdrawn, see section below

They are the exact same entity, as the opening paragraph states, and now that they have WON the 20 year long civil war, there really seems to be no reason for the split. It’s the same Islamic Emirate as always, they ruled before the civil war, fought the civil war and suffered setbacks, fought back and eventually won the civil war, and now rule undisputed yet again.

The Taliban distinction made sense in the 2000s when they came off as nothing, but a fringe that would soon be gone, but with them having WON the civil war, it’s no longer a useful distinction, all it does is confuse people with the different names. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:bce7:4b48:c183:4ed1 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. JBchrch talk 16:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support This has always been technically true, but with the change in Kabul, it’s time we make it clear. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:bce7:4b48:c183:4ed1 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Weak Oppose- If IEA and Taliban are interchangeable and supported by sources. Would not delete the article. The Taliban existed before the IEA and because Taliban wasn’t known as IEA pre-1996. So Keep all info until the establishment of IEA on this page.Manabimasu (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:BCE7:4B48:C183:4ED1 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I agree with above. Islamic Emirate should be for everything from the declaration of the Emirate in 1996 to the present. It’s been the same Emirate the whole time, fighting the civil war for 20 years and winning. Keeping the us article for the 1994-1996 period where they were ACTUALLY just a insurgency called the Taliban and hadn’t declared or taken anything makes sense.[reply]


2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:718F:FD32:B5F1:9FDF (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Made a separate post that fixed the issue with this one. Hope for support[reply]

Strong Support The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to refer to themselves as such since 1996 in all official statements and communications, has always flown the same flag, has always enforced their laws in areas which they controlled, and has always behaved as a state[4]. The west referred to them as "The Taliban" during the civil war to try and distance them from the fact they were the dominant government prior to the US interference. "The Taliban" could be considered to be The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or it could be considered their military, but either way the two articles should be merged. The pages should be merged since The Taliban is simply an unofficial name designated by the west, and during this period the IEA were a government in exile just as the the Islamic State of Afghanistan were when the IEA held majority control originally. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per @JBchrch: Ytpks896 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make this article for the 1994-1996 Taliban prior to declaring themselves the Islamic Emirate, move everything else to the Islamic Emirate page

Same case for it as the previous post, just better clarified now.

The Islamic Emirate has continuously existed since 1996, even in the darkest days of the civil war they held onto rural areas in the South, and seeing as they eventually won that civil war and retook Kabul, it’s needlessly confusing naming to treat them separate knowing what we do now(namely that they didn’t get wiped out and in fact eventually won the civil war)

So this article is for the Pre-Emirate era, when the Taliban were officially the Taliban and were a student lead insurgency in the 90s civil war. Obviously both should get some redirects though to ease things. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:718f:fd32:b5f1:9fdf (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to refer to themselves as such since 1996 in all official statements and communications, has always flown the same flag, has always enforced their laws in areas which they controlled, and has always behaved as a state.[5] The west referred to them as "The Taliban" during the civil war to try and distance them from the fact they were the dominant government prior to the US interference. "The Taliban" could be considered to be The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or it could be considered their military, but either way the two articles should be merged. The pages should be merged since The Taliban is simply an unofficial name designated by the west, and during this period the IEA were a government in exile just as the the Islamic State of Afghanistan were when the IEA held majority control originally. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic_State_of_Afghanistan is considered a single state and has a single page for similar reasons --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support it just makes sense to do it this way. With so many preconceived notions about what and who is going on being proved wrong as of late, we need to clean this up and follow the facts. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:718f:fd32:b5f1:9fdf (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Manabimasu please cast your !vote in this section, as the previous proposal (section above) has been withdrawn by the nominator and reformulated as this new proposal. JBchrch talk 21:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - Reliable sources needed because such jump would be WP:OR. Although I do understand what you are saying, reliable sources reference Taliban as Taliban and not IEA. If IEA is mentioned alongside Taliban, then such sources could be used in IEA. I may reconsider if there is a reliable source which does claim IEA did not stop existing after 2001. The earliest I could find after 2001 is from 2013.Manabimasu (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my previously linked source [6] shows that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have continued to refer to themselves as such and have never accepted "Taliban" as an official name. Who could possibly be a more reliable source of a state's name/ identity than the state in question? --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have this discussion after the discussion after Talk:Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan § Separate 1996-2001 and present-day Taliban rule into different articles closes. I think these two split proposals are contradictory. If both discussion closed as "support", it will create a giant mess. There is no deadline. Pinging The Gentle Sleep and Manabimasu to get their opinions. IP 2604, you are very welcome to give your opinion but I cannot ping you. JBchrch talk 22:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would tell the closer beforehand to wait until the discussion closes on the other page. I don't really see it as contradictory. If support does happen , I could see portions from Taliban move to the respective time period articles as this article would solely be on Taliban,pre-1996; Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996-2001),1996-2001; and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (2021-present),2021-present,which may move to Afghanistan(WP:CRYSTALBALL). For the supporters, one article would make the moving of portions from Taliban easier than two.Manabimasu (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: More high quality research needs to be presented first. The Taliban has existed for 40 years now, the apparent fall of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is not enough of a reason. WP:COMMONNAME is another factor to consider. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose the PRIMARYTOPIC for "Taliban" is the group over the past 25 years, not specifically the period from 1994-1996. There may be an argument for a separate (and new) article on the rise of the Taliban in 1994-96 if one does not already exist, but do not hijack this article to do so. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are disconnected discussions on a merge in multiple sections of multiple pages, which makes it extremely difficult to gauge how close we are to an actual consensus. I've tried to participate in the discussions in each of the pages where they're going on, but it's confusing and hard to keep up with when they're so disjointed. Does anyone have an idea about how we can merge the discussions together to actually measure consensus? --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentle Sleep I have written a message yesterday on WP:AN about the issue (➡️link), but I have received no answer so far (which is not surprising, frankly). I think the best way to get some sort of reaction is for another user to add their voice: if you want to, you can add a comment to that effect to the section I have created. JBchrch talk 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:718F:FD32:B5F1:9FDF (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC) For the person asking on sources that the Emirate never stopped existing, it’s everywhere. The group in question has called themselves the Islamic Emirate nonstop since 1996. The continuity is clear. Making 3 separate articles for one continuous entity is nonsensical.[reply]


Comment Literally any official communication by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan demonstrates this point, but if additional citation is needed an article from the middle of the civil war is listed in the numbered citations below. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support For all the reasons stated above. 207.228.78.12 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Unless the other article rules against their thing, I see no reason not to do this. It would greatly simplify everything. Big thumbs up. 208.85.212.65 (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Support seems high and the main post of opposition is what the other article says. So I’d say if they end up keeping the Emirate page together, we move forward with this to fully complete it.— 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:EC1D:B09B:AF2B:FB49 (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Strong oppose: The Taliban are a movement, and not the same as the state established by them. Read any book by an expert on the subject, such as Ahmed Rashid, and you can see that they clearly separate the two. Applodion (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A single writer is hardly "All the experts." The IEA have continued to refer to themselves as the IEA since 1996, they have continued to enforce their laws on those within held territories, they have continued to hold territory in the region, they have always used the same flag, they continued under the same leadership which has evolved over time, and these facts can be confirmed in the writing of any expert on the topic. If the above facts are taken as truth then in what way are they not the same entity? The Islamic State of Afghanistan is considered to be the same entity despite being similarly situated, at a similar time, in the same region. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I literally gave Ahmed Rashid as an example. Just google "Taliban" and "Emirate"; you will find that sources talk about the Taliban restoring the emirate or establishing the emirate or ruling the emirate etc., with several such as this book or this book talking about the "Taliban's emirate". The latter wording would not be possible if the two were the same; as I said several times before: The Taliban are NOT the Emirate, as the former are a group/movement and the latter is a state. Applodion (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support The choice on the other one is still deadlocked, and a lot of the hesitation has to do with this. If we move forward on shifting most of this page over there, it'll definitely lead to the 'don't split the emirate page' camp winning out, and thusly all will be fine.

Strong oppose: As eloquently expounded by Applodion. The discussion doesn't seem closed to me yet and I think it's premature to say that it is.--Sid-Vicious (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: per Applodion's excellent distinction. The group/movement is not the state; the two are not interchangeable, and, thus, not the same entity. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - My understanding of the arguments against merging relevant information is that the Taliban is a political organization and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a state. In this case would it not be logical to move anything referring to their activities in the 2001 - 2021 period of exile to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan since they are a continuous government as has already been argued? Their detailed political views would stay here, but the fact that they continued operating as a government during the civil war means that leaving that information out of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan page would lead to confusion. There is information being added to this page for the periods of government control, which based on the arguments of Applodion should be moved to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan page.

— Relisting. Muhibm0307 (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Muhibm0307: Considering there were more votes opposing merging than supporting it, can you kindly explain how you determined consensus? Benica11 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benica11:, I was closing based on administrator’s noticeboard, but I’ll reopen the discussion. Muhibm0307 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I found another source in 2011 in which the authors discuss about the Taliban and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Here are some quotes:

Moreover, the Taliban call themselves the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’, thus indicating that they claim or at least aspire to represent more than merely an armed group. In that case, the application of human rights law to the Taliban appears to be an appealing and logical theory, as it is necessary to ensure that persons living under their control be protected by international law.

In its August 2010 report, the UN called on the Taliban and other ‘Anti-Government Armed Groups’ to ‘withdraw all orders and statements calling for the killing of civilians, including civilian Government officials; adopt and enforce codes of conduct or other directives that prohibit any and all attacks on civilians; accept that civilians’ cooperating with the Afghan Government and International Military Forces are protected against any attack and immediately cease targeting those civilians’. UNAMA, above note 12, p. v. It appears that this call has so far been rejected, given that apparently after the report was published the Taliban issued an updated ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Rules for Mujahideen’ that included a determination that anyone working for coalition forces or the Afghan government was a legitimate target. CBC News, ‘Taliban issue new code of conduct’, 3 August 2010, available at: http:// www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/03/conduct-code-taliban.html (last visited 18 January 2011).

This does give the supporting side an edge in what Taliban claims to be. But from the opposing side sources on recognition from international communities would be the former which is that the IEA does not exist. But this is just one source and many reliable sources are needed. Checking Ngram shows Taliban is favored by sources after 2001. From what I see, is it what Taliban claims or what reliable sources say on Taliban. The IEA doesn’t has little de jure recognition so reliable sources on them could readily reflect that.Manabimasu (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There may have been more votes for oppose, but the majority of people opposed have not made facts based arguments, have made arguments which actually support a merge, or in many cases gave no arguments whatsoever. It's also important to note that most sources from the civil war period will be through the lens of being anti-IEA, since the IEA was designated as a terror organization at the time. Government controls around framing of issues within the media are important to take into account when dealing with historical matters such as these. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facts and citations - The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have continued to operate as a constant organization during the 20 year civil war [1][2], are flying the same flag over the capital [3], are using the same name [4], and continued to enforce their laws within their territory during the entire war.[5]

Due to the cited facts I've laid out:

  • The Gentle Sleep continues to ignore the points which the oppose side has raised. In academia, the Taliban and the emirate are clearly differentiated, as per the examples I have given. The "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" did exist as full state before 2001, and as rebel/shadow/exile government from 2001 to 2021, and as full government/state from 2021. In this capacity, it was carried and governed by the Taliban, a political and religious movement. The source cited by Muhibm0307 points at the problem of the insurgency period; in essence, as the original state had factually ceased to exist in 2001, governments & agencies across the world regarded the emirate as gone. Consequently, when the Taliban - as a group - claimed to act on behalf of the emirate - a state -, they were occasionally conflated by their opponents. A similar case would the the Chinese Soviet Republic, a government / rebel state carried by the Communist Party of China in the 1930s. Here too the opponents did not differentiate between the state and the rebel group. However, the distinction has to be made. As I said previously, someone can be a Taliban and live in the emirate; one can also be a Taliban and not live in the emirate; one can live in the emirate but not join the Taliban. IMO, the Taliban should remain as a separate article, while we should have three articles for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: One about the state between 1996–2001, one for the 2001–2021 insurgent state, and one for the post-2021 state. Applodion (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Republic as "state opponent"

Now that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has effectively been dissolved, it seems odd to list it as a "state opponent" of the Taliban. Should it now be given a parenthetical (until 2021), or removed entirely? Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, the IR no longer exists. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed as we didn’t do the same when the Northern Alliance dissolved Benica11 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Section to be added about the role of Pakistan in supporting Taliban during its 20 year isolation and ongoing contribution to spread of terrorism.

'What any violent extremist group needs more than anything else is a secure location where it can plan, organise, recruit, strategise and gather resources. Without this, few insurgents and terrorists survive, let alone succeed. Pakistan provided this to the Taliban, greatly aiding their 20-year campaign that ended in victory this week. Al-Qaida had one from 1996-2001 – and it was the prospect of losing the haven that Afghanistan offered that led many of its most senior leaders to oppose Osama bin Laden’s plan to launch the 9/11 attack on the US.

Many perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere in the last decades travelled to Pakistan to receive training. This was often a vital step, not so much for the knowledge imparted as for the reinforcement of radicalism that the experience brought. The Taliban have tried to at least regulate, if not restrict, the presence of so-called “foreign fighters” but are unlikely to be able to prevent all such visits.'

Reference: Taliban in power may find themselves fighting their own insurgents - Jason Burke - Guardian - UK edition 18 Aug 2021 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/18/bidens-over-the-horizon-counter-terrorism-strategy-comes-with-new-risks "Courtesy of Guardian News & Media Ltd” Correctpen (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: That would be a wholesale copyright violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So much western propaganda is filled in this on Article!

I can't believe it. I know for a fact that wikipedia doesn't go against western established narrative but this is just too much.

Just a few months ago this article was full of information but now all I see is propaganda, more specifically western propaganda. It seems west lost the war on the ground but want to win the narrative of words.

"currently waging war (an insurgency, or jihad) within the country" is that what you call a force which was fighting invaders for 20 years? and since adding "waging war" was not enough "an insurgency" was added too. Please people, I'm sure sensible people are still around wikipedia.

"In 2017, the Taliban was estimated to have 200,000 troops." There are no official numbers and even the estimates are far lower than described in this sentence. Jonathan Schroden who was cited here should be put in charge of CIA or Pentagon because he seems to know more than the combined intelligence of the whole world. Even US intelligence puts Taliban numbers around 75000.

Oh boy, I looked at the history of edits of this particular article and man! So Much Propaganda edits have been done to this article and some are corrected as well but, I don't think this article can be corrected anymore.

Propaganda is just far too greater at this point. I wish all those correcting it best of luck.

I might try to come again but hope is lost on this one.

Oh boy, maybe you better look at Wiki guidelines and try to understand how this project operates, anonymous one.50.111.32.130 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]