Jump to content

Talk:Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Donenne (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 27 August 2021 (→‎Dari: official language). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Flag

The official spokesperson for the Taliban posted on Twitter what appears to be the new flag of the emirate. The Taliban's website seems to be down at the moment, but here's a link to the tweet: https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1428236041039880193/photo/1 68.202.62.241 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in this tweet does it mention this to be their flag. The text on the bottom simply reads "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan".The tweet speaks about the 102th anniversary of Afghan independence and nothing about a supposed "new flag". it might be better to wait until their website is back up to change the flag. Jubq (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Jubq[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]

https://mundigak.com/en/2019/04/09/5059/ AfghansPashtun (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you have the video on the link which includes all the anthem of afghanistan also that of the taliban singing in nasheed AfghansPashtun (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are IEA/ Taliban videos with people singing nasheeds, so they don't seem to consider them haram [1] [2] [3] --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLJbT4QYXcI
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtbyg8hKxFM
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P27Uj9eH5LU

If we have a WP:RS that the anthem is this, lets include that and cite the reliable source. Let's just make sure we're not jumping the gun and this is is the official anthem. IntUnderflow (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RL may be difficult to establish due to regulations around "extremist materials" online, and the nature of primary sources in regard to the IEA prior to August 15th. This is one of the main difficulties with finding RL in regard to the IEA in general, since anything that isn't through an anti-IEA lens before this point could have been seen as sympathetic towards terrorists in the west. The best case scenario would be them putting out a video to announce an official nasheed, since anything they release now is government communication and a reliable source. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[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]

I disagree entirely - reliable sources have used the term totalitarian to describe the previous incarnation of the IEA. Whilst the current situation is still unfolding, there is absolutely no reason to shy away from describing their previous incarnation as totalitarian, and (if one indulges the CRYSTAL here), if as predicted they begin their atrocities again resulting in RS describing them as totalitarian, we should not shy away from calling them that. See also: MANDY. 69.172.145.94 (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are those "reliable sources"? TolWol56 (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't seriously be suggesting that descriptions of the 1996-2001 taliban rule was not described as totalitarian? I know we should AGF but this smacks so strongly of bad faith that I'm frankly shaken. How's this for starters [1]? 69.172.145.94 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
69.172.145.94, can you please provide an excerpt from that source for verification?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I've seen used as citations for the IEA being totalitarian were comparing the religion of Islam to totalitarianism rather than discussing the IEA in particular. Not only were they bad sources, but they appeared to be Islamophobic hate propaganda which surely isn't accepted as a reliable source here. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 01:08, 18 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? Justrz (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Yes, Afghanistan is ruled by a new government and the article shall reflect that.
Completely Agree Afghanistan is ruled by a new government. So why won't we merge it with the article Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan?
Completely Disagree - Realistically, its the exact same entity now as it was 20 years prior, splitting would just cause confusion and spread of information that is unnecessary --Doobie777 (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Whilst they may be the same entity, it's safe to assume that many things will (and already have) occurred in this latest incarnation. The fact that many nation states are on the cusp of recognising the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as the official Government of the country solidifies the case for a new argument - the 1997-2001 incarnation was an unrecognised proto-state, whereas this one will most definitely seek out and receive international recognition. Donnellan0007 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is the same entity and separating into different articles would cause more confusion that it would alleviate. Brianahier (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Agree wholeheartedly HyperEagle (talk) 10:50, 16 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.
Comment - This can be remedied the way the article currently is now with headings. Irrelevant. Donenne (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Taliban article could be seen as the one covering the continuous Islamic Emirate claim. Splitting off a 1996-2001 article would provide specific detail to that significant historical era. With the article being as long as it is, it'll only grow as the Second Islamic Emirate continues. That's why, even with having subheaders, yet another split discussion will happen because of the article's currently broad scope. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]

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. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:31C8:9F3C:4939:FFA3 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[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.

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. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:31c8:9f3c:4939:ffa3 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.2601:402:4280:15e0:e178:c19c:2293:132f (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. Look at the Islamic state of Afghanistan. It was in exile but we don’t have a separate article for when it came back to power.Manabimasu (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Manabimasu (talk) 17:10, 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]

Exactly... because the Timor-Leste of the 70s lasted a few weeks, while the Islamic Emirate of the 90s lasted five years. Very significant difference. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:41, 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 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:95ba:e6c3:b9b3:5407 (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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]


  • Strongly 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.

I would add 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, Islamic_State_of_Afghanistan is also a single page regardless of the IEA holding dominant power in the middle of the ISA's dominance. Keeping the article together is the correct answer for these reasons and the reasons stated in the large unsigned post above. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:59, 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]

Comment I disagree with reverting the changes as per my previous arguments above The Gentle Sleep (talk 07:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:bce7:4b48:c183:4ed1 (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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]
Comment - What is this? Is your argument we should split the pages because the Taliban used 'U.S military equipment' in their recent assaults? Is that it? Are you aware that your points on Taliban using 'U.S weapons' and the economy being 'different' can all be added into headings under Military and Economy with sub-headings of 1996-2001 and 2021-present? Donenne (talk) 10:22, 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]
Comment They are still recognised as continuities in eg. History of the Republic of China, however. Not to mention that, in principle, the war there was over and they permanently, more or less, changed territory. There is no reason to split a country/government/etc article just because it went through a long civil war which it eventually won. Dege31 (talk) 12:43, 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]
Considering the United States continued to hold most of their lands during the civil war, however, this comparison is lacking. A better case would be the French Third Republic, Free France, and the French Fourth Republic, i.e. a state, then an rebel/insurgency/exile phase, followed by a restoration. Note that these are indeed split into separate articles. Applodion (talk) 10:17, 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]

Comment Territorial extent doesn't merit different articles in and of itself- the Republic of China during the 40s and today occupy the same article, because they have continuity; just like the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. In that case the war has also ended in principle, here it never even ended until now, so they were just fighting an opponent in a civil war. Dege31 (talk) 12:43, 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 Per The Gentle Sleep and Salvabl. 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]

Much of the 2001-era Taliban leadership is dead, the economy and military are completely transformed, the geopolitical situation has changed, and even in regard to policies there are major differences (the old Emirate was opposed to drug trade, the new one is mostly funded by it; the current Emirate at least claims to treat women better than the old one). It is also false to say that in other cases mentioned above the states "officially proclaimed themselves as the first, second, third, fourth etc." They did not. In most cases, this was retroactively applied - Vichy France did not call itself Vichy France, and the First French Republic did not call itself the "first". There are also cases where the declaration of a "new" republic does not lead to separate articles because the official declaration is bogus - case in point, Zaire declared a "third" republic in the 1990s, but the declaration did not change the state (at least not in the conventional way). Applodion (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Military, Economy, Leadership, policies on women, drugs et al. can all be addressed internally within the article under headings and is not worthy to create a second article. I'm also not one to really call a declaration 'bogus' when the ones doing the 'declaring' have de-facto control over almost all of a country with a population of 38 million people. Donenne (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Zaire's case, the local people and the rest of the world called it bogus, not me. Thus, we did not split off a new article about the 1990-1997 Zairian state. In contrast, major differences exist between the pre-2001 and post-2021 IEA. Applodion (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IEA didn't exactly stop existing between 2001 and 2021. How would this be dealt with? Dege31 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I generally prefer not to speculate about motives, but adopting the policy of referring to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as "The Taliban" was a geopolitical move to delegitimize them. The IE was the legitimate government prior to the US invasion, and distancing the current enemy from the regime being overthrown was just good optics (especially considering the fact that the IE had previously been US allies.) I suspect that some people may have a vested interest in not having that bit of spin doctoring undone. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no? The Taliban are a movement, whereas the Emirate is a state. These are two different things. Applodion (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They have always consistently referred to themselves as the state known as the IE, have held territory, have flown their flag in said territory, and enforced their laws as a state would. The name "the Taliban" was assigned to them, they never used it to refer to themselves. They have always been a state. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The "Taliban" are a political movement which governed the Emirate. To illustrate this, let's take an example: A female civilian in southern Afghanistan in 2000. This individual would live in the Emirate, but she is no Taliban, as she is not part of the movement and does not support it. In contrast, the governor of her area is a Taliban. He serves the state - the Emirate, but he already joined the Taliban in 1994 when they were still based in Pakistan and had not yet established a state in Afghanistan. See the difference? Applodion (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Borders change, they never stopped flying their flag or enforcing their laws in the areas the IE controlled. The distinction between the Taliban and The Islamic Emirate is entirely semantic, because what you are calling the Taliban is simply the military of The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something cannot be both semantically the same as something else, while also being "the military of" that thing. Those are two contradictory views. For the body that "never stopped flying their flag or enforcing their laws", we already have an article, at Taliban. This article is specifically for the time period where that body formed the dominant government of the country, a more focused article of the larger topic per WP:Summary style. (On a separate issues, no sources have been provided that support the change in topic of this article.) CMD (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - regardless of whether the new government is the same as the previous one, as they proclaim themselves to be, the state from 1999 to 2001 is of distinct historical interest in of itself. In most cases, this appears to be how situations like this are handled on Wikipedia (see French, Polish and Chinese/Taiwanese history for instance). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Absolutely agreed, just separate the article like how other countries articles separate their regime period into first government and second government, for example like first republic to second republic. Mhatopzz 10:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the record, I do not support the current inter-twined layout of the Islamic Emirate with two sub-headings regarding 1996 and 2021 for each heading. I believe the headings should be separated for 1996 in the first half of the article and then the second half for 2021 comprising the same headings, sub-headings etc. Donenne (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Absolutely agreed with Donenne, no new article should be made, there should be different sub-headings for 1996 and 2021. Salamun44 10:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, different subheadings is the most sane way to handle it imo, it's what was done for Islamic State of Afghanistan --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per arguments above. Dege31 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the 1996-2001 Emirate never formally dissolved or was disestablished and had indeed an insurgency phase LuanLoud 14:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - previous opposing arguments Aleksandar The Macedonian (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per separate french/polish/chinese/taiwanese history argument. The Republic of Afghanistan was the legitimate recognized government for 20 years, this is a new government which will probably be pretty different from the first Taliban. Err on the side of separation of the articles. - Abovfold (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Totally agreed. The distinction between the two periods of Taliban rule is correct from a historical and encyclopedic point of view. It should also be emphasized how Wikipedia has rightly held up separate articles for the Taliban (as an Islamist movement and a military organization), the first State entity they set up after assuming control of Afghanistan (the 1996-2001 Emirate) and the period of insurgency following their fall from power in 2001.--Sid-Vicious (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It doesn't matter what Taliban claimed.--Martianmister (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Taliban government existed as an unrecognized rump state constantly- that sort of continuity makes splitting it in 2 unwise, in my opinion. Zellfire999 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article should be split between Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) for the pre-2001 Taliban government, Taliban insurgency for the period from December 2001 to August 2021 (as it currently exists), and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as a redirect to Afghanistan to reflect the current Taliban-controlled state. The Taliban was not internationally recognized by any country as the de jure or de facto government of Afghanistan during their 20 years as an insurgency, and should be listed as such regardless of what they say. ISIL is not recognized as having ever been the government of Syria despite at one point controlling more than half the country. PolarManne (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now and wait the sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support it may have the same name (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan), but we are dealing with two different states, with a 20 years period in the middle. Two pages would be useful.--Karma1998 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The Kingdom of Greece existed 1832–1924 and again 1935–1973; we don't see separate articles of each. It is the same with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, governed by the Taliban, existed 1996–2001 and again since 2021; it is not necessary for separate articles. HLE (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They DID exist non-stop since 1996. The 2001-2021 insurgency(which in hindsight is more of a civil war) was them, we just switched from their official name to their nickname. So we should have three sections, prs-civil war, civil war, post civil war, all in one article. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:bce7:4b48:c183:4ed1 (talk 15:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Just like how the Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania between 1918-1940 and 1991-today use the same article since they are considered the same entity with a period of "Soviet occupation" (as opposed to other former post-Soviet states that draw their lineage from their Soviet Republics), so should this state. It is the same entity. --Havsjö (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The Kingdom's of England and Scotland have one article despite a gap in the middle which was rule by the Commonwealth and later Protectorate. As do many other countries as noted above - the same should be done here 2a00:23c8:6e97:1001:8c1e:9fc5:9b:9700 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - That split would be under the assumption that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ceased to exist throughout that 20 year gap, which it hasn't. The Islamic Emirate still controlled and administered significant swathes of territory in Afghanistan. For a split to be warranted the Islamic Emirate would have to have ceased to exist throughout 2001-2021, which it hasn't. Dabaqabad (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support It just makes things easier.Angelgreat (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow man, the greatest reason I have heard on this talk page. Salamun44 talk 16:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FILIBUSTER my vote is to hold this vote open for a while. Clearly this article split needs to be done, and certainly it can be done by the end of the year. However, there is not enough known about the 2021 Emirate to justify a separate article today. It's possible that by the end of the week there will be enough information for a split, and it might take three. Let's just wait. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@力: It looks inevitable to me that an article will be created within a few hours and, when that will happen, we will have no policy-based reason to delete it or deny its notability. Maybe I'm wrong, though. JBchrch talk 16:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy based reason for the deletion of any such article is that it would be a WP:CFORK of Taliban and Afghanistan. CMD (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. per the precedent that successive regimes inside a single country are not presented in one continuous article per regime, but in several article that each document a specific temporal period JBchrch talk 16:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I show you the exception to the precedent? See Islamic State of Afghanistan.Manabimasu (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Manabimasu: Good point, move to weak support — still support because a 5-year gap is different than a 20-year gap in my view. JBchrch talk 17:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: See Bogd Khanate of Mongolia. Zoozaz1 talk 04:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the people saying Support have pathetic arguments. User 47.33.186.77 and HyperEagle say support without even giving any reason. User Nice4What says Combining the two would confuse readers? Some user says "It's easier to read" without mentioning their username, talk page and UTC time. ArabMan719 also gives a bad argument sorry to say. Aleksandar The Macedonian says support without given any argument. Martianmister supports and says "It doesn't matter what Taliban claims". Taliban does not claim, Taliban now officially controlls the area. Angelgreat supports giving the great reason "It just makes things easier". Is this a joke? Most of the people Opposing actually have arguments and I think they are better arguments than the people who Support. Salamun44 talk 16:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the people who have Opposed have much more sensible arguments than most of the people who have supported. I think we should currently oppose and wait for more news to arrive. Salamun44 talk 17:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The new Taliban regime is a direct continuation of the one that existed from 1996 to 2001, no need for a new article which would be a waste of time considering it would have substanial duplicate information. This is like creating separate articles for the Ethopian Empire because Italy was in control for 5 years in between. Silly and no point. Ecpiandy (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most direct parallel would be The Islamic State of Afghanistan which is a single page but is very easy to understand. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Support definitely different subjects, just as the article for countries like germany is split into one article per form of the country, this should be done here. between 2001 and 2021 there was a different form of country and this this two should be seperated aswell, even tho they claim to be the same. Norschweden (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do not "claim" to be the same, they are the same. The Taliban has consistently held territory from 1996 to 2001 and from 2002 to the present day. The Islamic Emirate was the structure they used to govern those territories the entire time. Not being in full control of a country does not make the time you retake control into a new country. See the Islamic State of Afghanistan article for just that situation. The fact is that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been in constant existence from 1996 to the present day. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 20:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Merely splitting the article in two is not a statement by us that the first and second incarnations of the IEA are different entities, nor does it violate NPOV by denying claims to the constitutional legitimacy of the IEA during the 2001-2021 period. It merely enhances readability by recognizing two different historical epochs. Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Comment If the article to be split, the articles should be clear to mention that they are the same entity and has existed more or less continuously from it's declaration in 1996. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 02:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose− As the others have said, it’s one organization. Keep it simple— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.78.12 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see the merits of both, but it makes sense to me that, despite a two-decades-long civil war, the Emirate is widely understood to be the same entity, and to delegitimate this understanding veers closer to partisanship than accepting it does. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose Not doing this will cause more problems in the long term. The Emirate has existed nonstop since 1996, so why split it? In fact, some of the stuff from the Taliban page should be moved here. 208.85.212.65 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I will add the Bogd Khanate of Mongolia as another example of where a state was dis-established and re-established and has the same Wikipedia article. It is the same regime, interrupted by 20 years of civil war. That being said, it may be better to wait to see how the situation develops rather than make an immediate judgement. Zoozaz1 talk 04:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We seperate every french republic. So we can seperate this regime. ChocFrosted (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Votes should never be about personal principles or opinions, but Wikipedia policy and the content of the article. Periods of rule are generally divided into their own articles to avoid one massive primary article. CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The most direct parallel for this situation is the Islamic State of Afghanistan which had a several years break in the middle during the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan's 1st period of dominant control. The Islamic State of Afghanistan is a single page, and considering it was the same region, close to the same time, and similar circumstances there can be no better precedent to go by.

Oppose The Islamic Emirate may have lost control of the majority of Afghanistan but they still controlled districts. They were fighting a civil war and they have now won. Also, the Taliban still continued to refer to themselves as the Islamic Emirate even after they lost control in 2001. They were obviously unrecognised but they still held control. The Islamic Emirate never ceased to exist rather it lost control of the majority of Afghanistan but they have now regained control in 2021. Hamza Ali Shah (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It only creates needless confusion to have one article be about both the present-day state and a previous iteration of the same regime. I think the Kingdom of Greece example actually supports this argument: if this new Islamic Emirate collapses soon just like the last one, then we can have the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article look like the Kingdom of Greece article. The key difference is that the Kingdom of Greece isn't Greece but the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is Afghanistan. The fact that this discussion is going on at the same time as the discussion to redirect the IEA article to Afghanistan kind of makes both discussions impossible.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Until just now the article was already about the 1996–2001 regime, and it should remain that way (and renamed). It's a topic deserving its own article. The case for continuity is rendered irrelevant by the fact that the article Taliban exists, so all oppose votes based on that should be disregarded. Avilich (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple !votes by the same users

The closer of this discussion should be aware that 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:bce7:4b48:c183:4ed1 have !voted multiple times in the discussion above. JBchrch talk 17:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just trying to evolve my case as I read more on things. Not only should these be kept together, but it is increasingly clear to be the 2001-2021 Taliban should also be included. The Taliban of the 2001-2021 Civil war called themselves the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, because they are the exact same organization that held Kabul from 1996-2001, and the exact same organization that took it back. They held land and maintained organizational continuity throughout this entire period. All three should share an article, whether it called called Taliban for wiki commons or Islamic Emirate for honesty, whether it’s separate from the Afghanistan page or not. Let us ditch the artificial distinction between the Civil War Taliban, and the Islamic Emirate. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:BCE7:4B48:C183:4ED1 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support Syed Aashir (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Syed Aashir: Another user who "strongly supports" and gives no reason/argument. If you want to vote, give a reason. Salamun44 talk 09:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Solved discussion

Oops, sorry I'm not completely used to how this works yet. I didn't realize this was a vote, I thought we were just debating the issue. I'll be careful not to bold the word more than once in the future. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, so the error can be marked as closed now. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentle Sleep Thank you for your cooperation. The clearest way to do this is to preface your subsequent comments with Comment in bold, so that the closer can identify that they are not standalone !votes. If you don't mind doing that, I will gladly close the discussion. JBchrch talk 21:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comments are now labeled correctly, sorry for the confusion. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Gentle Sleep. JBchrch talk 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Salamun44: I have !voted multiple times? I think you may be confused: I have subsequently changed my !vote but I have not !voted multiple times on this talk page or anywhere else. Also, what do you mean by calling others for voting multiple times? Are you implying that I have WP:CANVASSed?JBchrch talk 18:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: Sorry, by the way, I have also voted one time, and made some comments on other people's arguments. Salamun44 talk 18:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Salamun44: I count three times where you have started a comment with "Oppose", which is generally understood to be a !vote, and something you can do only once in any given discussion. I invite you to replace the two last "Opposes" with "Comment" instead. JBchrch talk 18:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch:, I have changed the terms. I previously didn't knew sorry. Salamun44 talk 18:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Salamun44: Thank you very much. I will now remove your name from my comment above and collapse this discussion. JBchrch talk 18:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Just like Kingdom of Greece, there is no need to seperate the article just beacause it collapsed for a short time. Infact the islamic emirate still continued to exist as insurgency(until 2021). So I dont think we need to seperate it. PN27 (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It may well transpire that at a later date the two periods can be merged (per Greece and other examples), but for now, for both practical and policy reasons, it makes more sense to write the article for the new regime BEFORE trying to see how it fits into the historical picture. The new regime may also be what the reader most wants to know at present - or at least a clear distinction between then and what is unfolding now. Proper sources will in time be available, but at present we are all guessing. Opposers are mistaken in several respects, in many cases they are confusing the 'State' with the 'ruling group'. The Nazi party is not the same thing as Nazi Germany, the British kingdom is not the same as the British monarchy, nor the current Royal House (family). Even if Taliban and IEofA retained the same name and personell throughout, an actual functioning-ish state with defined territory and power structure is not synonymous with an insurgency group holding minimal territory and very limited governmental functions. Opposers are also guessing a continuity in amything other than name, which none of us knows yet. Pincrete (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to note that I concur with the sentiments expressed by the User above, Pincrete, as it accurately highlights that the practical reality as of now should distinguish the two periods of the Taliban's control as well as most assuredly separating the Taliban article from the Islamic Emirates. The Taliban can be seen closest to a "political party or organization" in terms of how the CPP is separate from China, or the All-India Muslim League or Indian National Congress is separated from the India or Pakistan articles, or the House of Hashem or House of Saud is distinct from the state ruled by it.
  • Strongest support. The 1996–2001 state (i.e., a legal structure in place in a given geographic area) ceased to exist in 2001 and was replaced by a state called Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Frankly, it is irrelevant that a bunch of former officials clang to the name and kept putting it, somewhere in their homes, on letterheads or their websites. It was just a fancy claim that had no recognition either locally or in international law. I have no doubts that the Emirate created now, by renaming the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is a new entity, both internally and in international law, even if the underlying ideology may be similar and some of the officials may be the same. 2601:402:4280:15e0:5c43:f199:ff12:9a9d (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth keeping in mind that while some countries (China, etc.) are likely to formally recognise the current government, this will not imply recognition for the 2001–2021 Taliban "state" or the 1996–2001 state. To put it simply, we should not conflate the three. — kashmīrī TALK 21:43, 17 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:

I largely agree with the opening stated facts, but they lead me to an opposite conclusion. Firstly, this is conflating a 'state' with the political group who are in charge of it. More importantly it is ignoring practical considerations in order to make some point about continuity. Others cite the Greek Monarchy article as an template to be copied, but this is crucially different in two respects. Firstly history has now made clear how various incarnations of the monarchy 'mesh' together. Secondly, we now know how much RS material is available, and this factor as much as any sense of continuity, dictates the most efficient form being a single article. Of course we don't yet know how much material is going to be available for the new regime - but other practical considerations IMO dictate that it is going to be easier to write the new article without the burden of meshing with the old or interim set-ups. This material may well end up in a single article, but it is premature IMO and invites WP:OR to pre-decide a continuity. Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Gentle Sleep, I don't believe any editors are unaware that the Taliban rules the country. Respectfully, what you said about the Taliban currently being a partially recognized state is nonsensical. All members of the UN hitherto recognized the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the legitimate polity governing Afghanistan; the Taliban taking over doesn't mean that those who previously recognized the IEA automatically re-recognize them.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Alternative:

Thoughts? NoNews! 14:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Proposed Alternative is the only viable solution. Afghanistan should an article about the current state. For the past Afghan states, the reader can read on Republic of Afghanistan (1973–1978), Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1978–1992) or Islamic State of Afghanistan (1992–2002), Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan (2002–2004) or Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2004–2021). Delasse (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose The Emirate is and will be unrecognized and plays they're a puppet for the Taliban. This proposed alternative will never work. Angelgreat (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Taliban is now in charge; there's no other governmental body in Afghanistan, nor any government in exile; currently all the information on the previous government have been moved to "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan". What are you going to write for the article on "Afghanistan", with regards to governance and foreign relations? Wouldn't it be repeating what's on this article? NoNews! 14:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No if the opposition holds then this article will merge with Afghanistan, so in the end it will be one article. Islamic Republic of Afghanistan article was once just all part of Afghanistan article. Its government's portions were removed from Afghanistan article because of the sources on control of the state.Manabimasu (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree, let's take ROC as an example, we all know that the current ROC in Formosa is direct continuation of ROC before 1949, and have the same constitution, even so, we have two separate articles for the same state. Mohammed 2976 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This proposal wants to split the article as in the previous prosposal. Because of the split of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan into two separate articles. Even if the government had ended control in 2001, we don't know if such government was in exile till now. See this source was in 2013. Manabimasu (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taiwan ceased to be a useful comparison when the Taliban won. A better comparison would be if the ROC suddenly took back the mainland in 1970. We’d probably treat it as one entity just as the US had.

Kinda silly to have one article for a country that has had it's establishment declared twice. The Taliban themselves are trying to open a new page and avoid the mistakes of the 1996-2001 administration. Cedwoodint (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose - The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have continued to operate as a constant organization during the 20 year civil war [6][7], are flying the same flag over the capital [8], are using the same name [9], and continued to enforce their laws within their territory during the entire war.[10]

Due to the cited facts I've laid out:

Support proposal with the addition that an article should be created for the insurgent state between 2001 and 2021, where the rebel governance of the Taliban can be placed. BTW, The Gentle Sleep continues to ignore the multiple differences between the pre-2001 emirate, insurgent emirate, and current emirate. Applodion (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification of my position - There are obviously differences in the nature of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan at various points in it's existence, including differences in the material conditions they faced. This is frequently handled by having subsections devoted to the notable periods of a country's rule. I'm also aware that the Taliban is the political movement, what I have been arguing for (perhaps poorly) is that the page for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan should contain any information regarding actions taken by the Taliban as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan while they operated as a government in exile. I'm not saying that Taliban needs to be entirely merged and deleted, just that we should support the perspectives of all parties in the interest of a neutral point of view. There may be plenty of sources stating that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was not a government in exile, however we need to consider the political landscape surrounding the Taliban and acknowledge that most sources on this issue have an anti-IEA bias. It is my position that we should also refer to their government by their chosen name where possible, because doing otherwise if nothing else creates the appearance of bias. I hope that clears up our misunderstanding. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME would seem to suggest that, what you call the "government in exile" should actually be in the article 'Taliban', as should any material treating them as a political organisation (akin to a political party). Whatever they have called themselves, they have never been referred to as IE of A while they have been 'underground', neither officially nor in MSM. It would make more sense for 'Emirate' articles to be about actual functioning regimes, ie before and after US involvement. We don't ordinarily or systematically refer to political groups by the name of their own choosing, besides, there is nothing inherently perjorative about 'Taliban' as a name in English. Pincrete (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An entity is always the highest authority in regard to their own name. - sorry but that's pure BOLLOCKS! You cite Deadnaming, a term specifically coined to describe a phenomenon relating to trans people (are the Taliban transsexuals?) - you invent a quote not in that article or any WP policy - and you ignore WP naming policy. WP policy is largely WP:COMMONNAME, that is we use the terms most likely to be used by readers and sources. We of course usually record 'own-names', but we give them almost zero authority beyond that. I expect you refer to one Mediterranean nation as "Greece" and one N.European one as "Germany" - both names given to those places and peoples by their colonists, the Romans, roughly 2000 years ago, but which neither people has ever used for themselves. The people of the Netherlands have never called themselves 'Dutch'. Also, I expect you use words like Nazis to describe Hitler's party and 'Puritans' to describe early New England settlers. Neither of these were ever used by the people themselves and both were originally perjoratives. There are thousands of such examples and so long as the terms we use are not derogatory (or are noted as being so if more apt) - we are not obliged to call people what they wish to be called, even less so to misuse that info to construct a false 'continuity' narrative. Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is was closed and had a "do not edit" label attached.
  • transsexual only applies to those who wish to transition via surgery, you probably meant transgender.
  • Deadnaming is an example which demonstrates the commonly understood right of an entity to be referred to by their chosen name, and that intentionally referring to them by a name they do not accept is an attempt to actively deligitimize their identity, which is not a neutral point of view.
  • You could argue that using a chosen name should only be done for those worthy of respect/ who possess sufficient moral character, but this is widely considered a socially toxic position to take.The Gentle Sleep (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, I meant transgender. You may argue that using a chosen name should only be done for those worthy of respect/ who possess sufficient moral character, but this is widely considered a socially toxic position to take. I argue no such thing, I argue that WP uses the name and usage most commonly used by readers and sources, we merely note 'own-name' - whether that be Greece, Taliban, Puritans or whatever. East Germany, not Deutsch Democratic Republic. Maligninging another editor by misrepresenting their words, while inventing policy, is not a very clever thing to do. the commonly understood right of an entity to be referred to by their chosen name There is no such "commonly understood right" either in the real world nor on WP. Avoiding derogatory terms for groups (whenever practical) is not synonymous with us adopting 'own names'. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC) … ps the discussion is open. Pincrete (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't intend to imply that you were arguing that point, I meant that you could. I apologize for the misunderstanding, it was a difficult statement to phrase.
  • Perhaps "right" is too strong of a word, however it is a commonly (but not universally) understood that an entity should be addressed in their preferred manor when their preference is known, and that intentionally addressing an entity in a way known to be undesired is an attempt to delegitimize their identity, which is not neutral. An example for this would be Inuit, as that is not the common name for the group which most people are familiar with.
  • Many people also don't consider the alternative name for Inuits to be offensive, but Inuits would certainly consider it offensive to be called by the commonly known name.
  • My arguments on this are well into the realm of philosophy, but there are several aspects of the current situation in Afghanistan which are philosophically fascinating.
  • I do want to once again apologize, I genuinely didn't intend my previous response to be a personal attack, this is meant to be a friendly if somewhat heated discussion, and personal attacks are never acceptable in discussions of this nature. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to add that I've been enjoying arguing with you, you're clever and make excellent arguments ^_^ The Gentle Sleep (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the insurgency section of this article has proven there is no gap. Which has always been the case, a continuous entity calling itself the Islamic Emirate since 1996. The supposed ‘gap’ was the entire reason we tried to split this (despite the main Afghanistan page deciding to put it all together) and with the gap proven false I see no reason to continue this. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:E86A:9CDF:6E17:F80 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: I think we should make an article about the pre-2001 IEA, keep the Taliban article as it is and create a post-2021 IEA article and have subsections on this article page with references to the respective articles and a summarization. BnC78 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/middleeast/taliban-flag-is-gone-in-qatar-but-talks-remain-in-doubt.html
  2. ^ https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27089.pdf
  3. ^ https://en.thekarmanews.com/removed-afghan-flag-and-hoisted-taliban-flag-at-kabul-palace/
  4. ^ https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-trends/taliban-changes-afghanistans-name-to-islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan-7343041.html
  5. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/18/woman-whipped-by-the-taliban-over-burqa-without-veil-afghanistan
  6. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/middleeast/taliban-flag-is-gone-in-qatar-but-talks-remain-in-doubt.html
  7. ^ https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27089.pdf
  8. ^ https://en.thekarmanews.com/removed-afghan-flag-and-hoisted-taliban-flag-at-kabul-palace/
  9. ^ https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-trends/taliban-changes-afghanistans-name-to-islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan-7343041.html
  10. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/18/woman-whipped-by-the-taliban-over-burqa-without-veil-afghanistan

who changed the anthem portion?

See also: § Anthem, and § The_Anthem_Question

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]

"their policies might have changed" Doubt that Aleksandar The Macedonian (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their definition of music is also debatable, since it may only apply to instruments. There is a good bit of disagreement on this matter https://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewFatwa.aspx?ID=4866

I am a Muslim myself, and have read many fatwas explaining that music is prohibited by consensus of scholars , and I can say for sure and 100% certainty that what is meant by music is instruments and too similar intentionally created sounds like digital musical sounds, it has nothing to do with songs, anthems like any hymn can be sung without music, and I've seen videos titled taliban nasheed, so saying there is no anthem because of the ban on music is inaccurate, as for the "funny" part, this is an encyclopedia, keeping misinformation because funny is not here AbdurRahman AbdulMoneim Userd898 08:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, there are IEA/ Taliban videos with people singing nasheeds, so they don't seem to consider them haram [1] [2] [3] --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLJbT4QYXcI
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtbyg8hKxFM
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P27Uj9eH5LU

RL as to the official nasheed may be difficult to establish due to regulations around "extremist materials" online, and the nature of primary sources in regard to the IEA prior to August 15th. This is one of the main difficulties with finding RL in regard to the IEA in general, since anything that isn't through an anti-IEA lens before this point could have been seen as sympathetic towards terrorists in the west. The best case scenario would be them putting out a video to announce an official nasheed, since anything they release now is government communication and a reliable source. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 01:30, 18 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]

Why? Why do you them to be in the article? no offense BTW but i dont think they should be their.

The Anthem Question

See also: § Anthem, § who changed the anthem portion?, and This is the Home of the Brave

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]

they had a national anthem it's just that it was sung in nasheed and that the government was not recognized so the anthem either I invite you to go to the site Mundigak.com/en/ you will have the info. AfghansPashtun (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://mundigak.com/en/2019/04/09/5059/ AfghansPashtun (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation of the ban on music is debated within Islam, as is the ban itself. https://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewFatwa.aspx?ID=4866 --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the interpretation of the ban on music is not debated, this is probably a translation problem, fatwas in Arabic not only fully detail what they mean by music but they also refer to them as ma'azif which means instruments (and by extention digital music), the ban is on the instrumental and similar intentional sounds and not related to songs, songs are another issue seperate from music and the reason some songs are banned is because of what is said in it not because it's a song, or a third issue which is acts accompanying singing like parties with drinks and women and things, these are 3 seperate issues, they just get confused because 90%+ of songs today have music and are in a lot of times have things said that are banned in Islam. AbdurRahman AbdulMoneim Userd898 08:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what we need to answer the anthem question is a RL for what the official nasheed is. This may be difficult to establish due to regulations around "extremist materials" online, and the nature of primary sources in regard to the IEA prior to August 15th. This is one of the main difficulties with finding RL in regard to the IEA in general, since anything that isn't through an anti-IEA lens before this point could have been seen as sympathetic towards terrorists in the west. The best case scenario would be them putting out a video to announce an official nasheed, since anything they release now is government communication and a reliable source. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heaps of garbage?

See also: fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/16 août 2021 § Afghanistan

It seems someone has greatly cocked up the article in the last 24 or so hours. Primarily, is this an article about a country or about one of governments of Afghanistan? The lead section initially suggests that this is about a period in Afghanistan's history when IEA was its official name, but then the article begins to use "Emirate" as a name of a certain political faction (who at times controlled the country).

Additionally, the article is rife with speculation and outright OR, not least because as of this writing, the new government (whatever its official name) has not passed any laws changing the official name of Afghanistan.

I suggest restoring the article to the following revision: [2] All proposed changes should be discussed on Talk first. — kashmīrī TALK 10:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IEA is the official name of the state, the west referred to their military as "the Taliban" but they have always continued to refer to themselves as the IEA all the way back to the early 90's. This isn't a new government, the regime which held majority control prior to the invasion simply regained control of the territory occupied by the IR. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't work this way. They may refer to their own group as they wish, but if they want to ensure legal continuity of the state, they must issue a decree that changes the official name of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for all legal purposes.
I haven't seen any source that would confirm that such a change has legally taken place. As such, the bulk of the recent changes in this Wikipedia article are only unconfirmed speculation and OR. — kashmīrī TALK 11:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​ It is an unrecognized state so “legality” is up for recognition. See Afghanistan as that page has not changed. This page is about the IEA. Manabimasu (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One, you linked to a disambuguation page. Two, please do not conflate – the state in case of present-day Afghanistan is widely recognised (unlike, say, Nagorno-Karabakh or Kosovo); what is not recognised is the Taliban government. — kashmīrī TALK 14:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kashmiri unless solid sources are provided. JBchrch talk 16:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid history doesn't follow such straight lines, Kashmiri. Consider the analogous 9 August 1944 decree of the French Republic [3]. There was no decree "changing the name." The legal position of Free France was that the Third Republic had perfect continuity and the French State was simply illegitimate. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. But French Republic aside, the question is how the current state of Afghanistan is now called. I have now found two sources that seem to confirm that the Taliban indeed announced a new name for Afghanistan earlier today.[4]
Once confirmed in more sources, a new article could be started (or, less preferably, the current one expanded) to cover the newest period in Afghanistan's history.
By the way, it is irrelevant IMO that the Talivban may have called themselves, an "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". They were not a state but a militant group. Now, starting today, the term again denotes a state. — kashmīrī TALK 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source [1] is also referring to the two as a single state which share a name, this supports my position. [2] Islamic_State_of_Afghanistan is considered a single state regardless of the fact that the IEA held majority control from 1996 to 2001. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, a lot of the recent edits are straight up WP:OR with no-basis in fact. People have already revived the Northern Alliance, ended the conflict, ended the war, changed logos, mottos and what not without official declaration or reportage whatsoever. Not understanding that this isn't a news website we can wait as an encyclopedia, no need to rush. I had to categorically deny people I know from relying on WP for the time being on anything Afghanistan related (as if the situation isn't confusing enough as is). Gotitbro (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add a citation here showing that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to operate as that entity and never accepted the unofficial name assigned to them by the west. [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gentle Sleep (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twisting the facts and misreading the sources? The Taliban have operated for 20+ years. However, 'IEA denoted Afghanistan only in 1996-2004 and then from 2021. It was not a name for the country between these periods, when the country was called "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan". — kashmīrī TALK 09:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-trends/taliban-changes-afghanistans-name-to-islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan-7343041.html
  2. ^ https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-trends/its-international-beer-day-what-do-indians-like-to-say-cheers-to-7288731.html
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/middleeast/taliban-flag-is-gone-in-qatar-but-talks-remain-in-doubt.html
This is becoming redundant to Afghanistan. We do not need two articles on the state... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't redundant as there are calls to redirect the Afghanistan page here and this page has the most detailed information about the current dominant power in the region. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a concept of government in exile exists, (though can you be in exile inside your own country?). I imagine that every World War II government in exile, every exiled monarch of that time and every deposed monarch/prince/duke etc throughout history has continued to use his 'official' name whenever possible. It implies legitimacy and it would be fairly extraordinary if the Taliban had chosen a title that endorsed claims to be non-legitimate or non-functional. However we are not obliged to 'humour' this tendency and even less obliged to conclude a continuity of rule which simply never existed. Based on an implied claim of a continuous right to rule?
The source is explicit "Taliban changes Afghanistan’s name to ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’" - ie the political group (who have been largely continuous) are "the Taliban", the long-term country name is "Afghanistan" and has remained so under many regimes, the current regime has adopted the same official name as the pre-invasion regime, ie ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’. Apart from being confusing, it would be NPOV to confer legitimacy on Taliban claims. Of course we need not do the opposite either, but for around 15 years "‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" existed only as a name used by a deposed group, but never taken up by WP:RS. Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Islamic State of Afghanistan is noted to have been a government in exile in the same region, around the same time, and in fact ruled both before and after the 1st reign of the Islamic Emirate. All I can say in regard to the source's phrasing is: well they would wouldn't they. It would be strange for western sources who do not wish to be seen as legitimizing the Islamic Emirate to use phrasing which acknowledges the government in exile. This is why we must accept the bias of sources and use critical thinking to separate objective fact from opinion and framing. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1996-2001 IEA Diplomatic relations with the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.

On the Wikipedia page for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria it says “Diplomatic relations with Ichkeria were also established by the partially recognized Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan under the Taliban government on 16 January 2000. This recognition ceased with the fall of the Taliban in 2001.” This isn’t mentioned on the IEA article so was the IEA actually recognized by Ichkeria? (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate Human rights and humanitarian aid

I propose making a section devoted to Human rights in the Islamic emirate, both historically and presently, to include both failures to uphold human dignity as well as recent promises of supporting foreign journalists and workers, and of Women having access to education, work, and government positions, as well as promises to have a government inclusive of marginalized ethnic groups, and lastly to note it's recent stated intention of seeking humanitarian aid in cooperation with the U.N Ninjamonk33 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Ninjamonk33[reply]


Sources: 1) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/17/taliban-says-will-respect-womens-rights-press-freedom 2) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/17/taliban-agreed-to-allow-safe-passage-to-airport-us-says 3) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/17/evacuation-flights-resume-as-biden-defends-afghanistan-pullout 4) https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taliban-spokesman-says-war-is-over-afghanistan-al-jazeera-2021-08-15/ 5) https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taliban-spokesman-says-war-is-over-afghanistan-al-jazeera-2021-08-15/ 6) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/16/how-the-world-reacted-to-taliban-takeover-of-kabul 7) https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/8/16/as-the-taliban-seized-cities-they-sent-women-packing-home 8) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/17/macron-says-afghanistan-must-not-become-sanctuary-of-terrorism ( source on French xenophobia towards Afghan asylum seekers and migrants that should help the international response section ) 9) https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/17/asia/afghanistan-taliban-withdrawal-tuesday-intl/index.html ( good source on inconsistency on human rights within the Emirate ) Ninjamonk33 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Ninjamonk33[reply]

There are two Emirates: the 1996–2001 Emirate and the Emirate that was announced a few days ago. I agree that each deserves a section on human rights, but maybe it would be better to have the topic dealt with in dedicated articles, akin to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir? — kashmīrī TALK 21:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not convinced of this,it appears to be the same Emirate, however the idea of a human rights page might be helpful, and also some more sources:

1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/afghanistans-sikh-and-hindu-communities-assured-safety-by-taliban/articleshow/85368449.cms 2) https://religionnews.com/2021/08/17/christian-family-in-afghanistan-appeals-to-pope-to-help-them-flee-persecution/ 3) https://www.ncregister.com/news/catholic-charity-concerned-for-christians-in-kabul-as-taliban-seize-hold Ninjamonk33 (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Ninjamonk33[reply]

It's definitely a different Emirate now vs, say, the "emirate" a year ago. — kashmīrī TALK 22:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the hard work gathering all these sources. I'll thumb through them to see if I can put together a section for previous human rights abuses under "History"
  • I added a section covering the current leadership's official policy in regard to women's rights under "Governance"
  • If someone else gets to the historical abuses before me that's great, otherwise I should be able to take care of it in a bit. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Country is “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”

Name of Country is “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”

The color of the Flag is Black, Red and Green. Bilalsaifi701 (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IRA is a former government and it has its own article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Afghanistan

The flag of the IRA is currently flown nowhere in the country. BakedGoods357 (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has it's own page already, this page refers to the currently dominant Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, who have regained power after their time as a government in exile. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Government Structure and Draft Constitution

Aren't they now an Interim government? they're currently waiting for the constitution and peace agreements Mhatopzz (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An interim government that no one has recognized. The unrecognized status takes precedence over the interim status, at least until something succeeds that interim. BSMRD (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Islamic Emirate was partially recognized, and I've seen no reliable sources showing that countries such as Saudi Arabia who have recognized them in the past ever ceased doing so. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhatopzz: Does a government need a constitution? See Saudi Arabia until 1992.Manabimasu (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, they're not an Absolute monarchy and they'll appoint a President, OFC they need a constitution Mhatopzz (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all governments are constitutional governments, but they have expressed interest in having a constitution, and perhaps even reworking the one used by the Islamic Republic. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge

  • 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:

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/middleeast/taliban-flag-is-gone-in-qatar-but-talks-remain-in-doubt.html
  2. ^ https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27089.pdf
  3. ^ https://en.thekarmanews.com/removed-afghan-flag-and-hoisted-taliban-flag-at-kabul-palace/
  4. ^ https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-trends/taliban-changes-afghanistans-name-to-islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan-7343041.html
  5. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/18/woman-whipped-by-the-taliban-over-burqa-without-veil-afghanistan
@The Gentle Sleep: Clarification needed: are you advocating for "Afghanistan" to be redirected into "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan"? If so you might want to reverse the merge templates on the two articles as they currently show the opposite, and that is misleading. What it appears here is that many users are voicing "Support" for a redirect in the opposite direction. It does seem so, corrected. NoNews! 15:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak Oppose The IRA continues to exercise practical sovereignty over 0.8% of the territory of Afghanistan, has a partially recognized legal claim to the other 99.2% of the territory, and appears to be in continued control of all of Afghanistan's embassies and foreign missions. The situation is too fluid at this point. I'd reconsider changing to support in a week or so. Chetsford (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support When the Islamic Republic was still in control of the country, it was merged with the Afghanistan article, even as the Islamic Emirate continued as a rival government that controlled a larger amount of territory and population than the Islamic Republic does today. The Islamic Republic's continuation as a rump state does not negate the fact that Afghanistan is now the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 06:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean you oppose as your saying "Afghanistan should be the name of the main county article ?Think many confused about proposal.--Moxy- 18:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support We need to acknowledge reality here, the IEA are in control of 99% of the territory of Afghanistan, in my view people visiting the wiki in the future want to know the upfront on the ground facts just like on any other country article, not have to dig for them because we're not WP:BOLD enough to accept the reality on the ground. Just as we showed the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on the Afghanistan page until their complete collapse after the fall of Kabul, we should now show the new regime.
A few frequent counterpoints and my responses:
The UN hasn't recognised the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
We rely on reliable sources to establish the facts: multiple, independent reliable sources[[5]] [[6]] [[7]] have established that the Taliban are in total control of and are the new government of Afghanistan, whether the international community likes it or not. If we relied on the United Nations as an oracle for what countries exist, we wouldn't mention the Republic of China on Taiwan.
We need to wait for the dust to settle more
You don't need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind blows, there is now effectively no reasonable prospect of the Taliban/IEA being defeated, with just a single holdout in the north, the idea that because of this we should refuse to recognise the fact that 99% of the territory of Afghanistan is under the control of the IEA seems far-fetched to me, if we refused to recognise governments the moment there was a single minor insurgency against them there would be a huge amount of disputed territories on Wikipedia.
The Taliban haven't announced an Islamic Emirate
The Taliban never stopped calling themselves the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan once defeated during the US Invasion, so they're not announcing one because they view themselves as a continuation of their previous government which they believe didn't end, and was simply in a state of civil war from 2001 to 2021. [1]
IntUnderflow (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons:
- Right now the de facto Afghan state is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. And right now, Afghanistan lacks a de jure goverment. The Islamic Republic was the de jure Afghan state, but it no longer exists. Even if they constitute a goverment in exile, it will be that, a government in exile, no more no less.
- Even if a small area is controled by a resistance against the Islamic Emirate (in the Panjshir valley), it should also be noted that in the past the Taliban have controlled large areas of the country, and the Taliban flag was not included and the IR flag was not removed until the fall of Kabul and the dissolution of the Islamic Republic.
- In additions, we should take into account that the Wikidata item corresponding to the Islamic Emirate is being used by other Wikipedias in other languages referring to the 1996-2001 Islamic Emirate since the original item was created for it. The solution is to create another item or, more easily, merge the article with the Afghanistan article as suggested here.
- If we don't do this with Afghanistan, we could also create article from a geographical point of view for other countries. Examples: Austria & Republic of Austria; Germany & Federal Republic of Germany; Kosovo & Republic of Kosovo.
That only makes sense in divided countries like Korea where there are 2 active governments representing two living republics. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is an historic state now.
Salvabl (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct but your support is for the opposite of your position.Moxy- 18:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. Salvabl (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose this is effectively trying to write the first draft of history rather than simply record RS. The opening source in "Facts and citations", supposedly establishing the need for these drastic changes is from a small number of, brief, ambiguous articles. Many of the above arguments by IntUnderflow are effectively advocating WP:OR - we rely on RS, not probability, nor our own interpretation. There is no rush nor advantage to being first "off the blocks" and some of these proposals may conflict with the (still ongoing and still disputed) RfC above. No one doubts that IRA are largely in control of the country at present, but that does not suddenly and automatically make them and the country synonymous - certainly not YET. It could well be the case that country and regime remain distinct articles, it is not unusual to do so, but now is not the time to make drastic CRYSTALBALLy changes. Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weatherman is an obscure unfinished essay which attempts to justify speculation - sky is blue to which it links is a much abused essay. Neither overrides the core policies of WP:V nor the obligation to avoid SYNTH. We can all make intelligent guesses about what is probably going to happen in Kabul now, but that is precisely what they are - guesses- and there are tons of news sources with professional 'pundits' who already have that job covered, rolling speculation. It is inherently unencyclopaedic IMO for us to do so. To employ the metaphor, you may not need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, but you need many things (including a little time) to know on whom, where and in what state all the things that wind picks up ACTUALLY land. Pincrete (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly - I feel that the page for Afghanistan (the land region) shouldn't be merged with & redirected to the page for their Current Government just after The Present Day War In Afghanistan or Islamic Emirate Leaders. For the same reason that others have said in this talk page, countries originating from far in the past can still be the same for a long time even if the leaders Change-Over/Power is transferred one way or another. Also due to the comparison made in said example: France (country) and the French Fifth Republic (Political Entity) For us to reference a country by its government leaders would seem improper & feel the same about this merge idea with its first bullet point. I would propose (or counter-propose) this merge to happen in the opposite direction and into the page named Afghanistan (No Rename) with current leadership and events along with the history of the country having their section.
Daseiin (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: Would you need to change the page or make a new one every-time the governing power changes? Wouldn't the country still exist after everytime?
There has been dialogue shared & negotiations on a peaceful transfer of power between the two parties involved with the incumbent government declaring its willingness to peacefully do so, it seems a page For the governance & For the country/state as separate things is reasonable and should be split. Daseiin (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The IEA has de-facto sovereignty over 99% of the country, as of current, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Plus having several articles about the territory of Afghanistan is going to get confusing. One for the territory of Afghanistan and another for it's government seems a tad silly even if they aren't recognised. The Republic is gone and the old govt are in exile, theres no way that regime can still be considered sovereign over the territory of Afghanistan. It looks like the IEA is there to stay, regardless of it's recognition.ThePaganUK (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As other users have noted, the Islamic Emirate has perpetual control over Afghanistan and wikipedia should serve to recognize the de facto ground reality, regardless of recognition.
It's not "preposterous" at all. Taiwan and Northern Cypress have been around for many, many decades and both have functioning governments without people jumping on to airplanes and falling to their death to get away. The "Emirate" has been back in place for a week. He's just saying it's a bit premature. And I agree. It's me...Sallicio! 14:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who tells you Taiwan has no recognition? And Northern Cyprus has Turkish recognition. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support IRA controls 0.8% of country while The Taliban control 99%. No need for the there to be two separate articles. Taliban have almost complete control of the country and have declared a Islamic Emirate. BigRed606 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support I am no fan of the Taliban, but UN recognition does not determine sovereignty not legitimacy; for a country to control 99% of a territory and somehow not be recognized encyclopaedically as the actual government is both ridiculous and biased. We don't have 2 flags and change it every 2 seconds on the China article, do we? How about Yemen? Did we turn Syria into this kind of mess? How about the CAR? All of those are FAR more split than Afghanistan at the current moment and yet we aren't seeing people scramble as hard whenever somebody even SUGGESTS that maybe it'd be helpful to have the article talk about the de facto government that won the civil war and, with the exception of a few small communities, controls the ENTIRE country. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 23:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:@Manabimasu: By that logic, any country with a territorial dispute wouldn’t be able to have its government on the main page. So China, Russia, Taiwan, etc wouldnt features their reigning regimes on their pages, which just doesn’t make sense. BakedGoods357 (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What the Republic is at this point, despite its international recognition, is an insurgency. We cannot treat it as legitimate (in the sense that it controls the country) anymore. Should that change, there would be room for discussion. The reality is, it hasn't, and most likely won't. The Islamic Republic is gone, if only for now. No point in denying reality. 180app (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support ultimately it's not up to the sentimentalities of those who mourn the collapse of the former Republic, nor up to the UN to decide which government does the vast majority of the governing within Afghanistan proper. The Taliban have established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and it is indisputably in predominant control over 99% of the country. A merge is, in this case, appropriate. Tennosenna (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written, support reversed The final article this all ends up on needs to be Afghanistan, but I support merging info from here to there, rather than the other way around. As the common name of the country, Afghanistan should absolutely not be a disambiguation page. BSMRD (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support given the direction is reversed and the article remains "Afghanistan," as is the standard for all other countries (France vs French Republic, Russia vs Russian Federation, etc). It is not a matter of if these articles will be merged, but when. There is no need to wait an arbitrary amount of time for any "dust to settle". The Taliban have won the war and have formed a government. PokeZelda64 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I support that the articles should be merged accordingly. There are many unrecognised countries, but are shown as the legitimate owners of the territory they control in wikipedia pages, like Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, et cetera. Serbia claims all of Kosovo, similarly the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan claims all of Afghanistan, but Afghanistan is de facto under the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Whether people like it or not, the IEA is the current legitimate government of Afghanistan, and thus, I think, the articles should be merged. I support the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article be merged witht that of Afghanistan's.GucciNuzayer (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support If we don't uphold our principle of recognizing facts now, we'll get this mess everytime there's a big political crisis in a country. We can't withdraw the political section for every country that suffers from this kind of unstability. --Termina2232 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The Afghanistan article is about a geographical region. It should (and does) acknowledge the de facto control of the IEA in the region. But there's a lot to say about the region that is not related to the IEA, and at least some things to say about the IEA that are not related to Afghanistan. So it makes sense that they are separate articles. TheChard (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Afghanistan is the common name of the country no matter who is in control.204.237.3.153 (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Unless there is ambiguity, we virtually always use the common name of a country. Furthermore, the current state of Afghanistan’s governance is still in flux. Just today there have been news reports of organized resistance to the Taliban takeover. And few if any countries have recognized the Taliban’s claim on the country. The current setup of three independent articles (one for the country and one each for its competing governments) is best and should be kept until things change. —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose "Afghanistan" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the country no matter which government is in charge. We should retain an article titled "Afghanistan", that page should NOT be a redirect. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with the COMMONNAME argument, the Islamic Emirate article should be merged into the main one. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2021 )
  • Oppose’’’ this request is backwards.2605:8D80:566:14FB:A8F4:8B25:7759:415E (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Well, it seems unnecessary to do that.... Although Islamic Emirate is established, still many sources refer them as Taliban not an "Islamic Emirate". Also, it is not recognized by any country..... 125.178.79.199 (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caution to users

Note that the move proposer, The Gentle Sleep, proposed to redirect content from "Afghanistan" to "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" (this title), NOT the other way round. NoNews! 17:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.....as Its clear from above most dont understand that changing the common name of the country is the proposal. --Moxy- 18:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple people may have gotten confused after someone temporarily changed the direction of the merge, but most people seem to understand the nature of the proposal. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)(old comment I forgot to sign)[reply]

In conclusion, some can't accept the reality because it hurts their feelings Mikebot321123 (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree that emotions may be a factor for some, saying it's just hurt feelings is a bit reductionist. There are people who genuinely fear for their lives right now (enough for some to cling to the outside of aircraft resulting in their deaths.) Whether the fear of those who are panicking turns out to be founded is something which only time can tell, but considering the past as well as the over 20 year campaign describing them as pure evil, it isn't unreasonable for some people to resist accepting the material conditions in the region right now.
  • There are also those who don't want to acknowledge the IEA being in control of the government for philosophical reasons. Some people prefer to go by national sovereignty and reject the idea that a state requires outside recognition to exist, while others appeal to authority by arguing that international authority or outside experts must recognize a state for them to exist. Although appeal to authority is a fallacy, that doesn't mean it's always wrong, just that it shouldn't be assumed to be the right answer simply because it's often the default assumption. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pls review WP:UCRN.--Moxy- 11:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing I've been arguing is basically what's discussed in WP:POVNAME, that sometimes it's best to redirect from the most commonly known name to the most neutral/ accurate name, and that it's useful to balance what users are likely to type as a first guess with what they expect to be taken to. This seems to be an accepted practice in cases of questionable neutrality. I have come around on merging Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan into Afghanistan as I stated in the below section on direction of merge, but I wanted to clarify my reasoning for arguing the other direction initially. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view though, the philosophical question of national sovereignty vs appeal to authority isn't nearly as important to those unfamiliar with the region as knowing who has material dominance in the region. Regardless of who is considered the correct regime, the most important thing for readers is to know which set of laws they need to follow to avoid being jailed, who to call if they experience an emergency while traveling to the region, and who in practice controls the police. Knowing this information is required in order to make informed choices which impact personal safety. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/17/transcript-of-talibans-first-press-conference-in-kabul


Call for consensus on merge and new discussion on the direction of the merge - We seem to largely agree that a merge should occur, the nature of the disagreement seems to be over the name of the combined article. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to largely agree that a merge should occur actually we don't and I personally object to ANY merge or rename which does not have clear consensus as to the logic as well as title and content of move. What appears to be proposed at present is that an article about a country which has existed under present name since around 800 CE, should be merged into an article about a barely functioning state, which has existed for several hours, run by a group which has been around for roughly 25 years. Personally, I think the necessary logic simply needs clarifying.
The new regime is the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’" - akin to a French Nth republic or German Weimar Republic or German or Greek political era, and is distinct from, but probably shares elements with the previous Emirate, including the name. The political group (who have been largely continuous since '96) are "the Taliban", the long-term country name is "Afghanistan", akin to 'France' or 'Germany' or 'Greece' and has remained so under many regimes, probably 6 since the last Afghan monarchy alone. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of merge

My perspective is that we should have Afghanistan redirect here, we already have a link to Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in the header. I would conditionally support a merge in the other direction if the resulting article maintains the current neutral tone of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan page. I do however feel very strongly that whichever way the merge goes, the resulting article needs to be clear about which group holds majority dominance in the region, otherwise the article could serve to create confusion about the security status and safety of travel to the region, what laws need to be followed to avoid being imprisoned, and who a traveler can contact in an emergency while abroad. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

!Support I propose we follow the Libya precedent from 2011 and keep the neutral info box followed by two infoboxes below it for both governments for a few weeks until the situation stabilizes, especially as the Republic collapsed so quickly that the Taliban themselves haven't even finished the process of reestablishing the Government, currently it's not even clear what the new government structure is even going to be.

Otherwise I'm in favor recognizing the IEA as the government of Afghanistan as it's quite evident the republic only exists on paper at this point in time and its actual continued existence appears dubious currently. Thegunkid (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that means they should be the government mentioned in the main article, Afghanistan. Now that the Taliban rules we should have the WP:COMMONNAME as the article. Having the common name as a redirect to the formal is silly. FlalfTalk 21:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/taliban-declares-islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan-2021-8
  • Strong Oppose The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is still the internationally recognized and legitimate government and it still has at least some land and an acting President. If anything, the article should be merged with that of the Panjshir Resistance. Wikipedia should not give recognition to the Islamic Emirate as it is run by a terror group! This article should either be merged with the Islamic REPUBLIC, which still legally exists and is still representing Afghanistan at the United Nations, or remain NEUTRAL!

EDIT 8/25: The flag of the Islamic Republic was flown during the parade of nations at the opening ceremony for the Paralympics in Tokyo last night 8/24. It is clear from this that the Islamic Republic still legally exists and is still the legally recognized state. The IEA should not be merged with this article because it is not the legitimate government of Afghanistan; in my opinion it should be treated like other unrecognized countries/breakaway states/occupied areas like Donetsk, Crimea/Sevestapol, and Luhansk, which is the current status quo for this article as it is controlled by a rebel group. Therefore, I still strongly oppose the proposed merger. Evercool1 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I agree that a separate article for the 1996 - 2001 IEA will be required to go into greater detail on it, as bringing over everything about the 1st reign would make the Afghanistan article too long. We should at least bring over some general information about the 1st reign though, including past human rights abuses and their long held opposition to bacha bazi since the past give critical context to the present and future. There are already pages devoted to those topics in detail, but giving a brief overview on the main page is important. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - While it's undeniable the IEA is in control of Afghanistan, the IRA is still internationally recognized as the de jure government by all other countries despite no longer being in power. As such I think the article for Afghanistan should remain neutral until the Taliban starts to receive international support (which I believe is only a matter of time). This is a messy situation and I think it's for the best to wait for the dust to clear before making any major changes. That being said though, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan should be merged into Afghanistan and not the other way around owing to WP:COMMONNAME, it's rare for extant countries to have their articles titled after its full official name except when disambiguation is needed (e.g. the two Congos). I also support a separate article for the 1996-2001 government to be made for the same reason why the Federal Republic of Germany has a separate article for its history before 1990, it is common for the two eras to be thought of as separate even though it's the same uninterrupted government. PolarManne (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support the Islamic Emirate being merged with Afghanistan due to it being the factual governors of Afghanistan, this shouldn’t even be a debate and the only people opposing it have a clear bias against the Taliban due to patriotic fragility rather than wanting to correct the factual history of the country. Bobisland (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I say that it shouldn't be changed to islamic emirate of afghanistan because it isn't called that and the people dont call it that

  • Support Regardless of the present political situation, the government of Afganistan is de jure IEoA. Unless the system changes, it is the only one that stands today.Alexceltare2 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the 2021 Emirate merging into the Afghanistan article, and split the 1996-2001 article into its own article. There isn't much of a chance of the IRA retaking the entire country in the immediate future. Despite not being widely officially recognized, the IEA is the de facto government, and it has been for close to a week. VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA) is undoubtedly the current dominant and governing body of Afghanistan. Wikipedia should reflect truth, and the truth is that the IEA is the uncontestede government of Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (IRA) already has its own article as it is not the governing body of Afghanistan.

I support this Hxrry42 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The Islamic Emirate has its own history as a regime and a government-in-exile before retaking control. Their lack of international recognition as opposed the Islamic Republic also makes such a move impartial. Charles Essie (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Islamic Emirate is neither officially recognized in Afghanistan by the Afghan people nor recognized by any UN member state so far. Let us wait for the facts than to rush to conclusions about events and announcements that have not occurred yet. PeaceTheory (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IEA is the current legitimate government in Kabul - in what sense "legitimate"? Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the Taliban regime has already lost 4 provinces in the last 72 hours. Their hold on the country is not complete nor has it been in place long enough to assume their currently unorganized Emirate (which has not yet established any formal structure to govern), will hold the country or to what extent they'll hold it if they do. Holding Kabul is not a magic bullet that means they run the country. 98.176.146.194 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Until the Islamic Emirate gains any international recognition by several countries and consolidates power, the page should not be merged with the IEA article.
  • Support, as it stands, this regime controls the vast majority of Afghanistan and is in control of the government. As a result, I believe the merger would be far better for the sake of clarity and avoiding confusion. PoliticsEnthusiast (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the regime that currently controls most of the country is not the country itself. Even if the Taliban regime would manage to govern Afganistan (they haven't formed a government yet, nor do we know how stable their control over Afghanistan will be) and gain recognition by several states, then it would still not make sense to treat Emirate differently with respect to Afghanistan than the People's Republic of China with respect to China. China does not redirect to the People's Republic of China, but the People's Republic of China redirects to China. So it would be strange to do it the other way around with the Emirate. Yuyuhunter (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's interesting that the majority of these !voters are people who have only recently created accounts or have about 100 edits. Surely there's no group of people trying to push a certain narrative, right? BirdValiant (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan must be merged with the wikipedia page Afghanistan and the page should be called "Afghanistan." Meanwhile, the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" remains a separate page. Part of this article can become a separate page called "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996-2001)." The newly merged "Afghanistan" would become the main page for Afghanistan, like "Bangladesh" is the main page for Bangladesh and "Qatar" is the main page for Qatar. In this page, Afghanistan, the political and government section will be all about the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. History will be Afghanistan's and the region's entire History, Geography will be the region's Geography. Searching "Afghanistan" would direct the page to the merged page.

Currently searching "Afghanistan" shows the Islamic Republic's flag being used, it should be replaced by that of the Islamic Emirate's. GucciNuzayer (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose. We already voted on a merger before. Now, please, why on earth should Afghanistan be merged with IEA instead of the other way around? I was all for merging IEA with Afghanistan, but the other way around is ridiculous. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 16:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split? - 2021-08-19

Taliban announced that they reestablished the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, with a different flag. Does it mean this country is different from the one before 2001? Also see discussion above. -- 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's been their coat of arms forever, see: Emblem_of_Afghanistan
  • They have simply declared that they are using the same name and that they have reestablished dominance. Splitting information about their history prior to this new government also removes critical context about previous human rights abuses, making it more difficult for less informed readers to understand potential dangers and make an informed choice in regard to tourism to the region. Also consider that several nations have changed their flag multiple times without changing governments. For these reasons the article should not be split. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a new country has been established therefore the start date of this new country is today. Cedwoodint (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

they have not declared a new emirate, they have made a declaration commemorating independence day Serafart (talk) (contributions) 19:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban have officially declared the emirate

I know many people here were waiting for an official declaration by them to merge part of this page to the main Afghanistan page, and they just released one a couple hours ago on Twitter https://mobile.twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1428236041039880193

It reads “Declaration of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan on the occasion of the 102nd anniversary of the country's independence from British rule“ and shows the countries coat of arms (or new flag? Not exactly sure.) BakedGoods357 (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the flag, it carries the date 1415-1-10 Hijri = 20-Jun-1994, so the Taliban themselves don't consider that they've declared a new emirate, but rather than the current emirate is the same as in 1994. --Soman (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​ Source on that translation? If true, the article has the year set as 1996. Would this mean setting the date back to 1994? What is the significance of this date?Manabimasu (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taliban themselves don't consider that they've declared a new emirate, but rather than the current emirate is the same as in 1994. - "Well, they would, wouldn't they?" - it implies continuity and legitimacy. Pincrete (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Manabimasu - in the image you find the same symbol as in File:Arms_of_the_Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan.svg. Between the shahada and the name Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (in Pashto) you find 1415-01-10 h.q., i.e. 10th day of the 1st month of Hijri year 1415 (=which per online converters correspond to 20 June 1994). The Taliban thus consider the launch of their movement as the founding date of the Emirate, not their 1996 capture of Kabul. That said, to include in article mainspace you'd been a third-party ref stating this, not just wikipedians extrapolating from images. --Soman (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for outside sources about the definition of this, Russian state media wrote an article on the topic https://www.rt.com/news/532470-taliban-declares-islamic-emirate-afghanistan/ BakedGoods357 (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a declaration of the emirate. it is a declaration BY the emirate. they consider it the same as the old one . Serafart (talk) (contributions) 19:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't declare a new emirate as they consider themselves the same emirate, they celebrated independence. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

The flag that is on the page Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is wrong, the correct flag is the white flag and the black shahada (1996-2001 version). The flag that is currently displayed is only a press release icon on twitter. 82.146.169.116 (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please discuss any changes to the flag and gain consensus before requesting an edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed Declaration

@Syed Aashir, Pincrete, and Worldwar1989: The statement being cited as a "re declaration" of the Islamic Emirate does not say anything of the such. The full statement that was cited by media for this alleged declaration taken from https://alemarahpashto.com/?p=235407 reads as follows:

له نن څخه پوره یو سل او دوه کاله وړاندې ۱۲۹۸ ه ش کال د اسد په (۲۸) د افغانستان مجاهد ولس له انګریزي استعمار څخه د اتیا کلن جهادي مقاومت په پایله کې خپلواکې واخیسته. دا هغه مهال و چې برتانوي امپراتورۍ د نړۍ دومره پراخه جغرافیه لاندې کړې وه چې په قلمرو کې یې لمرنه ډوبیده. مګر افغان مجاهد ولس د خپلو مجاهدو علماو تر قیادت لاندې له دې مغرورې امپراتوري سره داسې تاریخي مقابله وکړه چې له افغانستانه په شړلو سره یې د هغې د واکمنۍ پراخه ساحه د اوسنۍ برتانیې تر سکڼل شوي جغرافيې ور محدوده کړه. د مجاهدو افغانانو په لاس د برتانوي امپراتوري دړې وړې کول د پیړۍ ستر بدلون وبلل شو او د نړۍ ډیر نور محکوم ولسونه د همدې بدلون په برکت د استعمار له فتنې وژغورل شول. د افغانانو په لاس د برتانوي امپراتورۍ تر نسکورولو وروسته شوروي امپراتورۍ د افغانستان پر سپیڅلی حریم یرغل وکړ , خو هغوي ته یې هم د جهاد او مبارزې له مورچله د عبرت هغه درس ورکړ چې د لوی شوروي اتحاد نوم یې د نړۍ له نقشې محو او تر خیټې لاندې ټول محکوم هیوادونه تري ازاد کړاى شول. له نیکه مرغه چې مونږ نن له انګریزي ښکیلاک نه د خپلواکۍ کلیزه په داسې حال کې لمانځو چې په عین وخت کې مو د نړۍ یو بل مغرور زبر ځواک امریکا هم د جهادي مقاومت په مټ ناکامه او د افغانستان له سپیڅلي حریم څخه پرشاتګ ته مجبوره کړې. دا یو الهی نصرت دی چې د افغانانو غوندي بیوسه مسلمانانو په لاس په دریو پیړیو کې د نړۍ دری مستکبرې امپراتورۍ یو په بل پسي ماتي او له خپلې خاوري وشړي. د افغانانو لپاره دا ډیر د ویاړ ځای دی چې هیواد يې نن له امریکايي اشغال څخه هم د خپلواکۍ په درشل کې دی. دا ویاړ یو الهي نعمت دی چې له امله یې پر ټولو افغانانو شکر کول واجب دي. د دې نعمت شکر په خپل هیواد کې د اسلامي نظام حاکمیت او د هغه تر سیوري لاندې د هیواد د بیارغونې او سوکالي لپاره په یووالي او صداقت سره کار کول دي. له الله تعالی څخه په دغه ستر آرمان کې خپل مسلمان ولس ته د بریالیتوب غوښته کوو. والسلام

It is only a statement commemorating Afghan independence day, and recalls memories of defeating the British, Soviets, and now the Americans. It does NOT however say anything about a new declaration of the Islamic Emirate, as in their eyes it never stopped existing. Media misinterpreted the "Declaration of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" to mean that they were re-declaring the emirate, when it is actually how they title all statements. The part of the infobox giving August 19th as a date of a "reestablishment" or "redeclaration" of the Islamic Emirate is therefore incorrect and should be removed. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 03:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an important and notable date, so I fixed it to be more neutral/ accurate. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They make declarations all the time, this time is no different than any others. Independence day is a holiday in Afghanistan that has been celebrated on August 19th for 102 years now. It's not a significant date for the history section of the infobox of the Islamic Emirate. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 03:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the 1st time they've celebrated independence while in control of Afghanistan since 2001, it's symbolically significant. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's symbolically significant - Says who? To whom? That's pure WP:OR. As incidentally is the present text -"formally restored" - no source uses these words or synonyms and Serafart's analysis doesn't confirm it. I think we either obey what MSM are saying (that it was a declaration) - or we take Serafart's word for it that MSM are wrong and this was simply a standard communication. Policy suggests we should do the former, my instincts and circumstantials tell me the latter -removal- is a 'safer bet'. What we should not be doing is constructing WP:OR narratives. Pincrete (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article from The Hill is a pretty authorarative source saying there has been a formal deceleration. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I was referring to the claim on the article that the emirate was formally restored by this declaration and the claim here that this particular 'anniversary' declaration has some special significance this time around. Neither the sources nor Serafart claim either - which appear to be somewhat contradictory claims anyhow.
I've removed 'formally' from the infobox for the time being in the hope that honour is satisfied all round while we sort this out and that we are following WP:RS.
Sky is blue is an essay and only applies if no one challeges an edit. Most of the time the sky is actually black/grey/white/yellow and red, so it's a fairly silly claim really even in the real world. Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point about sky is blue being silly, but the symbolic significance of an occupation ending and the Islamic Emirate regaining control just before the anniversary should be about as obvious as the symbolic significance of leaving the region on the anniversary of 9/11 would have been. I'm far from the group's biggest fan, but I appreciate symbolism in general. I agree that calling it a formal declaration is a bit odd, it just seems like them celebrating independence but this seems like a decent compromise. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not belong in an infobox. The Taliban make statements all the time for holidays and such, and this time is no different. Just because some media outlets mistranslated their declaration does not mean that anything has changed. This is also not the first time they have celebrated independence as they have released declarations commemorating independence day every year. This time is not any more significant than the others. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 20:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated on many occasions that the media just mistranslated this Taliban quote, but what are we supposed to do if all sources describe it as a declaration? We can't just take your word that your own translation is correct and no one in the media could produce an accurate translation. Do you have any sources claiming that news outlets got it wrong?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not have any sources other than the Taliban to support this, it is known that all announcements from the Taliban contains the phrase "افغانستان إسلامي امارت اعلامیه" in the title which means "Declaration of/by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". All of the media outlets that are making this claim cite this tweet: https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1428236041039880193/ to support it, which reads "Declaration of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan on the occasion of the 102nd anniversary of independence from British rule" and links to the following declaration: https://alemarahpashto.com/?p=235407 . While the page is down right now, there is a cached version available here: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SGWqxw-mcYMJ:https://alemarahpashto.com Said declaration makes no mention of any re declaration of the Islamic Emirate, and only marks independence day celebrations. Using tools such as Google translate also corroborate with my description of the declaration to not be a "redeclaration" of the Emirate. My source is the official declaration put out by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Serafart: We can only follow reliable sources. Instead of convincing editors, you could contact the reliable sources instead such as New York Times etc..Manabimasu (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case though, the Taliban ARE the most reliable source for this. this part of the infobox is a pure statement of facts, so the Taliban, being a primary source, can be used for this. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the sources also used the Taliban's direct quote. They simply translated it different than you.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources only used the tweet with the link to the article (porbably because the website was down). The full taliban statement clarifies the confusion though, and makes no allusion to a "re declaration". Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, the argument you're making is that reliable sources translated it wrong and you translated it right. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources have to say. We can't just take your word. You really shouldn't mass remove content on the basis that you alone are a better translator than anyone in the media. Sentences like "Using tools such as Google translate also corroborate with my description of the declaration" are especially concerning. I'm surprised I have to say this, but Google Translate isn't going to give as good of a translation as someone who actually knows the language. I don't know you well enough to comment on your Pashto, but you don't seem to display it on your list of languages on your Wikipedia profile, so I really get the impression that you simply used an online translator and assumed it to be more correct than the translations that media companies were able to produce.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​​​​ another source - https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/taliban-yet-to-declare-islamic-emirate-of-afg-1330537.html , http://www.uniindia.com/news/world/taliban-yet-to-declare-islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan-officially-political-office/2482659.html which says Taliban has not declared Emirate. A day after the tweet was made. This was the earlier news by the same source - http://www.uniindia.com/taliban-declare-formation-of-islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan/world/news/2481370.htmlManabimasu (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Here is the news from the interview done by Sputnik-https://sputniknews.com/asia/202108201083666116-live-updates-uk-embassy-guards-in-kabul-told-they-are-ineligible-for-rescue-amid-taliban-takeover/ scroll down and the earlier news by Sputnik news - https://sputniknews.com/asia/202108201083668496-what-are-the-major-challenges-faced-by-the-taliban-after-their-swift-takeover-of-kabul/ .Manabimasu (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusingly, the UrduPoint article (which cites Sputnik) said that they have yet to declare anything, yet the Sputnik article starts with the sentence "On 19 August, the Taliban declared the formation of the 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan'". I'm not really sure what to make of that contradiction, but we don't really need to take Sputnik seriously anyways. According to WP:RSP, "there is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​No, scroll down on this page https://sputniknews.com/asia/202108201083666116-live-updates-uk-embassy-guards-in-kabul-told-they-are-ineligible-for-rescue-amid-taliban-takeover/ to find the interview. The other page is what they previously reported. From WP:RSPUSE,

Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations.

. Even if Sputnik published false stories, the two other news sources would then be reliable in routing the news. In WP:RSCONTEXT, Sputnik in this context isn’t affiliated with any parties in the War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)?Manabimasu (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Needless to say, if reliable sources say one thing and an unreliable source says another, we don't go with what the unreliable one says.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UrduPoint and UniIndia are unreliable? There is no consensus on that, so these are reliable sources.Manabimasu (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both the UrduPoint and UniIndia pages you linked to are just forks of the Sputnik article you wanted me to scroll to, and it even says so at the top, so yes. I am saying that. Sputnik is still Sputnik, even if another website copies and pastes one of their articles.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy besides WP:IAR on forks as described?Manabimasu (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Manabimasu, my friend, it says it's a Sputnik article at the top of the article. If that's not a sufficient explanation, then I don't know what to do with you.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just use The Hill article? That's a highly reliable source. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times removed their article on the Islamic Emirate declaration, so it is currently archived. Because of the contradiction from the two other sources excluding Sputnik. Wait for more sources?Manabimasu (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No they didn't, and I have no idea why you thought they did. Just because something is on web.archive.org doesn't mean it was removed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article that is linked does not say anything about the “declaration of the Islamic Emirate”. Have a look first?Manabimasu (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really surprised I need to say this, but that's because it's a live page that gets updated constantly... that's why it was snapshotted when they reported on the declaration of the emirate.... it's exhausting having to state the obvious this much, so I think I'm done replying to you.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone cared enough to they could just find any other statement released by the Taliban which hasn't been taken down or has been archived to demonstrate that the phrase "افغانستان إسلامي امارت اعلامیه" is in the title of even one other instance, wouldn't that prove the point? (I don't care enough to personally, but there seem to be people here who might) The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gentle Sleep: sure: here is some times zabihullah has made such statements: https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1426165226035195910 https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1326055602364231681 https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1365905581832339463 https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1378637120798138370 https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1397402936247005186 https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1403639563504033794 Serafart (talk) (contributions) 05:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, that should settle the matter. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NYTimes above actually says "Afghanistan — a nation with a brutal history,… … is now the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The Taliban reasserted its new regime in a tweet on Thursday commemorating the anniversary of independence from British rule." So there is no mention of a declaration. I suspect Serafart is right but the bulk of MSM seem to treat the tweet as such a 'declaration'. Pincrete (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms Section: Human Rights Abuses and Other Abuses

The following points are missing from the article and a section should be created for these

  • Taliban is an international terrorist organisation according to international law
  • Women rights abuses: compulsory hijab, education prevention, mixing prevention
  • Religious discrimination: liberal Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and Shias of Afghanistan
  • Ethnic genocide: Hazaras
  • Ethnic persecuation: Tajiks
  • Anti-pashtun culture: prevention of Attan dance, prevention of Jirga system, destruction of the tribal society and Pashtunwali
  • Destruction of Antiquities: the Kanishka statue
  • Murder and persecution of LGBTQ individuals
  • Religious compulsion: compulsory beards, etc
  • Drug Trafficking: Opium trade
  • Capital Punishment: whipping of non-martial sex, stonings
  • Foreign interference: Pakistan army involvement

PashtunNationalist (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban are separate entities with different classifications. [1]
  • The points relating to women are already included in the "Human Rights" section.
  • Many of the other aspects should be added if not already included, probably under "Human Rights" written as a contrast to current official policy.
  • The current reign has expressed a commitment to not repeat the atrocities of the past during the current reign.
  • It is critical to include information about past crimes against humanity while also being careful not to imply that these crimes have continued under the current reign without proper citations to support that. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also opium trade isn't unique to the Islamic Emirate, it's existed for centuries in the region.[2][3][4]The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PashtunNationalist and The Gentle Sleep: Some of these already have separate articles and are (or should be) appropriately linked, including:
However, the reality is that many of the human rights violations in Afghanistan are not attributed to the Taliban alone, so editors have made less efforts to try to split up other articles based on attribution; examples:
Feel free to add content based on reliable sources: much is missing from the currently existing related articles. Boud (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.voanews.com/usa/why-isnt-afghan-taliban-us-list-foreign-terror-groups
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/13/mps-slam-uk-record-afghan-opium-poppy-harvest
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/20/taliban-destroy-poppy-afghan-opium
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/apr/01/internationalcrime.drugstrade

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

On July 8, American President Joe Biden stated that: "The likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely."[1]

Not sure what this image on the right adds to the unbiased discussion of the current state of Afghanistan's government. It looks more like a bad faith opinion at best and a political quip at worst. What does it add besides the supposed 'irony' of the president's comment on the expected future of the war versus the actual outcome of the recent battles? I believe that it should be removed. 89.73.228.185 (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Afghan government's collapse is a humiliation for the US and Joe Biden". New Statesman. August 15, 2021.

Requested move 20 August 2021

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan → Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) – This is the best way to handle all articles and this is how it is done in many other wikipedias. The first article Afghanistan is about current state and country, the second article Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is about an Islamic republic that existed in Afghanistan between 2004 and 2021 and the government which continues to claim to be the sole legitimate government of Afghanistan and the third article Taliban is about the current government of Afghanistan. Therefore this article left to cover Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001 and thus has to be named accordingly. Delasse (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Delasse (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the rename As the most practical new arrangement, though I would quibble with the analysis. Afghanistan should obviously be primarily about the country and should have a para or two about the recent takeover by the Taliban - linking to a 'new regime' article, as is the case with other political eras on the Afghanistan page. This is a slight deviation from standard country approach, but the last 30-ish years have been so unstable in Afghanistan that covering the various phases is at least as justifiable and informative as covering 'current regime' alone would be - which is what we would emphasise if this were France/Germany or another relatively stable country. Taliban should be about the group primarily (including the years 2004-2021, when they were technically 'insurrectionists'). I believe a new article, probably called Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 2021-present, should cover the new regime. In purely practical terms, it will be much easier to focus on the new regime as a new subject and will provide information more clearly to the reader IMO, rather than muddling the new regime content into an existing article. Regardless, a rename is a solid first step in the right direction. Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the rename. Distinct stages of a country's political history often have separate articles on Wikipedia – see for instance French Republics. This is more intuitive and more accessible for the reader, IMO. In case of Afghanistan, each distinct period of its modern history should be described in a separate article, bound together by the main article History of Afghanistan. The reason is, there is no simple continuity from the 1996–2001 Emirate to the government administration started in 2021 – the two periods are obviously distinct, despite the similar proposed name and similar state ideology, and so I am of the view that they need and deserve separate articles. — kashmīrī TALK 16:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​ There are sources here https://www.rferl.org/a/New_Taliban_Rule_Book_Aims_To_Win_Afghan_Hearts_And_Minds/1790002.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/taliban-warns-islamic-state-to-stay-out-of-afghanistan/2015/06/16/a88bafb8-1436-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.htmlhere https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323899704578584521481012596 even a law case? before 2021 and after 2001 which shows the Taliban’s view on the Emirate’s existence.Manabimasu (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse, but what do these sources supposedly support and since when has the Taliban’s view on the Emirate’s existence decided anything on WP? Editors decide organisation of articles based on policies, usual practices and judgement as to what best serves the reader! Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​ To not decide dates in article name and have all info for the topic on one page for readers to digest is a WP:NPOV. The reader would be fine since he or she can read long-standing articles on Bogd_Khanate_of_Mongolia and Islamic State of Afghanistan albeit smaller gaps.Manabimasu (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any advantage to the reader, nor any neutrality advantage. Apart from other considerations, a single article will need to constantly go leaping around "In the earlier period blah blah blah, whereas in the later period bloo bloo bloo". The new regime MAY BE a re-run of the old of course, but as yet we don't know. Pincrete (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have all information on a topic on a single page as a matter of course, as part of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This does not make the article's unneutral. The question also presupposed a particular topic, which for this page is/was the 1996-2001 era. Further, as others have mentioned, Taliban already exists as an article covering the organisation as a topic. CMD (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They never ended the Emirate, it simply fled into the countryside for a while and now it's back. The IE never ended in 2001. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 18:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming that they (ie the political group) ceased to exist, but it (ie a functioning regime) clearly did. What you are arguing is akin to saying the French/Polish/Greek etc states didn't cease to exist in 1939-45 - the respective governments simply went into exile for a while. That small difference is all the difference in the world. Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do get your point, but the Taliban never went into exile; it still maintained significant territory throughout the entire conflict, whereas for the states you compared it to they never had an inch of (mainland) territory left to assert authority. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 23:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between internal/external exile is a bit academic if someone ELSE controls most of the country for a substantial period (and the someone else is largely recognised internationally). Given the complexity and confusion over the last 30-ish years, I believe we need to make distinctions as to who was in overall control and to not ascribe continuity to all parties, largely because they lay claim to it in their name. Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Taliban did not re declare the Emirate's existence though. The declaration that many have cited to to support that makes no mention of any redeclaration, it only commemorates 102 years of independence. They begin ALL of their statements with "Declaration of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" Serafart (talk) (contributions) 20:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources say otherwise, but regardless, the point still stands that the original Islamic Emirate *de facto* ceased to exist. There's a 20 year gap that can't be ignored. Again, the continuous claim of an "Islamic Emirate" is covered by the organization's article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All sources that say they have re declared the emirate cite this statement from the IEA: https://alemarahpashto.com/?p=235407 . Nowhere in that statement do they make any such declaration. The IEA should be trusted more than any other source to determine whether they have "redeclared" the emirate, and it is clear that they have not. All the sources claiming otherwise base it off a mistranslation of "Declaration by" to "Declaration of" Serafart (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You already have a talk section where you describe why you believe secondary sources mistranslated the IEA's word and your translation is more accurate. For the sake of organization, please talk it out there as opposed to derailing this section with the same argument.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nice4What. Whether the IEA did or did not re-declare is made moot by the obvious fact that, from 2001 to 2021, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was not the main polity governing Afghanistan. This proposal is to create an article about the period of Afghan history in which they did govern Afghanistan. It's simply irrelevant whether or not the Taliban always referred to themselves as the IEA, because that's not what we're talking about.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Vanilla Wizard. I don't think anyone is doubting that the IEA continued to exist through the insurgency period. This is about what the best way to organize our content is. The periods for which they've been the country's main government are distinctive. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, clearly differentiates the topic and fixes the issues that have occurred around this article for the past couple of weeks. This should have been the initial decision for this article, as it reflects the longstanding topic of this article. Instead, over the past couple of weeks edits have been made based on titles alone without reference to the article topic, which has caused significant confusion and disruption. (The duplication caused by the unilateral changing of this article's topic reached the point where it was proposed that the main Afghanistan article be merged into this one.) This new title appropriately disambiguates the topic given the new and prominent usage of the term, and judging from responses above will help serve the issues that have been generated based on this lack of disambiguation. No firm opinion right now as to whether the current title should be a disambiguation or a redirect, although I suspect (CRYSTALly) that the case for a redirect will become stronger as time goes on. CMD (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose- firstly, this is clearly the same entity continuing since 1996 to now and a split makes no sense; secondly, Afghanistan is in the middle of an active civil war, and making the unrecognized side of the civil war the topic of the main article purely thanks to it controlling more territory is biased. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say, as many others have agreed here, that there's a difference between the government (the 1996-2001 Emirate) versus the political/militant organization (the Taliban). NoNews! 17:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I support the renaming because the original Wikidata item Q427941 was created for the 1996–2001 Islamic Emirate, and other Wikipedias in other languages have not changed their articles. In this case it would be necessary to create a new item or divide the content. That is why I support this renaming. This matter is being difficult to handle in Wikipedia, but this renaming could make things easier. Salvabl (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you do that, which government would be shown there? The internationally-recognized Islamic Republic which currently only controls a minority of Afghan territory, or the Taliban which controls more territory but doesn’t have recognition? The only option would be to either have both governments on those pages (awkward), or to instead have separate articles for each claimant government. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose for two reasons. As mentioned above, the Islamic Emirate didn't cease to exist in 2001, it continued as a government in exile. In addition, we shouldn't even be having this discussion until the merge discussion is finished. Charles Essie (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentitative support pending outcome of other merges Merging the IEA and Taliban articles is impossible b/c the articles are simply too big, so there has to be some kind of division and dividing by time period is probably the most sensible. Benica11 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE As I have said many a time in our prior discussion on this exact topic, which closed in favor of no change just DAYS ago, by the way, there is no break in continuity. Since it's declaration in 1996, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has existed continuously in Afghanistan, always holding land, always existing. It was declared in 96 when the Taliban faction took Kabul, it existed for the following 5 years as it slowly pushed north. It existed even after it lost the cities and the north, being pushed into the Southern Rural regions, and was forced to a guerilla war. It existed as Operation Enduring Freedom ended and it took advantage of weakening American suppport to rapidly increase their rural control. It was them who controlled most of the Southern Rural areas by 2019 and almost all rural land by 2020. It was them who launched an offensive in mid April that surrounded and cut-off the cities, and it was them who captured the cities this month. They have always been the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, we just sometimes called them by their nickname, the Taliban. 68.144.93.30 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article for the long-standing entity already exists at Taliban. CMD (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the plan as I think it is necessary to have 2 articles to clarify the two different regimes Worstlimbs (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Splitting them is just parroting media bias of the situation. We never won int eh first place. Let them decide what they call themselves. Unsigned IP post
  • Support. Just because it has the same name doesn't mean that the current government is the same as the one 20 years ago. There should be a split regardless, and moving this article to allow creation of a new article on the current government is preferred. Let Afghanistan cover the current situation, some sort of Government of Afghanistan article cover the new Emirate, and this article can focus strictly on the 1996-2001 period of history. SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Being that this is the same organization and all that changed was they won the civil war, there is no reasonable fact based reason to change. 208.85.212.65 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating, no one doubts that the organisation which calls itself the Emirate (but which is popularly called the Taliban) has existed continuously since 1995 or so, but the regime has NOT existed continuously. It existed, it lost control of most of the country, it came back recently. This is like conflating the Chinese Communist Party with the Chinese state, or the Nazi party with Nazi Germany. You cannot conflate the two any more than you can conflate the US with the Republican or Democratic party, simply because one or other control - or controlled - the US. Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) and the state they create right now are different. They are different territorial (the previous Emirate did not cover the Northern part Of Afghanistan), and they are going to be different politically, at least based on the recent declarations and the process of creating new government. So we need to have two separate pages. Should they be united by a single "umbrella" page - this page? I doubt, unless there is a strong agreement of sources this is the same state. Just having the Taliban is not enough. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Opposed per @Charles Essie:. Ytpks896 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Pincrete and Kashmiri above. Sid-Vicious (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Taliban can be used as the continuous entity that has existed, while two pages (the proposed 1996-2001 and another present day Afghanistan) can be used to document these two obviously different time periods and regimes in Afghanistan. Also this page would be way too large if it covered all periods where a shorter article examining the 1996-2001 iteration would be much more beneficial and readable. Yeoutie (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to all who voted oppose. What does continuity of the Taliban have to do with the issue raised by the nominator? The short country name (Afghanistan) should be, as in all other cases, the primary topic of the nation under its present-day government, but the Taliban regime of 1996–2001 is obviously WP:N and thus deserves an article as well. So, by all rights, there should be two pages: (1) Afghanistan, with the redirect Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and (2) Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001). The only scenario where it would be justified to have a single page called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is if the current government lasts little, leaving Wikipedia with little material for a second article, but that's unlikely to happen. Some of these oppose votes are plain ridiculous, such as the one saying there should be reliable sources to add a qualifier to the title. Avilich (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The answer to that is simple- that the Taliban occupation of Afghanistan is not comparable to other instances of government change given that 1) their government is unrecognized internationally (the international community recognizes the existence of Afghanistan but not that Taliban government), 2) they don’t actually control all of the country (the Panjshir resistance still controls territory and is the legal successor to the former government), and 3) that the Taliban are clearly not representative of Afghanistan as a whole (given how many spontaneous resistance movements have cropped up, their extreme unpopularity+being seen as a foreign occupation force by many, etc). And also 4) the IEA is one organization with unbroken control and locating information about its government at Afghanistan would obscure this and needlessly split up the article on it.
There are several times on Wikipedia where the decision has been made to separate the article on a country from the article on its government (for example, French Fifth Republic is a separate article to France, State of Palestine is separate to Palestine, in the past People’s Republic of China used to be separate to China), and the case of Afghanistan is a very good example of such a situation where separating the government from the country article is a good idea for now. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 08:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chessrat, I think that Avilich's question was rhetorical. I think you and Avilich essentially agree on the need to separate regime(s) from political group(s) running them. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article wouldn't be needlessly split since it was always about the Taliban regime of 1996–2001; this only changed just now when people came and added information from 2021. If you have misgivings about the uncertainty of the current situation and do not want to associate the country with the government, you can add information to Taliban instead. Wikipedia needs an article on the regime of 1996–2001, and this article was already about that from the onset; the name change will simply reflect that. Avilich (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Aside from the points brought up marvellously by previous users in the last two discussions, I’d also like to bring up a clear shift in the way people describe. More and more Youtubers have stopped treating them as an organization that lost and instead one that won a long civil war. The term IEA is soaring in usage massively. Opposition is on the rising side. 68.146.203.142 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Until just now this article was only about the Taliban regime of 1996–2001 and it should stay that way. Any information pertaining to current events should be added to Afghanistan or Taliban. As already stated above, the article for the long-standing entity is already Taliban, and the oppose votes emphasizing continuity don't address that, so they should be ignored. Avilich (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Until 2021 this article was about the Taliban-governed Afghanistan. The "new" Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan should have a separate article. LordLoko (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed topic

What’s the main subject or theme of this article? Is that a former country? Then it should be named "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001)" and informations should change as a historical state. Or, a current state? Then this article should merge to "Afghanistan", because basically Afghanistan is the common name and entity of this self-declared Islamic Emirate. It's baseless to edit this article, without clearing the root problem of this article, and that's the " topic"! Complete discussion is needed for solving this problem. Wiki N Islam (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1996–2001 Infobox

I added the infobox from the original page to the Establishment and governance (1996–2001) section of the page and I believe it to be optimal to let it be until a consensus is reached, and deleted should the other page be re-established.180app (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Form of government

This report and this one describe the Emirate's practical government structure as of 2018-2019. Key features:

  • Unitary; institutions are created, reformed and dissolved by the Leadership.
  • The Amir is the supreme leader. He is advised by deputies, Islamic scholars and the Rabhari Shura (Leadership Council)
  • Each area of policy is supervised by a commission, which is effectively a ministry.
  • The Leadership appoints governors in the provinces and districts, who oversee a local structure similar to the national one and are advised by civilian commissions.

73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

The hatnote reads: "This article is about the Taliban ruled unrecognized state..." it should be "Taliban-ruled". 130.195.253.45 (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed, Thanks. Pincrete (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Executive structure and officeholders of the Emirate for 1996-01 and 2001-21 periods

Hi

I think we should add information about executive structure and officeholders of the Emirate for 1996-01 and 2001-21 periods. But I have no source. --Panam2014 (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legislature

It is said in infobox of this article about Legislature: "Islamic Council (draft constitution)", but considering to that is one draft so not approved and in legal power, should it stay in infobox? It is maybe going little ahead of events. Nubia86 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.The cite is explicitly talking about the OLD draft constitution. Even within that limited topic it says "The document (ie old draft constitution) was littered with contradictions and was never ratified. It was republished in 2005, a year after Afghanistan adopted a new constitution. But the document has disappeared from Taliban discourse in recent years. So there is actually no reason to believe that anything is known/decided at present. The old draft anyway had the entire Council appointed by the Supreme Leader.
If I may say, this is another problem with half of the article being about an entity which ceased to function in 2001 and half of it being about a nascent entity which came into being only few weeks ago. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered the text to make it clear that the draft constitution only applied to the period of the earlier regime.Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate motto

USER:Norschweden, the motto for the Emirate was listed as being the Shahada, one of the fundamental prayers of all Muslims ie: "There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.". I removed it because it was completely uncited as being THE MOTTO of either the Emirate or of Afghanistan itself. How could it be? A national motto is a text especially linked to that one country, how could a text sacred to ALL Muslims be the motto of one group of them. This is like claiming that The credo or the Lord's Prayer are the motto of any particular christian country sinve they are much recited there. More importantly, the claim is completely uncited. My search engine search for "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan motto' - returns one result, this article. I've no doubt that the prayer is very important to the Emirate, but I doubt if even they would claim 'ownership' of it in the way that 'national motto' implies. Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a national moto doesn't have to be linked to the country specifically, it just needs to be stated as the motto. and the thigs you imagine about "ownership" of a motto are just wrong. Norschweden (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
USER:Norschweden, so where is the cite saying that this is the national motto? Because it looks an awful lot like there simply ISN"T one and that this is simply WP:OR! Pincrete (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noone seems able to produce a source, I'm going to remove this claim. It's uncited and counter-intuitive to boot. Pincrete (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dari: official language

There is no indication that Taliban uses Dari as an official language. Beshogur (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, I believe Dari is still left in the info-box as a holdover from the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. --Donenne (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capital

According to this footage from Al-Jazeera, the capital has yet to be decided (0:27) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR2pSHSH6V4

Transcript: "He (Abdul Qahar Balkhi) said the talks include whether the capital will remain in Kabul or move to the groups birthplace in Kandahar." --Donenne (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan_(1996–2001)&oldid=1040948221"