Talk:Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 20 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

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)

• Support the rename by the precedent set by the French Third Republic and French Fourth Republic historical articles about states are separated if there is a clear break in their control of their claimed territory. Ideological overlap or even being ruled by the same people is not enough to make it the same state by this precedent SiliconProphet (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)*

  The french fourth republic is not the continuation of the french fourth republic though. The Third Republic ceased to exist in it's transition to the French State, aka Vichy France Serafart (talk) (contributions) 02:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• Oppose the request have been rejected unded two other forms. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Strongly We’ve rejected this here AND on the main Afghanistan page. Stop it. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:907D:2923:678F:8BD8 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Viewsridge (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Др Драган Дабић (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- See Talk:Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan#Separate 1996-2001 and present-day Taliban rule into different articles. Reliable sources needed to support rename.Manabimasu (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  For what do you need reliable sources? That there were Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001? Or for what? What do you want a source for? Delasse (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

​ 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)

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)

​ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose The Emirate is literally in charge right now, it makes no sense to rename it. --2600:1700:22B0:34B0:C9AB:60A3:3F15:9008 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is an article about a country (geopolitical entity), not about an organisation. For the organisation, see Taliban. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support - Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) will be about that significant five-year period of Afghan history. The current Islamic Emirate / government would be covered by the Afghanistan article. The Taliban article would cover the group's continuous claim. For those trying to say that this is the same Islamic Emirate as the 90's, you'd have to ask why the Taliban felt the need to redeclare the emirate's existence.. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• Conditional Support - The Islamic State of Afghanistan is a single page despite being a government in exile during the 1st reign of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. For the sake of keeping the Afghanistan article at a manageable size we should make a separate page for the 1st reign for the sake of maintaining the wide breadth of information currently available within Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but the main Afghanistan article should still cover some of the more important information about the 1st reign including the previous record of human rights abuses and the emirate's consistent hard-line stance against bacha bazi. It is of course important not to imply that these sorts of practices continue under the current reign without proper citation to support that assessment, but the information about past abuses is critical to making informed choices in regard to travel and risks to personal safety in the region. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to add however that it only makes sense to do this if the merge into Afghanistan takes place, because otherwise the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan page should remain together. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support and this title should redirect to Afghanistan. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 06:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support per Nice4What and Salvabl above; descriptions of the current government can be moved to Afghanistan, Government of Afghanistan and Foreign relations of Afghanistan. NoNews! 17:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

The article for the long-standing entity already exists at Taliban. CMD (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Strong Opposed per @Charles Essie:. Ytpks896 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Pincrete and Kashmiri above. Sid-Vicious (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Oppose Not only did we just close an identical discussion, but the media(especially online) have treated them as one thing increasingly so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:754a:4f00:b4ae:e2e:9fdb:925a (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support: This should be the article about the ruling regime, and it only governed 1996–2001. Everything between 2001 and 2021 should be, and has already been adequately described on "Taliban". NoNews! 01:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Per nomination and Nice4What. Yes, the '96-'01 administration and the current one are run by the same organization, but they are not the same, and represent two very distinct periods in Afghan history. Should be separate articles. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• ’’’Oppose’’’’: Simple is good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.78.170 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Cedwoodint (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It's one thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've signed 3 unsigned comments by IPs already, and some of these oppose votes by anonymous users are suspiciously similar. This discussion has already run its course and should be closed with the rename being effected. This article was, until August 2021, only about the Taliban government of 1996–2001. Consensus should've been demanded for changing the subject into encompassing the period until 2021, not for renaming the article to reflect the new reality. Avilich (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: It makes more suspicious that the ones that votes oppose are ip users. Beshogur (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge the articles. This is a common sense issue. Other pages have their country history in full. It's as simple as this..it was an Islamic emirate before the occupation of Afghanistan by the US & our allies. We assisted the citizens in the rebuilding of a country administered, headed & controlled by an oppressive extremist terrorist organization. INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TERROR ORGANIZATION by just about 99% of international & regional unions (ie. UN, EU, UAC, ASEAN, etc). We should be making knowledge as accessible, accurate, and without bias. I strongly AGREE, URGE, and RECOMMEND the expedited merging of these articles. Morpheus890 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

However, I STRONGLY OPPOSE renaming the article, and move to merge all ISLAMIC EMIRATE OF AFGHANISTAN pages to 1 SINGLE PAGE. This should not be a discussion, and be about the end-user & the ability for users to find accurate+relevant information. We have a duty to the worldwide group of users that rely on this community to record the facts, info, and knowledge as we get it. Morpheus890 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Another utter nonsense vote by yet another single-purpose account. Merging all articles violates WP:TOOBIG, and there was no consensus ever to make this one about 1996–today instead of only the 1996–2001 period. Avilich (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support - per the arguments outlined by myself and others above and in the previous discussions. To try to have one article cover two states and an insurgent/shadow state - essentially three very different systems with their own unique governments, militaries, and economies - results in an complete mess of an article, as can be seen in the current version of the article. The fact that one has to split every section into "1996–2001", "2001–2021", and "2021–present" already showcases that we should not throw everything together. The "1996–2001" state deserves its own article, just as the "2001–2021" rebel/shadow government does. Applodion (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Simply due to the nature of each state being different. It makes readers difficult to understand that the Islamic Emirate which existed between 2001-2021 was not a continuous government but an insurgent group. However, I support having one article named Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan with this article being named Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996-2001) as a more detailed addition to its first period of governance. 82.28.152.167 (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support splitting the article temporally as per Silicon Prophet and Applodion. The page as-is suffers from extreme bloat, and the non-chronology hurts readability since every section has to be split into "1996–2001", "2001–2021", and "2021–present" parts. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support I withheld comment so long as the Afghan resistance still held effective control over a part of the country in the Panjshir Valley. With its fall, the Taliban is the de facto government over all of Afghanistan and any resistance is now effectively an insurgency. There is no dispute. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan doesn't exist and the Taliban holds effective control over the entire country. How much longer can we pretend that the Taliban isn't in charge? Merge the sections on the current Islamic Emirate into the Afghanistan article and have the Infobox there reflect the Islamic Emirate, and make this about the previous Emirate.--RM (Be my friend) 17:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This article should be merged into Afghanistan. The IEA government has existed continuously since 1994 even if it controlled only small territories between 2001 and 2021. Any article on IEA should be clear on it's direct continuity between the 1994-96, 1996-2001, 2001-2021, and 2021-present periods. However, I would support a creation of a History of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) article. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 02:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Serafart: This article was already about the 1996–2001 period until just last month, when people started adding piles of post-2021 content without consensus. Ideally you should support rather than oppose the move, so that the article go back to dealing with the period 1996–2001 (you yourself said an article about that needs to exist). After the move is concluded, the current title would then be redirected to Afghanistan, as you propose. Avilich (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Avilich: I do not support moving this article to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) as it is the same entity as the current IEA. However, I would support creating a new article entitled History of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) to reflect the fact that it is the same entity as it was before. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 04:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Serafart: But the proposed title does not imply that the entities are different, and this article was already about the history of the Islamic Emirate between 1996 and 2001 until just last month. It just needs a rename so it can go back to being what it used to be, and you're obstructing it. Avilich (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• This article should be merged into Afghanistan. This article is roughly 272kB already, the 'country' article is roughly 252kB already, 252+272 = approx 524kB. WP:TOOBIG recommends splitting an article if it is >60kB, so a merge would make an article approaching 8.5 times larger than recommended size. That is apart from any consideration of needing to deal with AT LEAST 3 distinct phases of 'the emirate' for each issue covered - which would easily become muddled and unreadable. It also ignores the need to add new developments post 2021. Of course there should be a brief summary of all the phases in the 'country' article, but a merge has nothing to recommend it AFAI can see. It is simply fixating on the fact that the organisation, (but not the effective governing regime), has kept the same name for itself through its various phases, (even though sources largely ignore the 'name continuity' for regime changes). I also don't understand this oppose. Pincrete (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Per Avilich, I don't understand this oppose. The suggested solution is what this RM is intended to clarify. See here for the status quo ante version. CMD (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed renaming of the article because it will confuse the readers and allow them to think that the current Afghan government is significantly different in ideology than the Emirate that existed from 98 to 01. However, if the Emirate contains some kind of formative branches of government and actually ends up being somewhat democratic, then I believe a page could be created for the current Afghan government. I only believe a page could be created for the current Emirate if it commits to the expectations of the International Community. Lunnesta8899 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Lunnesta8899

@Lunnesta8899: Ideology is entirely nugatory to the proposal. This article's last stable version dealt only with the government of 96 to 01, and the title should reflect that. Avilich (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the renaming is not in line with other state names of Afghanistan. Sideriver84 (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• What? Avilich (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per the [1] this previous discussion. MeshaNigo (talk) 3:26, 9 September (UTC)

• @Meshanigo: That discussion concluded that 1996–2001 and 2021 should remain separate, so it supports the renaming. Avilich (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Support The bulk of information in this article focuses on the 1996-2001 period whilst the rest can be moved over to the main Afghanistan article or in some cases such as the cricket stuff probably should be moved to a more specific article anyway. As things stand now that the main Afghanistan page is reflecting the current regime its a confusing set up to have both that article and this one at first glance appear to be about the same subject. Llewee (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Most people opposing the rename don’t even provide reliable information ArabMan719 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like people supporting are giving very reliable info. MeshaNigo (talk) 3:14, 9 September 2021

Support - Any information regarding the new government should be moved to Afghanistan and the article should mention it to an extent, but it ought to be reorganized nonetheless. As mentioned above, the pages for the different French republics make a good example as to why these two periods of governance are different. Also important is noting that the way that this new administration operates, which is different from its 20-year old counterpart. 180app (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Now that we've finally started putting IEA info at Afghanistan, it's time for this article to go back. BSMRD (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support I support a renaming of this article to one reflecting the Emirate from 1996 to 2001 and I don't think this discussion will end until it is realized that the current Emirate is cohesively different and not as radical as the one which is forming now. I also believe the new Emirate can have its own page. But to take an entire article and merge it into another is unnecessary and probably will cause distortion. Lunnesta8899 (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Lunnesta8899

• Support as the necessary next step to prevent a WP:CFORK now that Afghanistan is about the emirate. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Ok I agree to move this article because any stuff about the new government can be moved to Afghanistan and if the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan regains control ove Afghanistan, then move the new government info to “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (2021 - [YEAR]). - ShivanshPlays1 (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Until such time as IEA comes to mean the state (according to WP customary criteria) rather than the government of the state, then the current governance belongs in (the Islamic Republic of) Afghanistan (or a spin out article of it's own a la Democratic Republic of Afghanistan) and this article should reflect the government of Afghanistan that was in place for a period.Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t get it Selfstudier, you say you support the merge but it sounds like you oppose it, it’s either im dumb or you oppose it, if you oppose it, please edit you argument to say “Oppose” instead of “Support”. - ShivanshPlays1 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a move, not a merge and Support is what I intended, maybe read what I wrote a bit more carefully.Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change the article name back to “Islamic emirate of Afghanistan” and be moved back to the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan (2001-present)

Hello I’m Rakeem Abdiel Gunawan. May I suggest that the name of this article be renamed back to the “Islamic emirate of Afghanistan”. You may wonder why? Because the that is current name of the taliban government I want it to be realistic and follow the real time. So please reply to this comment. Also I want it to be moved back to the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan (2001-present) because as I said I want it to be “realistic and follow real time” so please reply. Rakeem Abdiel Gunawan (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see the content of this article, which is about the past, rather than the current time. CMD (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Motto (again)

The motto is listed as the Shahada, but this claim is comnpletely unverified. I have no doubt that the Shahada is central to Afghan's of all political persuasions, but there is no reason to believe that it is/was specifically the motto of the Emirate. Indeed common sense would tend to suggest that such a universal statement of Muslim faith is unsuited to being the motto of anywhere specific. I asked the same question before the article was 'split off' and no one could provide a source for the claim. Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"Totalitarian" is back in the infobox

The use of "totalitarian" here lacks a reliable source that explains its applicability to the 1990s Emirate. I previously commented on problems with the two sources that had been cited; they said almost nothing at all about Afghanistan, and were cited only because they used the words "totalitarian" and "Afghanistan" in proximity. A more fundamental problem is that labeling a government "totalitarian" does not say much about its organization, and is more about saying what the government is not. This is an example of a source that describes, rather than characterizes, the Taliban government: it was a unitary emirate administered through a system of shura councils, among which the Kandahar central shura, Kabul shura and military shura were preeminent. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Change "totalitarian theocracy" to "theocratic emirate", because "totalitarian" lacks an explanatory source and is not a form of government but a moral judgement. Also replace the citation to Gunaratna (which deals with the late US war period) and substitute Rashid (2010) which is more pertinent and is already cited elsewhere in the article. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 02:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, the concerns here are (1) poor sourcing with regard to "totalitarian" (previously discussed, changed, and then rolled back along with weeks of other changes) (2) the use of another source (Gunaratna) that doesn't relate to the time frame of the article vs. a definitive work that does. About what should I obtain consensus, with whom? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I sympathise to the extent that if WP:RS cannot be found for "totalitarian", it should not be there. I would suggest simply 'Islamic theocracy'. 'Emirate' is largely meaningless in this context as it normally means 'somewhere ruled by an Emir' - which doesn't actually apply in this case. Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• Coat of Arms of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.svg
• Flag of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1997-2001, 2021-present).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Anthem

No source for "This is the Home of the Brave". Haffaz (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)