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 Maykii (talk | contribs) at 10:50, 18 August 2021 (→‎Proposal to merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

We should create a new page for the Taliban government because the US isnt going in there anytime soon to bring back the Republic. ChocFrosted (talk) 04:38, 17 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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:BCE7:4B48:C183:4ED1 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC) 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.[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]

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]

who changed the anthem portion?

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

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

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

"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 [11] [12] [13] --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 11:37, 17 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
  11. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLJbT4QYXcI
  12. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtbyg8hKxFM
  13. ^ 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

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]

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]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021 (3)

Our flag is always Black,red.green dont let this taliban-isis take our country and change our flag Think if somebody did that too your country Pless 83.137.6.173 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 17 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]

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:


I think we should merge but also redirect to this page. It’s clear the situation in the country isn’t going to change much at this point so I think it would be for the better. BakedGoods357 (talk) 04:14, 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]

Strongly Support The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan should be merged and redirected to Afghanistan as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was the part and redirected to Afghanistan before its collapse. Syed Aashir (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support at this point, this is the logical thing to do. The new government is getting support and recognition, and it will take some days till it gets normalized. We don't even know when there'll be a new constitution (or if there will ever be one), but the flag, government and administration of the State is under control of the Taliban. -Theklan (talk) 08:22, 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. [6]

IntUnderflow (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/17/transcript-of-talibans-first-press-conference-in-kabul
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan_(1996–2001)&oldid=1039379535"