Talk:Islamic Republic of Afghanistan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

TODO List

Hi folks, just noting down some TODOs I can immediately think of

- Change article tense to be in past tense

- Add dates of rule (2001 - 2021) to infobox

- Add section on legacy

- Remove sections too related to the current country IntUnderflow (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Some other thoughts I have: - Expand section on the Taliban offensive.

- The demographics section should be smaller. It'd make sense to describe the population growth during the period and whatnot, but the other sections may be reduced in scope.

- The governance section should stay mostly as it is.

- The economy/infrastructure sections may be merged and reduced in scope.

- The culture section should be reduced as much of it is independent of the government in charge. Gust Justice (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

- Change language referring to "insurgency" to instead reference "civil war" since that would be a more neutral tone. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

date of establishment

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Islamic_State_of_Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic wasn't officially established until 2004 (before that there was a transitional government). So I am changing the establishment date Bwmdjeff (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also a bit confused, but then I realized that the Transitional state ceased to exist on 7 December 2004 when the Afghan Transitional Administration formally dissolved. Mhatopzz (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Assume end of War?

Given how the US "War in Afghanistan" started in 2001 is effectively over with the re-establishment of the IEA, should we get ahead of the curve and change all the talk of that war to past tense too? Apache287 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and I've seen a few WP:RS already refer to this as the end of the war IntUnderflow (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we should wait for a few more days. It might be too early to call it the end of the war. Wait until future statements and/or news articles to confirm whether it is really the end of the war. GucciNuzayer (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's premature. There was a report today for example that Baghlan Province just north of Kabul has been retaken by resistance forces: https://twitter.com/pajhwok/status/1428710427538731017 Not logged in 2 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A agree with IntUnderflow, WP:RS have already called it, and the IE hold the capital. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I moved the article to mainspace

Hi folks, I've moved the Article to namespace as the Afghanistan article no longer refers to the Islamic Republic specifically, which seemed to be the consensus from Talk:Afghanistan for when to move. Please let me know if any concerns or feel free to rollback if you think this is premature, I think at this point though this is far beyond WP:CRYSTAL as lots of WP:RS that the Taliban are re-declaring an Islamic Emirate. IntUnderflow (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Are the years in title needed?

There is no other entity called "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan", so there's no need to disambiguate IMO. DominikWSP (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a good point. I based the creation of this article off of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan when it had years in the name a few hours ago, however in hindsight this feels like it's not needed. If nobody else has any concerns I think we should change the name 👍 IntUnderflow (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

​ Be bold and move the page. There may be in the future, but we can’t WP:CRYSTALBALL.Manabimasu (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I will have to add to requested moves as target page already exists. DominikWSP (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved WP:SNOW - Move is in line with naming policy, with no other entity sharing the name. (non-admin closure) Serafart (talk) (contributions) 03:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2004–2021) → Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – No need for disambiguation as there was only ever one Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. DominikWSP (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Agreed, the disambiguation is unnecessary at the moment. TheRealDario04 (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per TheRealDario04. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Not only is the disambiguation unnecessary, the gov technically still exists in exile. BSMRD (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per BSMRD. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per BSMRD --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 23:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per BSMRD SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The country fell. Pyramids09 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support, disambiguation is entirely unnecessary. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The state fell. The years indicate when the state existed. Pages can still have the years accompanying the name such as Republic of China (1912-1949) to classify the years it was in power over a certain territory. Without the brackets, to some users it may imply that the state still governs AfghanistanYeungkahchun (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't imply that. The years are only in titles where there might be confusion between two entities that existed at different points of time. When there's no possible confusion, that's not needed; that's why the Russian Empire article is Russian Empire and not Russian Empire (1721-1917). The case of Republic of China (1912-1949) is an exception because that state has changed, continuing to exist but on a different territory, which is not the case in Afghanistan. DominikWSP (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Whether the state fell seems to be irrelevant going by the precedent of other pages. It is not current practice on Wikipedia to specify the years in which a state existed in the title of its page except in ambiguous cases. Cf. Ottoman Empire, Second French Republic. Republic of China (1912-1949) is so named presumably to disambiguate it from its continuation on Taiwan, which depending on what political claims are accepted, may or may not be the same state, so that example's precedent would not apply here. Honsgoc (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, unnecessary disambiguation. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support, unnecessary disambiguation. —Syed Aashir (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support, disambiguation is unnecessary. Alliephenix99 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Snow support, GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The republic fell. Apart from that, keeping dates is better for understanding and contextualization reason, taking into account the English-speaking readers. Salvabl (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there any wikipedia policy which supports this argument? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support, unnecessary and also the arguments that oppose it doesn't have anything to do with the wiki or its standards. --Jakeukalane (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support, I'm the one who initially named the Article, and I regret adding the years now per all the reasons stated above. IntUnderflow (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm in favor of closing this discussion early given the overwhelming consensus for support and moving the page without waiting any further. IntUnderflow (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that this move is supported, however because the target page already exists we need to wait for someone with the proper permissions to come along to actually do the move. I suppose it could be listed at WP:RMT. BSMRD (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Agreed, the disambiguation is unnecessary at the moment. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:43, 16 August 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.

Government in exile?

The article currently states that Islamic Republic of Afghanistan continues to exist as a government in exile (also, the government in exile article currently does the same). However that claim does not seem to be supported by reliable sources. It seems be derived from the fact that the president is alive and fled to Tajikistan, and drawing that kind of conclusion seems to be original research. Reliable sources report that the government has collapsed, which seems to contradict the claim of continued existence, even as a government in exile. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Came here to say this. Ghani's own statement since leaving the country doesn't indicate any intention to form a government in exile, various officials of the Islamic Republic have referred to him as the 'former president', and there hasn't been any news yet about one being established. Wikipedia's jumping the gun. 82.18.206.157 (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

it is de facto Government in exile Mhatopzz (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I came to comment on this as well, there is no indication that the IR exists in any form currently, nor is there any indication it will exist again in the future. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to edit this out now IntUnderflow (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I had reverted this because the UN does not regconized it as most counrries stated that they would not recognize any government that is created by force. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mhatopzz: AFAIK no government in exile has been formed (at least not yet). President Ashraf Ghani has been reported fleeing to the United States, while it is unclear to what happened to other government officials.--Karma1998 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Lack of recognition of the new government does not imply that the old one still exists in any form. Deriving the existence of one government from the lack of recognition of another one is a non sequitur. 176.62.32.5 (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That's one intuitive argument, sure. The other, probably equally as natural in its own way, since the existence of a government in any context is a question open to subjective vagaries, is that if the members of an established government are recognized by other foreign states and international bodies, their mere existence in those roles after being driven into exile, via the transitive property, in fact that of an exiled government. I would say both sides of the disagreement here (completely polite though it has been--kudos and thank you) are begging the question in their assessment of this question to some degree, at least until the parties involved begin to make more concrete statements and the secondary sources begin to carry (and thus verify) said statements. There's been a lot of emphasis on the sources (rightly so), but I am not seeing much in the way of evidence here: like anyone who keeps up with the global news on a daily basis, or has a particular interest in human rights issues, I've parsed through a fair number of news pieces on the subject of this article in recent days, and I wasn't left with a particularly strong read on this question either way, nor have I seen the language in particular sources used in this article at present which made the conclusion certain.

So I'd like to be convinced, or else my own inclination is towards a wait and see approach. To the best of my knowledge, this is a somewhat novel issue no group of editors on this project have had to work around as the events were unfolding--at least as regards this kind of continuity between states, with one toppling the other, rather than a splintering state or outside syncratic state--and we don't have precedent consensus to lean into when trying to determine how WP:WEIGHT bears out in a situation where the sources by and large have not even sought to address whether (and if so, in what a form) a government in exile might be constituted. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the more affirmative a statement to be cited to the sources, the higher the burden on that interpretation to be proven to be prevalent in the sourcing. But by the same token, here we have a situation where nobody (presented in the sourcing so far, anyway) has said that a government exile is not to be expected, and certainly sources are quite varied in how they are treating the underlying legitimacy of the government in the absence of actual control of the nation's sovereign territories.

Anyway, all of this is my long-winded way of saying this doesn't seem at all simple/closed-and-shut, and I think some patience (per WP:CRYSTAL) has to be the guiding rule for the moment. Ultimately I think we are going to end up with language here which is highly attributed and reflecting a bevy of opinions, as the future of Afghanistan becomes a major topic of speculation, debate, and geopolitical realpolitik. For the present moment, I can live with either of the two interpretations mentioned above, but would like to see more sourcing to find the medium-term language, if you follow my meaning. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So, does that means the Afghanistan IR already ceased to exist with no exiles? Mhatopzz (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There does not seem to be anything in reliable sources supporting the assertion of its continued existence. On the other hand, reliable sources report that it has collapsed. In this situation, stating that it still exists (in exile or otherwise) would be WP:OR and it would be like stating that there is a certain teapot in space. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think there are not enough reliable sources yet to talk about a government in exile. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan should be referred as a former country that ceased to exist. A tweet from the ex president shouldn’t be considered as a source. Gonzaloges (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This should be removed per the situation with Tibet as technically the Dalai Lama is the head of government in exile. There are also not enough sources as pointed out above about a government in exile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I'm going to remove this line from the infobox, feel free to raise if you think I'm mistaken IntUnderflow (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey folks, I'm also removing the reference to in-exile from the top bar of the article, as again feel free to raise if you think I've got it wrong and we can discuss :) IntUnderflow (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Amrullah Saleh claims presidency

First VP Amrullah Saleh is claiming to be the legitimate president. Might be worth keeping tabs on. 82.18.206.157 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes and although he has claimed that and has joined with the Panjshir resistance, I'm not sure he should yet be listed as acting president in the article. I don't think any official statement has come out from the IRA acknowledging his claim. Not logged in 2 (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing any sources acknowledging that Saleh is the legitimate president. I found one article citing this claim, (See https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210818-in-panjshir-last-free-region-in-afghanistan-saleh-claims-caretaker-presidency) but none supporting nations are recognizing him as president. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Jurisdicta, please see this for example, which is from the official site of the National Resistance Front in Panjshir: https://www.nrfafg.org/leadership Not logged in 2 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Lede section

@A.h. king: "Internationally recognized state" is a wildly misleading description. There isn't a state to even talk to anymore, just a government-in-exile that it isn't clear is even asserting claimed control of the country any more. So "former state" is far more accurate - it used to be a state, but currently exists only in exile / theory. For the international orgs, that wasn't removed from the article, just the lede section, but it just isn't that important. Who exactly is paying all the diplomats and representatives to the UN now? Certainly not the Afghan Republic. And why would any international orgs give these reps the time of day when they don't have any power? Now, to be sure, the Taliban government is NOT internationally recognized (either), but any international recognition that old Afghanistan has is pro-forma because nobody's updated the membership list yet. In the unusual situation of some sort of PRC / Taiwan break in the future where there is clearly one state that has certain international legitimacy and another state with a different international legitimacy status and they each rule at least some territory, fine, we'll come to that later, but that's just not the situation anymore. A state, by definition, rules a territory, and the Republic currently doesn't, much to everyone's sorrow. SnowFire (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that's a fairly straight-forward and rational analysis, but there also exists the caveat that it's going to be necessary to give the sourcing at least a few days before you should anticipate elements of those points being expressly stated in their voice. I don't know which approach is the original, or if there have been reversions on this question already, but I'd urge both sides to leave the current version in place temporarily as the corpus of the sources developes on this question. On a meta-commentary matter quite aside from the content issue here, warm greetings to you, my fellow SnowNoun. Should we develop a secret handshake and a charter for the social club? :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The government isn't in exile, it controls territory in Afghanistan still. --Sailor Ceres (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Per the IP address comment below - do you think that Wikipedia was in error when it referred to the Emirate as a "former state" from 2001-2021? The Taliban controlled far more territory during that period than the tiny remnant the resistance has right now, and the remaining resistance has very little to do with the structure of the government even 3 months ago - it's essentially a group that has taken up the banner of the cause, but none of the ministries / officials / etc. The government-as-of-three-months-ago really is in exile or has resigned / quit. SnowFire (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an error, because the government of Afghanistan had been formed in 2001. At this point, negotiations are still ongoing between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah their main negotiators) and the Taliban with respect to forming a new government. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is still a governmental entity despite having lost the vast majority of its territory including its capital and despite its president being in the UAE. Not logged in 2 (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Former Country or Alive?

Here it is written that "...Afghanistan was a country...", but they still have one small stronghold in Panjshir Province. So doesn't that mean that the IR. Afghanistan is still " alive" with some territory? GucciNuzayer (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

An analogy: It seems that Panjshir resistance is to Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (after the Taliban offensive) what the Taliban were to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (after the US invasion). The resistance may seek to reestablish the IRA, just like the Taliban reestablished the IEA, but they are not quite the same thing. They could be considered as remnants of the former country but that is not the same as being that same country. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that analogy is correct. Hamid Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah and other officials are currently negotiating on behalf of the IRA with the IEA with respect to the formation of the new government. The IRA still exists as an entity; it has simply lost the vast majority of its territory. The Panjshir resistance is made up of members of the IRA including its former vice president, but these are members who have obviously split off from the negotiations the IRA is doing, so the connection at this point seems rather loose? Not logged in 2 (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Amrullah Saleh is the acting president of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan?

Has the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan acknowledged that Saleh is its acting president? I have not seen anything official in that regard. I have additionally seen speculation that his self declaration is throwing a monkey wrench into the negotiations over the new government. Not logged in 2 (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

To answer my own question, with the defense minister joining in, sure looks like it's official that yes, he is the acting president: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/panjshir-flies-flag-of-resistance-again-amrullah-says-he-is-president-of-afghanistan-298553 Not logged in 2 (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Lead could use some work. I see a lot of WP:RECENT. 4 of the 5 paragraphs are about the recent collapse, rather than summarizing the article. Surely this government did a lot over the course of 20 years that is worth summarizing in the lead. In particular, the paragraph starting with "On 17 August" doesn't seem to say much and can probably be replaced with other content or removed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan *is* (not was) an Islamic republic that governed...

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan still exists, in Panjshir, where its acting president, defense minister, and other officials are. Use of the word "was" is definitely not accurate. It has not surrendered yet nor has it dissolved. Not logged in 2 (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a scope issue. This page is about the Republic as it was from 2004 to the Fall of Kabul. Panjshir resistance is where the current iteration should be discussed. BSMRD (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The lead and infobox describe an entity that still exists, though. It makes sense to say The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is an Islamic republic that governed Afghanistan between 2004 and 2021 during the War in Afghanistan. That's factually correct; it conveys that it still exists in some form, while also conveying that it formerly governed most of the country. "Was" is factually incorrect and doesn't square with the rest of the lead or the infobox. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Redid the lede again to stop these stupid edit wars: "The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan controlled an Islamic republic that existed between 2004 and 2021 during the War in Afghanistan." Simple enough, right? We can all agree on that? Not logged in 2 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Satellite state?

Someone added that this government was a satellite of the US and that seems just a little bit biased. ICommandeth 23:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This wasn't my addition, but I don't see how it's not. Lord ding dong (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)