Jump to content

Talk:Supreme Leader of Afghanistan

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

Discussion

[edit]

Are we going to ignore the fact of establishment of emirate in 1996, fall in 2001 and reinstate in 2021[1]. beside that, Mr. Mullah Omar took the title Amir al-Mu'minin, and now Mr. Hibatullah Akhundzada again took the title. Mr. Akhtar Mansour was 2nd Supreme Commander of Taliban not Amir as Emirate was gone. Supreme Commander of Taliban and Amir of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan two separate things. selimshah70 11:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Taliban have always referred to themselves as the Islamic Emirate even when they were waging the insurgency, so the current emir is the third emir of the Emirates, even though he is just the second with full control over the country. BakedGoods357 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/02/taliban-calls-for-the-declaration-of-the-islamic-emirate.php

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 September 2021

[edit]
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: not moved. No prejudice against renomination if and when reliable sources coalesce more firmly around a title. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan → Emir of Afghanistan – There are no sources for titling the article like the way it is currently, and I can't find, "د مش د افغانستان اسلامي امارت" ("Head of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan") as the name of the Taliban-Afghan Head of State anywhere. Instead "أمير المؤمنين" (Commander of the Faithful) has been used, the short form of which is Amir/Emir - just like Emir of Qatar or Emir of Kuwait. Here is a BBC article that also uses the title "Commander of the Faithful" ([1]) - following convention of other articles we can just use Emir as a contraction of Amir al-Mu'minin.

Emir of Afghanistan currently redirects to List_of_heads_of_state_of_Afghanistan#Monarchs, this would need to be changed.

I did not suggest "Emir of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" as it is too long and does not follow convention with other titles (we do not title a page "Emir of the State of Qatar" etc.) I similarly do not suggest "Amir al-Mu'minin of Afghanistan" either. ParthikS8 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I believe it's still way too early to ascertain a correct title for Hibatullah Akhundzada. One thing is that the new government continues to remain unrecognized, so leaving Islamic Emirate out of the article title would be controversial and problematic. However, the far bigger issue is that we still have no clue what Akhundzada’s actual title is. We know for sure that he bears the title "Amir al-Mu'minin", but this one is merely religious and honorary in nature; meaning not a government office. The majority of sources refer to him as "Supreme Leader" (BBC, BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, The Diplomat), however some sources do not make a distinction between Akhundzada as head of the Taliban and Akhundzada as head of the new Afghan government. I have also seen some editors argue that the Islamic Emirate – as a government – continued to exist as government in exile even after the U.S. invasion (thus preserving its continuity). Which would mean that the Taliban themselves never officially made a distinction between the head of the Taliban and the head of the Islamic Emirate, as they were both seen as the same entity. Regardless of it all, simply renaming the article "Emir of Afghanistan" is out of question, since the rulers of the Hotak Empire, Durrani Empire, and Afghan Emirate already held the exact same title. Furthermore, only one, outdated, 2016 source referred to Akhundzada as "Emir"; I haven't seen a single new source using the title. So right now I think we should wait until the world’s major players recognize the new government and then we can reconsider an RM and work out a fitting title. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that "Amir al-Mu'minin" is merely an honourary title and merely a "religious" title is incorrect. The title itself has always been a political title used to claim political leadership of Muslims, analogous to the title of Caliph. When he came into power Ali Ibn Abi Talib used this title. Yes as of late some in the Muslim world use it as what seems to be a ceremonial/honourary title, like the King of Morocco, but that is not its original usage nor the usage of the Taliban.
I also refer you to the following excerpt:

"The idea the amīr al-mu ’minīn is simply the protocollary title of a caliph is clearlymisleading. It was used by, and more importantly of, men who made no claimto be caliph, and not all caliphs used it. In North African history, it reflected a particular sort and level of authority. Firstly, it meant that the ruler or comman-der had certain specific functions and that his power in the region was effec-tively absolute. He had the power to make agreements with foreign states - and to control the political activity at the centre of the province (as opposed to the periphery). He was responsible for the highest responsibilities of auth-ority: the maintenance of order and the shari‘a, and for the active protection of Islamic territory from non-Muslim invasion or occupation. Even so, all of those functions could be achieved without an amīr al-mu ’minin: individuals could lead armed groups, tribal structures and armed groups could impose the sharia on a local scale and maintain order in a village or the quarter of a town. The Algerian civil war provided numerous examples of this - and the local commander was referred to as amir, but not amīr al-mu ’minīn - though a village amir’s wife might be styled umm al-mu‘minīn in the context of that village (Gacemi 2006, e.g. 69). Using the full title of amīr al-mu ’minin lifted the focus to a higher level, implying a permanent and wide-scale control of territory. When Abu Hamza and Abu ‘Umar al-Baghdadi proclaimed the Islamic State in Iraq in 20016 and 2007, and referred to its leader as amīr al- mu’minīn, that is what they were doing. Abu Umar took the title of amīr al- mu’minīn and Iraqi Sunnis were called on to give him a bay‘a. Yet he was not yet a caliph, more a caliph-in-waiting (Bunzel 2015, 18). That was the position held by Usama bin Ladin and al-Zawahiri. In 2008, replying to a question about the status of Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban and whether he was ‘the commander of all believers, or ...[ merely] the amir of an Islamic emirate in the land of Khurasan?’al-Zawahiri replied: "Mullah Muhammad ‘Umar (may God protect him) is the amir of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and whoever joins it, Shaykh Osama bin Laden (may God protect him) being one of his soldiers. As for the commander of the believ-ers across the world, this is the leader of the caliphal state that we, along with every faithful Muslim, are striving to restore, God willing. (Bunzel 2014)""

— Pennell, R., 2016. What is the significance of the title ‘Amīr al-mu'minīn?'. The Journal of North African Studies, 21(4), pp.623-644.
As for the sources you have quoted, the BBC source clearly shows an infographic with "Commander of the Faithful" which is the English for "Amir al-Mu'minin". This can be shorted to just Amir/Emir, as in the above reliable source too. We also have the following source explicitly denote him as the Emir: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-07/Taliban-unveil-new-government-13mUNqOhaOA/index.html. Thus this is the title we should use. Prior to this they were also reporting that they expected him to be titled as such.
One should also remember the distinction between a Head of State and Head of Government in states that make a difference between these two - it is correct to say for instance that "Emmanuel Macron is not part of the French Government" as he is the "Government" and its head - the Prime Minister - is appointed by him. Regardless colloquially we state he is part of the government - and so too would we say for the current Emir of the Islamic Emirate - despite some sources clearly making the "Government/Head of State" seperation.
Quoting sources prior to the formation of the caretaker government to alledge he does not have an official role will not do as evidence against him having a role in the State.
Finally regarding the waiting for world governments to recongnise the Taliban this goes against previous concensus that as of now still stand. To quote what is pinned to top of the talkpage of Afghanistan:

"Q: Why does this article state that the government of Afghanistan is the Islamic Emirate? Isn't that government unrecognized/illegitimate?

A: Because reliable sources state that the Taliban have taken over. This determination is the result of a discussion among editors in this RfC. A new RfC (Request for Comment) will be required to change this. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, which may not align with editors' own views on the matter. The threshold for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, such as by determining and advocating the rightful government of a country based on international law."
— Talk:Afghanistan
As such I would hope you reverse your opposition to this, especially in light of both the BBC and CGTN source.ParthikS8 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that sources are all either using the title "Supreme Leader", "Supreme Commander" or "Commander of the Faithful/Amir al-Mu'minin" confirms that it is impossible to ascertain Akhundzada's correct title right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the current article name either, but it does its job as a temporary placeholder. Either way, I still don't see how "Emir of Afghanistan" is not going to result in a disambiguation mayhem, as this exact title was used by the historical Afghan monarchs. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: He has no official political title yet. The BBC source does not support the claim that he has been named Emir of the country. His only official title is as leader of the Taliban, as an organization. The current title of this article is an appropriate placeholder. Here's a more recent source speculating that he will be declared Supreme Leader in the future: [2]. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the BBC source does support the claim, are you reading the same article I linked? It has an infographic where it labels him as the "Commander of the Faithful" which is the English translation of "Amir al-Mu'minin". The current title of this article is unsourced and unverifable - if no official title did exist - which I dispute as Amir al-Mu'minin is his official title - then the article should be deleted as it built upon an unverifiable assertion of what his title is. ParthikS8 (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too soon. The suggestion that the title "Amir al-Mu'minin" makes him the Emir of Afghanistan is original research/synthesis in my view. The leader may be styled as Amir al-Mu'minin, and he may be "of Afghanistan", but that doesn't imply he is titled as the Emir of Afghanistan. Neither official statements of the IEA regime nor English-language media sources refer to him with the English title of Emir. "Head" is not a title but a descriptive term. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW, we do have inconsistencies on the topic, at Afghanistan's infobox & related articles. Therefore, it would be helpful, if we were to use whatever title (Head/Emir/Supreme Leader) is chosen here? on related articles & bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2021

[edit]
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. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan → Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan – Akhundzada is signing his statements with this title ([3]). While we are still waiting on RS to coalesce around a more specific title such as "Supreme Leader" or "Emir", I believe we should prefer "Leader" to "Head" since Akhundzada is using the former, and the two are equally generic descriptors. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 1 May 2022

[edit]
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: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title in the current discussion. I have created a new redirect from the proposed title to this article. It is true that evidence of usage in reliable sources was given here; if revisiting this in the future, numerical data showing a preponderance of overall usage might help attract the support necessary to reach a new consensus. Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan → Supreme Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan – "Supreme Leader" has emerged as the most common in RS since the caretaker government was implemented (Agence France-Presse, BBC, Al Jazeera, TOLOnews, RFE/RL, Reuters, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Dawn, The Diplomat, Ariana News, Voice of America, NPR). I was holding off on making this RM because we didn't have confirmation that the Taliban themselves have used it as the formal title, rather than just a description. Thanks to Jasper Chu, we can see in this recent statement by Akhundzada himself that this is in fact an official name used by the Taliban in English. We could alternatively move to Supreme Leader of Afghanistan, but most sources do not appear to simplify it in that way (instead saying "the Taliban's supreme leader" or the "Islamic Emirate's supreme leader"), and I'd prefer to keep the IEA in the name since most of the office's history so far has been as the leader of an insurgency. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m personally very hesitant about changing the name of the title. Statements and decrees signed under Akhunzada have come been issued under Leadership of the Islamic Emirate, Leader of the Islamic Emirate, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Emirate seemingly interchangeably and with no consistency. I’d recommend that ‘Supreme Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ be used as a redirect instead, as ‘Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ is most commonly used in statements and decrees issued by the Amir al-Mu’minin Jasper Chu (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's reliable sources only that matter to WP:COMMONNAME, not primary sources, and "Supreme Leader" is far dominant in that regard. So we should not be weighing the number of Taliban sources, they only count for one thing, which is verification that the title is being used. Independent sources are weighed to determine what is the most common. From COMMONNAME:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)

So, we should only care about the official name to the extent that a certain title may be incorrect. This is similar to the Supreme Leader of Iran, where the term "Leader" is what is used in the constitution, but "Supreme Leader" is also used officially and is dominant in sources, which causes us to go with that for the article title. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes some sources do. But the point is that not all reliable sources refer to them as supreme leaders consistently. These sources (The Guardian, BBC, Al Jazeera, WSJ, France 24) about Mullah Omar, for example, which are much more detailed, refer to Mullah Omar as a "leader", but not "supreme leader". In fact, the first source says, Although statements were issued in his name every Eid, Omar took almost no active role in the Taliban after delegating power in 2001. Khestwol (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are required by Wikipedia policy (WP:NAMECHANGES) to give much more weight to the current name. When the name of a position changes, Wikipedia has always updated the infobox and title to reflect that when sources follow. President of the State Affairs Commission is a relatively recent name for that office, yet the page was moved and the infobox was updated, without removing historical information from the article. Sources after the formation of the new government have almost exclusively used "Supreme Leader". Here's yet another from yesterday: Al Jazeera. As the move tag states, this discussion must be based on article title policy, including WP:NAMECHANGES:

Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.

All the sources you have provided refer only to Mullah Omar, and have little relevance to the current situation. The one name they have used consistently is Amir al-Momineen; it is the English translations that are more transient. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another title used was also Amir-ul-Momenin of the IEA (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) for Haibatullah Akhundzada in this regard. As I’ve said, there is very little consistency with who issues these statements. Sometimes it’s issued from the Leadership Office (https://alemarahenglish.af/?p=49016) or Office of the Leadership of the Islamic Emirate, among others, and this was under Haibatullah Akhundzada’s tenure.

I feel it’s best to wait for another statement to come out issued directly from the Leader to make a final decision on the title. Jasper Chu (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir al-Momineen is the only consistent tile, the English titles vary in their statements and will likely continue to because English is not the Taliban's native language and the translation depends on who they have writing the statement. As I've pointed out (and I'm a little annoyed you've decided to completely ignore my previous response to you and repeat the same point), Wikipedia policy does not allow us to use Taliban statements to determine the article title, as they are primary sources. You are required to make arguments based on article title policy when participating in an RM. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be favoring primary sources. Here are examples from the mainstream Afghan media, that continue to call him "leader" up to the present day: TOLOnews, Hasht-e Subh Daily. VoA called him "Taliban chief" yesterday. Here are some other reliable sources that refer to Hibatullah Akhundzada as "leader" or "chief" in 2022: Al Jazeera, France 24, RFE/RL, The Gazette, Times of India, The Statesman, Mint, Hindustan Times, Dawn, The Print. Khestwol (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that I'm trying to make this about primary sources is absurd considering my opening statement and my responses to Jasper Chu. I added this because Jasper Chu was demanding to see more primary sources in addition to my secondary ones! Indian sources (The Statesman, Hindustan Times, Times of India, and The Print) are absolutely NOT RS for anything having to do with Afghan or Pakistani politics; there is a reason the DS area is for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Just look at the RSP entry for one of your sources, WP:TOI. In all articles that are actually about the supreme leader, TOLOnews is using "Supreme Leader": ([4], [5], [6], [7]). "Taliban chief" (Dawn, Mint, VoA) is obviously not a title, but a description, and Dawn and VoA are using "Supreme Leader" for the title. Your Al Jazeera source is based only on an *image caption*, whereas I've provided an Al Jazeera article about the supreme leader that says "Supreme Leader". The Gazette is also an image caption. Hasht-e Subh Daily calls him a "senior leader", which again is a description. The article I provided in RFE/RL that is primarily about the supreme leader uses that title. Same for my France 24 article. You are cherry picking your sources by relying on image captions, passing mentions in sources that use "Supreme Leader" in more authoritative articles I've already provided, and downright unreliable sources. I don't get why people are grasping to avoid the change when all the most authoritative sources are in alignment on this. Is it because people don't want to call Mullah Akhundzada "Supreme" because they feel it's too complimentary for a human rights abuser? Because that would not be a reason to go against what RS say. Article title policy must be applied. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Spelling variation

[edit]

Reliable sources are using two spellings consistently, so we should mention both spellings in the first line of this article to avoid confusion. France 24, VoA and others are using "Hibatullah Akhundzada" but Al Jazeera is using "Haibatullah Akhunzada" (with an extra "a" and without the first "d") consistently. Al Jazeera is also considered reliable on Wikipedia (WP:RSPSS), we can trust it on the alternative spelling. I have made Haibatullah Akhunzada a redirect to this article already. An argument used to revert my edit was that "There is only one spelling (in Pashto)", however, that is simply wrong. Yes, most sources in Pashto/Persian use "هبت الله" (i.e. Hibatullah), but VoA Pashto and DW Persian (at least in these two articles) have used "هیبت الله" (i.e. "Haibatullah"). For some reason, there is a spelling inconsistency in all three languages. Two common spellings exist in reliable sources in each of these languages, so this should be reflected in this article. Khestwol (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion for Talk:Hibatullah Akhundzada, not this talk page. But your argument appears sound, so I don't have a problem with you restoring your edit. But you should add the alternate Pashto spelling the alternate romanization represents. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Oh yes, I just realized I commented at the wrong place. This should be at Talk:Hibatullah Akhundzada. Haha Khestwol (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 October 2022

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan → Supreme Leader of Afghanistan – Dominant in expert sources (except when sources are using "leader" as a description rather than a full title). Rather than post news articles like I did before, I will simply point out that Bette Dam, the leading expert on Mullah Omar's life, uses "Supreme Leader" in her book [8]. It is the more descriptive and appropriate translation of Amir al-Mu'minin (please see that article for information, the title is meant to signify that the holder has an unrivaled position of leadership in an Islamic community). The Taliban has used both translations, but please note that they are NOT a reliable source for the purposes of an RM, which was claimed by some in the last one. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Afghanistan has been notified of this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Leader_of_Afghanistan&oldid=1208779854"