Talk:Politics of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

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

Untitled comments[edit]

Dear MUNer, I've removed your comment on the main page. What delegation are you? Assuming you are on the security council for Belfast, I will see you tomorrow!195.195.166.31 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is "As of 2002, Afghanistan is led by an interim government headed by Hamid Karzai" still true now it's 2003, and if so should it be updated? -- Nevilley 18:35 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

There ought to be a citation for this line: The remnants of the warlords are almost non-existent.SatanicPanic1 (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the line since i couldn't find a fact to support this line and i think the article can exist perfectly without it Diedtc (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly knowing about Afghanistan, but I can tell that the following wording does not give a credible impression.

(...) the Taliban, which lost recognition from all other countries in the world except Pakistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. As of October 2001, only Pakistan recognized the Taliban government, though Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had in the past.

If only three countries of the world had recognized Afghanistan's Taliban government, then it's a contradiction to state that it lost recognition from "all other countries in the world". Further, the recognition of a government is linked to the government's control over a state, and recognition is not "revoked" unless the government loses the control. In other words, one would expect that the war against Afghanistan was the cause of the government's loss of recognition, not a terrorist attack against the United States. -- Johan Magnus 00:52 19 May 2003 (UTC)

There is no need to analyze every link we put in. I think we should removed the lengthy descriptions. --Jiang 00:20, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The whole point of the lengthy source descriptions was that contributors could use them to review and then make their own contribution to the article, which clearly relies on too few sources and needs a lot of revision.

This is obviously an article in transition. I personally need both a TOC and an annotated source listing so I can work on providing more depth and breadth to the article. Cut and pasted material from two CIA fact books is not sufficent.

Instead of constantly reverting I will create a separate entry that I can work on using the tools I need: namely, a detailed listing of sections and descriptions of the sources I, or anyone else, may want to use to revise.

At some point I'll resubmit it to this present entry, if appropriate. -- CBorges 05:31, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page needs a serious update of facts! For instance the constitution is in. I do not understand the necessaity of such a grim view of Afghanistan either, though I'm not very knolwedgeable in politics, I don't hear so much bad news from Afghanistan as this article suggests. Is anybody watching this page?

Bhs 10:17, 4 May 2004 (PDT)

Cleaned[edit]

Ya, I agree, this article was a mess. I fixed it now to the best of my ability. It so more up to date as of early 2005. I also removed the attention link. Still, I encourage others to help out in improving this article, perhaps to article of the month status?. It leaves so much still to be desired. Stranger

"Also, the system is quite new, implementation of which began only 2004, just after decades of war between different factions and warlords, the remnants of which is almost non existent. " This is grammatically broken, but I can't fix it without knowing what the referent to "remnants" was supposed to be? remnants of warlords? remnants of factions? remnants of decades? Its kinda too broken to fix--it needs to be rewritten probably, but I don't know what it is trying to say.

Update needed: April 2005 parliamentary elections[edit]

I put two {{update}} tags in there, both in the Elections and Legislative sections, because both mention the April 2005 elections from an advance perpective. (Very nice article, though!) PhilipR 19:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it's extremely out of date. In 2002 it might have been a good page. Anyway, I'm going to try and write something up about the legislative election. --RaiderAspect 00:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the articals?[edit]

anyone against it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaden (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I dont really see why we should do it --RaiderAspect 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, thought you meant the list of Transitional Administration personnel. I dont have a problem with merging. --RaiderAspect 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this merge was poorly advised. Since hardly anyone commented on it I would like to renew the discussion.
  1. No advantage to a merge was advocated. The contributor who suggested it seemed to assume that it was obvious that merging somewhat related articles is a good idea. I can't agree with this.
  2. Merging related articles into larger omnibus articles squanders half the power of a wiki. Wikis have an enormous advantage over plain old vanilla web-pages on the plain old vanilla world-wide web. Wikilinks are bi-directional. Readers can look to see what articles link to a wiki article. This powerful feature gets squandered when perfectly valid articles that can stand on their own get merged. Wikis like the wikipedia work best when they are built out of small articles that talk about one thing. When articles talk about more than one thing, the utility of the "what links here" button is eroded.
  3. Merging to a subsection of an existing article is a deeply broken practice. #REDIRECT [[History of Afghanistan since 1992#Rebuilding Afghanistan]] -- so what happens if someone changes the section heading the redirection points to? The redirection breaks. What happens if someone removes that section? When someone proposes the deletion of an entire article the "what links here" tells interested editors which other articles would be affected by the deletion. No longer true when redirections point to sections of other articles.
Cheers! Geo Swan 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

The article says that "With the exception of military junta..." Afghanistan has had every kind of political system, and then proceeds to list them. However, some of the examples given include capitalism and socialism. These are not political systems, rather economic systems, and besides that they are vaguely defined. Does "socialism" here mean command economy? Mixed market? Administrative welfare state? Does "capitalism" mean laissez-faire? Keynesian?

My point here is that the terminology here is not really specific and doesn't add to an understanding of Afghan politics. On the other hand specific terms like "pro-soviet communist state" are useful because it refers to the specific phenomenon of an authoritarian state controlled by a national Communist Party loyal to the USSR during the Cold War. Just my 2 cents. 88.11.125.125 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--Anthonzi (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice[edit]

The government section of the "Outline of Afghanistan" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you. kaleb cerar is awesome wich is (me) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.56.115.219 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 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: page moved. (non-admin closure) Muhibm0307 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Afghanistan → Politics of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – The content about the Karzia-Ghani regime needs to be split from the high-level article about Politics of Afghanistan. Most of the edit history is relevant to that content so the history should be moved as well. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:02, 16 August 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 25 August 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. CMD's draft can go in place of the old article.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Afghanistan → Politics of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – The content about the Karzia-Ghani regime needs to be split from the high-level article about Politics of Afghanistan. Most of the edit history is relevant to that content so the history should be moved as well. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I filed an RM, which was speedy-closed as moved and then reverted. The "timeline" and "background" sections are the only part not about the Karzai-Ghani regime. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move This article should be kept as an historical piece, with the separate title "Politics of Afghanistan" reserved for the current mess as it develops. The issue of the material about the Karzia-Ghani regime really isn't relevant to this discussion, but I would say to User:力, be bold if it requires a separate article. In making this an historical article, extraneous material should be moved where appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Until there are two articles, WP:COMMONNAME should be observed. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tartan357: I believe that is what the proposal is, namely two articles, with the common name going to the current situation and the other one being historical. --Bejnar (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is either content for either an article about the politics of the Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan or a broad-concept article on politics before-and-after the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, I am not opposed to a second article -- an article which should not retain the revision history currently at this title. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I thought the Taliban don’t engage in politics (sarcasm). But more seriously, the content of this page relates to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and not the Taliban, who have de facto control of 95% of the country, and who are not known for their politics (they certainly do engage in it; they have factions, but it’s more secretive). Muhibm0307 (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - in agreement with nominator. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although perhaps framing it as part of a split than a move would be helpful regarding Tartan357's oppose. This article topic is clearly undergoing a significant real life shift, and this article is already outdated in its use of the present tense. Aside from the first five edits and recent lead tweaks, this article has been built and developed to reflect one particular political structure within Afghanistan. It makes sense then to retain it as the article on this political structure. A new article will no doubt have to be created on the current title of this article, to reflect the present tense, and can include some sections split from this article as appropriate ("timeline" and "background" as mentioned above). CMD (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have created Draft:Politics of Afghanistan, that can be moved here so that no gap is left by this page move. I believe the lack of such an article was the crux of Tartan357's oppose, and represents the "current mess" as noted by Bejnar. I believe, given the unique nature of the page change here, that most incoming links will not need to be changed. CMD (talk) 13:08, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Afghanistan&oldid=1195303242"