Jump to content

Talk:Mullah Omar

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

Remove ISIS section[edit]

the bit about Mullah Omar supposedly issuing a fatwa against IS in April 2015 is obviously not from him since we know he died in 2013 since he never issued any such statement i removed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not state that he issued a fatwa, it states that someone claiming to be him did. The discovery of his having died in 2013 means that it couldn't have been him, but it doesn't make the whole even irrelevant, the fact that it was claimed to be from him is still notable, and it is accurate because it is not stating that he actually issued it. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

since it wasn't actually him, it is irrelevant i could claim you said 'IS sucks', that doesn't mean i can go to your wikipedia page and add 'so and so said IS sucks' it violates reliable source and requirement to be noteworthy this is an encyclopedia not a place to list every random claim ever made about anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable because at the time it was widely believed to have been him, as his death was not discovered until about 3 months later. This is not some random claim, this was a widely reported and (falsely) attributed statement. If it was notable before his death was discovered, it remains notable (possibly more so) afterwords. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so widely reported that the only linked source is a website well known for being a propaganda outlet and reporting false news? get some proper sources first it was notable only if he actually said it this page is about mullah omar, so it is for things he said, not for random things people said he said, especially when it turns out to be impossible for him to have said it because hes dead! how can you not understand that a impossible and fake claim by an unknown man with an unreliable source is not worthy of an encyclopedia?

ps: i know you only want to keep it on here because it sounds anti-IS, try to keep your bias in check — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to Assume Good Faith. If the cited source is biased or inaccurate then that could be an issue (One which should be easy to check), but proclamations from sources claiming to be Mullah Omar, made after his death and prior to the announcement of his death, and discussion of the notability of the deception of such claims, have been widely reported, everywhere from Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/taliban-leader-mullah-omar-backs-afghan-peace-talks-150715124016867.html) to the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/world/asia/afghan-wars-convenient-myth-a-living-mullah-omar.html), and were a contributing factor to the notability surrounding the revelation of his death two years after the fact. If the problem is the perceived anti-IS bias, and if that bias is unique to a single biased source, then go ahead and change it, but the fact that he was successfully impersonated for years following his death remains notable, and is not by any means isolated to a single source. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced POV pushing by User:Sundostund[edit]

User:Sundostund asserted that Mullah Omar "was the de facto head of state from 1996 to 2001..." [1] This, however, is not only an unsourced POV but contrary to all the sources provided in the article. See, e.g., Encyclopædia Britannica (EB), which states that Omar "was emir of Afghanistan." [2] Wikipedia must be consistent with EB. It is common knowledge that from 1996 to 2001, Afghanistan functioned like Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirate (UAE). The 10% of the country (in the northeast) was free from Taliban control and that section was ruled under Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was recognized by the U.N. as the head of state (i.e., President of the Islamic State of Afghanistan).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mullah Omar indeed was the de facto head of state of Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. During that time, the Taliban movement controlled almost 90% of the country's territory (as you recognized by yourself), and that fact must be reflected both here and in the other article in question List of Presidents of Afghanistan. Rabbani's presidential term was interrupted in 1996, it didn't lasted in continuation from 1992 to 2001, as you claim. Next, your claim that Mullah Omar was a "monarch", and that he was succeeded by Zahir Shah in 2001, is just ludicrous - by that logic, Zahir Shah was restored to his throne in 2001 (which he lost in 1973). That claim (or anything which even hint in that direction) is just laughable. In the end, I must stress out - I have no desire for an edit war, I have much more important stuff to do here than to engage in such stupidity. If other users (who are more familiar about Afghan-related issues) support your versions of the two articles in question, I have no reason to oppose that. But, before your versions became permanent, I definitely want to hear their opinion about all of this.--Sundostund (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source, which you failed. See WP:VERIFY. "A head of state is the highest-ranking position in a sovereign state." Afghanistan was not a sovereign state between 1992 and late 2001. I did not call Omar a monarch, it is Britannica that unambiguously states that he was "emir of Afghanistan" [3], the same exact way Habibullāh Kalakāni became emir of Afghanistan in 1929.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, there is right in both sides of the argument. The key question is head of state of what? I believe the question arose at List of Presidents of Afghanistan. Clearly there are two entities here - the Taliban-controlled majority of Afghanistan, and the residual Northern Alliance rump, which had most of the international recognition. User:Sundostund is not claiming, clearly, that Omar was head of state of the Northern Alliance rump; he's obviously meaning the state which Omar founded!! So just as long as it's clear in this article which entity we're talking about, and my view, having looked at the article yesterday, is that it's clear from context (the whole thing is sufficed with references to the Taliban's changing fortunes), I don't believe there is any problem saying he was de facto head of state of Afghanistan in this article.
This leaves List of Presidents of Afghanistan. That article deals with the entire country within its recognised borders, and thus should list both Presidents: the one with least international recognition but 90% control, and the one with most of the international recognition but only about 10% of the territory.
Finally @Krzyhorse22: - this is at least the second time you've accused another user, who you disagree with, of not having facts to back their argument, when in actual fact they can bring facts, and the issue is actually one of interpretation. Please stop accusing other users of 'unsourced POV pushing' in these circumstances. Otherwise I personally believe you will have further contacts with admins. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any Wikipedia editor who, without an RS, makes Mullah Omar the president or head of state is POV pushing. That is not a personal attack. Buckshot06 is getting carried away with his accusations. I provided evidence [4] that an unsourced POV was inserted in the article, Buckshot06 I think you should stop accusing me of making a personal attack. Read for yourself Wikipedia:Personal_Attack#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06: I'm glad to see that you understood what I wanted to say here, and thank you for that. Krzyhorse22, your claims speak enough for themselves - 1) Afghanistan was a sovereign state between 1992 and 2001, which existed in a state of internal war, with two separate entities claiming the power over the state. Its statehood and independence didn't ceased to exist due to its internal problems. 2) Again, a ludicrous claim that Omar was a monarch. He wasn't - his title of "Emir" was purely a religious one, not a monarchical title. He wasn't connected with previous monarchs of Afghanistan in any way. Now - I made my case above, I clearly stated the facts relevant for this issue, and I'm withdrawing from this discussion. I have no desire to repeat myself in some endless discussions here. Krzyhorse22, you will not implement your versions of these articles until you have a consensus to do that - Wikipedia is built on consensus, and you must have it for any controversial changes. As for now, two editors clearly opposed your stance. If other users support your views, implement your versions. I'll wait and see what other people have to say about this. Until we have a clear consensus here, don't try do push in your versions.--Sundostund (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, you again failed to show a source that supports your view. Conversely, my argument is backed by the leading authorative sources (e.g., Britannica). See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It doesn't matter how many editors you bring here to support your unsourced POV, WP articles must be sourced and the information you insert must pass WP:VERIFY. Second, Omar's emirate of Afghanistan was not based on the general borders of Afghanistan, it included parts of Pakistan. That's part of the reason why so many Taliban members are living in Pakistan til this day. His title of emir was the same like used for the so many Arab emirs in the Arab world, e.g., see United Arab Emirates (UAE). To say that his title of emir was purely a religious one, that would mean leaders of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan were officially his followers and that he was their emir. These were the only 3 countries that recognized Omar and his emirate. Third, Habibullāh Kalakāni also wasn't connected with other monarchs of Afghanistan.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused by your statements here, Krzyhorse22. The situation, with the two entities controlling roughly 90% and 10% respectively, is almost completely uncontested. Should you wish to contest that, you need to bring reliable sources. If you wish to argue, with sources, that the Taliban state included more than Afghanistan, please feel free to insert sourced material in any relevant article. But that does not remove the fact that as Sundostund said, that Omar remained the head of state of 90% of Afghanistan, Head of the Supreme Council, if I read this article correctly. This article supports the use of the title 'Head of the Supreme Council', and should you wish to argue that 'Emir' was the correct title, or that any religious meaning would have implied religious allegiance from those outside Afghanistan, you will have to provide sources. It's easy to do - just copy the link directly into this talkpage. Once you've cited your sources we can evaluate them, and begin to go through the remainder of the WP:BRD process. Should you wish to cite SCHOLARSHIP you actually have to bring the sources to the talkpage, whether on-line or deadtree. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already cited Britannica as my source (see my previous comments above, see also this). I will try to take this issue to WP:DR if it cannot be settled here.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool thankyou Krzyhorse now we're talking. I saw that Britannia says that he was emir of Afghanistan. But that doesn't affect (a) the statement in this article that he was head of state - says nothing at all about the title; (b) anything to do with you removing him from List of Presidents of Afghanistan. Have you got a source that I'm not aware of saying he wasn't head of state in Afghanistan from 1996? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only relevant issue here is, was Omar President of Afghanistan or Emir of Afghanistan? Sources say he was Emir of Afghanistan. [5] Sundostund added him to the List of Presidents of Afghanistan, that's POV pushing. If he is added in that list then why are all of these Afghan leaders (especially these) not listed there? According to this, unless I'm proven wrong, I think "Head of the Supreme Council" is his post-2002 title, when he became leader of Taliban insugrents.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sundostund added for "Head of the Supreme Council" three sources. [6] One of the sources is a Pakistani journalist by the name of Umair. [7] He very likely came to this En WP article in July 2015 [8] before posting his report. He literally copied the main information from this article. This is the common way Pakistani journalists gather information. I should also note Umair writing his profession as "Profational" journalist, and his interests include "Braking" news. [9] He wrongly stated that Mullah Omar "was the supreme commander of Afghan Taliban." [10] While Pakistanis openly try to disassociate themselves with the Taliban, many experts have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Mullah Omar was living in Pakistan and that Pakistani Taliban were also his followers. The point here is that Umair is an unreliable source because he clearly recited this WP article. The other two sources (this and this) are also unreliable to the extent that they fail to explain the date Omar became "Head of the Supreme Council" or explain something about that position. We need a source that addresses this issue, not random report that simply mentions "Head of the Supreme Council". For the forgoing reasons, I'm removing the three sources.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that Umair's piece does not add anything which isn't known already; happy for that to go. But even if the other two sources don't give exact dates for his Head of the Supreme Council tenure, they substantiate the fact that he was head of the Supreme Council. We should not remove references that substantiate a point. Clearly Omar was the head of state of the Taliban, head of supreme council, and could easily in that capacity be called the supreme commander of the Afghan Taliban. Where he was living would not necessarily change that (and Pakistani opinions about how linked the organisations were changed, themselves - see your own link to Quetta Shura#Leaders). I am thus reinstating the other two sources. Do not remove sources that substantiate a point on WP if that means the data is left without references. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just for your information (a) do not remove mistaken data that has been superceded, because it's still relevant (WP is not a roling news report, that's Wikinews) ESPECIALLY if it's sourced; (b) think very carefully about removing ANY sourced data, (c) encyclopedias such as Britannia are not our highest standard of information: WP:SOURCE says: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." That means journal articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06, you're making another misplaced argument like you did at Talk:Afghan Americans. The 2015 sources I removed and you readded are WP:FORKS of Wikipedia. Looking at the article's history, it is clear that Omar's title was originally reported in mainstream media as "Amir al-Mu'minin (Commander of the Faithful [11])". [12] However, in April 2008 User:Therequiembellishere decided to give Omar a new title, "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan." [13] He did this without adding a single source or reference. Therefore, the 2015 sources that you're defending are clearly WP:NOTRELIABLE because I've proven by clear and convincing evidence that they're based on the POV of WP User:Therequiembellishere. It must be noted that there's no such thing as Supreme Council in Afghanistan, and we're not allowed to give world leaders dubious titles.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is a throwback. At that point in my editing life, even two years into my account, I was still a young teenager and didn't fully understand proper source citation. I will say that this wasn't some POV flight of fancy by a 14 y/o, I surely found something that referenced that title bringing me to use it here on Omar's page in the spirit of the project; but asking me to recall a single source that brought me to that conclusion nigh eight years and tens of thousands of edits later is totally impossible. I can't even be sure of which of the maybe four or five search engines of that Internet era I was using during those edits. This is quite unhelpful to you all in terms of determining the best English form of Omar's title. Certainly there is no "Supreme Council" in Afghanistan today, but did one not exist in that five year period? While I see Krzyhorse22's point that Sundostund's references may have been based on this page due to their authorship post-2008, I think finding an Internet resource from before then would be quite a difficult task, let alone from the time of the Emirate/Northern Alliance that coincided with the Spice Girls. I'm confident that the title isn't baseless and I would hope some journalistic questioning would be done given that field's general ambivalence toward Wikipedia, and the breath of publications Sundostund has cited spanning Russia, the US and the UK. Perhaps an email to their respective author(s)/editor(s) would be helpful?
Thanks for affirming that you invented the title "Supreme Council of Afghanistan". This does not and did not exist in Afghanistan. The point is you introduced it in April 2008 and the 2015 sources copied it into their work without doing an independent research. You did not violate WP.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding his status as de facto head of state, which seems to be the real crux of the issue, I would side quite firmly that he of course was, and denying such is sort of like quibbling over the statutory role of Deng Xiaoping as leader of China, despite not formally holding the offices of president or premier. Again, however, this is based on a quick skimming of the discussion and to be honest, I don't have much intention of fully involving myself in one based on some edits I made eight years ago and a lack of overall interest in the topic at this time. Therequiembellishere (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick '"Supreme Council"+Afghanistan' seems to imply the Taliban operate under a Supreme Council (or it is described as such by some English sources), and their function as de facto governing body of (most of) Afghanistan during that half-decade would likely imply that the organisation's leadership are also the state's leadership, given that few parallel structures were created to bring legitimacy to a "government" that was unrecognised by the United Nations and most (if not all) other sovereign states at large. Using China again as a parallel, the need to create duplicate party-to-state leadership positions (Party Secretary/President, Secretary General/Premier, Party CMC Chief/State CMC Chief) did not seem to been as formal. This is a glancing analysis, but all I'm prepared and able to impart. Therequiembellishere (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is Omar was declared in 1996 as Amir al-Mu'minin (meaning the "commander or leader of the faithful", or as Calif) after the completion of a loya jirga. His Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was later recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Therefore, he clearly established an Islamic style monarchy, see Emirate. A monarch is referred to as a head of state. Making Omar the President of Afghanistan is ridiculous. It's like trying to make Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi a de facto President of Iraq or President of Syria.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the issue is really that List of Presidents of Afghanistan is separate from List of monarchs of Afghanistan and they should be merged into List of heads of state of Afghanistan, yes? That doesn't seem like a difficult solution. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan" should be changed back to "Emir of Afghanistan/Commander or Leader of the Faithful". [14]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Therequiembellishere may have gotten to the nub of the argument here. But just commenting on the above - saying The Independent and Carnegie Moscow Center are WP forks is ridiculous; they're standard reliable sources. If necessary, please re-read WP:RS. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those websites/publishing companies are not sources, the actual articles along with the editors and authors are. I have proven that they copied Omar's title "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan" from Wikipedia, which was invented by Therequiembellishere in April 2008. These editors and the Russian author cannot be cited as reliable sources for the title "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan." Read WP:NOTRELIABLE. What part of this rational do you not understand? Ignoring WP:NOTRELIABLE is breaching WP rule. For all the reasons I've stated in this thread, the title must be changed back to Emir of Afghanistan/Commander or Leader of the Faithful. If you disagree then I'll take this issue to WP:DR.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that it is not necessarily clear that Omar declared an Islamic style monarchy; it's not clear the Taliban caliphate idea corresponds with such things, and no-body is ascribing to Omar the title President. Head of State/HSC is what's on the agenda, based upon the TAliban's control of 90% of the country. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" fully explains everything. Whether you're persuaded or not is irrelevant, I suggest that you study Middle Eastern history and culture. Omar is wrongly given the title "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan" and listed at List of Presidents of Afghanistan, and you still say "no-body is ascribing to Omar the title President"?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:::Okay, firstly, could you please organise your replies to one section instead of responding in parts and re-formatting the discussion? It's really confusing trying to follow the chronology of the discussion. Second, the title is literally not the main issue as spoken at the top of this discussion. Third, saying the publications are not sources, the authors are is not how source reliability is assessed. For all intents and purposes, they are the same. Four, how have you possibly proven the source comes from here? Five, you haven't exactly provided a ton of sources supporting yourself. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krzyhorse22, you haven't proven in jot or title that 'Head of the Supreme Council' is a wiki-ism invented by any editor (including Therequiembellishere, and I'm surprised you're attacking Therequiembellishere when he wasn't part of the original discussion; please don't accuse people of deliberately making things up, which breeches WP:AGF). If you have source problems, as I'm indicated before, you should go to WP:RSN with them. You also cannot automatically conflate the Taliban's caliphate ambitions with previous Afghan monarch without reliable sources, of which you've mentioned exactly none, and 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan' doesn't explain anything unless it's ascribed to reliable sources, not some unsourced word of a wiki editor. Finally, again, WP operates on WP:CONSENSUS, and the consensus at this talkpage is that he was de facto head of state, and that Head of the Supreme Council is an accurate description. Stop being disruptive by (a) pushing a line for which you've repeatedly made assertions, but have brought no RS support, instead weirdly attacking (pretty reasonable) sources like the Independent, and (b) continuing this campaign against consensus for a month plus! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Therequiembellishere, when we cite a source we don't cite "The Independent", "CNN" or "BBC" but rather cite the author. Without the author the source will fail per WP:VERIFY. Let's not argue over that. You stated: "I surely found something that referenced [Head of the Supreme Council] bringing me to use it here on Omar's page..." [15] Unless that pre-May 2008 reference is presented here, Wikipedia is considered the source for that title. Presenting post-April 2008 sources for the title is useless because we all can agree that these days everyone conveniently comes to WP for information, that includes journalists, news editors, researchers, students, etc. The article has stated since April 2008 that Mullah Omar's "official" title from 1996 to late 2001 was "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan". [16] However, BBC (which is known as one of the most reliable sources in the world, which verifies information before presenting it) reported that Omar "emerged from the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan as their undisputed leader or 'commander of the faithful', a title with great resonance in Islamic history." [17] The New York Times (which is also known for its reputation like BBC) reports that Omar's supporters "proclaimed him Amir ul-Momineen, Leader of the Faithful, one of the highest religious titles in Islam." [18] Britannica (which is one of the oldest and best known encyclopedias) states that "[i]n 1996 a shūrā (council) recognized Mullah Omar as amīr al-muʾminīn (“commander of the faithful”), a deeply significant title in the Muslim world that had been in disuse since the abolition of the caliphate in 1924." [19] I can go on and present many other sources (if requested) that recite the same information but I think that would be unnecessary. The only problem that has not been solved yet is to present a pre-April 2008 source that mentions "Head of Supreme Council of Afghanistan." Nobody is disputing the "head of state" part.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emir or Head of the Supreme Council[edit]

@Therequiembellishere, Buckshot06, Krzyhorse22, and Sundostund: Taliban ruled Afghanistan was a theocracy... Similar to communism I'm guessing, it wouldn't really matter if the person was/is president, what matters was his party title. In Afghanistan under Islamic rule, I'm guessing the same rule applied. It was much more important that he was Emir then Head of the Supreme Council for all practical purposes.... I'm guessing, like Iran, the religious title was more important than the secular title...

Question. Why do is that have to be either or? Both titles can be in the infobox, right? --TIAYN (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is Omar's "official title". Was he akin to a president or an emir? Presidency lasts about 4 or 5 years. Emirship lasts until death. The Taliban rule was based on Sharia law, the same like in Saudi Arabia and UAE. These two countries were financing the Taliban government (like how NATO is financing Afghan government today), while Pakistan was doing the management part (like how the US is training and advising the Afghans, see Resolute Support Mission).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have little desire to be drawn into a discussion based on edits I made eight years ago, but I just laughed at "presidency lasts about 4 or 5 years." Okay. Robert Mugabe. Fidel Castro. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a laughing matter, [20] I was referring to Afghan presidency or presidency in general (not the rare cases). We're not asking you to discuss anything, you may go without needing to come here again.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krzyhorse22, that example of supreme discourtesy you just wrote, basically telling a user to go away from a discussion that they have every right to be a part of, on top of your previous uncivil behaviour, would have earned you a one day block, if it have not been for the ongoing ANI discussion which I should not prejudice. Who are you to determine who gets to participate at article talkpages? There's no entry qualifications I know of; this is the enyclopedia anyone can edit. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I told him he doesn't need to discuss further if he doesn't want to, and that he may go edit other pages. I construed his message as him being frustrated or something. The fact is, he explained what he needed to explain, and he's not required to explain anything further. Well, if you or another admin block me it will be an unjustified block because I'm not violating WP. I will be the beneficiary, see Karma.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06, Krzyhorse22, and Therequiembellishere: I don't get any of this! (1) A presidency can last for life and (2) you can both be head of state and emir, why are people trying to say they are contradictions? Why can't the infobox say he was both Head of the Supreme Council and Emir of Afghanistan? Why is either for president or for emir, and not both? Krzyhorse22 is not the only one with problems, all of you have it.. A ruler can have more than one title.. Xi Jinping has 10+ titles, just sayin'! --TIAYN (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Krzyhorse22 is currently arguing that the whole 'Head of the Supreme Council' title is a made-up, possible wikiism, attributable (if I understand correctly) to Therequiembellishere, and the two sources cited (Independent and Carnegie Moscow Center) copied things from Wikipedia. Since I've gone and added another cite to reference the existence of a Taliban Supreme Council, and many other references could be added, I believe, trying to put this in the nicest possible way, that this belief is inaccurate. Indeed Omar was Emir, and Head of the Supreme Council, and Taliban head of state; if we could get all these three titles to stay in the article without them being deleted, I believe this content dispute would be well on the way to being solved. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction states that Omar was "...head of state until late 2001, under the official title 'Head of the Supreme Council'." (Emphasis added) However, source say he was Emir of Afghanistan/Commander of the Faithful. Is "Commander of the Faithful" and "Head of the Supreme Council" the same? No they're not. Commander of the Faithful refers to someone who rules over all Muslims, e.g., someone like the Pope who rules over all Catholics. The sources cited in this article are likely based on Wikipedia (I showed evidence to support this view). The only way to prove me wrong is to show any pre-April 2008 source/reference. Therequiembellishere, you admitted that you saw one so there should be one available somewhere. Mullah Omar never called himself President. In addition, nobody referred to him as such. Buckshot06, the book you cited (Afghanistan after the Western Drawdown) is from 2015 like the other sources. In what page does it mention "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan"? If it doesn't mention it then why did you cite that book?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of things. First, while the tone across this discussion has been a bit tetchy and superior throughout, I assumed from the donkey video that Krzyhorse22 was also trying to make light and wasn't attempting malice. It was a bit dismissive, but my comment had some snark to it, so fairplay. Second, president in the Afghan sense is almost totally devoid of precedent, given that the first democratic elections were in 2004 and democratic transition was not until 2014. To me, a "president" is, by and large, a head of state who is not a monarch, and doesn't imply any connotation of term limits as is demonstrably true by the dozens (if not over 100) people who have held the title for exorbitantly long periods of time. Third, I still think it's a personally skewed interpretation of the sources to determine they are incorrect. What we have are competing sources and there is still little actual evidence (beyond speculation) that their origin was Wikipedia. Is it conceivable? Yes. But still unproven. Fourth, I think you highly overestimate the Internet. A lot has happened in eight years here on the World Wide Web and discounting every source post-2008 is, to my mind, unreasonable.
All that being said, I've taken a step back and this is my take on what I believe the fundamental issues are and a fairly reasonable solution. It's the same as I suggested above two days ago, but it honestly seems like everyone would prefer to argue over sources than try to compromise and solve the problem. One underlying issue is whether the link should go toward Afghanistan's monarchs or presidents. The solution is to eliminate the difference, which I have attempted to do here. I've merged all information, and reformatted where I felt appropriate, the List of monarchs of Afghanistan, List of Presidents of Afghanistan and President of Afghanistan pages. I propose the merged article be called something like "(List of) Head(s) of state of Afghanistan", with what's in parentheses as optional. I'd be happy to discuss what changes I made in my merging process, but I really do think the merging is best. I've not made a merge proposal in some years and don't quite remember that procedure (which I'm sure has also changed in the past eight years) and would appreciate help.
The overt issue, of course, is the three competing titles themselves, which I have parsed in the following ways. "Emir" seems to be the title he assumed as an office of state, and may very well be the most likely candidate for use as actual head of state of the Taliban-controlled Afghan territory. "Head of the Supreme Council" seems to be an organisational title in his role as leader of the Taliban, with a vague equivalency to party leader. This could be seen as similar to one becoming leader of the Conservative or Labour parties in the United Kingdom and almost simultaneously being appointed Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition. These former two offices are party political, the latter are offices of state. Lastly, "Commander of the Faithful" seems to be more of an honorific title bestowed upon him rather than an office as the other two very clearly are. An Afghan equivalent to this would be Mohammed Zahir Shah, the last monarch of Afghanistan before his 1973 overthrow, being accorded the title "Father of the Nation" on his return to Afghanistan in 2002. Therefore, I think the infobox should change to show "Emir of Afghanistan" as the first office (being a head of state position, it is granted the first position), linked to the new Head of state of Afghanistan page to be created, with the term dates of 27 September 1996 – 13 November 2001, the two premiers and Burhanuddin Rabbani as his predecessor and successor as President; and "Head of the Supreme Council" as the second office (despite being held for a longer period of time, given head of state and government positions' right to first prominence) with the term dates of 27 September 1996 – 23 April 2013 and his predecessor as "Position established" and his successor as Akhtar Mansour. I think Amir al-Mu'minin should be stated clearly in the lede but needn't be in the infobox in any form, least of all as an office. If anything, it could appear in shrunken font above his name in the |honorific-prefix section, but I even think that is a stretch.
I do hope these proposals can be agreed on and implemented quickly. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your proposal.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: I have no problem to agree with your proposal. After all, many countries here on English Wikipedia have their monarchs, presidents, etc merged into a single list of heads of state. Of course, the "unified" article here should be named "List of heads of state of Afghanistan". But, I don't think that President of Afghanistan should be included in this merging. As the article which describes the current head of state office in Afghanistan, it should remain separate and contain all the details about the presidency (powers, last election, etc). I really see no reason to combine it with list of heads of state. Also, I don't support your removal of party colors from the "Non-Royal" section... Maybe there are some other minor stuff which should be corrected, but that will happen over time. Of course, I'm ready to help with that work, once you put the unified list in place. In the end, let me say - my agreement with this proposal has nothing to do with my vote/opinion at the ANI topic ban discussion - it is Support, and it will remain so. --Sundostund (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't particularly see a huge difference the prose content on the List of Presidents of Afghanistan article and the President of Afghanistan article. Additionally, given that there is no equivalent Monarch of Afghanistan article, the current list also serves as that historical article, so I figured while that was happening, it all may as well be combined. Regarding the colours, that's honestly because I couldn't figure out the coding... oops. haha I you or someone can help, that'd be great. The mess came about because I also think the ordinals should be left out because it's a total Wikipedia fabrication that these men have been counted as such; the current counting includes a series of five men who officially served as "Chair of the Revolution Council" (including one acting chair), acting presidencies, separately counts the quite unique terms of Burhanuddin Rabbani and even counts Omar here himself, which I'm sure that no academic would do. In removing the arbitrary ordinals from the list article, I also propose removing them from all the articles as well. Finally, I have nothing to do with that ANI, nor do I intend to, and in the interest of solving this issue, I'd prefer to try to keep them separate. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: We should keep the President of Afghanistan as a separate article, distinct from the heads of state list, in the same way as its already done in many other cases here (President of France and List of Presidents of France, President of Italy and List of Presidents of Italy, President of Brazil and List of Presidents of Brazil, etc)... If there is not enough prose in the article, I'm sure we can add some wording. All in all, I really prefer to keep separate an article about office from a list of officeholders. As for the colors, don't worry - once you put the article in place, I'll be happy to help with edits, corrections, etc (maybe I'll have some ideas of my own about how to improve the list). As for the ordinals, I tend to have them as part of a list of officeholders, but they aren't 100% necessary (some lists are just fine without them, like List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom). In this case, it may be a wise call to leave the ordinals out, but I still prefer some way to include them (also, we can think about it over time). As for your proposal to "remove the ordinals from all the articles", I would never agree with removing them from every list of officeholders on English (or any other) Wikipedia! Some lists are fine without them, but majority of lists needs them as part of data, as well as one of the elements of graphical look, etc. In the end, we shouldn't generalize things here, lets just talk about List of heads of state of Afghanistan and how to make it to look the best way possible. --Sundostund (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but those three examples have a much longer history of existing, while Afghanistan has had a series of non-monarchial heads of state, an established presidency has not existed until 2004. But if the consensus is not to merge, then that's not a huge problem to me. And I am just talking about the Afghan presidents ordinals. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: I see your point as well (indeed, the Afghan presidency definitely don't have some long history behind it), but I'd still prefer to keep President of Afghanistan away from this merging. I'm glad to hear that's not a huge problem to you... I'm also glad the hear that you're just talking about the Afghan presidents, not about the ordinals in general (on every list of officeholders on WP). --Sundostund (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm going to go ahead with the infobox edits, I'll look into how merging works later on today. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just remembered another reason why I went along with the merging of President of Afghanistan too. It was this whole Emir vs President link thing. I'm linked to the President article for now, especially since in the future merge, it will be the only article dedicated to the office of head of state. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: I have a suggestion/advice - when you start working on List of heads of state of Afghanistan, look at List of heads of state of Hungary and List of Presidents of Portugal. Maybe you can use some ideas from those articles if you really decide to merge President of Afghanistan into the list of heads of state. If you do, please make sure to put the "Latest election" section at the bottom of the article, not in (almost) the middle of it (as is the case in your current draft version). --Sundostund (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar was not Head of Council. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to that source, Mohammad Rabbani was "heading the governing ministers' council." [21] I believe that means Rabbani, not Omar, was the "Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan." Omar was someone above that position, as the Emir. A WP editor in September 2005 changed Rabbani's title to "Prime Minister of Afghanistan." [22]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment about the Taliban paragraph. The word "Taliban" may be students in Pashtun (also), but it's actually Arabic. The literal translation is indeed student (Talib)/students (Talibun), but it is usually used in a religious context (as in students devoting themselves to a religious education). Depending on context, it could also be translated as "Disciple" (in the sense of following a religious teacher/leader) or something close to that. Jmland3 (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I am wondering why the infobox does not mention his leadership of the Taliban, which apparently continued for a couple of years beyond his death? As a general reader, I became flummoxed reading his infobox and article lead, trying to understand the trajectory of his career. It may be hard to draw a line between his time as leader of Afghanistan and his time as emir of the Taliban, but couldn't some judgment call be made? The infobox shows his leadership career ending in 2001, but it didn't. Would someone like to tidy up the picture?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mohammed Omar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Image[edit]

There has been confusion relating to depictions of Mohammed Omar. The current image in the info-box does not depict him. The earliest known usage of the photo stems from a 1998 BBC report which doesn't mention Omar in the article or in the image description. It depicts an unnamed Taliban fighter. Source here. When trying to ascertain whether an image is truly accurate, it is helpful to refer to the images that the Taliban have released on their website.

The only confirmed images of Mohammed Omar are here: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] (crop of previous), [28]. The earliest image is this one, having been taken in 1978 when Omar was c. 18. I suggest anyone who is considering uploading another image to pay attention to the Afghanistan PD template and the 50 year date since publication mentioned in the template. This image will enter into the public domain in around 7 years.

I'm going to put this list down here for unverified or incorrect images for future reference.
Incorrect photos: [29], [30] Further information as to the authenticity of these images can be gleamed from a variety of sources that the U.S indeed used the wrong image of Omar on the initial leaflets and CIA wanted posters within the country, source here. We can see in this source (which contains all U.S PSYOP leaflets dropped during the initial invasion) that the earlier poster depicted the first image and it is therefore likely that this image was the one involving mistaken identity. The U.S then started to use the second image, however there is no source proving it is Omar and as stated above, the first known usage of this image in 1998 doesn't use it to describe Omar.

Possible photos (based on facial similarity with confirmed photos) but unverified: [31], [32], [33]

This 2003 Vanity Fair Article, which shows two additional photos purporting to be Mullah Omar, were given to Afghan photographer Khalid Hadi by a source who proclaimed that the photos were of Mohammed Omar: [34], [35]. Despite coming from the same article, the difference between these images and [36] is that Khalid Hadi actually took the latter whereas the former two images weren't taken by him. --Donenne (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I added one of your confirmed photos (the 1978 one) as a fair use upload. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:55, 14 August 2021 (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) 03:59, 4 May 2021 (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) 21:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghan activists[edit]

This page used to be in the category "Afghan activists" and then it was removed. Omar was an activist. He went from village to village organizing madrassa students (taliban) to resist the corruption of the mujahideen commanders. (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Category:Leaders who took power by coup": Omar and the Taliban undisputedly took power in a civil war against the mujahideen commanders, not a coup. Compare Cromwell, Mao, Daniel Ortega. (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 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: Moved to Mullah Omar. While the !votes for and against the move are divided, the opponents' case seems to rest only on a casual reading of WP:HONORIFICS, not addressing its "Mother Theresa" clause ("unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known"). Per the evidence presented, reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the subject as "Mullah Omar" so the proposed title fits the common name and primary topic policies. No such user (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed OmarMullah Omar – Mullah Omar is by far the WP:COMMONNAME for Mohammed Omar. According to Google Trends [37] the term "Mullah Omar" by far surpasses the name "Mohammad Omar" or "Mohammed Omar" since Google first started keeping track of searches, and the term "Mullah Omar" is closely correlated to the topic "Mohammad Omar", meaning that people searching for "Mullah Omar" are likely to be searching for Mohammad Omar. Additionally, Google ngrams [38] shows that the term "Mullah Omar" is used at a rate several times greater in print sources than "Mohammed Omar" and a variety of other spellings of that name, and this has been a consistent trend since 1997. While "Mullah" is a religious title, we generally include religious titles in article names when they are a part of the common name for the subject, like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "common name" depends on the context. Afghan discourse regularly uses his given name, often appending "mujahid" and sometimes "akhund." We already have a redirect and a hint (or two??) in the opening sentence. If someone remains confused despite all that, I think there's no helping them. (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ecpiandy. It is quite uncommon to use titles and positions of people in the name of their article, instead of their personal name. I really see no reason to do it here. —Sundostund (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not a Wikipedia policy to use honorifics in the title generally. Khestwol (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per Nurg, I find the arguments of the opposing editors unconvincing. WP:TITLESINTITLES states: "Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Professor", etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien, Mahatma Gandhi)." The evidence presented (and WP:COMMONSENSE) clearly shows that the article subject is best known as Mullah Omar. So the question is, is that name unambiguous, given that there are other mullahs of the same name? That really asks whether the article subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Mullah Omar. Looking at the first page of Google book results, all seem to be about this article subject, so it appears he is. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the ngrams show, using "Mullah" is by far and away the most commonly used name for this subject. MOS:HONORIFIC is fine as a general principle, but it shouldn't be allowed to override a name which is heavily favoured in reliable sources. Similar exceptions include Princess Eugenie, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and others. Like Havelock Jones I find the opposition here quite weak in terms of adherence to naming policy, and I think this move should definitely go ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 23 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.

Mujahid being surname[edit]

My edits have continuously been reverted because of adding the full name of the figure. The full name of the figure is Mohammed Omar Mujahid and I have given SIX reliable sources for it, including The Independent, Observer Research Foundation, National Security Archive and few others. The IP user User:| has continuously been reverting my edits and saying that Mujahid is just a title. I don't think the user realizes that I have added 6 six sources and I can even add more that state Mujahid as part of his name. Also, the current spokseperson of the Taliban, Zabiullah Mujahid also has Mujahid as his name. I don't think the IP user realizes that Mujahid is not only a title, but a very popular surname in Afghanistan. MullahBalawar 16:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Block-evading sock, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 02:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that some sources refer to him as "Omar Mujahid"; in fact, I mentioned that in the article move discussion above. However, your sources do not establish that "Mujahid" was a personal name rather than a title. Mullah Zaeef's book never once refers to him as "Omar Mujahid" but does refer to him as "Omar Akhund." Whether other Afghans have "Mujahid" as a personal name from birth is beside the point. Omar did not have it as a name from birth; he earned it. (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding Mullah Zaeef's book not refering him as Omar Mujahid does not really have to do anything since many sites label his name as Omar Mujahid and the National Security Archive's PDF which was the Washington Secretary of State, gives information about Omar where it tells Omar's ethnicity as Pashtun, title as Amir al-Mu'minin and tells his name as Mohammed Omar Mujahid and the reference I have already given on the article so that should proove Mujahid being a part of his name, whether birth name or changed name. MullahBalawar 18:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Block-evading sock, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 02:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since we agree that he is at least known as "Omar Mujahid," would you mind reducing the citations for the name to two? (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now another name? Any sources for this one? (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False biography and year/place of birth[edit]

Again, like Hibatullah Akhundzada, we are in a position in this article where not all primary sources agree on the year of birth. This old article by BBC which is cited, does not *endorse* his date or place of birth, it merely quotes the Taliban biography. Secondly, the BBC article says The Afghan Taliban have published a surprise biography of the reclusive Mullah Mohammed Omar, to mark his 19th year as their supreme leader. We know now that this is factually incorrect. He was a leader of the Taliban for only 17 years and he had died already in 2013. But the BBC article does not consider this fact, because his death had not been revealed when it was published, which it makes it an obsolete source. There are other primary sources also, that give other years (and places) of birth for Omar. So in my opinion, we cannot prefer just this false biography to make a big claim about his year of birth when no reliable and recent WP:secondary sources exist to confirm it. Khestwol (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But your other changes violating MOS:HON, MOS:CREDITS, and MOS:LEADBIO, nor your misspelling of "surprise" or the bizarre infobox statement that Omar continued to claim his position after his death, should not be reintroduced. Reverting all thirteen of my edits was not appropriate. ― Tartan357 Talk 10:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about that. But as far as the year of birth, in the absence of a secondary source we may use this tertiary source Britannica. It says "born c. 1950–62?". But note that it gets the place of death wrong ("Pakistan"). Khestwol (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening description[edit]

I would like to know what is objectionable about any of these terms describing Omar:

  • religious scholar (sources cited in the second paragraph of "Personal life")
  • partisan fighter (sources cited in the third paragraph and "Mujahideen era")
  • political leader (sources cited in "Leaership")

"Islamist" is a loaded term used throughout the "War on Terror" era as a slur by Western commentators, such as Daniel Pipes, to evoke a global bogeyman coming to get you. It should not be used where an alternative wording is available.

Also, what is wrong with including his date of death after the name, according to Wikipedia biography style? (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no object to adding the year of death. However, he had not completed religious education formally and was not a " religious scholar". He attended primary and secondary madrassa and was a "cleric", yes, but: "His studies were interrupted before he completed them and he did not properly earn the title Mullah", as the personal life section says. Khestwol (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on what "Western commentators" have to say about a subject. So "Islamist" stays. The Taliban is overwhelmingly described as an Islamist movement by scholars. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken as to what Wikipedia is supposed to be based on. English Wikipedia prefers, but does not mandate, verifiability from English-language sources, which is not the same as sources written by Western authors. (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2022 (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) 21:36, 31 May 2022 (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) 03:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]