Talk:Emirate of Afghanistan

Relevance of map

The map is inappropriate: it relates to contemporary Afghanistan and neighobers.

Map with boundaries of the period is needed.

During the period in question, appropriate adjacent neighbors would be the Russian Empire, to the southeast, British India.Dogru144 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Afghanistan

As of 1750, the Durrani Empire was known as "Kingdom of Afghanistan" [1], the "Durrani" was the name of dynasty but the land was refered to as "Kingdom of Afghanistan". In 1801 the name "Kingdom of Afghanistan" was officially used in treaties between Afghanistan, Persia and British-India (Great Britain).[2] See also Name of Afghanistan for details. The name "Emirate of Afghanistan" for this article should be changed to "Kingdom of Afghanistan" or merged with that page. The source (Afghanistan online) which was cited didn't mention anywhere "Emirate of Afghanistan" so I removed it.--Kaddoo (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected state status

User:Noorullah21 You have given no reason for removing the British protected state status other than the country existed for longer. That's not how it works. The objective of the infobox is to provide information and you are omitting it without any valid reason. It's not like it was a protected state for only 2 or 3 years. Such edits are disruptive. Please note that you do not get to decide what should remain or not on your own. The fact that a country had limited power in affairs for decades, and has an independence day dedicated to it, seems significant enough to mention. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

And please note, removing content without any proper explanation is not allowed. You should start a discussion yourself instead of reverting without explanation. You should have done that even before you made the removal if you think an edit summary can't adequately explain why you're removing it. See WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CAUTIOUS. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You are meant to discuss the change yourself as you were editing it by claiming I was disruptively editing by doing so without any further initiation or assumption of good faith.

The reason I am removing said status section is because of the primary reasons:

1. The nation already existed much longer from 1823-1926, compared to when they were a British protected state from 1879-1919

Maintaining to this fact, toward an expanded history section the note of a British protected state within the information itself can be added, as where it would be appropriate.

We even see according to Jonathan lee on p 396, Afghanistan still continued managing its foreign affairs without British paramountcy.

(Said page also goes over the harshened and brittle relations between Abdur Rahman Khan and the British at the time, showing he had little to no allegiance or even correspondence with British goals during that time, and in effect was de-facto independent.)

Even as with the treaty, Abdur Rahman further refused to allow British residency as shown on p. 405

In British aims, he was more of seen as an ally regardless and less as a protected state, while being relatively dependent on them as elaborated on p.410

These are some of the reason(s) why I push for removing it from the status section. @Roman Reigns Fanboy Noorullah21 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: It's not simply my pergorative. See WP:BRD, since you made a bold edit it should be your pergorative. Unlike you I did start a diacussion. And above all WP:EDITWARRING allows reverting to impose overriding Wikipedia policies. Next time please provide a proper reason as to why something should be removed (it existed for longer isn't a reason). But the source you have given is satisfactory, the status can be removed. Repeatedly removing content without adequate explanation will result in you being complained however, please avoid such incidents again. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Noorullah21 I've decided to revert your removal. The reasons being that even though Afghanistan at times might have defied the British, it had a protected state status and the state's interference did influence Afghan policies. The interference didn't start in 1879 either. Also many of your claims are outrighg wrong or misleading.

And you are not following WP:EPTALK and WP:CAUTIOUS, please revert your edits since you were the first one to make new changes.

While you talk about Afghanistan existing much longer, the British also controlled its rulers as puppets before, which you omit to mention. Regardless, does "existing longer" mean that it was never a protected state?

Shah Shuja Durrani in 1839 for example was forced to be a puppet to the British. Even when he attempted to defy them the British shut down his attempts where he couldn't even reduce the prices of bread and was forced to take even judicial decisions according to them. Shuja was reduced to token power. (page 247, para 3 and page 249, para 2 of "Afghanistan: A History from 1260 to the") He also had to tax people to cover the rising expenses of British occupation and the British also dictated management of state revenues. (page 265, para 3). Shuja himself acknowledged he was king in name only. (page 268, para 1)

Due to the British Dost Muhammad Khan were unable to ally with whorver they wanted, Persia or Russia. (page 214, para 4)

The reason there was no British resident in Afghanistan was because Britain in May 1880 had agreed there would be no British envoy in a mutual agreement with Abdul Rahman Khan. (page 378, last para), the question of him refusing doesn't arise when the British didn't even try to appoint one.

As for just being viewed as an "ally" Abdul Rahman Khan was financially and militarily propped up by Britain which viewed it as expensive (page 394, para 3). So much he capitualted to the Durand Agreement despite disapprovingof it (page 401, para 3)

Rahman reconquered Maimana under their asking to avert the Russian threat (page 386, para 2). That's not sign of an independent ruler.

Page 405 does not mention anything about British Residents being refused.

Page 410 doesn't say he was seen more of an ally than protected state, just that he was seen as a reasonably loyal ally. It also makes it clear how dependent he was on them. Page 411 also mentions how they kept Rahman on the throne.

Page 425 mentions how Afghanistan was technically not independent and had to negotiate a treaty for recognizing Amir Habib Allah Khan as "independent" (para 2). Britain did not bother with keeping the Afghan king about negotiations with Russia about Afghanistan's status however (para 3)

In 1907, it negotiated eith Russia that Afghanistan was under British influence without informing Habib. (page 429, para 2) Despite his demand for renogatiating the treaty, the two sides did not care. (page 430, para 3) The rest of pages until 448 describe how Afghanistan tried to take steps to full independence.

Aman Allah Khan stated he wanted full independence. It mentions that the independent and free government of Afghanistan was ending alliance with Britain, showing that this "alliance" was not viewed as an alliance of equality by Afghanistan. (page 453)

Page 396 only mentions Abdul Rahman talking with a few countries without British approval once in 1895, its not shown that Afghanistan still continued managing its foreign affairs without British paramountcy unlike what you claimed.

The mention of protected state status is important in terms of showing the British involvement in Afghanistan since the Great Game. It wasn't something that lasted just for 5 or 10 years. And above all I don't understand why you have made misleading assertions. This is against Wikipedia's policies. You should self-revert. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"Shah Shuja Durrani in 1839 for example was forced to be a puppet to the British. Even when he attempted to defy them the British shut down his attempts where he couldn't even reduce the prices of bread and was forced to take even judicial decisions according to them. Shuja was reduced to token power. (page 247, para 3 and page 249, para 2 of "Afghanistan: A History from 1260 to the") He also had to tax people to cover the rising expenses of British occupation and the British also dictated management of state revenues. (page 265, para 3). Shuja himself acknowledged he was king in name only. (page 268, para 1)"

This is completely irrelevant to the argument. Shah Shuja was a ruler of the Durrani Dynasty who came to power during the First Anglo-Afghan War under the Durrani Kingdom, he was not a ruler of the Emirate of Kabul/Afghanistan.

"Due to the British Dost Muhammad Khan were unable to ally with whorver they wanted, Persia or Russia. (page 214, para 4)"

Persia was an enemy of the Emirate of Afghanistan (as we saw in the Anglo-Persian War) as Dost Mohammad had bad ties with the Qajars due to their invasions of Herat (1793–1863).

"Page 405 does not mention anything about British Residents being refused."

Yes it does, I quote. "His request was rejected on the ground that 'Abd al-Rahman Khan had repeatedly refused to allow a British resident to live in Kabul.[3]

I'm not sure why you accused me of lying here and being misleading when you did not read the source thoroughly, it is in the opening paragraph.

"Page 410 doesn't say he was seen more of an ally than protected state, just that he was seen as a reasonably loyal ally. It also makes it clear how dependent he was on them. Page 411 also mentions how they kept Rahman on the throne."

So...he was an ally? You just said it yourself and it is quoted. You also said of how dependent he was, and it (source says) was because the British found it a "keystone" in the defense of the British defence of India policy.

As for just being viewed as an "ally" Abdul Rahman Khan was financially and militarily propped up by Britain which viewed it as expensive (page 394, para 3). So much he capitualted to the Durand Agreement despite disapprovingof it (page 401, para 3)

Again, 401 mentions him as an ally and he disapproved of the Durand Line agreement, but went with it nonetheless due to his infusions of cash and arms. It also mentions on 402 he still continued to meddle in the affairs of the region and paid little to no regard to the Durand Line itself, as many future Afghan rulers would also do so.

Page 425 mentions how Afghanistan was technically not independent and had to negotiate a treaty for recognizing Amir Habib Allah Khan as "independent" (para 2). Britain did not bother with keeping the Afghan king about negotiations with Russia about Afghanistan's status however (para 3)

I never said Afghanistan was independent (De jure), but the way they conducted their affairs and policies affirmed them as De facto independent. The treaty helped affirm Afghanistan's de-facto independence and also mentions it as a "significant defeat for British diplomacy" as this would continue on the path of taking them out of British overseeing in foreign affairs (which still was barely if not even advertised in effect).

"In 1907, it negotiated eith Russia that Afghanistan was under British influence without informing Habib. (page 429, para 2) Despite his demand for renogatiating the treaty, the two sides did not care. (page 430, para 3) The rest of pages until 448 describe how Afghanistan tried to take steps to full independence."

Read the above, and it the pages until 448 go into a lot more stuff such as the Tarzis, not about steps toward independence.

Aman Allah Khan stated he wanted full independence. It mentions that the independent and free government of Afghanistan was ending alliance with Britain, showing that this "alliance" was not viewed as an alliance of equality by Afghanistan. (page 453)

We can clearly see the distinguishing of the alliance and "Independence" as aforementioned before. I quote: "The New Amir made it clear that the continuation of the Anglo-Afghan Alliance was conditional on Britain's formal recognition of Afghanistan as an independent and free nation". There is a clear distinction here between the alliance (and read above for the independence de-facto explanation which the Afghans sought to remove British influence over foreign affairs which they had little control over).

Page 396 only mentions Abdul Rahman talking with a few countries without British approval once in 1895, its not shown that Afghanistan still continued managing its foreign affairs without British paramountcy unlike what you claimed.

Did it mention otherwise? I didn't see anywhere else that it even did, it even says on pages like British Protectorate in the British protected state section that in effect, control was rarely even advertised.

I would also like to add on an alliance was formed with the British prior to this under the reign of Dost Mohammad Khan which was on equal footing, Christine Noelle and Dalryimple dives into this well I believe. But here is a passage from Lee you can read about (pages 316-320) [4]

@Roman Reigns Fanboy Noorullah (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope this clears confusion, and that you should maybe read the sources a little more thoroughly since you thought I was misleading which I didn't want to come off as. Thanks and let me know if you have any other concerns. Noorullah (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Noorullah21 This is completely irrelevant to the argument. Shah Shuja was a ruler of the Durrani Dynasty who came to power during the First Anglo-Afghan War under the Durrani Kingdom, he was not a ruler of the Emirate of Kabul/Afghanistan. The Emirate is marked to begin in 1823, his page also calls him Emir. Regardless it shows British interference for a long time.

Persia was an enemy of the Emirate of Afghanistan (as we saw in the Anglo-Persian War) as Dost Mohammad had bad ties with the Qajars due to their invasions of Herat (1793–1863). Dost Muhammad Khan wanted to ally with Persia for aid against the Sikhs (page 214, para 1)

"His request was rejected on the ground that 'Abd al-Rahman Khan had repeatedly refused to allow a British resident to live in Kabul." It is my mistake then, but as already mentioned the British already agreed to not send a resident in past and the protected state status was regarding foreign affairs.

So...he was an ally? You just said it yourself and it is quoted. An ally does not mean someone who is independent. You're tacitly admitting you made a claim which doesn't exist in the source.

I never said Afghanistan was independent (De jure), but the way they conducted their affairs and policies affirmed them as De facto independent. The treaty helped affirm Afghanistan's de-facto independence and also mentions it as a "significant defeat for British diplomacy" as this would continue on the path of taking them out of British overseeing in foreign affairs (which still was barely if not even advertised in effect). You've cited only two matters on which Afghanistan defied Britain that too by same ruler. How is that de facto independence?

Did it mention otherwise? I didn't see anywhere else that it even did, it even says on pages like British Protectorate in the British protected state section that in effect, control was rarely even advertised. So you used one instance of Abdul Rahman Khan corresponding with other countries as Afghanistan dedying Britain. Advertising does not mean lack of control, what it says is there was lack of clarity "Their status was rarely advertised while it was in effect, it becoming clear only after it was lifted."

Read the above, and it the pages until 448 go into a lot more stuff such as the Tarzis, not about steps toward independence. My mistake in describing it but it clearly states Afghanistan was not independent, this is repeated on page 447 para 1 regarding German-Afghan Treaty of 1916 which I don't know why you omitted.

Your edits are improper and you should self-revert. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Sundostund: for opinion on whether to add "British protected state" as a status or not, since Noorullah has stopped talking. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: It seems logical to me to add "British protected state" as a status in the 1879–1919 period (between the Treaty of Gandamak and the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1919), as the Emirate certainly wasn't a fully sovereign country during that time. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy@Sundostund Sorry I didn't see this since I was away for a while.

I think it is best to either come up with a solution here, or take it to dispute resolution or hold a census.

I raise the concern that Afghanistan was de-facto independent while de-jure under British paramountcy. (Since Abdur Rahman Khan had ties with other nations which was in clear violation of the treaty with the British, and some more examples.)

I think a solution we could implement is in the infobox stating that de-jure it was a British protected state ie what it had before this dispute with the dates (of when it was officially), to where it was ended with a marked footnote or it saying it with dejure.

Yes it is true that the British wished for a residency in Kabul, but it was never achieved (since Abdur Rahman seemingly never allowed it). You also ask how is it de-facto independence since I've cited only a few matters (which I believe on its own would be sufficient). More instances of defiance are on page 395-396.

"Dost Muhammad Khan wanted to ally with Persia for aid against the Sikhs (page 214, para 1)"

Yes but this was prior to the Anglo-Persian war, where their relations in the 1850's had already diminished due to Persian invasions of the independent Herat.

I believe that this will go back and forth, so I believe the best option is to make a solution. Such as the one I proposed? Noorullah (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Specifically what it would look like is

"British protected state (1879–1919) (insert footnote)" that would explain that it is de-jure for so and so reasons (ie based off the Amir's defiance.)

or "British protected state (1879–1919) de-jure"

If we were to follow a solution that would be based off this, I think the footnote would be more appropriate then cluttering the infobox with "de-jure" added on. The footnote could include explanation as well as the link to de-jure, etc. Noorullah (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by hold a census, people can drop in any time and give their opinion. It's not necessary to do anything special in a consensus. I think by holding a census, you mean holding a RfC. If so feel free.

I read page 395-396, while Abdul Rahman Khan was provocative towards the British, the only act of violation of the protection treaty was him talking with other countries (only once).

Yes but this was prior to the Anglo-Persian war, where their relations in the 1850's had already diminished due to Persian invasions of the independent Herat. Matters little because it shows interference by British over the years which you omitted.

Yes it is true that the British wished for a residency in Kabul, but it was never achieved (since Abdur Rahman seemingly never allowed it). Maybe, but the original agreement with Abdur Rahman had no demand for a Resident as per page 378. Regardless even if he denied it, it certainly was never a part of the original protection treaty in 1879.

You're needlessly arguing over this and stuck over wanting to remove the protected state status for some reason. Feel free to hold a RfC if you want. Until then the protected state staus will stay, you were also reverted by another user in past if I remember. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Census doesn’t sound like a bad idea considering this is just going back and forward. Nonetheless I’ll put my two cents into this.

“I read page 395-396, while Abdul Rahman Khan was provocative towards the British, the only act of violation of the protection treaty was him talking with other countries (only once).”

im not sure what your point is here. He’s already mentioned multiple other examples before he wrote this. Heres noorullah quote:

“Yes it is true that the British wished for a residency in Kabul, but it was never achieved (since Abdur Rahman seemingly never allowed it). You also ask how is it de-facto independence since I've cited only a few matters (which I believe on its own would be sufficient). More instances of defiance are on page 395-396.”

As it’s been discussed, he’s already cited you multiple examples before you asked for more. Which is why he cited more instances of defiance on page 395-396. What more do you want exactly? You’re making it seem like he’s only cited one more instance, ignoring the fact that he already cited multiple other examples before you asked for another.

And you also really downplayed what was written on those two pages.

“Abd al-Rahman Khan also violated the Lyall Agreement by corres- ponding directly with Persia, Turkey, Russia and Germany, even though Britain was meant to manage Afghanistan’s foreign relations. When Britain began work on extending the Indian railway to Chaman, he claimed it was like pushing a knife into his vital organs. ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan even published a series of pamphlets calling for Afghans to prepare for jihad against Britain and Russia, accusing both countries of secretly plotting to dismember Afghanistan.” Pg 396.

There was also a lot more examples of defiance to the British in those pages that you neglected to mention. Nonetheless I don’t know how many more examples you need in order to accept this point.

“Yes but this was prior to the Anglo-Persian war, where their relations in the 1850's had already diminished due to Persian invasions of the independent Herat.” “Matters little because it shows interference by British over the years which you omitted.”

Again I fail to see the point you’re trying to make here. What does this have to do with Afghanistans protected status? the British tried to remove dost Muhammad khan from power in order to secure Shah Shujas throne, nevermind the fact that Shah shuja has nothing to do with the emirate of Afghanistan, as he was the leader of the durrani dynasty.

“Yet as a show of goodwill, Dost Muhammad halted all correspondence with Persia and Russia. He had never been that serious about a Persian alliance anyway, since that too would have been politically unacceptable to the powerful Sunni Islamist lobby. It was an alliance with Britain, the dominant power in the region, that he coveted.” Pg 214.

You also neglected to mention the fact that he was never serious about a Persian alliance anyway. And it’s clear the British had no interest in an alliance with Dost Muhammad khan which is why they attempted to overthrow him. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"You're needlessly arguing over this and stuck over wanting to remove the protected state status for some reason."

Yes because by extent it is incorrect.

@Someguywhosbored Has also dropped their own concerns with it, and also emphasized it a lot better then I did to be fair. @Roman Reigns Fanboy Noorullah (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have provided sufficient explanation unto the defiance that Abdur Rahman had against the British, which obviously makes the treaty he signed seem effectively worthless with the British since the British effectively did very little to what Abdur Rahman did, and even conceded at points (as explained by Lee)

"I read page 395-396, while Abdul Rahman Khan was provocative towards the British, the only act of violation of the protection treaty was him talking with other countries (only once)."

That is not the only violation either, Abdur Rahman Khan effectively did war with other states such as Maimana, Nuristan and more, this wasn't allowed under the treaty because the treaty clarified that the Emir must have permission first.[5] (also explained in the settlements section of Treaty of Gandamak.) Not to mention, Abdur Rahman Khan even encouraged Jihad against both Russia and the British (p396). [6]

I don't understand how this is only marked as only one act of defiance, when he is actively supporting a call for war against the British? Noorullah (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If the British could not control Afghanistan's foreign affairs (by them having ties with other nations which violated the treaty), and that essentially being what a protected state is, how they are a protected state in a de-facto sense? Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I myself see no sufficient reason to start a RfC over this, as there is no major dispute here IMHO. Such a move would be legitimate, of course, but also a waste of time. This could be easily solved by adding the footnote, or de jure next to the "British protected state (1879–1919)". The Emirate certainly wasn't a fully sovereign country before the 1919 treaty, but the British control wasn't sufficiently enforced, so it could be very well claimed that the Emirate had some kind of de jure independence, both in its internal and external affairs. It certainly wasn't a classic protectorate, where a colonial resident directed the local ruler about what policies were to be taken. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sundostund It is noted that the British had no influence in Afghan internal affairs (this was regarded in the treaty), and was only directed toward their external affairs, which as we know and have shown, was not enforced whatsoever. Noorullah (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Which is why we have said options

Either to remove the status entirely.

or

Do what you and I suggested, establish it saying that the protected state was in a de-jure sense, and further explain it in a footnote.

I think it would be appropriate to address this by removing the status and then further explaining it in the main page content itself, (which I also plan to expand).

But I am up for any solution that can be properly agreed upon here. Noorullah (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: I prefer the second option, as it should be noted that the Emirate wasn't fully independent for about four decades of its existence. The status should be included in the infobox, with the other important data; if you plan to expand the article itself, and to further explain the status in the text, that is up to you. That idea seems fine to me, as long as the status is noted in the infobox as well. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored: I've read the whole book User:Noorullah21 has cited and I've explained my position about the same topics you're talking to him. Afghanistan's protected state status was never about internal but foreign affairs, so you should stop accusing me of nonsense.

@Noorullah21: That is not the only violation either, Abdur Rahman Khan effectively did war with other states such as Maimana, Nuristan and more, this wasn't allowed under the treaty because the treaty clarified that the Emir must have permission first. Completely wrong, the treaty only talks about taking up arms against foreign states. Maimana etc were considered part of Afghanistan and the British themselves demanded him to march on Maimana (page 386).

Not to mention, Abdur Rahman Khan even encouraged Jihad against both Russia and the British. You're misleading, he told Afghans to prepare for jihad in case British and Russians took Afghan territory.

You have a needless obsession with removing the protected state status. Feel free to hold a RfC if you want, although I think it's a waste of time. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You're misleading, he told Afghans to prepare for jihad in case British and Russians took Afghan territory.

My statement was not misleading, I quote: "Abd al-Rahman Khan also violated the Lyall agreement by corresponding directly with Persia, Turkey, Russia, and Germany, even though Britain was meant to manage Afghanistan's foreign relations. When Britain began working on the Indian railway to Chaman, he claimed it was like pushing a knife into his vital organs. Abd al-Rahman Khan even published a series of pamphlets calling for Afghans to prepare for Jihad against Britain and Russia, accusing both of secretly plotting to dismember Afghanistan"

I would like to emphasize this part: "Abd al-Rahman Khan even published a series of pamphlets calling for Afghans to prepare for Jihad against Britain and Russia, accusing both of secretly plotting to dismember Afghanistan"

This isn't misleading in anyway nor is it "in case", he was directly preparing for one as it clearly states in the source.

Regardless, three editors ( @Someguywhosbored @Sundostund and me) have put forward a consensus that this can be appropriately followed on the recent edits I have done. @Roman Reigns Fanboy Noorullah (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Also I see with 386, my bad in that case. But the point still stands. Noorullah (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You have a needless obsession with removing the protected state status.

I'm sorry for trying to improve the Wikipedia page by clarifying information to its de-facto sense, but you calling it an obsession is just unconstructive toward this dispute. Noorullah (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are misleading User:Noorullah21, he was never going to war but being cautious about British and Russian designs on Afghanistan. "When Britain began working on the Indian railway to Chaman, he claimed it was like pushing a knife into his vital organs. Abd al-Rahman Khan even published a series of pamphlets calling for Afghans to prepare for Jihad against Britain and Russia, accusing both of secretly plotting to dismember Afghanistan." It's directly there that he worried about their designs after Britieh began building a railway in Chaman.

You said he "encouraged" which would mean he told Afghans to war with them. All it says is "prepare". That is misleading.

I'm okay with the new consensus of the other three users and don't have a problem with your edit on the page. But you've wasted time over a small issue because you don't like Afghanistan being mentioned as a puppet state of British. Please don't bring your biases to Wikipedia. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy Again, it says for the Afghans to prepare for Jihad, this isn't misleading as he directly told Afghans to prepare for Jihad, which would indicate mobilizing for war.

This is a status of the infobox, and Afghanistan was not a puppet state, but a de-jure protected state as explained. Claiming it as a bias isn't helping your dispute and is bad faith, while also being unconstructive on the topic of trying to add to a Wikipedia page.[7] [8] Noorullah (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Apart from a few moments of defiance Afghanistan was bound to Birtish dictates. A state that cannot completely manage its affairs whenever it wants is a puppet state. Abdur Rahman Khan was himself complaining of British interfering in Afghan internal affairs (page 396) which you omitted. I have no regret calling you biased because you are User:Noorullah21. Anyway I'm satisfied with the consensus, this discussion is pointless now. Please don't contact me again. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Abdur Rahman accused him (from the book) of this, which you were misleading in and said it as if it was direct. We also see in 397 where it was explained that he had called the British bluff (and won out) on the matter over the risen tensions.

There is quite a lot of acts of defiance, and a puppet state, as described:

"A puppet state, puppet régime, puppet government or dummy government is a state that is de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power and subject to its orders. Puppet states have nominal sovereignty, but a foreign power effectively exercises control through economic or military support. By leaving a local government in existence the outside power evades all responsibility, while at the same time successfully paralyzing the local government they tolerate."

We know that a lot of this did not apply to Abdur Rahman Khan's government, thus making the claim of a puppet government baseless. He indeed was de-facto independent but did rely on British aid specifically in cash and guns.

Again, please refrain from calling me a biased editor, I take offense toward it. thank you. @Roman Reigns Fanboy Noorullah (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Didn't see the part you last added for "don't contact me again" since you edited that later as I was editing a response, sorry for that. Noorullah (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: I don't care if you take offense, because I stand by what I said and it's true. And like I said please don't contact me again, I won't be responding again. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

Formal request has been received from Noorullah21 to merge Emirate of Afghanistan and Kingdom of Afghanistan. Please discuss the proposal below.

Rationale given by proposer: There is no reason for there to be two different articles. In both states, both had rulers that styled themselves as Kings, and the reason the Kingdom of Afghanistan page was made is because Amanullah Khan styled himself as king, which doesn't make complete sense since rulers like Dost Mohammad Khan in the Emirate of Afghanistan were also styled king, as seen on Jonathan Lee's a History of Afghanistan from 1260 to present p.317. They are the same state. Felix QW (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Two completely different historical periods, and they both have completely different government styles. Haskko (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you show me anything that correlated them as different government styles? @Haskko Noorullah (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

comment: I don't think this is a good idea, it will be better to move the period from the article about the Kingdom from before the civil war in 1929 to this article, so as not to separate the modernizing period of the rule of King Amanullah. After the war, the country was taken over, rebuilt and reformed by another branch of the dynasty. Another idea is to isolate the history from 1919 when they became independent and combine it with the period of the pre-war kingdom. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.