Talk:Taliban/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Make this article for the 1994-1996 Taliban prior to declaring themselves the Islamic Emirate, move everything else to the Islamic Emirate page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Muhibm0307 (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Same case for it as the previous post, just better clarified now.

The Islamic Emirate has continuously existed since 1996, even in the darkest days of the civil war they held onto rural areas in the South, and seeing as they eventually won that civil war and retook Kabul, it’s needlessly confusing naming to treat them separate knowing what we do now(namely that they didn’t get wiped out and in fact eventually won the civil war)

So this article is for the Pre-Emirate era, when the Taliban were officially the Taliban and were a student lead insurgency in the 90s civil war. Obviously both should get some redirects though to ease things. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:718f:fd32:b5f1:9fdf (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to refer to themselves as such since 1996 in all official statements and communications, has always flown the same flag, has always enforced their laws in areas which they controlled, and has always behaved as a state. The west referred to them as "The Taliban" during the civil war to try and distance them from the fact they were the dominant government prior to the US interference. "The Taliban" could be considered to be The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or it could be considered their military, but either way the two articles should be merged. The pages should be merged since The Taliban is simply an unofficial name designated by the west, and during this period the IEA were a government in exile just as the the Islamic State of Afghanistan were when the IEA held majority control originally. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Islamic_State_of_Afghanistan is considered a single state and has a single page for similar reasons --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Support it just makes sense to do it this way. With so many preconceived notions about what and who is going on being proved wrong as of late, we need to clean this up and follow the facts. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:718f:fd32:b5f1:9fdf (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Manabimasu please cast your !vote in this section, as the previous proposal (section above) has been withdrawn by the nominator and reformulated as this new proposal. JBchrch talk 21:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - Reliable sources needed because such jump would be WP:OR. Although I do understand what you are saying, reliable sources reference Taliban as Taliban and not IEA. If IEA is mentioned alongside Taliban, then such sources could be used in IEA. I may reconsider if there is a reliable source which does claim IEA did not stop existing after 2001. The earliest I could find after 2001 is from 2013.Manabimasu (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment my previously linked source shows that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have continued to refer to themselves as such and have never accepted "Taliban" as an official name. Who could possibly be a more reliable source of a state's name/ identity than the state in question? --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's have this discussion after the discussion after Talk:Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan § Separate 1996-2001 and present-day Taliban rule into different articles closes. I think these two split proposals are contradictory. If both discussion closed as "support", it will create a giant mess. There is no deadline. Pinging The Gentle Sleep and Manabimasu to get their opinions. IP 2604, you are very welcome to give your opinion but I cannot ping you. JBchrch talk 22:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

​ I would tell the closer beforehand to wait until the discussion closes on the other page. I don't really see it as contradictory. If support does happen , I could see portions from Taliban move to the respective time period articles as this article would solely be on Taliban,pre-1996; Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996-2001),1996-2001; and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (2021-present),2021-present,which may move to Afghanistan(WP:CRYSTALBALL). For the supporters, one article would make the moving of portions from Taliban easier than two.Manabimasu (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: More high quality research needs to be presented first. The Taliban has existed for 40 years now, the apparent fall of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is not enough of a reason. WP:COMMONNAME is another factor to consider. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong Oppose the PRIMARYTOPIC for "Taliban" is the group over the past 25 years, not specifically the period from 1994-1996. There may be an argument for a separate (and new) article on the rise of the Taliban in 1994-96 if one does not already exist, but do not hijack this article to do so. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There are disconnected discussions on a merge in multiple sections of multiple pages, which makes it extremely difficult to gauge how close we are to an actual consensus. I've tried to participate in the discussions in each of the pages where they're going on, but it's confusing and hard to keep up with when they're so disjointed. Does anyone have an idea about how we can merge the discussions together to actually measure consensus? --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The Gentle Sleep I have written a message yesterday on WP:AN about the issue (➡️link), but I have received no answer so far (which is not surprising, frankly). I think the best way to get some sort of reaction is for another user to add their voice: if you want to, you can add a comment to that effect to the section I have created. JBchrch talk 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:718F:FD32:B5F1:9FDF (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC) For the person asking on sources that the Emirate never stopped existing, it’s everywhere. The group in question has called themselves the Islamic Emirate nonstop since 1996. The continuity is clear. Making 3 separate articles for one continuous entity is nonsensical.

Comment Literally any official communication by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan demonstrates this point, but if additional citation is needed an article from the middle of the civil war is listed in the numbered citations below. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Strongly support For all the reasons stated above. 207.228.78.12 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Support Unless the other article rules against their thing, I see no reason not to do this. It would greatly simplify everything. Big thumbs up. 208.85.212.65 (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Support seems high and the main post of opposition is what the other article says. So I’d say if they end up keeping the Emirate page together, we move forward with this to fully complete it.— 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:EC1D:B09B:AF2B:FB49 (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• I propose we call consensus on merging this page into Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan since we seem to be in agreement on this.--The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose: The Taliban are a movement, and not the same as the state established by them. Read any book by an expert on the subject, such as Ahmed Rashid, and you can see that they clearly separate the two. Applodion (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment They have continued to operate as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan since 1996, so can we call consensus on the fact that anything after the establishment of the original Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan should be merged and anything prior should remain separate? --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• No. As I said: The Taliban are not the emirate, and all experts agree on that. The Taliban are a movement, the emirate is a state/government. Trying to merge them is like saying that the Chinese Communist Party and China are the same. Applodion (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment A single writer is hardly "All the experts." The IEA have continued to refer to themselves as the IEA since 1996, they have continued to enforce their laws on those within held territories, they have continued to hold territory in the region, they have always used the same flag, they continued under the same leadership which has evolved over time, and these facts can be confirmed in the writing of any expert on the topic. If the above facts are taken as truth then in what way are they not the same entity? The Islamic State of Afghanistan is considered to be the same entity despite being similarly situated, at a similar time, in the same region. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• I literally gave Ahmed Rashid as an example. Just google "Taliban" and "Emirate"; you will find that sources talk about the Taliban restoring the emirate or establishing the emirate or ruling the emirate etc., with several such as this book or this book talking about the "Taliban's emirate". The latter wording would not be possible if the two were the same; as I said several times before: The Taliban are NOT the Emirate, as the former are a group/movement and the latter is a state. Applodion (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support The choice on the other one is still deadlocked, and a lot of the hesitation has to do with this. If we move forward on shifting most of this page over there, it'll definitely lead to the 'don't split the emirate page' camp winning out, and thusly all will be fine.

Strong oppose: As eloquently expounded by Applodion. The discussion doesn't seem closed to me yet and I think it's premature to say that it is.--Sid-Vicious (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose: per Applodion's excellent distinction. The group/movement is not the state; the two are not interchangeable, and, thus, not the same entity. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - My understanding of the arguments against merging relevant information is that the Taliban is a political organization and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a state. In this case would it not be logical to move anything referring to their activities in the 2001 - 2021 period of exile to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan since they are a continuous government as has already been argued? Their detailed political views would stay here, but the fact that they continued operating as a government during the civil war means that leaving that information out of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan page would lead to confusion. There is information being added to this page for the periods of government control, which based on the arguments of Applodion should be moved to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan page.

— Relisting. Muhibm0307 (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

References

@Muhibm0307: Considering there were more votes opposing merging than supporting it, can you kindly explain how you determined consensus? Benica11 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Benica11:, I was closing based on administrator’s noticeboard, but I’ll reopen the discussion. Muhibm0307 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment- I found another source in 2011 in which the authors discuss about the Taliban and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Here are some quotes:

Moreover, the Taliban call themselves the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’, thus indicating that they claim or at least aspire to represent more than merely an armed group. In that case, the application of human rights law to the Taliban appears to be an appealing and logical theory, as it is necessary to ensure that persons living under their control be protected by international law.

In its August 2010 report, the UN called on the Taliban and other ‘Anti-Government Armed Groups’ to ‘withdraw all orders and statements calling for the killing of civilians, including civilian Government officials; adopt and enforce codes of conduct or other directives that prohibit any and all attacks on civilians; accept that civilians’ cooperating with the Afghan Government and International Military Forces are protected against any attack and immediately cease targeting those civilians’. UNAMA, above note 12, p. v. It appears that this call has so far been rejected, given that apparently after the report was published the Taliban issued an updated ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Rules for Mujahideen’ that included a determination that anyone working for coalition forces or the Afghan government was a legitimate target. CBC News, ‘Taliban issue new code of conduct’, 3 August 2010, available at: http:// www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/03/conduct-code-taliban.html (last visited 18 January 2011).

This does give the supporting side an edge in what Taliban claims to be. But from the opposing side sources on recognition from international communities would be the former which is that the IEA does not exist. But this is just one source and many reliable sources are needed. Checking Ngram shows Taliban is favored by sources after 2001. From what I see, is it what Taliban claims or what reliable sources say on Taliban. The IEA doesn’t has little de jure recognition so reliable sources on them could readily reflect that.Manabimasu (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - There may have been more votes for oppose, but the majority of people opposed have not made facts based arguments, have made arguments which actually support a merge, or in many cases gave no arguments whatsoever. It's also important to note that most sources from the civil war period will be through the lens of being anti-IEA, since the IEA was designated as a terror organization at the time. Government controls around framing of issues within the media are important to take into account when dealing with historical matters such as these. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Facts and citations - The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have continued to operate as a constant organization during the 20 year civil war , are flying the same flag over the capital , are using the same name , and continued to enforce their laws within their territory during the entire war.

Due to the cited facts I've laid out:

• The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to operate as a government in exile and as such were long since established as a government.
• The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan currently controls the capital and is the dominant state in the region.
• Because the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was previously a partially recognized state, it stands to reason that they are currently a partially recognized state unless there are reliable sources showing that nations including Saudi Arabia who are already on record as supporting the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have ceased to recognize them.
• The fact they have continued to operate as a state during this period supports moving information from their period as a government in exile over to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.--The Gentle Sleep (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

References

• The Gentle Sleep continues to ignore the points which the oppose side has raised. In academia, the Taliban and the emirate are clearly differentiated, as per the examples I have given. The "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" did exist as full state before 2001, and as rebel/shadow/exile government from 2001 to 2021, and as full government/state from 2021. In this capacity, it was carried and governed by the Taliban, a political and religious movement. The source cited by Muhibm0307 points at the problem of the insurgency period; in essence, as the original state had factually ceased to exist in 2001, governments & agencies across the world regarded the emirate as gone. Consequently, when the Taliban - as a group - claimed to act on behalf of the emirate - a state -, they were occasionally conflated by their opponents. A similar case would the the Chinese Soviet Republic, a government / rebel state carried by the Communist Party of China in the 1930s. Here too the opponents did not differentiate between the state and the rebel group. However, the distinction has to be made. As I said previously, someone can be a Taliban and live in the emirate; one can also be a Taliban and not live in the emirate; one can live in the emirate but not join the Taliban. IMO, the Taliban should remain as a separate article, while we should have three articles for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: One about the state between 1996–2001, one for the 2001–2021 insurgent state, and one for the post-2021 state. Applodion (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not ignoring those points, I have already refuted them in my previous arguments. I have explained in great detail and with citations from reliable sources that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan continued to operate as a government in exile during the 2001 - 2021 civil war. Academia overwhelmingly supported official narratives during a period of rampant McCarthyism ,and the sky is blue. Those who didn't support the popular perspective at the time had their careers destroyed, Censorship exists, and is a major flaw with your sources. Bias is something we must be careful of when discussing politically charged topics and groups, it's important to acknowledge the bias of our sources. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• To dismiss all sources opposed to your view as biased makes any discussion useless. One has to work with what one has. In addition, the most biased sources are actually those who conflate / merge the Taliban and the emirate, as they regard the emirate as inherently illegitimate and thus a mere offshoot of the Taliban. Less biased sources tend to separate the two. Applodion (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

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

The Taliban and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan pages should be merged.

Both pages openly admit their the same entity. The Emirate was often called the Taliban, the Taliban never stopped calling themselves the Emirate. When it seemed as though they were beaten forever and the Republic had won, splitting them in twain made since. Now, with hindsight, it doesn’t.

The entity, known officially as the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, and unofficially as the “Taliban”, ruled the majority of the country from 1996 until American backed intervention triggered a civil war with the newly founded republic. The Emirate lost the cities, but held the country side and gradually regained ground, eventually winning the civil war and regaining the capital.

Treating them(The Emirate/Taliban prior to the American intervention and the Emirate/Taliban that fought the civil war for 20 years) separate no longer makes sense, now that we can see with hindsight that they never lost the civil war and the Republic did.

They are one entity. They had power, they fought a 20 year civil war with lots of ups and downs to keep that power, and they won that civil war. Call them the Islamic Emirate or call them the Taliban, they are one, continuous entity, and with hindsight, should be recognized as such.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to refer to themselves as such since 1996 in all official statements and communications, has always flown the same flag, has always enforced their laws in areas which they controlled, and has always behaved as a state. The west referred to them as "The Taliban" during the civil war to try and distance them from the fact they were the dominant government prior to the US interference. "The Taliban" could be considered to be The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or it could be considered their military, but either way the two articles should be merged. Islamic State of Afghanistan held majority control from 1992 to 1996, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan held power from 1996 to 2001, and then the Islamic State of Afghanistan held power from 2001 to 2002. Shoudn't the IEA/ Taliban be treated the same way since it's a very similar situation in the same region? --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The Emirate is the state/regime, the Taliban is the political group running that state/regime plus during the insurgency and before the first regime, the distinction is real. Nazi Germany is not the Nazi Party and how either refers to themselves is recordable, but not something we should feel obliged to endorse or echo. Of course they would use the same name/flag throughout - it implies both legitimacy and continuity. What is being proposed confuses two disparate things. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Make this article moreso for the general Taliban movement and ideology, while governance and diplomacy in the 2001-2021 period is moved to the “Islamic Emirate” page

The Islamic Emirate page has settled their debate on what to do with the page, ending in keeping it united. As such, while the prior suggestion of among this solely about the 94-96 period is still filled with problems and definitely off the table, I feel focusing this article moreso ont he movement and ideology and moving the governance and diplomacy that occurred during the civil war period is wise. Small degree moving is already occurring.

Support OP, just wanted to make sure my vote was cast. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:907D:2923:678F:8BD8 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate

Now that the Taliban seems to have reasserted themselves as a state entity, or at least could very well happen soon, what do we do with the articles? Should the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article be made to reflect it's renewed existence from 2021 on? Should the Taliban article be used? Should there be a new article for the modern Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, renaming the old one to reflect it's existence form 1996 to 2001? Serafart (talk) (contributions) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Following suit with a single Islamic State of Afghanistan article covering its entire history, it makes sense for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article to be a continued article if the Taliban take over Afghanistan and declare a continuation of their Islamic Emirate.ElderZamzam (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Veryproicelandic, Clovermoss, Dwiki, Elli, KRtau16, SakibArifin, LilBillWilliams, CentreLeftRight, 51412techno, Triggerhippie4, Aquatic Ambiance, Mndata2, NomanPK44, Kwamikagami, Mac Dreamstate, Adoring nanny, BrawlyTheContributor, JCJC777, TheTimesAreAChanging, H7opolo, Llll5032, Ready12hope, Evert, and SunDawn: Pinging recent editors to this article as this is quickly becoming an issue. Given that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has reestablished itself as a proper state or state-like entity, what do we do with these articles? Serafart (talk) (contributions) 05:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Has the new Taliban government re-cast themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan? I think we need a new article for "upcoming" Taliban government (if they succeed) instead of merging to an existing article, but I think for now it is still WP:TOOSOON. SunDawntalk 07:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

They never stopped refering themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and see themselves as a continuation of that government. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

How things roll so fast, eh? Kabul has not fallen when I type the above message. I think we should wait for couple of days to see how the new government formed up. SunDawntalk 10:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Serafart: the Emirate is the current de facto government but the Republic article should also state that it "is" the government since it is recognized as such. Bill Williams (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Now, I don't know a lot about the whole thing but Should the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article be made to reflect it's renewed existence from 2021 on? - Yes, why not? People are probably interested in that. Should the Taliban article be used? - I don't think so, the Taliban article considers it more of a "movement". Should there be a new article for the modern Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, renaming the old one to reflect it's existence from 1996 to 2001? - Yes BrawlyTheContributor (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan never stopped referring to themselves in that way in all official communications and public statements. The IEA have continued to fly the same flag and enforce their laws within controlled territory for the entire 20 year civil war, which is what this has always been. When we think about the situation critically, the IEA never stopped being a state, they were just extremely small at some points. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we continue writing in the existing articles. In the end this is a movement in Afghanistan history. I mean what if later on Taliban was defeated and withdrew,will we again remove articles and create new ones. Ready12hope (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

2017 size estimate

The infobox currently provides an estimated size of 200,000 during 2017, however when compared to all the other estimates provided this one is wildly out of proportion, creating the impression the Taliban somehow gained and lost more than 100,000 men in the mid to late 2010s. Is this estimate actually WP:DUE? BSMRD (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The 2017 figure taken from [1]; of 200,000 includes 60,000 core fighters, another 90,000 members of local militias, and tens of thousands of facilitators and support elements. This matches the figure from [2] of 60,000 core fighters. So we can either edit the 200k figure to 60k or put a note inside brackets saying this excludes 90k local militia etc. - hako9 (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Northern Alliance flag flown in Panjshir 2021.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of Taliban which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

Newer sources state that Ashraf Ghani is in UAE. 3512495a (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The statement "President Ashraf Ghani fled Afghanistan to Tajikistan" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#2021_offensive_and_return_to_power might be changed to "President Ashraf Ghani fled Afghanistan to the United Arab Emirates" (which is also written in his own Wikipedia article). The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation confirmed that Ghani went to the UAE. https://www.mofaic.gov.ae/en/mediahub/news/2021/8/18/18-08-2021-uae-statement. Another source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/world/asia/ashraf-ghani-uae-afghanistan.html --3512495a (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done RFZYNSPY ^talk 17:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist designation

The Taliban have been designated as a terrorist organisation by Canada, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and the United Arab Emirates. 188.206.72.78 (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: The terror designation of the Taliban is controversial, and the United States famously does not designate the Taliban as a terror organization. The fact that a handful of countries consider it a terror organization (most notably Canada and Russia) is not a defining enough characteristic of the organization to be included in the first sentence. This statement had never been included in the lead until it was added a week ago prior to extended protection, first as a revision which violated WP:TERRORIST, and which was later revised to correct the rule violation. I don't believe this inclusion was worth revising and should have instead been reverted, for the reasons previously mentioned. Soapwort (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

The United States should be added as allies seeing as they are now sharing intelligence with the Taliban and cooperating with them as per the US Central Command:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-military-sharing-intelligence-with-taliban-general-says

https://news.yahoo.com/centcom-commander-reveals-u-intelligence-201833659.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/26/us-officials-provided-taliban-with-names-of-americans-afghan-allies-to-evacuate-506957 78.66.46.101 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Find sources that use the term allies or it's WP:SYNTH ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2021 (2)

Remove China as ally. The sources cited don't even allege that China was ever an ally of the Taliban. 78.66.46.101 (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Seeming case of WP:SYNTH, neither of the sources given alleged an "alliance" or anything of the kind. BSMRD (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Pakistani Taliban

Hi

Somes Pakistani Taliban are not part of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. We need a new article. --Panam2014 (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding China to the list of Allies

The Taliban have explicitly declared China and ally, and as such they should be added to the list of allies in the infobox.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/02/taliban-calls-china-principal-partner-international-community/

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3591782/taliban-declare-china-closest-ally-uk-refuses-recognise-group/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/world/asia/china-taliban-afghanistan.html

https://au.news.yahoo.com/principal-partner-taliban-names-china-closest-ally-031540778.html Cave Johnson (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

They actually said "principal partner" (in reference to economic development and diplomatic alignment), despite The Sun's creative reporting. Nowhere is military collaboration mentioned, which is what listing them as an ally in the infobox would imply. BSMRD (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

We could use "ally" if independent reliable sources start to use it to describe the relationship, but The Sun is not a reliable source per WP:THESUN. Llll5032 (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 18:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
  • Islamic State–Khorasan Province ProEditorNotApproved (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2021

I believe these sentences can be added after the last sentence of the lead (the first two sentences are copied from the 2021 Taliban offensive article):-

The Washington Post claimed that the Taliban seizure of Afghanistan in 2021 was "inextricably linked to Pakistan". According to the New York Times, "Afghan tribal leaders said that the Pakistani military waved a surge of new fighters across the border from sanctuaries inside Pakistan". The chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence visited Kabul soon after to get berths for the Haqqanis in the new Government, demonstrating their clout over the Taliban.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎115.99.210.66 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. BSMRD (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

How about adding the government Worldwar1989 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done See template instructions, This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".. FDW777 (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Article about Islamic Emirate

we need an article about the Emirate in exile and the current emirate. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought we already have them. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) and Afghanistan. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

There's an error I would like to fix but it's hard to describe in words, I was wondering if I could get permission to edit it. Worldwar1989 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. — IVORK _Talk 03:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Definite Article, "The", is not a Prefix

Although the definite article is applied to the steam as a prefix in Arabic, and not present at all in Pashto, this is not the case in English. Modern English has not undergone an agglutinative process by making any indexed article an affix of any kind. This mistake can be corrected by simply replacing "prefix" with "definite article."

In American English, a "the" prefix is used thereby referring to the group "The Taliban" rather than just "Taliban". Meanwhile, in English language media in Pakistan, there is often no prefix used.

14:29, 16 August 2021‎ Sven Merrit

Thank you. I have rewritten most of it, but not sure how to word it regarding the Pashto "Da". Can someone familiar with Pashto help? Nurg (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

According to David, Anne (2013). Descriptive Grammar of Pashto and its Dialects. pp. 312–313., it's a preposition meaning "of", which doubles up as a determiner (meaning "the") when used with a solitary noun phrase like this. I've edited the section accordingly. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Photo Reagan with people from Afghanistan/Pakistan

The captions of the photo with Ronald Regan meeting people from Afghanistan in '82 are incorrect and misleading: For the file it reads: "Meeting with a group of Afghan Freedom Fighters, Mujahideen, to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan, especially the September 1982 massacre of 105 Afghan villagers in Lowgar Province." In the article it says: "President Ronald Reagan meeting with Afghan Mujahideen leaders in the Oval Office in 1983"

The name of the group - of which I'm not at all sure any or all of the people on the photo were members - was Afghanistan Mujahedin Freedom Fighters Front. Certainly, "Mujahideen" is not another way to say Afghan Freedom Fighters, nor does it serve to explain the name. And, from what little I could find on them online (a doctor and a judge living in the EU), the people listed are incorrectly described as "Afghan Mujahideen leaders" (Mujahideen being someone who undertakes Djihad, religious struggle) and certainly would not have wanted in any way to represent the powers currently ruling Afghanistan. They were there as civilians, victims of violence, petitioners. At least some of the participants were from Pakistan, as the name of the image suggests. The description, as it is, is incorrect.

Side note: Due to the current popularity of the article, it is skewing search engine results. It seems this is being used by state media. The image is being used to symbolize a series of US administrations supporting paramilitaries against the Soviets. While this is a historical fact, using the photo with this caption seems especially unfair to the people portrayed.

I cannot edit the article, but maybe you can. Let's clear this up!

Add their website

Hi fellow Wikipedians.

Perhaps it was either the IEA wikipedia article or this article (that once had these websites linked) but I would like to ask for permission to submit an edit request to add their websites (defunct or not) back onto this page. I don't see why we shouldn't as political groups on Wikipedia often have their websites linked in the infobox. The websites in question are:

- alemarahenglish.asia - alemarahenglish.net (defunct) - alemarahpashto.com (defunct) - alemarahdari.net (defunct) - alemaraharabi.org (defunct) - alemarahurdu.org (defunct)

I look forward to hear your opinion on this. MillerLeut (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess the current one would come under WP:ELOFFICIAL. But why the defunct ones? that wouldn’t make any sense. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Some articles on wikipedia mention that their websites are defunct, so I thought it would also be the case here. Of course, If it isn't needed to state their defunct sites, then we shouldn't. As of now, all their sites are defunct, so we can either add their sites out of historical interest (maybe link it to when it was last archived on archive.org?), or not add unless their site is functional. MillerLeut (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm here to say that the Taliban now have a website over at alemarahen.com, which is their english website. All other websites and domains they own are offline.MillerLeut (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Map Control

We need to update the map of control as the Panjshir resistance has gone on a pretty large offensive this past week. They have recaptured several districts and towns, such as: Andarab Khost and Farang cities of Baghlan Banow Village (Andarab) Dashtak (Possibly Disputed) Annaba Districts (Panjshir) As well as others. It is also expected that these offensives will continue.

It just simply makes no sense we aren't updating the map when the Taliban are losing more and more areas. We should be more up to date on this. PanjshirLions (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

PanjshirLions, Do you have some reliable sources that we could rely on? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

https://mobile.twitter.com/mujahidandarabi/status/1445309614308970496

Andarab district is one of the three districts recaptured by the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan after the Taliban took over Kabul. On 24 August 2021, according to the Deccan Herald, it was recaptured by the second resistance.[3]

Taliban blocked food, medicine and other supplies to Andarab and Panjshir. On October 3, The NRF claimed it has liberated Andrab district and the district was “firmly under control”. [8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andarab_District

Both the wikipedia page and the source show the capture of Andarab, which I only put a part of the text so I reccomend you check out the page, if you need a another source to back it up I can provide you with one just let me know.

I can also send you some photographs and videos as well. PanjshirLions (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

None of that works for Wikipedia. We need a reliable secondary source. A Twitter posting is inadequate (see WP:SELFPUB/WP:TWITTER), nor does another Wikipedia article (see WP:CIRCULAR) nor does your interpretation of videos etc (see WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. What we need in this instance is a recognised news organisations with a record for fact-checking reporting this. Can you provide that? By the way, if the Deccan Herald happens to be the only news organisation reporting it that will almost certainly not be enough. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Part 1: On Oct 3 the NRF did claim resistance fighters were in Andarab, heres an official source: In an exclusive interview with the Persian Independent, Ghani Andarabi, commander of the National Resistance Front forces in Andarab, said that he was present in the foothills of Andarab and that he was fighting the Taliban with his forces under the command of Ahmad Massoud. https://www.independentpersian.com/node/181706/%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B9%DB%8C/%D8%BA%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%DA%AF%D9%81%D8%AA%DA%AF%D9%88-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%BE%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AA-%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AA-%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%8C-%D9%85%D8%AD%DA%A9%D9%85-%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%87?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1633267020

PanjshirLions (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Part 2 wont work for some reason but I am trying to get it to post PanjshirLions (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

https:// youtu.be/ wQbDgx-rDis PanjshirLions (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, heres a source about the lack of access to food and supplies being true ^^^ (Republic World) PanjshirLions (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: Also Official Twitter account of Ali Maisam Nazary tweeted the Persian source out. Both are reliable sources that back up the other person's writings on the Andarab Conflict. Let me know if these sources are still not acceptable for whatever reason. PanjshirLions (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

99.232.140.139 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

State allies {{plainlist|

• Qatar
• Pakistan (overtly until 2001, denied since 2001)
• Turkmenistan (until 2001)
• Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (until 2001)
• United Arab Emirates (until 2001)
• Iran (allegedly until 2021)
• Saudi Arabia (overtly until 2001, allegedly until 2013)
• China Starting after the 2021 taliban offensive.

Non-state allies

• Haqqani network
• al-Qaeda
• Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (denied by Taliban)
• Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (until 2016)
• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (anti-ISIL faction)

|opponents =

State and intergovernmental opponents

• Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
• Iran
• United States
• United Kingdom
• NATO
• ISAF

Non-state opponents

• Northern Alliance
• National Resistance Front of Afghanistan
• Islamic State–Khorasan Province
• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (ISIL allied faction)
• Jamiat-e Islami
• Junbish-i-Milli
• Hezbe Wahdat

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BSMRD (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased

The article is so biased and contains much info against Taliban. It should be neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.138.238 (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

4 March 2022 edits to lead by Al-Thawr

Regarding your edits and edit summary:

(recovered info, there should be long paragraphs. There is no wiki policy to make paragraphs less shorter. 4 Paragraphs are maximum. Plz discuss on talk before making such huge edits)

I made edits to the lead because it was bloated and in violation of MOS:LEAD which states "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic ... As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs ..." Nothing about "there should be long paragraphs". Paragraphs crammed with details found elsewhere in the article are not "well-composed".
Everything that was in the original bloated lead is now in the, Overview section, which means with Al-Thawr bloating back up the lead, there is now a lot of repetition (just one example -- "the movement spread throughout most of Afghanistan").
I did not "discuss on talk before making such huge edits" to avoid wasting time. As WP:BOLD says "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia." Nothing about requiring "discuss on talk before making such huge edits" --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog:, how were the edits in violation of MOS:LEAD? You made three paragraphs, instead of four. There's no Wiki Policy to reduce paragraphs. When I supposedly recovered the edits, I didn't realize that there was an overview heading. MOS:LEAD states, as you wrote, that 'lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic', thus there is no need for an 'overview' section. The leads should have the info which is in the overview heading. The first paragraph is usually about the introduction of the group, the second is about its background, foundation and early years. Then the third, on this article, should include info about the exiled insurgency and 2021-present rule. The fourth paragraph can deal with international relations or criticism etc. It is the same on other Islamist group articles, such as the Islamic State, first para is intro, second about background and early days, third about war with US, fourth about relations and criticsm. I suggest to remove the overview heading, and move that info to the leads. Btw, thanks for your great edits. Remarks. Al-Thawr (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Overview" section isn't supposed to be a second lead. The lead is supposed to be the overview. FDW777 (talk)

Yes. I don’t see the point of the Overview section - it’s not usual WP practice. Its just duplication. There shoulod just be the lead and the other sections. I also agree with Al-Thawr - the lead wasn’t bloated, it was constructed as you would expect. DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm in a minority here obviously.

Yes, "Overview" sections are not ideal. I created it because I didn't want to delete anything in the old lede and didn't have time to integrate all the information into the other parts of the article.

If the lede "was constructed as you would expect", you'd expect it to be farrrrr longer than the ledes in most wikipedia articles.

The paragraph below is on just the subject of the abuses of the Taliban for 5 years, 20 years ago when they were in power. Is this "the basics in a nutshell" (MOS:LEAD)??? Couldn't it be summarized???

The Taliban have been internationally condemned for their harsh enforcement of their interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, which has resulted in their brutal treatment of many Afghans. During their rule from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban enforced a strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law. The Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians, and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes. While the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they banned activities and media including paintings, photography, and movies that depicted people or other living things. They also prohibited music using instruments, with the exception of the daf, a type of frame drum. The Taliban prevented girls and young women from attending school, banned women from working jobs outside of healthcare (male doctors were prohibited from treating women), and required that women be accompanied by a male relative and wear a burqa at all times when in public. If women broke certain rules, they were publicly whipped or executed. The Taliban harshly discriminated against religious and ethnic minorities during their rule and they have also committed a cultural genocide against the people of Afghanistan by destroying numerous monuments, including the famous 1500-year-old Buddhas of Bamiyan. According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 76% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010, and 80% in 2011 and 2012. The group is internally funded by its involvement in the illegal drug trade which it participates in by producing and trafficking in narcotics such as heroin, extortion, and kidnapping for ransom. They also seized control of mining operations in the mid-2010s that were illegal under the previous government.

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Totally biased

No evidence based article on the Taliban. Using opinion news articles as evidence. 84.241.196.112 (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Building upon this, there should be an audit on sentences and/or statements which refer to social media or mono-geopolitically (e.g. "Western or Eastern view" aligned new source/s, if a bias is present, another reference (even if contradictory to the other source), should be used to ensure balanced opportunity for reader to research further.

There are currently too many sources which cross-reference each other, but are based on the same original source. For example news articles which depict the same scenario are based on one unverified source. ZhenWan (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

As this diff shows, there is no difference between the 26 January 2022 and 25 February 2022 versions, for reference the editor before the bot was Arnhem555. @Arnhem555: please stop disrupting this article by simply reverting to your preferred version, otherwise I will be asking for admin intervention. FDW777 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Who the fuck says Iran is allied with taliban?

The Taliban. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Taliban have always denied receiving any external military support, although (needless to say) this should not be taken at face value. (That said, Jo1971's sources appear to be solid.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Antonio Giustozzi writes the majority of his study is based on oral sources and in this case, the Taliban themselves.

Giustozzi, Antonio (2019). The Taliban at War, 2001–2018. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-19-009239-9.

In interviews, Taliban members, intelligence operatives, and diplomatic and military sources confirmed that support, or part thereof, also accrued in large quantities from the Arab Gulf countries and Iran for several years.

--Jo1971 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Similar issue with allegations of China's "support" for Taliban,

Sources are all non-peer reviewed news articles:-

1. DW.com expresses, quote: "US intelligence officials briefed President Donald Trump on alleged findings that China has offered money to non-state actors in Afghanistan to attack US troops, news site Axios and TV network CNN reported Wednesday." - original sources from Axios and CNN, a US-based news media outlet. Axios has not confirmed if the sources are verified. Equating to speculation and rumour, not fact.

2. ABC 7 News, a US-based news media outlet, quote: "The Trump administration is declassifying intelligence, so far unconfirmed, that indicates China offered bounties to non-state actors to attack American soldiers in Afghanistan, according to a senior administration official." Again speculation/rumour developed by an administration official without verification from a third-party member.

Both new outlets have not confirmed, since 2020, these claims are accurate or verified by a organisation that operates independently from a US narrative. E.G. European, Oceanic cross-verification.

Request: Omit entry of country 'China' from summary table subtitled 'Allies'.

1.0 Comment provided '(alleged by the US, but denied by China)' is inaccurate, sources do not match this note.

1.1 What manifests 'the US', is this the government? If so, is this the current government or the administration in office when the articles were published?

1.2 Has China officially denied involvement and/or support for Taliban? Bracketed note states China has 'clearly' denied this. If the sources were verified, an official press release from China would have stated this (or denied it).

A fair note to the editors of this change; please use peer-assessed, verified sources before publishing. This page raises doubts and creditability when adding speculative references as source material. ZhenWan (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"To my knowledge, the Taliban have always denied receiving any external military support, although (needless to say) this should not be taken at face value." TheTimesAreAChanging

but we should take everything at face value from UN and DW and each and every western source?

I stated it before and will just paste my comment;

This article with many others rely heavily on western sources/writers/academics/intellectuals. You will see this article in line with western narrative of how things were in Afghanistan. For example; on one hand, America with NATO had all the technological might and superiority, and had full control of the airspace of Afghanistan for almost 20 years. Yet, with all this technology, they could not detect a suspicious movement? how did anti-tank missiles and rockets were moved from one place to the other without Americans or NATO knowing? They could just release the satellite or drone footage to support their claim. As they claim, we lost because of Pakistan. What?? Pakistan was your ally in this war, you held several bases in Pakistan at one point. US embassy in Pakistan is one the largest US embassy in the world. Military officials and intelligence personnel reside there. Plus it has consulates in 3 different Pakistani cities. Still, they still could not stop Pakistan or produce any proof of Pakistan's support?

I left this article a long time ago. It's filled with propaganda by western writers.

Jawadjee7 (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Biased article

Who said that Iran and china are lies with taliban?with what kind of sources you are making the country so openly saying that Iran is Allie of taliban?this article is sooooooo biasedquicly delete these claims or bring some strong references for such a big claims.Simsala111 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You can check out the references specified in the article or see for instance, these sources...

Giustozzi, Antonio (2019). The Taliban at War, 2001–2018. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-19-009239-9.

According to Taliban officials in Iran (tasked with keeping track of the money), the financial support provided by the Iranians over the years is as follows (excluding weapons and supplies):
* 2006: $30 million;
* 2007: $30 million;
* 2008: $40 million;
* 2009: $40 million;
* 2010: $60 million;
* 2011: $80 million;
* 2012: $160 million;
* 2013: $190 million.

pp. 153–154

By 2014–15 the Iranian government delivered 120mm mortars and a limited number of anti-tank missiles and rockets to loyal Taliban groups. During this time the Peshawar Shura bought a few 120mm mortars on the black markets of Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. After 2010 the Taliban obtained a considerable number of Iranian copies of the Soviet Dragunov precision rifle and smaller quantities of the Daraskov long range, 14.5mm heavy rifle. Increasingly, sharpshooters have been procuring modern weapons with advanced optical equipment, such as the AK-74, M16 and M4. The Iranians also delivered their long-range Shaher precision rifles.

Malkasian, Carter (2021). The American War in Afghanistan: A History. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 427. ISBN 978-0-19-755077-9.

Internationally, the Taliban were receiving unprecedented support. Iran had grown into a major patron, challenging Pakistan’s influence. Iranian financial assistance to the Taliban rose from minor levels during 2006–2011 to exceed $100 million per year after 2012 and roughly match Pakistan. Iran invited the Taliban to open an office in the western city of Mashad. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) quietly increased its military assistance to the Taliban, especially in Helmand and Farah. They provided night vision devices, sights, drones, and other sophisticated equipment to Mullah Manan in Helmand and taught his men how to use them.

...and here or here. --Jo1971 (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This article with many others rely heavily on western sources/writers/academics/intellectuals. You will see this article in line with western narrative of how things were in Afghanistan. For example; on one hand, America with NATO had all the technological might and superiority, and had full control of the airspace of Afghanistan for almost 20 years. Yet, with all this technology, they could not detect a suspicious movement? how did anti-tank missiles and rockets were moved from one place to the other without Americans or NATO knowing? They could just release the satellite or drone footage to support their claim. As they claim, we lost because of Pakistan. What?? Pakistan was your ally in this war, you held several bases in Pakistan at one point. US embassy in Pakistan is one the largest US embassy in the world. Military officials and intelligence personnel reside there. Plus it has consulates in 3 different Pakistani cities. Still, they still could not stop Pakistan or produce any proof of Pakistan's support?

I left this article a long time ago. It's filled with propaganda by western writers. Jawadjee7 (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The quoted information above is based on interviews with Taliban officials. As far as I know, the Taliban are no "Western sources/writers/academics/intellectuals". Jo1971 (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

sure thing... "According to Taliban officials in Iran (tasked with keeping track of the money)" who? do they not have names? which city or area in Iran? did Iran said something about these "Taliban officials" who were allegedly "tasked with keeping track of the money" . This is some Hollywood type of thing going on here.

Allow me to shed some light on writer of book "The Taliban at War". Antonio Giustozzi is a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute. Royal United Services Institutes is a British security think tank which directly ties this institute to UK government/intelligence agencies/military personnel. Nothing suspicious! How many times did he went to Afghanistan to meet "Taliban officials"? or did he went to Iran to meet "Taliban Officials"? Was he sitting in his cosy apartment when speaking to these "Taliban Officials", in London?

"He can't reveal his sources" I hear you say... Which means, it didn't happen. Simple as that. Jawadjee7 (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

2021 education policy

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Regarding this rv, I don't think the reasons are sufficient. Your summary said,

It's misleading to say "corrected according to source" and to then introduce information not found in the original cited source, but rather taken from an entirely different source. Regardless, this revision leans too heavily on the Taliban's spin that girls's high schools will "imminently" reopen or that six months was simply not enough time to consider the dress code. If/when the schools do in fact reopen, we can update the article at that time.

Nowhere did I write or imply "imminently", whatever coming out of the Taliban I already attributed to Rayan, and the dress code issue had already existed in the original version before my edit.

Original: In March 2022, the Taliban abruptly reversed plans to allow girls to resume secondary school education (defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan). With the exception of the current cohort of university students, this decision leaves graduating from sixth grade as the highest level of educational attainment possible for Afghan women. Secondary schools for boys reopened on schedule. A statement from the ministry of education cited the lack of an acceptable school uniform for female high school students.
Mine: In March 2022, Ministry of Education spokesman Aziz Ahmad Rayan said that schools would open for boys and girls, on the condition that the latter would be separated from males and be taught by female teachers only where available. However, when schools re-opened, the girls were turned away, with Rayan citing lack of an acceptable design for female uniforms.

One problem with the original version was that it mentioned "reversed plans" without describing what plans there had been previously, if any. Also, "(defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan). With the exception of the current cohort of university students, this decision leaves graduating from sixth grade as the highest level of educational attainment possible for Afghan women" appears to be OR or at least uncited. So I added the previous plan and rm the questionable parts after reviewing the sources WashPo and Reuters, thus correcting the passage. CurryCity (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your analysis is incorrect. "One problem with the original version was that it mentioned 'reversed plans' without describing what plans there had been previously, if any." To the contrary, the original version clearly states "the Taliban abruptly reversed plans to allow girls to resume secondary school education (defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan)" [emphasis added], as you yourself quoted above. The rest of your objection seems to be rooted in a failure to consider the context of the preceding two paragraphs in the "2021-present education policy" sub-section. Notably, your version completely obscures the fact that girls have already resumed primary school education in many places throughout Afghanistan, and some young women have even resumed college education, notably in Kabul University (which is under the control of the Ministry of Higher Education rather than the Ministry of Education). It seems clear that there are divisions within the Taliban that have led to these shifting and at times contradictory proclamations on the subject of educating females, but your proposed revision simply replaces all of the relevant context with one particular rationale cited by a Ministry of Education spokesman. As a result, it might actually confuse readers into thinking that girls were turned away from primary school, even though WaPo repeatedly indicates that it is referring specifically to secondary or high school students: "Despite pledging to allow girls of all ages to attend classes when schools reopened this week, the Taliban's Education Ministry issued a last-minute reversal that banned girls beyond the sixth grade from returning. ... The Taliban banned girls from education beyond elementary school in most of the Afghan territory it controlled before taking over the entire country last year. ... Since taking control of Afghanistan, the group has issued vague statements when asked about the future of education for girls and women, especially beyond elementary school. Generally, Afghan students are 13 when they enter secondary school in the seventh grade. ... Noorullah Stanakzai, 45, of Logar province, had been informed that all his daughters could return to school Wednesday but that those in seventh grade and beyond would be required to wear a head-to-toe covering, gloves and black shoes. Despite wearing the new uniform, he said, the girls were sent home. ... Sixth is now the highest grade girls may attend. ... In a sixth-grade classroom at Ayesha Durkhanai girls' school in Kabul on Wednesday, nearly all the students raised their hands when asked if they had an older sister barred from attending classes." For these reasons, I cannot consider your edit to be an improvement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just add secondary in front of "schools" in my edit then. The original version didn't describe the plan which was for both boys and girls with conditions for the latter. A lot of the unsourced parts in the original should still be removed. Your undo was undue. CurryCity (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the Reuters source is simply outdated, as it quotes the education ministry spokesman saying on March 17 that "The Taliban will allow girls around Afghanistan to return to class when high schools open next week," when we now know that the girls were in fact turned away on March 23. Leading with Reuters over the March 23 WaPo source thus seems like an odd editorial choice, especially when the spokesman admitted to WaPo that the final decision "is beyond the mandate of the Education Ministry" and will ultimately be decided by the Taliban's most senior leadership—i.e., that his reassurances are not binding.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Which is why Reuters is about the plan which was later reversed. Of course the old plan has to precede in date the reversal. CurryCity (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to lead with a (non-binding, since retracted) statement from an admittedly low-level functionary. We can briefly mention it, of course, but we should begin the paragraph by describing what happened, rather than what some spokesman said.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What about this then? In March 2022, the Taliban abruptly halted plans for girls to resume secondary school education. Aziz Ahmad Rayan, spokesman of the Ministry of Education, had previously said that girls could attend if they are separated from males and taught by only female teachers where available. When the schools re-opened, however, girls were turned away, with Rayan citing the lack of an acceptable design for female uniforms." CurryCity (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

While the gap between revisions has narrowed, I would still have to ask in what sense your proposal is superior to the current text: "In March 2022, the Taliban abruptly reversed plans to allow girls to resume secondary school education (defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan). With the exception of the current cohort of university students, 'Sixth is now the highest grade girls may attend,' according to The Washington Post. A statement from the ministry of education cited the lack of an acceptable school uniform for female high school students." To me, the existing version is slightly more informative and less dependent on the spokesman's already-dated assertions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Is "(defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan). With the exception of the current cohort of university students" from WashPost or another source? It's also wordy and not necessary to tie everything back to university. You might not think the original plan is important, but other readers might want to know what it was and how that's consistent or inconsistent with the reason Rayan later gave for halting the plan. CurryCity (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As already demonstrated, the current version does mention "the original plan"; "secondary school education (defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan)" is directly based on WaPo's "Generally, Afghan students are 13 when they enter secondary school in the seventh grade."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't WaPo already mention 6th being the highest? We don't know what comes next, so "halt" is better than "reverse". More concisely: In March 2022, the Taliban abruptly halted plans to allow girls to resume secondary school education even when separated from males. Apart from current university students, 'sixth is now the highest grade girls may attend' according to The Washington Post. The Afghan Ministry of Education cited the lack of an acceptable design for female student uniforms. CurryCity (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not object to the revision proposed above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Taliban = sexism

Is the following equation in dispute?

Taliban = sexism

? If not, why was the insertion of "sexism" removed.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking, they distort the Sharia, and base their laws on those distorted principles, so its not limited to sexism 108.49.190.94 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

They don't distort it. They implement it as it is. EditMaker Me (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Kurdish Hezbollah into Taliban. I think the content in Kurdish Hezbollah can easily be explained in the context of Taliban, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Taliban. Also they use the same flag. Hydralon (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)