Talk:Taliban/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Coalition Attack Section

This section is somewhat flawed. I will correct the footnote citation to what the author tried to cite to, but as far as I can tell the article does not support this paraphrasing. The paragraph adds to the article though, so I am hesistant to eliminate it altogether.

"The Washington Post stated in an editorial by John Lehman in 2006:

What made the Afghan campaign a landmark in the U.S. Military's history is that it was prosecuted by Special Operations forces from all the services, along with Navy and Air Force tactical power, operations by the Afghan Northern Alliance and the CIA were equally important and fully integrated. No large Army or Marine force was employed.[131]" ThomasHodgkissLilly (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant information in an already very long article about the Taliban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.205.30 (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban's treatment of women

Canadian soldiers should be changed to NATO troops because Canada is in no way the only force fighting in Afghanistan or sometimes seen in a negative light by the Afghan people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.247.6 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a disclaimer attached to anythccccccing from RAWA. They are not a neutral, non-biased humanitarian group. They are a political group with political leanings. This should be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.174.242 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taliban's version of Islam

While in power, the Taliban implemented the "strictest interpretation of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world,"[11]"

That's just sensationalist hogwash. The Taliban are Sunnis, and Deobandis at that, they implemented a very strictly enforced version of the Hanafi law (or fiqh) which is the most liberal in Islam (out of the four schools of law, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Shafi'i).

The strictest interpretation of Shariah law itself is instituted by Saudi-Arabia which is Salafi. Not just Salafi even, but Wahabi (an even more extreme sub-branch of Salafis). However, "reform" for the Saudis has taken the form of looser enforcement which does not change the fact that the law "on the books" so to speak, is much stricter in Saudi-Arabia than it was for the Taliban. Is taboo to mention because the Saudis are our allies?

Al-Qaeda are also Salafi, being mostly comprised of extremist Arabs and Saudis. So it's important to note that Al-Qaeda would sometimes institute its own brand of Shariah in Afghanistan, distinct from the Taliban, even up to the point of foreign policy. Al-Qaeda's influence on the Taliban is very similar to the situation in Lebanon with Hizbullah acting like a "state within a state", and the nightmare scenario for the West has been Hizbullah becoming powerful enough to derail Lebanon. It was the same case in Afghanistan, albeit the Taliban weren't too far off the mark to begin with. The Israel-Lebanon war of 2006 was very similar to the Afghanistan war and 9/11... the non-government state actors (Hizbullah, Al-Qaeda) attacked a foreign power and drew its host country (Lebanon, Afghanistan) into a war. The host country showed solidarity with the organization because of how deep it was embedded into the culture and populace, though it likely had little say or even knowledge of the original attack (Lebanon's government didn't know Hizbullah tried to conduct a cross-border raid, the Taliban and most of Al-Qaeda had no clue that 9/11 was even in the works). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.174.242 (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Taliban and A-Qaeda with Hezbollah is not only funny but ridiculous. Hezbollah is democratically elected by people and is a political party with large number of supporters!88.97.164.254 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

the taliban r said to be wahabi in the main article but infact they r deobandis and many of them graduated from the deobandi seminary jamiah huqqanyah in pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.219.176 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

al qeda and osama bin laden are definitely not salaafi. For example, osama bin laden decalerd publicly after 9/11 "we say fatiha for the souls of the hijackers" and saying a fatiha for a dead soul is a sufi concept. Just because osama bin laden came from saudi arabia, that doesn't instantly make him salaafi. In fact, salaafi islam is the state religion and osama bin laden is at war with the state of saudi arabia so therefore he is declaring salaafi islam to be his enemy. In salaafi islam, teh theme is pure islam, back to the origins of Islam. Osama bin laden lets anyone join al qeda, even if they are mushrikeen or such like, implying a very different policy to the salaafi who say that we must all follow one version of Islam. Finally I will make the point that if you go into any salaafi mosque (for example masjid as salaafya in birmingham; UK) and ask about jihad they will tell you there is no jihad to fight at the moment and they will belittle all of the "extremist" groups such as al qeda, taliban, al shabab etc. The taliban are wlel known deobando (sufi) muslims and it should be understand that sufism is in direct opposition to sufism. I suggest reading http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/ its a great book called the wahhabi myth and it will open peoples minds to who the salaafi are and who the terrorists are (two very different types of muslims)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.16 (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the previous user: "The taliban are wlel known deobando (sufi) muslims". Deobandis and sufis are not the same thing, although they are both Sunnis. In Pakistan, the majority of the population of Sindh and Pakistani Punjab were sufi, and came into conflict with the incoming refugee Muslims from northern India (mostly Deobandi) after Partition in 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.176.71 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the Taliban "Hanafis"? Or even "Deobandis"? I find these accusations akin to those who try and say that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was a Sufi. Yes, he once was, but if you read up, he clearly came to reject their position. Can the same be said of Taliban members who graduated from the Deobandi school? I think it is very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Buddhas of Bamiyan

Why do "the intentions of the destruction remain unclear"? It seems pretty clear why the statues were destroyed by reading the New York Times article referenced in the section. 124.171.164.160 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Opponents

The United Kingdom is not stated in the opponents list. This suprises me, as they are currently leading the fight against the Taliban in afghanistan. 14/12/08

Also, Canada has a large contingent of soldiers in country... Why are the U.S. and U.K the only NATO forces represented in the side bar?Mikeonatrike (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is also bias to make a statement "the UK is leading the fight against the taliban". I am currently serving OEF09 as a combat medic and I have seen the following forces- French, UK, Australian, Afghan Army, US, and a few others. I am US and I believe we are all contributing in this country. I must say however that I have been to BAF (Bagram Air Force Base), FOB Airborne, and COP Carwile in the wardak provence. In all my experience the US populates most of the small bases away from the bigger FOB's with niceities such as showers, hot chow, and communication to the soldier's home country. So in my experience the US does without more and is closer to the front lines of this conflict, not to say that is how it is everywhere but something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.91.217 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

um?

why is Pakistan listed as a Ally last time i check they were fighting them.

In response: Pakistan has had an extremely close nexus with Taliban thru JUI. And the last time I checked Pakistan was turning into Afghanistan. Hint Hint --> TALIBAN HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT (considering they are sunni islamists and finally Paskistan is regretting their close alliance with them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.136.178 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a school project on the Taliban and how they governed Afghanistan. I find no mention of their achievements on this page. This is a little disappointing and says something about the neutrality of the article.

What achievements? Can you post your school project here when you done it so that we see what achievements you are talking about? 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one achievement: (Taliban) declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.93.13.41 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Pashtuns

Can we add some of the information found in the following USA Today article about ethnic Pashtuns being ethnic cleansed by ethnic Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, into this article?

"CHESHMEH-YE SHIR, Afghanistan — From the road, this hamlet looks wrecked and deserted. Doors and windows have been ripped from the dried-mud dwellings. There are no sheep or other signs of life.

But as Mohammed Azim, 46, leads the way, heads peer out from around corners. Soon there's a crowd of men and a handful of women and children watching from a distance as Azim explains their caution.

These people, many of them his relatives, are in hiding. "No Pashtun can just journey out of his house," he says.

Human Rights Watch agrees. It says Pashtuns, the dominant ethnic group in most of Afghanistan — except in the north — are being beaten, raped and robbed here by armed gangs of ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. The human rights group, based in New York City, says it has no figure on the number of victims, but its investigators have collected anecdotal evidence that indicates dozens of Pashtuns have been killed in the assaults. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/13/pashtuns.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litrboxr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are many reports saying that Iran is providing weapons to Taliban so why is Iran placed as opponent? George |Bush, the White House and senior US Military personell all say that Iran is helping the Taliban. Someone needs to check into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litrboxr (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly! "Bush, the White House and senior US Military personell" are saying that Iran is helping Taliban. Someone have to check into this and try to veryfy the claim using more reliable sources. Until someone does, we can safely assume that to be a lie and stick with the opposite: that Iran is against Taliban (which is BTW rather obvious to anyone familiar with the subject). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.249.143 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Man you don't know how to search for something online? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Quds Force, the elite unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, provides "lethal support" to the Sunni-dominated Taliban for use against U.S. and NATO forces, according to information in the new U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran. How many more sources you want to see here?--119.30.71.83 (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Initally, when the war on terror started, the then moderate Iranian government actually supported NATO in ousting the Taliban. This is all well documented in the series "Bush's War", but here's a blurb supporting it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/slapface.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.91.79 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two good reasons to doubt those reports, Litrboxr. I will hand you the third: no trustworthy organisation has yet supported these accusations of Iran helping Taliban, and leave the others as an exercise for you. 82.95.146.33 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I didn't place the tag on the top of this article, but I would agree that the article is not neutral in tone. Claims of a Taleban resurgence are presented without challenge to their authenticity and without acknowledgement of the apparent decline in that resurgence in 2008. (The timeline itself has just one major incident in 2008, so either it needs a huge update, or the preceding section is wrong or out of date.) 96.237.243.124 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Taliban Vs Afghanistan

What is this crock of bs....The new puppet government in Afghanistan is intalled by invaders...how can it be thought of as legitimate government...you guys must have a heavy POV that is same as US government right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellibeing (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE as to why this is. Only a fringe would share your opinion of the current Afghanistan government being illegitimate. -- Atama^chat 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the free and fair elections, for both women and men, have given the current government legitimacy. Rather than goverment by force of arms and a power clique. Robauz (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Fr

"Free and fair" elections which had only US approved candidates. Spare me your propaganda. Do you think that if given the chance the afghans wouldn't vote for someone who would kick the yankees out of afghanistan. Why are there no candidates who demand that the USA will leave afghanistan? Do you really believe that among millions of afghans nobody wants the yankees to leave? The Taliban proposed to have a court in which the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, if proven guilty they would hand him over. The USA didn't accept and started the war, killing a million civilians. If the yankees felt they had enough proof why didn't they accept the offer. What proof did they really have that it was Osama? Osama denied it himself [1]

"Free and fair" election. You have got to be kidding.

[2]. Normally terrorists (sometimes even falsely) claim these attacks since it gives them prestige. Someone who has already declared war on the USA wouldn't deny this particular attack (9-11) if he was responsible. They still haven't found Osama by the way. Should the afghans suffer eternally for what foreigners (Al Qaeda) supposedly did? When will the occpuation stop and Afghans can have real democratic elections? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious stupidity you have just spited out...Invaders who invaded Afghanistan from far away land are fighting with Afghanistan....They have nothing in common. I guess gas pipeline is probably the only thing we can say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellibeing (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no oil in Afghanistan. This.machinery (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally get side tracked by that sort of dumb comment, but just incase anyone thought there really is no oil in Afghanistan, there is shitloads of both oil and gas (although obviously not Iraqi levels) plus Cheney always wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, but I don't wanna get into american foriegn policy. Just see San Francisco Chronicle, Asia Times, BBC or pretty much any good newspaper to be honest. Pidz (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Taliban deaths

Is there any reliable count of how many talibans have been killed by U.S. coalition forces since the war in Afghanistan began? The article lists some counts of civilian deaths, but I didn't see any mention of Taliban member deaths. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so, considering that Taliban usually collect their wounded, there's no real way of knowing other than a rough estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.200.223 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely Biased

The article seems to be extremely one-sided and anti-Taliban, seemingly painting the organisation as evil (or at very least misguided) at every oppotunity. A "Criticism of Ideology" section exists, which is of course fair...yet the closest thing I found to a "Defence of Ideology" section (which this article should have), is an "Explanation of Ideology", which basically merely states that the Taliban are idiots who don't know any better. This article needs to be neutral, we shouldn't be painting the Taliban in a negative light. --86.158.187.75 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the muslim faith the Koran preaches to never kill another muslim for he is your brother, and anyone else is an infidel. The Koran teaches muslims to talk to the infidels and try to preach about the muslim religion, not kill them. While on patrol i am close friends with my interpreter who is muslim (Pashtun) and he talks to me and teaches me of his ways. Apparently the muslim people do not like the taliban for they do not follow the Koran as it was meant, and mistreat them. I have worked on numerous Afghan Army personnel who were shot and even killed by taliban, while I was handing out meds and giving medical treatment to a village in the Wardak provence. If the taliban does not want to be labeled as ignorant and "evil" then they should not indulge in mindless bloodshed, especially on a mission in which free medical care (MEDCAP) is being given to the local nationals.

No no the bias is good, think about it, would you give the Nazis just as much positive light as negative? Talibans -are- idiots who can't do better. They get the light they deserve, because there's no really "good" side to their faith. 83.115.211.71 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles on the Nazis do no contain the same jingoistic bias as this article. Soldiers fighting on the opposite side are hardly neutral commentators. The whole "Criticism of Ideology" section should be removed. There should be maybe a paragraph about women's rights in the article. There should be more mention of the widespread atrocities by the warlords AKA "Northern Alliance" that led to the creation of the Taliban. 70.114.217.117 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly Biased

Might as well change the name of the article to "The Taliban according to the US government." The article is filled with opinion, false accusations, and flat out name calling. And please, there's no reason to call the Salafis "Wahabbis." The term is not only inaccurate, but also derogatory. All instances of "Wahabbi" must be changed to "Salafi." In addition, as the Taliban were very clearly influenced by the Deobandi school, claims of it being influenced by the Salafis are ludicrous, as the Deobandi stance towards Salafi ideology is thoroughly explained by Mufti Ebrahim Desai, a prominent Deobandi scholar, on his website, www.askimam.org. Please make this a real article, not a baseless set of lies against a government that was not only quite popular, but continues to increase in support to this day.Wasabi salafi koonkati (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you any idea at all what the Taliban do to their enemies?Prussian725 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Or to their own people (especially women ^{[3] [4] [5]})? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I supect he does, but please argue his point (that the article inacuratly reflects both the influences and influence) of the Taliban. He did not raise any issues about civil rights.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Wow. I'm going to be honest--did not read beyond the first few lines. I was looking for a basic definition to describe the current status of the Taliban...but as soon as I got to the word "terrorist movement", my eyes boogled and I went elsewhere for a less shallow depiction--after all, the Taliban WAS the legitimate government in its time. I was relieved when I nav'd to the discussion page and found that there are some people who realise that this site is meant to be a factfile, not a journal of opinion. I hope someone puts in an effort to update the page soon. Until then, I encourage people to seek out alternative sources of information on this subject. Night_w 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by Taliban WAS the legitimate government in its time? Where did they get their legitimacy from? Did people elect them? The fact that not a single civilised country ever recognised them is a good indication of how legitimate they were! Only their paymasters and partners in crime (i.e. Saudi, UAE and Pakistan) recognised the Taliban! 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

these kinds of comments show huge bias and either intentionally misleading people to further your own cause or gross ignorance. You attribute the talibans main funding to be the muslim countries, what about the fact that they were originally the mujahideen, funded by america to fight back russian forces. If america backed them in order to allow them to take over the country then america has ruled them to be legitimate (ironically also being the ones to overthrow them). And no, the ammount of other countries that recognise them as a legitimate government is irrelevant. If we wish to over throw a countries government, we cant simply declare them illegimate and then go wading in then guns blazing to "liberate" the people. If the world decideds to declare the american government to be illigitimate can we legitimately wage war on america? Also I aggree, the taliban were not a good government IN MY OPPINION but oppinions are welcome at wikipedia. They are sufi, not salaafi and this article is far too POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.16 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some technical problems with the article? It's all well and good making sweeping statements, but to change the article you must find technical points and list them. So to anyone considering these potential errors and viewpoints, list in point form what should be changed. DavidHuo (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much content in intro

Much of the info in the intro is also covered in the article in more detail. By selectively moving some info to the intro, it implicitly makes it more important than other info, and also necessarily deprives it of some context. I think deleting much of the repetitive info, it would address some of the POV concerns.Vontrotta (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased is right -- *for* the Taliban

"On September 21, 2001, the Taliban quite reasonably responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the September 11 attacks."

Unclear on the concept, people. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Whether the Taliban's response was "quite reasonable" is for the reader to decide. Editorializing isn't appropriate.

I hope an editor will get around to fixing such faults in this article. --Andersonedits (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I made a pass on some of the article, but there is always room for improvement.Vontrotta (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair comment - I put in this particular edit, and you're right; though what I was trying to get at was the fact no other government would have acted any differently by requesting evidence before extraditing someone. Any suggestions on how to better phrase this? Nuwewsco (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the important thing is the "fact", that is the response to the request for extradition. Whether or not it was "reasonable" is a subjective determination that every reader of the "encyclopedia" can make based on his or her knowledge of the circumstances, only a small sketch of which is included in the article. I think if you want to add something like this, it ought to be something along these lines: "various commentators have assessed the reasonableness of the Taliban government actions and have concluded...." with a cite to the article(s) that have a full discussion of the topic. In the absence of that, it is better to just stick with the facts.Vontrotta (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe if "quite reasonably" was removed, and an explanation of WHY was added it would be less biased and make more sense. Also, other than that paragraph, i think the whole article is very anti-taliban. It also might be useful to less informed readers why the taliban are fighting NATO? Junhalestone (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Taliban resurgence

Canadian soldiers should be changed to NATO troops because Canada is in no way the only force fighting in Afghanistan and Afghans' opinions of other nations troops have also changed. 72.242.247.6 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reducing this section to a very short summary and leaving all the details for the main article Taliban insurgency, which needs work to improve its cites.

Comments?Vontrotta (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening para grammar

"Committed fundamentalist insurgents, often described as "Taliban" in the media, originating, and currently based in the Frontier Tribal Areas of Pakistan, [3] are engaged in a protracted guerrilla war against the current government of Afghanistan, allied NATO forces participating in Operation Enduring Freedom, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF),[4] and an effort to expand their operations and influence in Pakistan."

The above sentence reads horrendously. It should, IMO, be broken in two. Or something.

I'll try to fix it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Taliban is misspelled in Arabic. The word ends in a fatHa tanween, not an alif noon.

It's not arabic its pashtun.

Pashtun has a great many loan words from Arabic, which came into the language with the introduction of Islam. Taliban is one of them, and the person who mentioned fatHa tanween is correct. It should be: طَلِباً

Taliban is from the word "Tali", meaning "Students", of which Taliban is the plural.

Neither of you are correct. The word is طالبان. It is comprised of the Arabic word طالب, meaning "student" with the Persian/Pashto plural suffix ان. The use of tanween would change this word to an adverb: "studently", which is, of course, not really a word at all. Jemiljan (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

None of you are correct! طالبان in Arabic means "two students" as the alef nun ending is the 'dual' suffix. Making edit as the current use of Arabic for plural students is incorrect. No idea why they would call themselves that though. Although I wouldn't put two students beyond defeating the Western...umm...colonialists. Mikesta178

Um, can someone else make the edit? I'm not very active and don't really understand the format used when it says "students". Just to confirm, "students" should be "two students." Mikesta178

The word Taliban has a Arabic origin, but we need to translate it in Pashtun context which is just a plural form of Talib, and means Students.

I think either leave llike I did or put origin arabic and meaning in pashtun is studentsBabak2000ir (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What has Taliban got to do with Pashtun Nationalism ?

The Taliban was created by Pakistan after the backdrop of the proxy war led by CIA in Pakistan against the Soviet influenced government later to become the Northern Alliance. The NA were backed by Iran and Russia to combat the fundamentalist doctrine installed by Pakistan which itself is now having to deal with albeit reluctantly according to US officials.

The infobox has Iran in the Opponents, isn't that suppose to be Pakistan instead? Pakistan has 80,000 of their soldiers fighting the Taliban on daily bases and yet Pakistan is no even mentioned in the infobox..."Pakistan's army is battling militants in at least three areas of the northwest. The most intense fighting has been in the Bajur tribal region, where the military claims to have killed 1,000 rebels for the loss of about 60 troops. [6] I don't see any reports about Iran fighting with Taliban, and the Taliban are not on the border with Iran, they are on the border with Pakistan. Somebody needs to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irozee (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I can assure you Iran is any-Taliban, though they may not be engaged in combat with them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Per this Iran cannot be considered opponent.--LloydKame (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But this says: Observing that Iran has long opposed the regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan on the grounds that it oppressed Shiite Muslim and other Persian-speaking minorities, it said Iran nearly launched a military attack against the Taliban in September 1998 after Taliban fighters captured and killed nine Iranian diplomats based in northern Afghanistan.

Sounds like the Taliban and Iran are opponents, alliances of convenience notwithstanding. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I's unessary to add Iran in the list, it's understood that Iran is anti-Taliban. The infobox is for opponents who are currently engaged in battles with Taliban fighters. India is more anti-Taliban than Iran but we don't need India listed in the infobox also.--LloydKame (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If the question on the heading is being posed, it was my understanding that the much of what would be the Taliban was educated in Pakistan. However the Pashtun element is the result of the Soviet-Afghan War, because the majority of those who fled to Pakistan were Pashtun. This resulted in a change in the entire ethnic dynamic of Afghanistan, in which Taijiks and Uzbeks were demanding greater representation in national affairs, and the Hazaras were pushing for regional autonomy. Some Taijiks and Uzbeks supported the Taliban I would guess out of necessity, however the Hazara were ruthlessly persecuted- oftentimes simply executed in the street. I would not dare speak for Pashtuns but the few that I know who came from Afghanistan or have been there tell me that many of them make fun of Hazaras, calling them "flat nose" etc. In other words, the Taliban did represent a predominantly Pashtun movement that was indeed supported heavily by ISI and Pakistani entrepreneurs who wanted an overland trade route to Central Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.151.246 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editsemiprotected}}

there is a section in this article labelled "life under the taliban" in which some of the behaviorally restrictive methods of enforcement by the group are listed. one section is trasnposed from a preior section in the article itself, so we, in effect, read "no clapping at sporting events or kite flying, or sports for women" twice in this article. i'm wondering if one of the two iterations can't be removed for the sake of redundency.

Done I've consolidated the two lists. Cheers! --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the inclusion of the truth that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997 in December as reported by the BBC. They were guests on Unocal. When the Taliban refused what looked like a permission for a pipeline to Halliburton investments in the Caspian Sea, this rejection gave US big oil motive to seek a "new Pearl Harbor", ie 911, as pined for on the PNAC website in 2000. In other words, the Taliban going to Texas was a watershed moment that cannot be left out of any true understanding of the US relationship to these people. I am no fan of the Taliban, but I am no fan of US foreign policy right now and for good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgamall (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous uncited references to rape

There is not a single shred of evidence that the Taliban ever "raped" anyone for theft! That's just plain ridiculous. Please remove it.

Oh is it ? They did not rape anybody ?

Second, let's not abuse HRW by dropping their name to support false information. Their documentation of the Massacres of Hazaras does not cite a SINGLE rape. Please remove this as well.

We all know of the Taliban's shortcomings, errors and crimes. Yet, let us remain objective and factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.52 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The War Briefing

Perhaps this link may be included: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/

This documentary also discusses the reasons why the ISI helps the taliban (because they think the USA might still lose the war and the fear of Afghanistan becoming part of India, and why Paskistan has failed in the past vs the taliban (stationary, WW2 war tactics that are useless against single taliban; usually outfitted with sniper rifles and blending into the landscape)

and prevention methods currently in use and which are proving effective (small US bases/outposts being stationed at the smuggle routes in Waziristan)

Please include in article, Thanks, 81.246.154.35 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reagan armed Taliban?

{{editsemiprotected}} This article says the taliban org came about in 1994 but it also says that reagan armed them during the 80's,how is this possible, perhaps individuals belonging to other groups were armed by reagan and then joined the taliban but this still should not count

Note: That edit was vandalism. Can you state where thepassage is? Thanks. Leujohn ^(talk) 13:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration delivered several hundred FIM-92 Stinger missiles to Afghan resistance groups, including the Taliban, to aid the defeat of the Soviets.[79] 220.253.86.202 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Somehow Reagan armed the Taliban 14 years before they were formed.

This have to stay in the articel, because mujaheedin, that was formed in february of 1979 and supported by Reagan and other US presidents, was splitted up in Tale and the Northern Alliance. The Taliban was the main part of the group. The NA didn't wanted to be as brutal as the mujaheedin was. --62.16.168.251 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out before the taliban did not exist back then.

Sharia in Pakistan

Can someone please edit the last paragraph in the intro? It makes it sound like the girls are banned from school because of Sharia law, which is not true. Not only that, but the two references given do not mention anything about girls being banned in the first place.--Logosod (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no update regarding the Pakistani military offensive in the Swat valley? This whole article needs to further elaborate on the relationships between Aghanistan and Pakistan.70.23.231.65 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban as terrorrists

I strongly object to the introductory sentence designating the Taliban as an Pashtun Islamic terrorist movement. This is especially problematic regarding the Taliban's formative stages in 1994 and 1995, besides clearly violating wikipedia policy not to describe groups as terrorrist. I would suggest to describe the Taliban as an Islamic fundamentalist movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikluus (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I have nothing but contempt for the group: this is not a neutral presentation. Oddly, for such a clear issue, though has little discussion on the talk page. That said, we might state in the lead that it is called a terrorist group by *place relevant entities here, including US, EU, UN, China, etc.*. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That could be considered to be an implicit statement declaring that the Taliban are terrorists. Indeed, given the tone of the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan concerning the Taliban - if one expects Wikipedia to be consistent across articles - then it would be unwise to even imply that the Taliban are terrorists: the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan (currently) clearly states that the US overthrew the Taliban *Government* due to their failure to hand over Bin Laden. It would be incredibly easy to spin th earticle in the opposite direction and portray the Taliban as a legitimate government, overthrown by an overzealous US, and struggling to regain control. Therefore I agree that the article should aim for neutrality and avoid inflammatory words such as 'terrorist' altogether. Bagofants (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As Taleban is on the Terrorist lists of almost every country, I think mentioning it is warranted. 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

taliban crimes

The Taliban is a big terror group (Named by West Media) and them crimes against humanity should be said ,like as what they do in Parachinar,Pakistan. Actually Taliban are the creation of the Dwarves and Hobbits—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.223.130 (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to add bullshit, make sure it makes sense Junhalestone (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun Islamic "Terrorist" movement

Why does the primary description include the qualification "terrorist" in it? I was only aware that the Taliban was an Afghani political/religious party. Can you please explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twainmane (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist organizations: Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) www.state.gov Taliban is not on the list. - Steve3849 ^talk 06:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CIA helped create Taliban?

The article states that there is "no evidence" that the USA helped create Pakistan. There are a number of statements and articles that suggest otherwise. For example, in a recent statement by Secretary of State, Clinton stated "...the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it ... the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union"

She then goes on a long discourse about how the US created Taliban and abandoned Pakistan to deal with the aftermath. The full article is here: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/12-us-created-taliban-and-abandoned-pakistan-clinton--bi-06

I can point to other articles as well if required, but I suggest that this be acknowledged in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasarp.mail (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Created, or helped train anyone who fought the soviet union, some who later formed the Taliban? Doesn't seem the same thing.ChillyMD (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Taliban was created in 1994, well after the Soviet-Afghan War was over. They were Afghan students attending religious schools in Pakistan. The ISI gave them weapons and sent them back to Afghanistan. Clinton has confused them with the Mujahideen, which fought the Soviets and later became the Northern Alliance. Kauffner (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, not quite a neutral article

The opening paragraph says the Taliban was overthrown by "invading US military crusaders". Is Al Qaeda editting this page?

Janithor (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, this is very far from neutral. Please, anyone with an account, remove the word "crusaders". 85.124.169.8 (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Qaeda, Taliban and Nanawatai

People seem not to be able to differentiate between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation which attacks military and civilian targets around the world. The Taliban was the dictatorial fundamentalist government of Afghanistan which didn't make such terrorist attacks although it was an opressive regime. The Taliban (was) supported (by) Al Qaeda but so did the USA. Al Qaeda (together with american support) had a big part in the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Soviet–Afghan War. Things later went bad between Al Qaeda and the USA. Al Qaeda supposedly was responsible for the 9-11 attack and the USA demanded from the Taliban that they delivered Osama to them.

If you know Pashtun culture (Pashtunwali) then you know that someone who is a guest can't be harmed or allowed to be harmed by others (Nanawatai code). Even if an enemy asks for Nanawatai you have to give them hospitality, food and protection [7] [8]. The Taliban proposed to have a court in which the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, if proven guilty they would hand him over. This way they were not breaking hospitality rules because a criminal forfeits his right of protection since Melmasti and Nanawatai work both ways. The guest also has an obligation to behave properly and do nothing to harm (the honor of) the hospitality giving party. The Taliban also covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan refused the offer.

The USA didn't accept either proposition and attacked afghanistan. I don't know why anyone who wants to catch Osama wouldn't accept these offers. Maybe the idea of getting hold of Osama through Islamic or pashtunwali law was not acceptable to them. It would have allowed the Taliban to save face. They would not have bowed to US threats but would have convicted Osama themselves. If the Taliban had just handed over Osama and bowed to US threats, there would have been no war against Afghainstan by the way. So it is not a question of holding the Taliban responsible for 9-11 and punishing the Taliban/Afghanistan. It is a question of showing dominance. Apparently showing USA dominance was more important than actually catching the perpetrators and saving a million innocent afghan civilian lives which would later die in the war. Even U.S. military casualties would have been prevented by avoiding the war. All these casualties greatly exceed the 2900 deaths of 9-11 and could have been prevented. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro has a section that reads 'its leaders were removed from power by NATO peacekeeping forces.' In the interests of neutrality shouldn't this read 'its leaders were removed from power by NATO forces.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.74.107 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. All of the intro sections need refining. I'm too busy at the moment to do it myself though. Ottre 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Taliban

Is it 100 years old or what?

from THE STORY OF THE MALAKAND FIELD FORCE by Winston S. Churchill (1897)

All are held in the grip of miserable superstition. The power of the ziarat, or sacred tomb, is wonderful. Sick children are carried on the backs of buffaloes, sometimes sixty or seventy miles, to be deposited in front of such a shrine, after which they are carried back—if they survive the journey—in the same way. It is painful even to think of what the wretched child suffers in being thus jolted over the cattle tracks. But the tribesmen consider the treatment much more efficacious than any infidel prescription. To go to a ziarat and put a stick in the ground is sufficient to ensure the fulfillment of a wish. To sit swinging a stone or coloured glass ball, suspended by a string from a tree, and tied there by some fakir, is a sure method of securing a fine male heir. To make a cow give good milk, a little should be plastered on some favorite stone near the tomb of a holy man. These are but a few instances; but they may suffice to reveal a state of mental development at which civilisation hardly knows whether to laugh or weep.

Their superstition exposes them to the rapacity and tyranny of a numerous priesthood—"Mullahs," "Sahibzadas," "Akhundzadas," "Fakirs,"—and a host of wandering Talib-ul-ilms, who correspond with the theological students in Turkey, and live free at the expense of the people. More than this, they enjoy a sort of "droit du seigneur," and no man's wife or daughter is safe from them. Of some of their manners and morals it is impossible to write. As Macaulay has said of Wycherley's plays, "they are protected against the critics as a skunk is protected against the hunters." They are "safe, because they are too filthy to handle, and too noisome even to approach."

Also see

OPINION: Moolah for the mullah —Nasir Abbas Mirza from the Daily Times

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\20\story_20-4-2009_pg3_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeofVA (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban's website

{{edit-semiprotected}}

Please add under External links:

* [http://www.alemarah.info/english/ Taliban's website (English)]

(source: [9]) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the controversial nature of this request, I am forced to decline it pending discussion. Intelligentsium^review 01:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find said discussion here. Intelligentsium^review 02:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll just put it here, then.

{{helpme}}

See above (and yes, this template is supposed to be used on article talk pages, per User:Hersfold). What should be done in this situation? Intelligentsium^review 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, idk, I would think this link would be OK per Wikipedia:EL#Official_links. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that per WP:ELOFFICIAL a link would be appropriate. However, can this be reliably confirmed as the official site, rather than something run by a fringe group claiming to speak for the whole? I am unable to find conclusive sources, not least because most news agencies citing the "Official Taliban Website" do not actually give a URL. DoktorMandrake 03:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If it can be verified as their official site, then it appears to be within the guidelines to include it, any controversy over the content notwithstanding. But verification may be difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• My gut instinct is to include the link. Nobody in the media has ever linked to the official al-Qaeda websites like Al-Ansar either. Ottre 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, let me again call attention to the RS posted above: Beam, Christopher (2009-10-06). "How Do I Get in Touch With a Terrorist? Call his cell". Slate.

"The Taliban usually post their messages and videos to their own Web site. (Check it out the latest press releases here.)"

-- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we've all read the article. Slate is not considered a RS on the Middle East. Ottre 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. It's owned by WaPo. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

{{edit-semiprotected}} The matter seems to be settled. Please add under External links:

* [http://www.alemarah.info/english/ Taliban's website (English)]

(source: [10]) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Due to Ottre's claim that this is not a reliable source, I don't think you can call this settled, just dropped. (Had you refuted his statement with "Puh-lease...", things might have been different.) I'll pass this to the RS noticeboard to confirm it is a valid RS for this info, then we can add it. Celestra (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then, how about Wired Magazine?[11] To quote, leaving out superfluous links:

With the addition of online video, the Taliban’s website now has a complete multimedia package of voice, video and text, marking a trend of increasing sophistication for the Afghan insurgent group’s propaganda efforts. Visitors to the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” website can now read through Taliban news updates in Arabic, English, Urdu, Pashto and Farsi, peruse official magazines like Al-Somood and listen to Radio Shariat, the Taliban’s old FM radio station now available to stream online.

While likewise not renowned for expertise on the Middle East (which I think is a silly requirement for sourcing this info, not reflected in WP:RS), Wired is renowned for their expertise on the Internet. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done No other sourcing is needed; I just wanted to confirm that Slate was a reliable source. Since there was so much discussion about it, I've added the source as a reference to allow the reader to verify the site as well. Celestra (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban's Relations With The U.S.A.

In late October,2009,U.S. President Barack Obama signed a bill,his signature authorized the bill's passage into law,the bill was the budget for the U.S. Department Of Defense for the fiscal year 2010. Part of the bill provided money for the Taliban,in the form of direct payments to the Taliban. News media reports at the time said the U.S. was paying the Taliban to lay down their arms and stop fighting,while other stories said that the U.S. would pay the Taliban to 'protect villages'. I'd like to put that on the main page,but because of Wikipedia's pro-Obama bias,a fact like that would last about five minutes before someone deleted it. The page about the Taliban should become a locked page,so nobody could delete the fact that Obama signed a bill that authorizes direct funding to the Taliban terrorists. Signed-Anthony Ratkov November 16,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.155.167 (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

I just looked at the main page,and I saw that the page already was locked,so it's impossible to edit the page!Sorry about that! Signed,-Anthony Ratkov November 16,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.155.167 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Remove NPOV break early in article, "Reflecting its persistent power to intimidate the populace". This quoted sentence is emotive and implies a political point of view. Taliban court system is like any other legal system: A system of laws. The statement suggests the writer must consider all law systems to be "persistent powers to intimidate" populaces. Or the writer of it suggests that he is applying it exclusively and choicely to the Taliban system of government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHuo (talk • contribs)

• Could you please say (verbatim) how you think that sentence should be written? Then re-apply the {{editsemiprotected}} tag. Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Taliban has implemented one of the "strictest interpretation[s] of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world", yet still occasionally updates its code of conduct.[14]" DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Potentially another separate issue with the line: Does "code of conduct" here mean, "reform"? If they are "reformist" or "progressive" (however slightly) they should be described how other legislatures are described when they make changes to law. DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some cases in which it is not possible not to be biased. Yes, it may be "NPOV" but simply put, the Taliban is evil, there is no other way to say or put it. Who or what else would blow up a school for children (girls)? Taliban blow up girls' school in Pakistan Bdelisle (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bdelisle: "simply put, the Taliban is evil, there is no other way to say or put it...Who or what else would blow up a school for children (girls)"

You put an object over lives? How about the children inside the school? One US-Nato strike KILLED 60 CHILDREN, including men and women, and all you care about is a school:

From the BBC: "There is convincing evidence that 60 children and 30 adults were killed in a US air strike in western Afghanistan"-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7582170.stm

By your own definition of evil, the US-Nato is at the extreme of 'evil', ie 'evil incarnate'

To others here: Bedelisle shows the need for these changes to be made across the article. DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

I'm going to decline this for the time being, since it seems that the issue is not clear-cut, unsupported by sources, and (to me eyes) driven by a point of view that appears to be political. Arguing merits of one side to a dispute over another is unhelpful and an edit change should only be supported by the clearest exposition of (a) the contention in the article which is sought to be changed; (b) the proposed new wording to remedy this and (c) a reliable source to support the change. I don't see that here. If you can put it in clearer terms below, please do so. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(a) Already done

(b) Already done

(c) I want to refer you to your own Talk page that quotes one, "Jimmy Wales". The original assertion I'm objecting to has no citation, it is an opinion. And a political one, as no other political systems are described in that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHuo (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed this by request, and take your word that the cited source, to which I do not have access, does not support the contention "Reflecting its persistent power to intimidate the populace...". The use of extraneous material to support such a contention without an explicit citation would be original research or a synthesis of that material, and I think little is lost by removing those words. Rodhullandemu 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Swat mines

The Swat mines part doesn't belong here. This article is about the Afghan Taliban, while the entire Swat issue belongs to the Pakistani Taliban article (if you would want it in the first place that is).87.84.248.99 (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Taliban is a bad word for a fanatic and wicked person

In the majority of the world, the name taliban became a bad word. If someone is a wicked, violent, fanatic and useless person, this person is called such as a taliban, even if this person isn't an Islamic.Agre22 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

I've never heard that before. "Nazi" is till used in most of the western world at least. Tommkin (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Some corrections requested please

This is a highly biased information that has been compiled and many facts seem to have been deliberately ignored. Its my appeal to the stakeholders of Wikipedia, including Mr. Jimmy Wales, to ensure that information quoted in Wikipedia remains credible. I dont want to, neither I am the authority to get into a discussion of who created "Taliban", but by reading this document reader feels that Pakistan is solely resposnible for Taliban. As per the statement given by Ms. Hilary Clinton, US secretary of States, she owes that US was atleast partially responsible for creating, supporting Taliban through Pakistan. I am enclosing the youtube link of her speech, and would request authorised users to please update/correct the information contain herein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2CE0fyz4ys

Here is what she says in the above link Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday said that the US was also partly responsible for the present mess as it virtually abandoned Pakistan after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

"There is a very strong argument, which is: It wasn't a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let's be careful what we sow, because we will harvest. So we then left Pakistan. We said, okay, fine, you deal with the Stingers that we've left all over your country. You deal with the mines that are along the border. And by the way, we don't want to have anything to do with you," Clinton said testifying before a Congressional committee.

After the downfall of the Soviet Union, Clinton said the US stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with the ISI.

"We can point fingers at the Pakistanis, which is -- you know, I did some yesterday, frankly. And it's merited, because we're wondering why they don't just get out there and deal with these people. But the problems we face now, to some extent, we have to take responsibility for having contributed to," she said.

Clinton said the US has a history of moving in and out of Pakistan. "I mean, let's remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago. We did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want to see them control Central Asia, and we went to work," she said.

"It was President (Ronald) Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said, you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let's go recruit these mujahidin. And great, let's get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. They lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union," Clinton said. And what is happening in Pakistan today is a result of that policy, she acknowledged, so the US should also take a part of the responsibility.

Hina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinashah101 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Iran -- all citations are same and false

I have been trying to find out what's what, way too much to learn quickly -- but I had to stop right at the beginning of this. Why on earth would Iran help their enemies the Taliban?

Iran helped the Hazara, opponents of the Taliban according to Rory Stewart, author The Places In Between someone much more conservative than I am but who seems to realize that Shiite Iran would have no reason to support the Taliban.

I'm sorry I can't give more specifics at the moment -- I"m sure someone can. See Juan Cole, http://www.juancole.com/ or "Dave's Middle East Study Group" which, thought out of date as Dave has had to put on hold temporarily, has useful references. Dave has read everything he can, on all sides, to see who we are bombing.

I agree with others here that this is not an article but a propaganda piece. I urge someone with knowledge to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.207.195 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting you: “Why on earth would Iran help their enemies the Taliban?” I don’t pretend to fully understand the prejudices and hatreds of people over there. But there is the old adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Iranian support for the Taliban is “limited” according to Robert Gates. Trying to put myself into the Iranian’s shoes for a moment and think strategically, I can imagine they would want to provide the Taliban with sufficient short-term material support to make America’s task in Afghanistan difficult without appreciably strengthening the Taliban’s long-term strategic influence on the country. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit for proper internal linking

{{editsemiprotected}} The first paragraph contains a red link caused by improper formatting. The source reads: [[Pakistani Punjabi people]]|Punjabis]] It should be: [[Punjabi people|Punjabis]] to produce a proper link. This produces the following: Punjabis Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.153.98 (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010

 Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 28° 7' 30" NET 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Was "taliban" a name chosen by the group themselves, being students of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, or attributed to them by others? Hexmaster (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This name was attributed to them by other people because they belonged to different madrassas in Kandahar. Kindly post such questions on WP:RD. Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam is a completely different organization. You are perhaps confusing them with Deoband school of Islam. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 09:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

I was very disappointed by this article and even more so by the discussion where many comments are poorly written and unsigned. Now I too may be culpable because I don't know where I should ask this question!

In the very first section, the article states, "...revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan,..." What does it mean by "during night"? Is it that when dusk falls, they move in with courts and attempt to settle disputes, etc, only to disperse again when daylight appears?

I was hoping for some enlightenment on this complicated topic - Wikipedia usually scores well for me - but I leave the page more confused than when I came. I am not trying to be critical, heaven knows I couldn't do anything even half as well, but I do think some objectivity would go down well here with less personal antipathy. Dawright12 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban "propaganda"

I've reverted a recently added section on "Taliban propaganda", as it was only supported by a single reference which was written by the UK's Ministry of Defence - which is currently at war with the Taliban. As the only reference is diametrically opposed to the Taliban by definition, they can hardly be counted on for being objective in this subject. (Ironically, this refernece could reasonably be regarded as anti-Taliban propaganda!) Nuwewsco (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dreadful to read

I have read a great many things in my time but generally avoid all things about war. Today I came here to break that tradition. I can say this is probably the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It has obviously undergone ridiculous amounts of North American editing that has turned it into an expressive and passionate account of "BLAH".

This is why I probably stayed away in the first place. These accounts are not reasonable, rather impossible to draw any decent facts from because the editors have tried to synthesise a variety of different views that add very little to the subject. Obviously this is such a sensitive area to North Americans that it is impossible for any independent bystander such as myself to make any sense out of. I thought coming here would perhaps be less biased but I guess that everyone is just so blind to it now that you don't see it. Moving elsewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.14.236 (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.193.130 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. It is curious that the "Emmergence" section of the article starts directly after the Soviet-Afghan war, ignoring the fact that it was the United States that in face trained and supplied the Taliban to combat the soviet invasion. This article is one of the most biased I have read on Wikipedia. Another aspect I find particularly disturbing is the addition of several links to torture/execution videos. This is the only article that I have come across that features such controversial and sensational information. I ask if the videos are indeed needed to have a clear view of the subject. This article just screams propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.211.198.39 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of death victims under islamic emirate

I think that we should have had the numbers of executions and other state-caused deaths (like torture, suicide and ideology(liberalist)-cause deaths, like hunger, not able to get health care, murder because of weapon law, as in all other capitalist states). I would imagine that the death toll is about 1,8 million, but I don't know anything about it. Want that people that know it shall write it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.168.251 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate? Are you referring to the Taliban or not? Since when did they constitute an Emirate?Jemiljan (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Taliban /Arabic

Dudes, Taliban isn't arabic because if it was it would be Dual thus Taliban would mean two Students. It's the Farsi Plural. Ok? Ich change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.241.133 (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "talib" comes from Arabic. In Persian the word for student is daneshjoo (دانشجو) and even if "talib" is being understood there, the root is somewhere else. Emesik (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Funds from opium

Regarding the edit I just made (In the Opium section), I just read the cited NYT article and I think that simply saying that it says, the Taliban get funding from opium, is telling only part of the truth. The article is about *all* funding sources including opium, and quotes both Richard Holbroke and Gen. McCrystal as saying other funding sources are more important than opium. It presents no others disputing that. Given (as the article also points out) popular perception is thatopium is their primary funding source, I think it important to not to leave these details out. 65.183.81.120 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Arabic/Persian

Since the word طالبان in Arabic means 'two students' as pointed out above, should the etymology in the introduction not be changed to something like 'from the Arabic طالب 'student' + the Persian plural suffix ان-' (reformatted according to house style, I guess)? Doesn't seem much more cumbersome to me, and at least it's correct, unlike the present definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.207.192 (talk)

A discussion needs to be had with regular or interested editors about the best form for this and then a specific edit request posted here. Thanks, Woody (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the new address for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan English website is http://www.shahamat-english.com/

http://www.shahamat-english.com/Geo8rge (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.182.136.46, 7 May 2011

There is the quote:

"We don't like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ... We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us"

I clicked footnote 25, and it lead me to a New York Times Article that says the exact opposite of this quote and does not even have the quote in it. In 2009 Pakistan and Afghanistan Taliban forces formed an alliance. They are allies.

67.182.136.46 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Are you sure you clicked on the right article? I found the exact quote on that New York Times article (here). Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I'm really not sure why this is even in here:

"John P. O'Neill was a counter-terrorism expert and the Assistant Director of the FBI until late 2001. He retired from the FBI and was offered the position of director of security at the World Trade Center (WTC). He took the job at the WTC two weeks before 9/11. On September 10, 2001, O'Neill told two of his friends, "We're due. And we're due for something big.... Some things have happened in Afghanistan. [referring to the assassination of Massoud] I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.... I sense a shift, and I think things are going to happen ... soon."[62] O'Neill died on September 11, 2001, when the South Tower collapsed.[62]"

What does this have to do with the article?Sedna1000 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

Edit request

I'm really not sure why this is even in here:

"John P. O'Neill was a counter-terrorism expert and the Assistant Director of the FBI until late 2001. He retired from the FBI and was offered the position of director of security at the World Trade Center (WTC). He took the job at the WTC two weeks before 9/11. On September 10, 2001, O'Neill told two of his friends, "We're due. And we're due for something big.... Some things have happened in Afghanistan. [referring to the assassination of Massoud] I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.... I sense a shift, and I think things are going to happen ... soon."[62] O'Neill died on September 11, 2001, when the South Tower collapsed.[62]"

What does this have to do with the article?Sedna1000 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

Not done: It is in the history part, because the Taliban during that period harbored Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is said to be responsible for the assassination of the anti-Taliban leader Massoud (which experts in the U.S. such as John O'Neill then saw as a sign something was shifting in Afghanistan and something was going to happen in the U.S. also). That is part of joint Taliban-Al Qaeda history. JCAla (talk) 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Taliban Claims Responsibility for Attacks

CNN is reporting the Taliban is claiming responsibility for two suicide bombers attacking a paramilitary academy in the Pakistan, killing eighty and injuring over a hundred. The Taliban stated they did this in response to the killing of Bin Laden and this is just the first in a series of retaliation attacks. I'm at work and can't update the article here, I have found links (CNN, BBC, MSNBC)for those who have the time and ability. Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL FAIL

A PROTECTED PAGE AND YET SOMEONE UPDATED IT WITH GAY PORN. WHAT NONSENSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.101.36 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed lead that was way too long

As discussed above, the lead was way too long. I have been WP:BOLD and cut it back to a more reasonable length. There are probably things that have been deleted from the lead that could be reinserted latter in the article, and if so, please do so. But please try too keep the lead from again growing too long. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dp412, 6 August 2011

"The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[4] (ṭālibān, meaning "students" in Arabic)" Taliban means students in Pashto, not Arabic. It is the dual form in Arabic ("two students") but Arabic is not the relevant language when speaking of this group. The correct etymology is already explained in the article. The first sentence should be changed to match. Dp412 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Since the word is a loan word from Arabic, wouldn't it then also be Arabic for students as well making the first sentence technically correct? Since I am not a speaker of Arabic, I would need some clarification on that before agreeing that it needed to be changed. Topher385 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

'Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population' if refering to IED's is biased.

I feel the claim that the in the article that the 'Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population' is a gross simplification attributed to one party during an ongoing guerrilla war and should be reconsidered. If the statement means the use by the Taliban of IED's (as is implied) then the claim of 'terrorism' is POV as the counterpoint is that this is not terrorism at all but the use of an effective if ruthless guerrilla tactic intended against ISAF/NATO forces that does however often cause 'collateral' civilian casulties. The aim of the IED attacks is to create ongoing ISAF/NATO casulties and erode long-term political support of what are seen as foreign occupation forces, even if this is at the expense of civilian casulties, nothing more- dss2mtm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.46.176 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Taliban acid attacks on schoolgirls and terrorism against women who seek education
• Taliban attack on busy supermarket in Kabul killing a human rights activist and her four children and husband
• Taliban gunmen randomly execute 38 civilians at a Jalalabad bank
• Taliban kill medical students at a Kabul hospital

= TERRORISM against the civilian population

A guerilla war against military forces is something else.

The Taliban are responsible for 82 % of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. JCAla (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from AndrewMcN

Under "Ideology" -> "Criticisms" there's a para alleging bestiality. It should be removed unless it can be substantiated with a more reliable reference. The reference given is to a magazine article which does not itself cite sources, and which contains little discussion other than the indication that these recordings supposedly exist. There are a few youtube videos around of such things, many of which surface repeatedly in different years and supposed locations.

Question: Where is it alleging this? I do not see it in that section. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I can't read. Removed now --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request September 22, 2011

Please insert in External links between Aljazeera and The Guardian (alphabetical order):

• Taliban Conflict collected news and commentary at BBC News

Thanks. 75.59.229.4 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Massoud

There are at least two variations of the spelling of his name in this article. It is possible to have a standardised spelling that is used consistently throughout? --10:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This is in reference with Roy, Olivier, Globalized Islam, Columbia University Press, 2004, p.239

They did not destroy the graves of pirs (holy men) and emphasized dreams as a means of revelation.[28]

Sufi Shrine 'blown up by Taleban'

Sufi Islam and the Taleban Suspected Taleban militants in north-west Pakistan have blown up the shrine of a 17th Century Sufi poet of the Pashtun language, police say

link title --10:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Content removed & POV tag?

Were is the section for the POV tag? And as to the content being removed, if Pakistan refutes the claims that they have aided the Taliban then instead of removing the content you need to balance it with a rebuttal from a RS. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the previous version did not even attribute the allegation to the US gvt, and infact presented it as encyclopedic content, which is definitely POV. If you want to mention it then you need to use a sentence like "US gvt. alleges Pakistan of aiding..." etc and not the way it was. And in anycase adding it to infobox is completely biased. The POV tag is added because I only reverted the obvious instances, while the article tone still implies Pakistan's historic ties as being current one while it fails to credit that US had the same during the cold war. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall various agencies other than the US mention that Pakistian had aided the Taliban, It is hardly POV to state what a great many sources have said, you need to add a reliable source which says that the Pakistan government denies these allegations for balance, that is how it works. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Try Fundamentalism reborn?: Afghanistan and the Taliban By William Maley as a source for what you need. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have a problem with other a:gencies saying that. The article didn't attribute those facts to any, that's the problem including the article tone (without refutation) and the infobox inclusion. I'll edit accordingly. If you want to add the allegation on the Pakistan army, you have to add the refuation along with it. You can't just instate a POV and expect other editors to balance it for POV. Such content is to be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes I can, if you dispute that which is a widely reported fact then it is you who needs to find sources which refute this fact. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the POV tag is to alert editors that there is a discussion regarding a specific POV issue. It is not to be used to object to "article tone." If there are no further specific POV issues then the tag should be removed.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Article tone is a POV issue and being discussed here too. So the tag is completely valid untill those parts are rewritten. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are strong refutations from Pakistan: [12] [13] [14] [15]. You can find 100s of more I'm sure. You also need to review this article War in North-West Pakistan. Now I hope it's clear that you can't add that content without attribution and refutation as per WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think you understand, all those sources say the government denies the claims, this is hardly surprising. It is a widely reported fact that they do in fact offer support to the Taliban. The source I recently added is from the academic press and is an obvious high quality source for these matters. Do you have any sources other than government press releases which refute the claims? By all means add to the article that the Pakistan government denies these allegations, but it is widely accepted that they do, there is no neutrality issue here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, you have not attributed that the 'wide' allegations are by the US govt. Not attributing that compromises the article's neutrality. It will only be neutral to say that "the US (and if any other mention that too) govt. alleges Pakistan to be supporting taliban and Pakistan strongly denies it" and even with all this stated, the infobox inclusion is not justifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Again you are wrong, it is the mainstream view as evidenced by academic sources that they supported the Taliban, your only sources which refute this are press releases from the government. It is not "just a US govt" view at all as you keep saying, it is a widely accepted fact. Now please add a source to the article which says they refute the allegations and we can be done with this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you need to stop throwing the burden of correcting the issue on me. It is your responsibility to add the material in a neutral way since you are reinstating it as per WP:NPOV and WP:VOLUNTEER. Then, news articles are reliable sources. The 'academic' sources you have given are also based on POV of US officials. Your term 'widely accepted fact' is a WP:Weasel. Here is another reliable source which is not a press release from Pakistani govt. [16]. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(out)+(ec)I have not said your sources were not reliable, I said they were government press release. You may not say that the academic sources are based on US pov at all, if you disagree take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. It is not my responsibility to add balancing content, it is yours, you are the one saying the article is not neutral. I have presented sources from the academic press which shows it is mainstream thinking that they have supported the Taliban, it is for you to prove per WP:BURDEN that this is not the case. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue is not of reliability and I just gave you a contradiction from the mainstream, If you don't think its your responsibility to add a neutral POV when you add content, you need to read WP:NPOV. The WP:BURDEN on me is only to prove that the content is disputed, which I did. I just reviewed your added academic source, it does not seem to be so neutral itself while judging ISI. In the very next sentence after alleging ISI for taliban support, it says "On the basis of such stereotyping it is assumed...". I think that is enough to present an openly proclaimed prejudice by your source. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to review it again, it does not say that which you think it does. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have, [17] here you go. You are clearly adding non neutral content as per WP:NPOV. You should self revert or add attribution and refutation along with removal of infobox inclusion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not. I am not going to continue to argue this with you, if you feel the source is not reliable then please post on the reliable sources noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I just quoted you a phrase from the book you cited. Are you even reviewing your own citation? This is clearly a POV dispute and not an RSN dispute. I've given you contradicting news sources as well as mainstream evidence. Since there are contradictions this becomes a controversy and should be treated as one with neutral entries. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No you took a phrase from the book out of context, that phrase has nothing to do with what is being discussed, it is about the hill people of Pakistan, so no, you did not read it properly at all. There is no POV dispute at all, mainstream sources explicitly state that Pakistan security services aided the Taliban (as does another source I added) Your sources are mainstream yes, mainstream media. All your sources are doing is reiterating what the Pakistan government has said. Again, if you think the source does not support the edit take it to the RSN board. If you think it is not neutral to write that Pakistan has aided the Taliban go to the neutral point of view noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not out of the context, if you read the whole paragraph, it is a continuation (infact a judgement) of the said statement. While some of my sources are reiterating Pakistan refutation, the last source I gave is independently telling the same (if you reviewed it at all). You're really hard at hearing. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are reading it out of context, by the way, "say that the Pakistani intelligence agencies have long used threats, arrests and killings to control the Taliban and that they could be doing so again to maintain their influence over the insurgents." This is from your previous source, it clearly says the Pakistani intel agencies have controlled and helped the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, controlling someone and having influence over them is opposite of alliance. And did you miss the arrests? And a dedicated article written on 10 year war with their allies in Pakistan? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You can be allied with someone and still exert influence over them, please post to the noticeboards a I have suggested as this is obviously going no-were. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban (and opponent of USA) while Pakistan and USA call each other allies (though strained). Further more, the article tone and some instances imply the same. On which side should ISI be listed as an ally (Taliban or USA) in infobox and how to go about making the article tone and mentioned allegations/refutations neutral? Refer to below transcluded discussion and the talk page discussion in the main section for more details pointed out by involved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

See Transcluded section below from WP:NPOVN. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC

A transclusion of the main section's discussion continued at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban is given in a subsection below. You might want to refer to that so that the discussion does not go into circles. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Senior US officials called Pakistan an ally of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network (Taliban's most destructive element) a "veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency." TopGun forgot to mention that in the initial question.JCAla (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The ISI act as a state within a state, just because the government of Pakistan say they do not help the Afgan Taliban does not mean that the ISI do not. There have been quite a few sources which state that the ISI are allied to the Taliban and there are no neutrality issues that I can see with this being in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ISI by all means comes under the jurisdiction of government of Pakistan. The issue is whether Pakistan is an ally of USA or Taliban. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Come on, TopGun, don't start fooling yourself. The Pakistani army is running Pakistan not the civilian government, and the ISI officers are drawn from the army.JCAla (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets not go into that debate and first solve the issue at hand. And lets remain WP:CIVIL. I think the bot has not yet listed the RFC (here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law) , so we'll have to wait for some time. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I told you before, Pakistan and the US are allies regarding issues surrounding Pakistan's stability and the safety of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan and the US are no allies (anymore) regarding Afghanistan, because Pakistan is allied to the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan and the US changed its policy towards the Afghan Taliban in 2001, starting to fight them.JCAla (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that. We can read that from above since I transcluded the discussion so as not to flood this subsection with the same comments again. This will now continue as per RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How many sources need be presented before TopGun admits that the ISI are allied with the Taliban? We have MSM sources, we have academic sources and we have political ones. Enough is enough. I have removed the POV and the very pointy factual accuracy tag that he added. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop rushing to a conclusion. Things work by discussion here. And I am by the rules to call an RFC on this. If you don't want, don't participate. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop dragging things out, the ISI are allied with the Taliban, all sources say so and you are being disruptive. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking here without sources. Lets stay on topic. Stop trying to silence the dispute on your own accord. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm with The Last Angry Man here. We can't drag it out until unknown just because the input that came so far isn't liked by you. I'd say we wait two more days. If there is no change in the opinion of the majority of editors on this issue, then the tags need to be removed and the ISI stays in the infobox. And, one tag until then is enough. JCAla (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I am disputing the factual accuracy here, whether ISI's ally of one or the other is a fact being disputed while the rest of the issues are POV disputes. I hope you know the difference. You should self revert the tag. And read WP:DEADLINE & WP:VOLUNTEER. There is no deadline that I have to follow. RFC will continue, only after that can tags be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No you are disputing the factual accuracy of the MSM and the academic press, all of which say the ISI are allied with the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There. You said it that I'm disputing it (and I gave sources). Whether I'm right or not is not for one side to decide. The tag should be put back right away. The RFC is now listed. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

TopGun, three editors have stated that they disagree with you. WP:DEADLINE means that there is no deadline for wikipedia articles to be complete, it does not mean that one editor can forever put tags into an article even if a majority of editors agreed the tags are not justified. JCAla (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor above just said I was disputing whatever he thinks is WP:TRUTH. And no, you didn't read, read again, both the links I gave. This is about the article since it is its talkpage, and there's no deadline. And even if there 'was a consensus', consensus can change. Read WP:OWNERSHIP, you don't own this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources you gave say the II are allied with the Taliban, the only sources which deny this are Pakistani government press releases. You are not disputing the factual accuracy of this article, you are disputing the MSM and the academic press which clearly say the ISI are allied to the Taliban, you are free to take the sources to the reliable sources noticeboard if you think they are not accurate. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Being an ally of one party or another is a factual dispute. Read WP:COMMONSENSE. And no, the sources I gave support my claims and I've given enough arguments. It is ridiculous to deny the existence of the dispute itself after a discussion this long on the talk page and the NPOV notice board. I've already listed an RFC, so RSN is not needed. And FYI, tags and disputed edits are not made without a conclusion when RFCs are tagged. Having another discussion at full length to prove it to you that the dispute exists (while the dispute itself is unsovled) is craziness. The length and arguments of the discussion itself tells about the dispute's nature. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, do not edit here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

An editor on the Taliban article insists it is not neutral to write that the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence have given aid to the Taliban. This is widely reported as fact, and the two sources I added to the article are from the academic press. He is insistent on it being an American intel agency only POV and I assume he means this is not mainstream thinking due to this. So is this not neutral? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The issues with the current version are as follows:

1. The article tone in general implies that Pakistan is an ally of Taliban,
2. It is stated at certain instances that Pakistan's military supports Taliban while Pakistan denies it and no refutation has been added. (The above editor is reinstating the content without adding the refutation not following WP:NPOV and is instead asking me to balance it which is his responsibility as per WP:VOLUNTEER. Note that I've cleared the WP:BURDEN on me by giving relevant reliable citations.)
3. Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban which in no case is suitable (even if the body does end up containing so along with Pakistan's refutation) because it is a clear POV case.

As of now I've given the editor these citations against his POV: [18] [19] [20] [21]. Although he agreed about these being reliable refutations but he insists that these are 'press releases' of Pakistan and not the mainstream thinking in response to which I've given him a mainstream citation [22] to prove my point. Further more the citation he added (reliable or not) itself states that it is involving certain prejudice/stereotyping to analyze Pakistan's role [23]. In addition there is a whole dedicated article on the ~10 year war of Pakistan with Taliban & their allies War in North-West Pakistan which proves the above editor's POV wrong. You might also note that the editor himself is using WP:WEASELs like 'widely accepted fact' to push his POV and is not following WP:HEAR as well inspite my repeated clarifications. A detailed discussion should be reviewed at Talk:Taliban#Content_removed_.26_POV_tag.3F.

I'll like to point out whether or not he is right on this matter, the subject is still a controversy (as per citation contradictions) and the article should be written in a neutral way in anycase and the infobox inclusion as per that is completely unjustifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thi i from your first source the BBC "Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. It was one of only three countries to have diplomatic relations with the Islamist group." So again, now that they deny aiding the Taliban this suddenly means the mainstream view that they have is now contentious? Just because the ISI deny having ties to the Taliban does not make it contentious, any intel agency would deny ties to such group. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is not whether they had previous ties to them or not. (Even United States had previous ties to Taliban during the coldwar but now they are at war with them. The case is the same here too). Anyway, we should stick to the topic (which is the current relation) and not present our own assumptions rather let the citations do the talking. Your current argument is baseless. Lets wait for a neutral editor to comment otherwise it wont go any better than the talk page discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, but the problem is that all your citations are just press releases from the government which say "not us" I on the other hand have have supplied high quality sources which say the ISI continue to aid the Taliban, here is another Terrorism financing and state responses: a comparative perspective Stanford University Press pp94-96 The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have given you a citation from the mainstream (other than a press release) as well. And I've listed your remarks in reply to my citations in my comment as well as linked the talk page discussion which already covers what we are discussing right now. I guess we've both made are cases clear. So lets wait for neutral input and continue the discussion on basis of that. Otherwise we'll just repeat the same talk page discussion here which will flood the topic discouraging neutral input. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man is absolutely right. Here some more sources to back that up:

• Human Rights Watch: "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and ... senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning military operations."[24]
• New York Times: "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani [leader of most devastating Taliban faction "Haqqani network"] ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." [25]
• International Business Times/BBC: "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." [26]
• Taliban commander Mullah Qaseem: “Pakistan plays a significant role. First they support us by providing a place to hide which is really important. Secondly they provide us with weapons."[27]
• Taliban commander "Mullah Azizullah, said these [training] camps are run by the ISI or are closely linked to it. "They are all the ISI’s men,” he said. “They are the ones who run the training. First they train us about [sic] bombs; then they give us practical guidance. Their generals are everywhere. They are present during the training.""[28]
• Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, Ashfaq Kayani himself: "Admiral Mullen knows well which countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan as the chief protagonist is neither fair nor productive."[29]

JCAla (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll like to start by pointing out non neutrality of the above editor since he even removed the valid POV tag from the article (which was left there by both parties) while the discussion was still on going. [30]

• Coming to the topic, the points you've given about Pakistan assisting Taliban before the war on terror are completely invalid because the topic of discussion is whether or not Pakistan's military is currently an ally to Taliban (so those should be disregarded - refer to my 2nd comment in this thread).
• The points you have given about Taliban leaders commenting on the issue, I seriously doubt the reliability of terrorists deciding the issue related to the encyclopedia (those should be considered as non reliable sources - because even though the publisher 'might' be reliable, the source they credit is not).
• About the Army chief's comment; have you even read it your self or are you intentionally quoting it out of context? Editors are free to review this citation where he means that Pakistan is not the only country in contact with Taliban/Haqani/etc pointing out that US also is in 'contact' with them and this certainly does not implicate an alliance.

Yes, the Taliban militants were trained by Pakistani officials for the soviet invasion etc, but they were being aided by US too, and now they are on war with them? Do I smell double standards? And did you see the article I quoted about Pakistan's own ~10 year war with with Taliban and their allies? And that so many dedicated article including War in North-West Pakistan, War on Terror & Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan mention, and properly detail along with sources, US and Pakistan fighting against Taliban and their allies? And did you notice that US (other than blaming Pakistan for these relations) also (still) calls Pakistan their ally[31] [32] [33] rather than Talibans'? The addition of Pakistan as an ally for Taliban (which should rather be added on the opposing side) is completely inconsistent with all the well sourced details of the given articles and makes wikipedia reflect inconsistent point of views (other than being non neutral) and is unencyclopedic. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand, this discussion is about the current support. I was just pointing out that as late as 2000 and even 2001 (before 9/11) Pakistan's military is recorded as being an active participant in the War in Afghanistan

(1996-2001), mastermind behind the Taliban military campaigns. That is just for the record for people to understand the depth of the involvement of Pakistan with the Taliban. It wasn't just arms and cash transfer (what is normally understood under the term "support").

Now, for today, I gave reliable sources which quoted a "senior official of the ISI", two mid-level Taliban commanders and Pak. Army Chief Kayani (whose statement is rather revealing considering that the Pakistan government is in official denial). This was only in addition to all the other reliable and academic Western sources The Last Angry Man already provided.

Look, you do not need to lecture me about the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, I am pretty familiar with the issue. If you look carefully, you can see, that I am one of the three editors who contributed most to the TTP article. So, glad, you think it is well-balanced. Now, that you have read the article, you must have noticed that there is indeed a huge difference between the TTP (Pakistani Taliban) the Pakistani army is fighting against and the Afghan Taliban (the Pakistani army is supporting). You seem to have gotten confused by the common name, although I think, you are pretty much aware of the difference. As Gilles Dorronsoro, a scholar of South Asia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said: "The fact that they have the same name causes all kinds of confusion."[34] As the Pakistani Army began offensives against the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), many unfamiliar with the region thought incorrectly that the assault was against the Afghan Taliban of Mullah Omar which was not the case.[35] Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar repeatedly asked the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan to stop attacks inside Pakistan. Afghan Taliban commander Haqqani also tried to make the TTP stop their attacks against the Pakistani state. An Afghan Taliban spokesman told The New York Times: "We don’t like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ... We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us."

We both know that Pakistan is playing a double game with the Taliban and NATO.

"And which side is Pakistan on? “That’s a foolish question,” says Anatol Lieven, a professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. “Pakistan is on Pakistan’s side, just as America is on America’s.”

But in this double game, Pakistan sustains the Taliban. And it makes sure that Afghan Taliban leaders who seek greater independence from Pakistan get arrested (see Mullah Baradar) and are released only when they are back in line again, that shows the amount of control the ISI has over the Afghan Taliban.

JCAla (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out that you clarified yourself that "Pakistan is on the Pakistani side" you should have sided with adding Pakistan to a third column instead of adding it as a Taliban ally in the first place. With that being said, it still does not matter till what ever time Pakistan was in support of Taliban since that is not the topic and your statement was there to make assumptions as you put it in the context. I am very clear about the identities of Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. May be you missed to read that I said they were eachother's allies in all the mentioned articles (which you now say have been contributed by you - so it is as per your words, I can safely say). After that, it doesn't matter who Pakistan is supporting since the official status by both Pakistan and USA is alliance with each other (of which I have given references). So you have here both parties recognizing each other as ally hence completely removing the possibility of putting ISI in the infobox as an ally of Afghan Taliban (that too along with the Pakistani Taliban which they are fighting I see). After all that, I didn't object to mentioning that USA blames Pakistan of keeping contacts with Taliban while Pakistan denies (I guess you missed to read the talk page discussion since I already mentioned this there). No more references are needed to support my view. As I said to the other editor involved, lets wait for neutral input since we've all made our cases clear. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How is JCala input not neutral? He has not commented on the talk page and did not edit the article over this issue until it was brought here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed this [36]. Also, does his reply not tell you that... --lTopGunl (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of what you write is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Also, you can't use unsourced things in wikipedia as a source for other wikipedia articles. Some things in the articles are disputed, but I don't want to open another discussion about that here. The following is the central issue:

Question: Does Pakistan give substantial support to the Afghan Taliban? Answer: Yes.

Question: Does Pakistan seriously move against the Afghan Taliban (Mullah Omar, Haqqani network or even the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin) in order to defeat them? Answer: No.

This qualifies Pakistan as being listed as an "ally" (for lack of a better term) of the Taliban. It is as simple as that. And if the ISI thinks it is justified to do what it does, why is it, that it is always in denial? Why not honestly state your case? Is it ashamed of its own policy? There is no reason to hide from a morally justified cause, is there?!

Pakistan is on Pakistan's side, so far we did agree. So what is Pakistan's side? This war and the underlying conflict did not start in 2001, not even in 1996, it started a very long time ago. Pakistan has always had a very clear policy concerning Afghanistan and that policy did not change just because NATO entered the scene in late 2001. Since 1994, the Taliban play an integral element in Pakistan's strategy and until this very day ISI perceives there is no viable alternative.

Besides, the Taliban article deals with the Taliban in a general manner, not just the current phase. Pakistan, not only today, but also in the past, has been an ally - even mastermind - of the Taliban. That alone, qualifies it to be mentioned as an ally.

The fact, that Pakistan denies any support to the Taliban, really holds no weight considering history. Even while thousands of Pakistani forces were fighting inside Afghanistan, even while the Pakistani military was planning the Taliban military campaigns from 1995-2001, Pakistan (Musharraf's temper is well-known) was outraged at any suggestion it would provide support to the Taliban. Just to recall history 1996-2001:

"The Pakistan government has repeatedly denied that it provides any military support to the Taliban ..." Human Rights Watch 2001

"When asked 'why Pakistan supports the Taliban', an [Pakistani] official replied, 'We don’t support but inter-act with the Taliban'." George Washington University 2001

All the while Pakistan was doing the following:

"Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support. ... as many as thirty trucks a day were crossing the Pakistan border; ... some of these convoys were carrying artillery shells, tank rounds, and rocket-propelled grenades. ... Pakistani landmines have been found in Afghanistan; they include both antipersonnel and antivehicle mines. Pakistan's army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force. ... senior Pakistani military and intelligence officers help plan and execute major military operations. ... Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations ... The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support. ... The démarche listed features of the [2000] assault on Taloqan that suggested the Taliban had received outside assistance in planning and carrying out the attack. These features were uncharacteristic of the Taliban's known capabilities, including the length of the preparatory artillery fire ... On several occasions between 1995 and 1999, the Taliban's military skills improved abruptly on the eve of particularly pivotal battles, and in one case, declined just as abruptly after a credible threat of intervention was made by an outside power. During its offensives in 1995 against Herat and in 1996 against Kabul, for example, the Taliban suffered heavy losses after mounting attacks against veteran government forces [of Ahmad Shah Massoud]. ... the rout was such that some analysts predicted that the Taliban phenomenon had run its course. ... Initial defeats were followed by a period of quiet; then Taliban troops mounted new attacks, displaying capabilities that had been conspicuously lacking before. ... maneuvers that were more characteristic of a professional army-specifically, of professional officers and noncommissioned officers trained in the practice of mobile warfare-than of Afghan mujahidin. ... in August 1998, the Taliban forces that were advancing eastward from the city against [anti-Taliban] resistance [forces] ... suddenly faltered and lost their unusual combat proficiency. At the time, the disappearance of Iranian officials had provoked a major crisis with Iran and a substantial Iranian military force (ultimately close to 250,000 men) was massing on the Afghan/Iranian border. The Iranian government explicitly blamed Pakistan for the incident (Pakistan had given assurances for the diplomats' safety) and threatened military intervention if the diplomats were not produced. The [following] sudden decline in Taliban military effectiveness, ... was caused by the withdrawal of Pakistani military advisers as part of an effort by Pakistan to prevent the crisis [with Iran] from getting out of control." Human Rights Watch 2001

Now for today.

• "The Haqqani network [Taliban] ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency." - U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen [37]

(Mullen was said to be close to the Pakistani army's chief of staff, Gen Ashfaq Kayani. Indeed, Adm Mullen is thought to have made more visits to Pakistan than any other senior US official or chief of staff in recent times.)

• "In Afghanistan we saw an insurgency that was not only getting passive support from the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, but getting active support." - Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution

• "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani [leader of most devastating Taliban faction "Haqqani network"] ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." New York Times 2008

• "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." International Business Times 2011

• "Taliban sources say Pakistan uses catch-and-release tactics to keep insurgent leaders in line. All told, the ISI has picked up some 300 Taliban commanders and officials, the sources say. Before being freed, the detainees are subjected to indoctrination sessions to remind them that they owe their freedom and their absolute loyalty to Pakistan, no matter what. As one example, the sources mention Abdul Qayum Zakir, who spent five years at Guantánamo and is now the group’s top military commander. They say the Pakistanis detained him and about a dozen other Taliban commanders and shadow governors earlier this year, soon after having picked up the insurgency’s No. 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, only to set them free several days later after making sure their priorities meshed with Pakistan’s." Newsweek 2010

The Last Angry Man has provided further academic sources (including from the Stanford Press which I don't think I need to repeat).

In case anyone wonders why Pakistan should support the Taliban. The following could provide some clues:

1. Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

2. Dispute over territory

"Dubbing Durand line as a line of hatred Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he does not accept this line as it has raised a wall between the two brothers [Afghanistan's Pashtuns and Pakistan's Pashtuns]." [38]

"Afghanistan and Balochistan should form a legal team to challenge the illegal occupation of Afghan territories and Balochistan by Pakistan in the International Court of Justice. Once the Durand Line Agreement is declared illegal, it will result in the return of Pakistan-occupied territories back to Afghanistan. Also, Balochistan will be declared a country that was forcibly invaded through use of force by the Pakistanis ... After Pakistan vacates territories belonging to Afghanistan and Balochistan, a new boarder should be demarked amicably to determine Baloch dominated areas to become the new Balochistan, and Pashtun dominated areas to be merged into Afghanistan. ... “Pakistan is a completely superfluous and artificially created spot on the world map that has become a breeding ground for extremism, and trouble that would be best done away with.”" [39]

Pakistan needs the Taliban as an "Islamic" counterforce to Pashtun nationalist ambitions which would effectively cut Pakistan in half. The Taliban's interpretation of and focus on Islam (rather than nationalism) is meant to be a binding force between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The non-Pashtun ethnicities of Afghanistan are perceived to be too close to India. That is why Pakistan insists on Pashtun's ruling Afghanistan, but these Pashtuns need to be the Taliban not nationalists following i. e. the way of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

3. There are certain dreams surrounding Islamic prophecies, and black banners from Khorasan. JCAla (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, we don't post whole news citings to the thread, that's just flooding (You should replace those with just the links of their origin). We can all go and read from the links you give. And there's no use of using this notice board if the involved editors are the only one posting long replies (which would discourage neutral input). Coming to the topic, you have just repeated what you said in your previous post. But as I said, all you have written here either is not related to the topic at hand and rather stuff that some one would post to a forum or citings on which you further base your assumptions on. There are some issues with all what you said:

• You say (and agree) Pakistan is on Pakistani side which calls for a third column for Pakistan to be listed in as per your own words since they are playing a 'double game' not being a partner (ally) to either US or Taliban (which I did not endorse, but pointed out).
• Discussion of past relations with Taliban is not the issue here which you are repeatedly bringing up.
• What I wrote was not irrelevant, I did not use the wiki articles as 'citations' (since I already gave the citations along with them). I used them to show consensus from those articles about the alliances. Another point here is that if one wikipedia article shows Pakistan as Talibans' ally and another shows them on opposing side, that would be an unacceptable inconsistency.
• Most of your citations are pointing out the contacts of Pakistan with Haqani/Taliban etc, which US itself also has for intelligence purposes and not support purposes (as the Pakistani Army chief pointed out) and rest of the citations are simply saying that Pakistan either has been supporting Taliban in the past or assume that, since Pakistan has links with them, they are allies.
• Even if what you say is completely believed for sake of argument, Pakistan still would not be listed as an ally of Taliban. The reason being, whatever relations Pakistan has with Taliban or US, Pakistan and US call each other allies on the war on terror.[40] [41] [42] We follow the official status per WP:MOS.

So your case here is completely inconsistent and being based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, I think I've made my side pretty clear and so have you two. Repeating the same would be of no use and we should wait for neutral input (if at all some one reads the already lengthy thread). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Pakistan's side" includes the interest in continuing support to the Afghan Taliban, which makes them an "ally" for lack of a better term.
• Discussions of past relations put the current official Pakistani denial into a perspective.
• You are again confusing the TTP with the Afghan Taliban.
• The citations explicitly point out a support role not a contact role.
• Well, the official position of the man who was United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2011, Mike Mullen, is that "the Haqqani network [Taliban's most destructive element] ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency."[43]

But, ok, let's wait for other people to provide their opinion. JCAla (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a response here??????? --lTopGunl (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked at the sources above it is quite clear that the ISI have and still continue to support the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is not the issue of discussion, the issue is the official status which is accepted by both USA and Pakistan as being allies. Where as the editors above are adding ISI as an ally to Taliban in the infobox. The secondary issue is that ISI's alleged support is not being attributed to the sources and Pakistan's refutation is not being neutrally added to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with you, it is the issue being discussed. Did the ISI aid and abet the Taliban? Yes they did, and yes they continue to do so. The ISI are from the sources presented allied to the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that both countries call each other allies is itself enough to put ISI on the opponent side of Taliban, now whether it's secretly supporting Taliban or not is an issue to be discussed in the body of the article. Again, yes, the issue is being discussed by the editor, but I've told him as well (you should review the talk page discussion and my edits that got reverted) that the inclusion of this is not my dispute here as far as it's neutrally conveyed on both the allegation and refutation side. The infobox is. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both The Last Angry Man and Darkness Shines. And as I mentioned before, the United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2011, Mike Mullen, officially called the Haqqani network (Taliban's most destructive element) the "veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency".[44] That renders irrelevant your, TopGun, argumentation concerning "official" positions. JCAla (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point is invalid by this reference, since Pakistan and USA still consider each other as allies after this statement (and rather before and during this accusation the alliance was not broken). Your reference is time stamped "22 September 2011". I'll give you newer still calling it an alliance: [45] [46] [47], and one old: [48]. The WP:BURDEN is still on you. Give a citation in which either Pakistan, USA or even a third party says that Pakistan-US alliance has been broken. Other wise putting Pakistan on the Taliban side is your POV and WP:OR. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, your "sources" are not "newer". Second, do you even read your own sources? Besides that in your sources the term "alliance" is not being used by any officials, the following is written in your sources:

• "Last month, senior American officials accused Pakistan's spy agency of assisting the Haqqani network in attacks on Western targets in Afghanistan, including a strike on the US embassy in Kabul. They were the most serious allegations yet of Pakistani duplicity in the 10-year war in Afghanistan and sent already strained ties between Islamabad and Washington plunging further."[49]

• And from the CFR link, which is from 2010 not 2011: "Strategic dialogue meetings between senior Pakistani and U.S. officials concluded Friday with plans to cooperate on a range of issues including agriculture, electricity, and health. The meetings came amid growing tensions in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. ... And the Obama administration is frustrated with what it sees as Pakistan's unwillingness to go after the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban--the terrorist groups considered most dangerous to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. ... To gain Pakistan's cooperation against militant groups it continues to support, some experts call for a stronger stand. The Cable, a Foreign Policy blog, reports that U.S. officials are "taking a markedly tougher tone with the Pakistanis than before.""[50]

Now, there seems to be a confusion on your part what the term "allies" means. JCAla (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you missed to check the time stamps. They are new. For your info (since your mind is set on finding what you like and not what is being referred):

• [51] "The latest strikes come as Marc Grossman, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, arrived in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad to hold talks with Pakistani leaders to strengthen the two countries' fragile alliance."
• "An unhappy alliance."
• "The Strained U.S.-Pakistan Alliance."
• "Zardari emphasises restraint to avoid straining Pak-US alliance."

You can find more if you look. Stop repeatedly stating that US (and whoever else) alleges Pakistan of 'continuing to support militants', I have read that once. What you've failed to prove is that there is no alliance between Pak and US instead you claim the opposite. I've given you citations for my claim. You are misleading. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

All your quotes, except maybe the Zardari one (which doesn't really matter given all the Pakistani official denial), are NOT, and I am repeating this, are NOT from officials, but terms used by some Western journalists in the past and one Pakistani journalist in the present. The most recent official position of the US government, the Indian government, the government of Iran, the Russian government, the European governments is: Pakistan keeps supporting the Afghan Taliban. Afghan Taliban commanders have admitted this. Thus, Pakistan can be listed as an ally of the Taliban on the wikipedia article.

Maybe you fail to understand one thing. We are talking about the infobox on the Afghan Taliban article. The US and Pakistan may work together on some issues concerning Pakistan itself i. e. economy, health and supporting elements in the Pakistani army to keep control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in order to keep some sort of stability. Here the common interest is relative stability in Pakistan considering the nuclear arsenal.

When it comes to Afghanistan, however, Pakistan and the US followed the same policy up until early 2001, then the US started to change sides, with the Bush administration finalizing a new American approach to the War in Afghanistan (1996-2001) in August 2001, just before 9/9 and 9/11. Since then, Pakistan is certainly no ally of the US (and people have provided you with very reliable sources for this including this being the current official position of the US and many other countries) when it comes to the Afghan Taliban. NATO did not start a war in 2001, it entered into one in which Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban already formed a firm alliance. And even today, Pakistan perceives there to be no alternative for its support to the Afghan Taliban. And today, Pakistan is supporting the Afghan Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan. The reasons for this support have been mentioned above. This makes Pakistan an ally of the Afghan Taliban (when it comes to the Afghan Taliban). JCAla (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To start with you got the statement of one official atleast (and the neutral journalists). Now you state that Zardari's stand doesn't matter given whatsoever is your WP:OR, Whatever his position in politics is, his statements are on the account of the office he holds. Here is another denial and calling US an ally by the Pakistani foreign minister as well [52], We have more than enough citations for US officially and otherwise calling Pakistan its ally. I do know we are talking about the infobox issue first, and I'm the one who has clarified it repeatedly. And that is the issue, infobox contains official status. And you are wrong in interpreting that. Allegations and strained relationship doesn't mean that an alliance is broken. USA has not conveyed to Pakistan that the alliance is no more, and the burden of that is on you. You have failed to give a proof of that. PS. learn to indent your replies its hard to spot who you are replying in the discussion other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, this doesn't seem to be making much progress, we should list it in an RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, you are restating your POV again and again, while this discussion doesn't even make sense. First, wikipedia is about facts, it's not about mirroring government positions or in some cases propaganda. Second, the term "alliance" is certainly not being applied to the issue of the Afghan Taliban. It has been established by the academia, the statements of major government and military officials from different countries in the world, by statements of Taliban commanders and a few ISI officials themselves, that Pakistan supports the Afghan Taliban versus NATO and the government of Afghanistan. Thus, Pakistan is an ally of the Afghan Taliban. Three editors have agreed (one, you, is opposed). Unless someone else wants to join this discussion, this issue has been solved by majority vote. JCAla (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One, read WP:VOTE. Wikipedia is not voting or majoritarianism. You make your case by discussion. And the third editor specifically listed his argument as a "comment" and not a "support" for your case. I've given you enough citations from both parties. This is not my POV, rather the official status of the alliance. Two, you just did the same, making your claims repeatedly right now. We should probably go to a higher form of resolution like RFC citing this and the talk page discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a comment supporting the inclusion of the ISI as an ally of the Taliban. Please do not misrepresent what I have written. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit the bolded text to that then. A comment is usually used for a neutral input. Also, I've replied to that as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's important to represent the situation fairly here. If the Pakistani government has denied the claim, then it's their word against another's. Per WP:WEIGHT, you need to represent all claims fairly, so having Pakistan there without caveat is showing only one side of the story. It's also important to note that you're showing them not just as being involved with each other, but as allies. One link provided above shows that the ISI does not consider the Taliban an ally, so does the Taliban consider its relations with the ISI as an alliance? This is the kind of information I would expect to see in the sources attached to such statements. At the moment, in the infobox, the sources given are self-published and neither mentions an alliance. The references given in the lead are from more reliable sources, but still jump around the subject. So the primary concern I'm seeing is a sourcing one. Unless the sources provided state outright that this is a military alliance in conjunction with the war in Afghanistan, then labelling it as such is original research. So at the moment, I would suggest removing Pakistan from the infobox and, given the controversial nature of the subject, strictly sticking to the sources when it comes to the body of the article. Nightw 07:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nightw, I'd like to know if you are familiar with the topic? Then, maybe you missed some of the reliable links given above. The Afghan Taliban are often referred to as an "asset" of Pakistan.

• New York Times: "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani [leader of most devastating Taliban faction "Haqqani network"] ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." [53]

• International Business Times: "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." [54]

• BBC: "Taliban commander Mullah Qaseem: 'Pakistan plays a significant role. First they support us by providing a place to hide which is really important. Secondly they provide us with weapons.'"[55]

• BBC: "Taliban commander Mullah Azizullah, said these [training] camps are run by the ISI or are closely linked to it. 'They are all the ISI’s men,' he said. 'They are the ones who run the training. First they train us about [sic] bombs; then they give us practical guidance. Their generals are everywhere. They are present during the training.'"[56]

• BBC: "... documentary series Secret Pakistan has spoken to a number of middle-ranking - and still active - Taliban commanders who provide detailed evidence of how the Pakistan ISI has rebuilt, trained and supported the Taliban throughout its war on the US in Afghanistan."[57]

• BBC: "Evidence of Pakistan's support for the Taliban is also plain to see at the border where insurgents are allowed to cross at will, or even helped to evade US patrols."[58]

• BBC: One Haqqani network commander "wanted peace talks. He said it was vital Pakistan intelligence knew nothing of the meeting. He said not to disclose it because Pakistan does not want peace with Afghanistan and even now they are training new Taliban units. He was also scared that the Pakistanis will arrest him because he lives in Pakistan and he said it would be easy for them to arrest him."[59]

JCAla (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented purely on the sources in the article, as that is what the reader sees and I'm assuming it's where the dispute lies. The links above look interesting, but they don't address the issue. An article describing Pakistan–Taliban relations might be a better place to put these to use. But to sum up all those sources under one extraordinary label that isn't used by any of them is obviously pushing into the territory of original research, or synthesis. The allegations of cooperation between these two has been denied by one side (I'm not sure about the other), so therefore it becomes necessary to attribute the allegations within the text and supplement that with any competing claims. By not doing so, you are editorialising or picking a side, which is not what we do—rather, we explain the sides, fairly and without bias. A simple example of impartial writing would be "Several journalists and government officials allege that the Pakistani army provides support for the Taliban," providing examples in references, "...a claim the Pakistan government has denied." I'm not trying to disagree with what you're saying, but I am pointing out some obvious policy violations here. Nightw 12:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree with you. The links above address the issue perfectly. One of the definitions of the term "ally" is the following: "One in helpful association with another."[60] The MacMilland Dictionary's definition for "ally" is: "Someone who is ready to help you, especially against someone else who is causing problems for you."[61] Under these definitions Pakistan qualifies as an ally of the Afghan Taliban. The above reliable sources clearly outline a "helpful association". That is neither POV nor bias nor original research. It is what sources considered reliable by wikipedia policy say. Also, you can push WP:WEIGHT only so far. Offical policy statements do not hold as much weight as multiple witness testimonies (even by Taliban commanders themselves), and further evidence for Pakistan's support to the Taliban cited in all the sources provided above. Consider, even Pakistani officials have been cited by reliable sources such as the New York Times as - unofficially - confirming Pakistani's "helpful association" with the Afghan Taliban. You also don't put tags into holocaust articles just because there are people, including state actors in Iran, who deny the holocaust. WP:WEIGHT also depends on what evidence which side has to support their claims. JCAla (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

JCAla, what you have just shown is a textbook example of synthesis. You have brought multiple sources together to reach a single conclusion, when in reality none of the sources shown present such a conclusion by themselves. You appear to want your sources to say something that they don't. We can't interpret evidence either. Again, you seem to be overlooking the label you're applying—descriptions of "support", "helpful association", etcetera (whatever the quantity), does not equal the terminology that you've chosen to use. When contentious, value-laden labels ... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. From what you've shown me, "ally" is not used at all by reliable sources, so it should be removed; softer labels appear more widely, so these should be applied with attribution as I said before. As it states quite clearly in WP:WEIGHT, viewpoints are subject to notability. Iran's policy on the holocaust is no more notable than Jewish policy on the Assyrian genocide; Pakistan's viewpoint on its own relationship with another government, however, is obviously notable. You cannot present a situation impartially unless you attribute claims and allow all significant counterclaims. Nightw 13:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Nightw has given an adequate explanation of WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV. Simple allegations don't belong in infobox. Even when in body, refutations have to be there when available. How can you present a neutral POV when you are writing a whole section in the article about Pakistan's so called 'support' to Taliban and at the end of the section you just refute with a single sentence that Pakistan denies it? And in addition to that, with both USA and Pakistan on an official status of alliance, which now is surely at its last stage (and I'm starting to rethink about my argument of putting Pakistan on the alliance side of USA, so is the government of Pakistan), you can simply not add it as an ally to the opposite side. You are pressing hard for WP:TRUTH here. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Three editors have laid out rather clearly and backed this up with reliable sources that Pakistan is in a "helpful association" with the Afghan Taliban. JCAla (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That is why I've gone to the next dispute resolution level. 3-2 doesn't seem to be much of difference anyway along with the fact that it's the points you make that matters. An RFC will get wider public attention and neutral views. The discussion is expected to take time. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

comment, Nightw is absolutely right. this is a clear example of wp:synth.-- mustihussain  18:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it synth to say the ISI are allied to the Taliban when all sources say this? The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If the sources do come to that conclusion independently of one another, then it's not synthesis. But the sources given in the article, and even the sources provided by JCAla directly above, do not. Using a label that has been denied by at least one party and isn't used by any of the sources provided, is original research. Using adjectives that are widely used is fine, as long as you provide attribution within the text. Nightw 03:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't share your insistence on the particular usage of the term "alliance" since a "helpful association" has clearly been described by all the different sources above. But, here we go, the term "alliance" has been used extensively in the past to describe the relationship between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan.

• PBS: "The Taliban-Pakistan Alliance"

The Taliban were also called the following by regional experts like Amin Saikal:

• "The Taliban. Pakistan’s Geopolitical Instrument"

Presently, you can also find this term being applied. An academic book review recently published by the Institute of Peace & Conflict Studies (IPCS) has the title:

• "An unholy alliance: Pakistan and the Taliban"

There are also articles:

• "The ISI-Taliban Alliance behind attacks on NATO supply trucks in Pakistan"

And academic studies:

• "Re-Emerging Alliance Between Taliban and Pakistani Military"

So, this is really not original research. JCAla (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to know the difference between allegations and facts. And for a matter controversial as this, you have to be even more careful. You could attribute sources and add the allegations in the body, but infobox can not contain which is based on WP:TRUTH and WP:SYNTH. Even with that, the body of the article is heavily tilted to your POV, even more so, after your last edits and addition to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• JCAla, you haven't understood. I'm not trying to discredit the claim that these sources make. I'm specificly responding to the application of the label alliance. If the accused denies that label then it is contentious. Our policies discourage the use of contentious labels, unless they are widely used by reliable sources. That doesn't appear to be the case, or hasn't been demonstrated. Listing it in an infobox under this label would not be appropriate even if it were used widely, as it doesn't allow in-text attribution. Within the body of the article, as TopGun states, you should not be using sources like those you've just posted to make statements of fact. Our policy demands that you attribute such allegations within the text, and you should certainly avoid using self-published sources. Adding "[author] has claimed" or "according to [author]" to any contentious claim is imperative to achieving a neutral point of view, which is I can only hope what you all want for this article.
• I'm assuming you came to this noticeboard looking to resolve alleged issues of bias within the article. Again, I'm not trying to push an alternative theory to what your sources claim, I'm simply explaining to you the way these claims should be presented in order to jive with our guidelines. If a claim is notable and due, and comes from a reliable source, there is nothing wrong with adding it as long as you attribute it within the text. Nightw 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand but disagree with your interpretation of wikipedia policy, Nightw. We have 3 editors who argue in favor and 3 editors who argue against naming the ISI an ally of the Taliban. Let's see if there are other people who want to provide their opinion. JCAla (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you interpret WP:SYNTH? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question. The Pakistani government may deny the links, but does the ISI deny the link? All the sources say the ISI are allied with the Taliban, have they actually denied this fact? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ISI is represented by Inter Services Public Relations (which represents all military branches of Pakistan Armed Forces) and Government of Pakistan (which has jurisdiction over it). They have denied it and that is good enough. Though ISI might (have) respond(ed) separately as well, you can not claim that they have to since we already have the answers from the competent authority. So yes, they have denied it. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents here: @Darkness Shines: The ISI is an intelligence agency, not a press club that goes and makes media conferences to confirm or deny its links with the Taliban. As TopGun pointed out, it's viewpoints are represented by the ISPR, which is a media wing of Pakistan's military, as well as the Government of Pakistan. Both, from what I gather, have denied their links to Taliban, Haqqani network/whatever groups. Mar4d (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have not been a part of this discussion so I won't give any remarks on as to how this dispute should be settled. However, I have noticed that some of JCAla's comments and contribs [62] are of contentious nature and do, nevertheless, imply a certain WP:POV. I would support a neutral party to look into this issue. Mar4d (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've certainly no horse in this race, and I've tried above to direct JCAla towards policies which quite clearly conflict with the contributions in question here, but xe's plainly disagreed with no elaboration. I've asked for another noticeboard frequenter to comment. If nothing comes of that, I'd encourage the OP to request admin closure. Nightw 06:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Dear Mar4d, don't pretend to be what you are not. Accusing me of making contentious contributions while you have a history of being involved in disputes in which you have clearly taken one side and acted out of POV, is annoying. You have frequently been called a "POV warrior" by other editors, not me. So, please, stop this theater. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nightw, I thought you were someone providing a neutral input. But I have increasingly doubts about it when you suggest a discussion to be closed when there is a 3-3 situation (3 editors against, 3 editors for). No one here has provided more sources than me, accusing me on not elaborating, is ridiculous. I will tell you my position one more last time:

The ISI is widely described by reliable sources as

• supporting, aiding, backing the Taliban [63][64][65][66]
• arming the Taliban[67][68][69]
• training the Taliban[70][71][72]
• providing safe haven to the Taliban.[73][74][75][76]

• The US Joint Chief of Staff, Mike Mullen, called the Haqqani network in an official hearing the "veritable arm of Pakistan's ISI" and stated, "With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy".[77][78]
• We also have Top-Senator John McCain speaking of the ISI's links with the Haqqani network and the Taliban.[79]
• We have Senator Mark Kirk's memo: "The ISI continues to view the Haqqani network as its most reliable regional proxy."[80]
• A report by the renowned London School of Economics also came to the conclusion "that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) has an "official policy" of support for the Taliban."[81]
• The Institute for the Study of War states: "Elements within the Pakistani security establishment continue to view the Haqqani network as a useful ally and proxy force to represent their interests in Afghanistan."[82]
• The New York Times and Time Magazine: "In Washington, a New York Times report that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency is directly assisting militant groups fighting against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has barely raised an eyebrow. Veteran Pakistan watchers here have known — or suspected — as much for several years." [83]
• Taliban mid-level commanders themselves say they are being trained and armed by the ISI.[84][85]
• We even have a senior ISI official confirming to the New York Times that the Haqqani network is viewed by them as a "Pakistani asset".[86]
• Then we have other regional powers such as India, Iran and Russia saying the same. See i. e. [87][88].
• We have reports by very reliable sources speaking about "hard evidence": "The United States has had hard evidence of the Inter-Service Intelligence's double game for some time. For example, the George W. Bush administration reportedly intercepted communications between the ISI and Haqqani operatives who perpetrated the 2006 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. But in this and several other cases, the United States chose to look the other way ... the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States had "credible evidence" that the September 10 truck bombing of a U.S. military base in Wardak province and the September 13 terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul were carried out by the Haqqani network with the ISI's active collusion."[89]

• Acadmic studies by sources considered reliable on wikipedia independently of one another call the Taliban an "ally" of the ISI.

Institute for the Study of War: "useful ally and proxy force"

Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies: "An unholy alliance: Pakistan and the Taliban"

Henry Jackson Society: "Re-Emerging Alliance Between Taliban and Pakistani Military"

All of these very reliable WP:SOURCES, verifiable WP:VERIFY and secondary WP:SECONDARY sources are stating the same independently from one another. Most describe the relation between the ISI and Taliban as something going beyond an "alliance". They use the term "proxy", "asset" or "geopolitical instrument". But there is no such category in the infobox. That is why I gave also sources which explicitly use the term needed for the infobox. I cited three recent academic sources[90][91][92], which independently from one another refer to the ISI and Taliban as allies. So WP:SYN is not the case. I cannot "imply" something which is clearly mentioned in the sources.

All that you brought up against all these very reliable sources is the "official denial of Pakistan" (although the New York Times cited unofficial acknowledgement of a "senior ISI official"). The official denial has always been part of Pakistan's policy as proven, again, by very reliable sources. From 1996-2001 thousands of Pakistani nationals, on the order of Pakistani President Musharraf, were fighting alongside the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Pakistani generals were running the Taliban military operations. At the very same time Musharraf strongly denied any support to the Taliban. My two Pakistani wikipedia colleagues, TopGun and Mar4d, themselves are very much aware of all these facts, but they do not want them to be shown on wikipedia for their own reasons I could only speculate on, which I won't do since we assume WP:GOODFAITH here on wikipedia. Very reliable sources prove a strong military alliance between the Taliban and Pakistan for the very time Pakistan was in strong denial.

• Human Rights Watch: Pakistan "directly providing combat support"
• PBS: "The Taliban-Pakistan Alliance"
• George Washington University "Pakistan running Taliban operations"

Considering all these sources it is clearly you who gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position which has been proven to be a deception in the past. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. JCAla (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: JCAla, you should assume good faith (as per your own advise in the end) for Mar4d as well and even more so for Nightw. They just entered the discussion without even "siding" with any of the editors. Although Nightw has given arguments about content but that doesn't mean that every one on wikipedia is running a conspiracy against you. That is completely disruptive. You should assume good faith even if you have had disputes with editors on other articles. Even if you don't, simple allegations against an editor don't prove anything and instead you would uselessly become a party to the same. I've made my position clear in so many words, called an RFC on talk page, transcluded this discussion there and properly replied to you here so I won't comment on the topic for now. I agree with Nightw to call in an administrator to close the useless discussion and take action. This fits on you very accurately WP:FILIBUSTERS. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: TopGun, do you not have something substantial to add to the discussion. An editor was asking me for an elaboration of my earlier answer and I did so. As I said, it is demanded to assume good faith. You should do this too and stop throwing around all these nonsense allegations. It is getting annoying. JCAla (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added enough, thankyou. Your every reply is a flood rather than elaboration, anyway that is not for the admins to decide on. Actually this whole discussion is getting really annoying exactly per WP:FILIBUSTERS. I'm not throwing any allegations, I'm just calling a spade a spade which you can confirm here. I don't have anything else to say. This discussion should be speedily closed. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussin cannot be closed since it is 3 vs. 3. There is no consensus. It is funny how just some days ago you were insisting on continuing this discussion for a long period of time[93][94] (even placing a "not resolved" tag in the discussion) since the situation was 3 vs. 1 against you. JCAla (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not voting. I'm still insisting on resolving the issue but not by continuing discussion with you anymore (as if enough discussion - rather more than enough - has already not taken place) because there's nothing to say and time here is being wasted which all the good faith editors can use on other articles. Infact you should remember I'm the one who tagged an RFC, which takes the debate to the lengthiest level, before judging me on that. But after every one has made their case clear and RFC is not getting any comments, a forced closure would be the best option. You can keep counting your votes in the meanwhile. I'll wait for admin intervention or neutral editors' comments, till then I'm not replying to a reply to this so you can have the last word. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

JCAla, do not count me in these votes you keep announcing. This is not a vote, and I have not voted. I have presented to you the problems with your edits in regards to policy, which is what we do on this noticeboard. You appear to be unwilling to listen and are simply plastering the page with rants. You have now accused me of bias because you assume I disagree with the idea your sources are presenting. I have requested admin closure of this thread at AN. Nightw 14:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nightw, above you wrote "but xe's plainly disagreed with no elaboration". Now that I elaborated you write "plastering the page with rants". You seem to avoid addressing the arguments I made explaining to you the problems of your opinion regarding wikipedia policies. Never mind. I hope an administrator will be able to advice us where to solve this issue, since here it is obviously going nowhere. JCAla (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Outside point of view I've read this entire thing and I don't see why we are having this discussion. It is 1) Not verifiable that the Taliban and Pakistan are allies. None of the sources provided have used the word "Alliance", "Ally", or "Allies". Using the definition of the word "Ally" and finding sources that tailor to the definition is WP:SYNTH. It is 2) Verifiable that the Pakistan ISI has provided resources and training to the Taliban in the past and possibly presently. This should be described in the body of the article, not in the infobox, in a neutral way that attributes the assertions/claims to their source. This would bring the article in like with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Neither the lead nor info box should contain anything other than neutral facts that give a summary of the article.--v/r - TP 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I pointed out, but since I was reverted/opposed by 3 editors, this had to happen. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect, TP. These reliable sources have used the term "alliance" and "ally" for the current relationship between Pakistan and the Taliban:

• Institute for the Study of War: "useful ally and proxy force"
• Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies: "An unholy alliance: Pakistan and the Taliban"
• Henry Jackson Society: "Re-Emerging Alliance Between Taliban and Pakistani Military"

JCAla (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would disagree. I would say, especially given your sources, my statements are factually accurate. Your first source says, and I quote, "Elements within the Pakistani security establishment". That's not the Government in any official capacity. As far as source #2, you've represented that out of context. The source describes relations between Pakistan and the Taliban before US pressure in 2001 to severe ties. Source #3 suggests there is a "Re-Emerging Alliance" which appears to be a WP:CRYSTALBALL. So as I said, there is not a source that says "Pakistan is an ally of the Taliban" and any assertion fails WP:V. You need to find a source that literally says "Pakistan and the Taliban have hashed out a deal to become allies." Find that, and we can put it in the infobox. Anything else is WP:SYNTH. And ideally, the majority of current sources should support that there is an "alliance". It should be a mainstream viewpoint. A couple of sources that contradict the majority of sources is not enough to sway an entire article toward an "alliance" with Pakistan.

It would be giving WP:UNDUE weight toward a minority viewpoint. You can certainly discuss reemerging ties within the body of the article, but you cannot go into the infobox and assert as fact something that is held in the minority.--v/r - TP 18:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) JCAla, please read the comments that have been directed to you. The label "ally" and its variants is contentious, so you must use in-text attribution. You cannot do this in an infobox, where you shouldn't be adding contentious items to begin with. In addition, you appear to be looking for sources that agree with your POV. A handful of online links to sources you probably haven't read does not demonstrate widespread use. Please also familiarise yourself with WP:RS. The first and last of those don't say what you want them to, and the other (which I can't access) is a self-published source from a less-than-impartial author. Nightw 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

TP, I have to disagree. Source #1 refers to the ISI not the Pakistani government. The infobox states ISI. Source #2 is not only about pre-2001, you got that wrong. It states: "The book also analyses the resurgence of the Taliban masterminded by Pakistan's internal and geo strategic compulsions and their growing influence in the south of Afghanistan." And source #3 analyses in depth the "military alliance" if you read all of it. I also have a question as a majority of reliable sources - the mainstream sources - refer to the Taliban as "proxy", "asset", "instrument" and "supported", "armed" and "trained" by Pakistan. What do we then make of this? Do we just ignore it, because the specific term "alliance" was not used? JCAla (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes we do. We ignore it because to "infer" or "assume" or "make of" anything other than what is written is WP:SYNTH. Response to Source #1) Exactly. Response to Source #2) I quote "The subsequent fall out with Pakistan in the face of persistent US pressure, post September 11, 2001". Fall out...big emphasis on that please.--v/r - TP 19:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

...and on the fact that it isn't a reliable source. Nightw 19:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@TP, for this to not go in circles and FYI, me and Mar4d have replied to this in the comments above, especially to the assertion that "ISI is different from government of Pakistan" (which has jurisdiction over it) or that "ISI didn't deny involvement" and "rather the government and the military did". --lTopGunl (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Source #2: What does resurgence masterminded by Pakistan mean to you? You are very convinced that what you say is absolute truth, right, nothing else would explain your and Nightw's attitude ... big emphasis on attitude, please. This discussion is based on personal opinions, don't forget that. And if some other editors were involved in this discussion, it could go exactly the other way (as it did some days ago), don't forget that either. JCAla (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And that right there is why I asked for an AN interjection. You clearly have no concept of how this project works. There appears to be competency issues here. Nightw 19:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right. This is obviously going nowhere. Nightw, you had your own share of conflicts with wiki policy in the past, so please stop acting as some kind of "know-all" judge here. Your behaviour is ridiculous. Go, remove the ISI from the infobox. We will soon have plenty of reliable sources to make the infobox correspond more to reality. Until then, congrats, TopGun. JCAla (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not based on personal opinion. It's based on WP:POLICY. Specifically, WP:V and WP:NPOV. But let's just hypothetically agree for a moment that source #2 is legit and says everything you want it to say. The Pakistan and Taliban are in a full alliance, have been for years, share drinks at the pub on the weekends. What do you intend to do with it? You have but one (or a few if we hypothesize on the other two) that contradict many many others that say that the Pakistan government, the ISI and the Pakistan military are enemies of the Taliban. You cannot express a minority viewpoint as a majority one. That is WP:UNDUE weight. The most you can do is express in the body of the article these things that you've pointed out which is exactly what everyone has suggested that you do.--v/r - TP 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question, TP? Are you truly a member of the US armed forces? I could understand your point about the term "alliance" not being explicitly used. But how, the heck, do you come to the conclusion after the uncountable sources provided above, that the ISI is an enemy of the Afghan Taliban? JCAla (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am and I fully 100% agree with you that I personally think the Pakistani intelligence service is in league with the Taliban. That doesn't change anything here. On Wikipedia we don't write what we believe to be the truth. On Wikipedia, we write what the sources say. Do you get it now?--v/r - TP 20:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I get everything. The majority of sources says the ISI is supporting, arming and training the Afghan Taliban (to kill American soldiers and Afghans). Show me an equal amount of reliable sources which say the ISI is fighting the Afghan Taliban. And don't mistake the TTP for the Afghan Taliban. Also, don't be naive about wikipedia and what you just supported. JCAla (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you do. You've consistently shown that you lack understanding of WP:V where it says "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and WP:NPOV where it says "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views..." (emphasis mine). On Wikipedia, you are welcome to have you point of view. Ours obviously are in line on a personal level. But you cannot come here to express your opinion of The Truth. It is one of the five pillars of this encyclopedia. This is not where you can come to express your ideas or what you see between the lines of other sources. If you are not willing to contribute to the encyclopedia in this way, you're in the wrong spot. If you lack the ability to compartmentalize your opinions then you'll continue to have trouble contributing.--v/r - TP 20:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand. This is not about my point of view. This is about factual accuracy. I provided many, many reliable sources regarding this issue. The majority of reliable sources - not me - states that the ISI supports the Afghan Taliban. You have not shown me one single source for you claim that the majority of sources says the ISI is battling the Afghan Taliban. You can't, because it is not what most sources say. So, you are assuming things which you have provided no sources for and which you just claim to be true. Although, your claims contradict academic consensus. Additionally, you don't understand what you just supported because you are being naive about it. JCAla (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have yet again to remind you that the sources you've provided either make no mention of ally, allies, or alliance and/or are taken completely out of context. Further, you have not proved a mainstream viewpoint that there is an alliance. The burden of evidence is on you to prove that something exists. It is not on me to prove it doesn't. If you cannot understand Wikipedia policy, you are going to continue to hit these roadblocks.--v/r - TP 20:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources I provided speak of "support", "arming" and "training". In my view, and in the view of two other editors this makes the ISI an ally (as per common definition of that term) of the Afghan Taliban. You and three other editors however maintained that there needs to be the explicit term "alliance" used in the sources. I provided three sources which use this term. I have not taken them out of context and provided you with citations. You said this was not the mainstream view. And you were making allegations that something (ISI fighting the Afghan Taliban) is the mainstream view, which is not. It is actually not close to anything, neither verifiability, truth, nothing. That is why I challenged you to provide sources for your claims which you did not. Now, instead of proving your claims you again resort to unnecessary lecturing. JCAla (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"The sources I provided speak of "support", "arming" and "training". In my view, and in the view of two other editors this makes the ISI an ally (as per common definition of that term) of the Afghan Taliban." violates WP:SYNTH. Once you understand that, it will make the rest easier for you and everyone.--v/r - TP 21:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sources. Deepak Tripathi () Breeding Ground: Afghanistan and the Origins of Islamist Terrorism Potomac ISBN 1597975303 "EVOLUTION OF THE TALIBAN-ISI ALLIANCE" Amin Saikal (2006) Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival I.B.Tauris ISBN 1845113160 "the Taliban-al-Qaeda-ISI alliance." (2002) Australian journal of international affairs Volume 56 "the dangers of the Taliban-Al Qaeda-ISI alliance" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2011 (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.

This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, do not edit here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)