Talk:Pakistani Taliban/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

perception.. that the Tehrik i Taliban Pakistan... sponsored by the CIA

"There is a growing perception in Pakistan that the Tehrik i Taliban Pakistan are being sponsored by the CIA(http://www.daily.pk/politics/politicalnews/7296-general-kayani-must-not-blink-and-pakistans-taliban-are-cia.html)"

The source reads like an op-ed. The author speculates that the U.S. is backing TTP, among other various militant groups in NWFP, to destabilize Pakistan and keep the government weak. Furthermore, nowhere in the article does it state that there is a "growing perception" of CIA involvement. Unless a credible source is used, this remark should be removed.--RDavi404 (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Supporters and Allies

This section includes various militants that likely have ties to TTP, but the source cited does not make the connections. The section would be greatly improved by citations that explicitly point out a direct relationship.--RDavi404 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge

This article doesnt state much of the group (no history, no details) The only thing is the few attacks, which can be merged as a section into the TET Pakistan article as a section.Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement

"They are not directly affiliated with the Afghan Taliban, who receive support from Pakistani intelligence."
I see an issue with that statement and I think it should be modified or perhaps rephrased; Mar4d (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What issue do you exactly take with that statement? They are not directly affiliated. They don't have the same leadership. And the Afghan Taliban do not share in the TTP's prime mission which would be to engage in combat with the Pakistani army. The Afghan Taliban received and receive support from the ISI. JCAla (talk) 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this article could use a section that describes the nature of the relationship between the two groups. I think the best place for this would be under the "Supporters and Allies" heading.RDavi404 (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added a section for the relationship between the two Taliban groups. Please help expand. Thanks. RDavi404 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rdavi404, I think that might be a good idea. I have added some information but also moved the section to the history part since it is questionable if the Afghan Taliban fit under the term "allies". JCAla (talk) 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A few references cited in this article indicate that the TTP and the Taliban are allied. Three of the main leaders of the TTP declared allegiance to Mullah Omar after he appealed for their help in Afghanistan, and a spokesman told the AP in April 2009 that the Afghan Taliban, among others, are considered allies. Numerous references also indicate that the TTP is against NATO presence in Afghanistan. In light of these references, the Taliban should be listed among the allies.--RDavi404 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The TTP, as you pointed out, declared allegiance to Mullah Omar in his war against the Islamic Republic and NATO in Afghanistan. BUT, the Afghan Taliban in return are NOT allied with the TTP in the TTP's fight against the Pakistani army. And, whatever they declare, they do not obey Mullah Omar regarding Pakistan. Actions speak louder than words. If you list the Afghan Taliban as allies on the TTP article, then an unknowing reader is going to assume that the Afghan Taliban are fighting alongside or at least supporting the TTP against the Pakistani army. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Afghan Taliban themselves stated:

"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." 

JCAla (talk) 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That quote comes from a New York Times article entitled "Pakistan and Afghan Taliban Close Ranks" that discusses how the TTP leaders agreed to help the Afghan Taliban fight US troops in Afghanistan. To put that quote in context, the line right before reads "The Afghan Taliban routinely disavow any presence in Pakistan or connection to the Pakistani Taliban to emphasize that their movement is indigenous to Afghanistan."--RDavi404 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not change a thing. The message of the above quote still remains the same. As I wrote above, the TTP, as you pointed out, declared allegiance to Mullah Omar in his war against the Islamic Republic and NATO in Afghanistan. BUT, the Afghan Taliban in return are NOT allied with the TTP in the TTP's fight against the Pakistani state and army - which has indeed been the prime and foremost focus of the TTP. It would be really misleading to add the Afghan Taliban as allies on the TTP article which discusses the TTP's goals. The Afghan Taliban simply are not fighting the Pakistani state and army. There are plenty of New York Times articles. One is entitled "Insurgents Share a Name, but Pursue Different Goals". An Afghan Taliban commader stated the following about the TTP's campaign:

“ There will not be any support from us. ”

It doesn't get any clearer than that. The New York Times article further states:

" ... they have such different histories, structures and goals that the common name may be more misleading than illuminating, some regional specialists say. ...

At stake is not just semantics. Grasping the differences between the two Taliban forces ... is crucial to understanding ...

"To be honest, the Taliban commanders and groups on the ground in Afghanistan couldn’t care less what’s happening to their Pakistani brothers across the border," said Mr. Strick van Linschoten, who has interviewed many current and former members of the Afghan Taliban.

In fact, the recent attacks of the Pakistani Taliban against Pakistan’s government, military and police, in anticipation of the army’s current campaign into the Pakistani Taliban’s base in South Waziristan, may have strained relations with the Afghan Taliban, said Richard Barrett, a former British intelligence officer who tracks Al Qaeda and the Taliban for the United Nations. The Afghan Taliban have always had a close relationship with Pakistani intelligence agencies, Mr. Barrett said recently. "They don’t like the way that the Pakistan Taliban has been fighting the Pakistan government and causing a whole load of problems there," he said.

... an Afghan Taliban commander expressed sympathy for the Pakistani Taliban, but said, "There will not be any support from us." He said the Afghan Taliban "don’t have any interest in fighting against other countries." "Our aim was, and is, to get the occupation forces out and not to get into a fight with a Muslim [Pakistani] army," the commander added.

Also, consider the following from a Newsweek article:

"Pakistan’s ongoing support of the Afghan Taliban is anything but news to insurgents ... Requesting anonymity for security reasons, many of them readily admit their utter dependence on the country’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) not only for sanctuary and safe passage but also, some say, for much of their financial support. The logistics officer, speaking at his mud-brick compound near the border, offers an unverifiable estimate that Pakistan provides roughly 80 percent of the insurgents’ funding, based on his conversations with other senior Taliban. He says the insurgents could barely cover their expenses in Kandahar province alone if not for the ISI. ...

[Afghan] Taliban sources say Pakistan uses catch-and-release tactics to keep [Afghan Taliban] insurgent leaders in line. All told, the ISI has picked up some 300 [Afghan] 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 [Afghan] 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.

Some leading [Afghan] Taliban even suspect that Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader and symbol of their jihad, may also be in ISI custody. He has appeared in no videos and issued no verifiable audio messages or written statements since he disappeared into the Kandahar mountains on the back of Baradar’s motorcycle in late 2001. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the ISI arrested us all in one day,” says a former [Afghan] cabinet minister. “We are like sheep the Pakistanis can round up whenever they want.”"

JCAla (talk) 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The NY Times article just indicates that the Afghan Taliban will not be assisting the TTP in attacking the Pakistani government. It does not indicate that they do not welcome support against NATO in Afghanistan from the TTP, a goal that both groups share. One of the analysts quoted states that TTP attacks against Pakistan "strained relations" between the two groups, which would seem to indicate some level of cooperation.

The Newsweek article doesn't even mention the Pakistani Taliban at all. On the contrary, it describes how Pakistan uses the Afghan Taliban to pursue its own foreign policy interests. With Pakistan's "catch-and-release tactics" to keep the Afghan Taliban "in line," the article describes a less than friendly relationship between Pakistan and the Mullah Omar's group.

The whole crux of your argument is that since Pakistan supports the Afghan Taliban, there's no possible way that the Afghan Taliban is allied with the TTP, who have anti-Islamabad objectives. However, since no reliable source explicitly states a less-than-cooperative relationship, this belief constitutes original research. The fact that the three main TTP leaders swore allegiance in a written statement to Mullah Omar after he appealed for TTP help in Afghanistan is concrete evidence of an allied relationship.

--RDavi404 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• "One of the analysts quoted states that TTP attacks against Pakistan "strained relations" between the two groups, which would seem to indicate some level of cooperation."

That is an interpretation and constitutes original research on your part.

• "The Newsweek article doesn't even mention the Pakistani Taliban at all. On the contrary, it describes how Pakistan uses the Afghan Taliban to pursue its own foreign policy interests."

Exactly. The Pakistani army controls the Afghan Taliban according to the article. Any Afghan Taliban leader not working according to Pakistani army interests is either killed or captured - again according to the article.

• "...no reliable source explicitly states a less-than-cooperative relationship, this belief constitutes original research."

Very untrue. Two New York Times articles explicitly quote Afghan Taliban leaders as not supportive of the TTP. One stating: "We don’t like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ..." The other stating: "There will not be any support from us [for the TTP]." The Afghan Taliban do not want to "get into a fight with" the Pakistani army. The New York times article also says that the TTP are "causing a whole load of problems" and that the Afghan Taliban "commanders and groups on the ground in Afghanistan couldn’t care less what’s happening to their Pakistani brothers across the border". Whether true or not, that is what the New York Times (considered reliable) writes.

• "The whole crux of your argument is that since Pakistan supports the Afghan Taliban, there's no possible way that the Afghan Taliban is allied with the TTP, who have anti-Islamabad objectives."

No, that's not my argument. The TTP's alleged allegiance to the Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar does not justify listing the Afghan Taliban as the TTP's allies when the Afghan Taliban do not actively support the TTP's main campaign in Pakistan and have publicly rejected any involvement with the TTP. Listing the Afghan Taliban as allies on the TTP article would make them allies in the TTP's campaign in Pakistan.

The TTP has two distinct goals: 1) engage the Pakistani army in combat and 2) officially replace the Pakistani army as the ruling power in specific areas. That were the very objectives the TTP was created for. These objectives could serve a variety of purposes - we do not know. So, we got to stick to what we know.

There are no known instances in which the main Afghan Taliban leaders Mullah Omar, Siraj Haqqani or Hezb-i Islami's Gulbuddin Hekmatyar have 1) engaged the Pakistani army in combat or 2) tried to contest the ruling power of the Pakistani army inside of Pakistan, not even inside of Afghanistan. There are no reports that the TTP have received fighters, weapons or financial support from the Afghan Taliban. Leading Afghan Taliban have publicly said, "There will not be any support from us." In fact, Mullah Omar, Haqqani and Hekmatyar are controlled by the Pakistani army. Consequently, considering the TTP's main focus on Pakistan not Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban should not be listed as an ally on the TTP article.

Now, if you could show me evidence that the Afghan Taliban are actively involved in the TTP's campaign inside Pakistan, then I would agree about them being listed as allies. But as long as reports show the Afghan Taliban being as heavily reliant on the Pakistani army that "the Pakistanis can round [them] up whenever they want" (to quote the Newsweek article), there is no reason to give the impression to the unknowing reader that the Afghan Taliban would dare challenging the Pakistani army on Pakistani territory. Afghan Taliban commanders like Mullah Baradar can't even negotiate independently from Pakistan with their own Afghan government. If they do so (like Baradar tried to do) they are arrested by the ISI in a matter of hours (see Baradar). JCAla (talk) 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that we won't reach agreement on this so I am requesting mediation. I hope you'll agree.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here is my attempt to reconcile both points of view. I have changed the title of the section "Supporters and allies" to "Relations with other militant groups." I would agree that since the groups debated are less than monolithic and since alliances are constantly shifting in this part of the world, "Supporters and allies" is probably too constrictive. Furthermore, I believe that the sentence "The Afghan Taliban have no direct affiliation with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and routinely deny any connection to the TTP" could accommodate both view points if it is modified to state "Although the TTP has claimed allegiance with the Afghan Taliban on several occasions, the two groups have no direct affiliation and the Afghan Taliban routinely deny any connection." (with references of course).--RDavi404 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your idea about the new section/name. But I changed the sentence you proposed slightly to: "Although the TTP has claimed allegiance with the Afghan Taliban in the Afghan Taliban's insurgency in Afghanistan, the two groups have no direct affiliation and the Afghan Taliban are not involved in the TTP's combat operations against the Pakistani army. JCAla (talk) 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Support from Pakistan

I challenge JCala's argument that the Taliban still recieve support from ISI/Pakistan Army. That fact is largely dubious and disputed. Wikipedia is not here to promote POV; American journals are hardly the authentic and primary source when it comes to showing a "balanaced" coverage. Anyone with some knowledge of the Afghan War would also know that the Government of Pakistan categorically denies providing support to the Afghan Taliban (whether you consider that claim as genuine is your own opinion and if propagated here, it charges into WP:OR territory). Before you come up with a new counter-argument, here's a read from The Long War Journal titled Afghan Taliban deny being supported by Pakistan; read the first and last sections in particular. For your own interest, this same source also states the following: "The Afghan Taliban teamed up with Pakistani Taliban factions and maintain safe havens and training camps in Pakistan to this day." Mar4d (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read your own source in its entirety? Because in case you have not let me quote the following from the source you provided above:

Direct Pakistani support for the Taliban has been an open secret for years. The Pakistani government, through the ISI, helped 
found the Taliban and helped it gain power during the 1990s. Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as 
a legitimate government.

After the US ousted Mullah Omar from power in 2001 and 2002 ... The Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban's executive council, is 
named after the Pakistani city where it is based. The ISI, through the Haqqani Network, is known to have directed suicide 
operations against the Indian Embassy and other targets in Kabul. Several Pakistani military officers have been detained inside 
Afghanistan in connection with terrorist attacks on Afghan soil, while numerous Afghan Taliban commanders have admitted to 
receiving support from the Pakistani military over the past several years.

JCAla (talk) 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not challenging whether Pakistan provided support to the Afghan Taliban. I am challenging whether they still do, and again, that would be disputed given the role the Pakistan Army is currently supposed to be playing in the War on Terror. Mar4d (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Read the second quote (from your source) provided above. It is about today. JCAla (talk) 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really doubt that at least certain elements within the Pakistani state continue to provide some level of support to the Afghan Taliban. However, since this article is discussing the TTP, ISI and Afghan Taliban links really only deserve passing mention on this article. Long detailed reports about ISI involvement with the Taliban belong on the Taliban article and any debates on the level of involvement belong on its discussion page as well.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cross-border attacks

First the issue needs to be discussed in the article, because it is a long issue. Then, we can see if we find a sentence that fits everyone for the lead. I ask you to move the bold content yourself, Mar4d, and add it to the article. JCAla (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A fair suggestion. Maybe a short subsection can be created focusing on safe havens inside Afghanistan and a bit on TTP commanders + militants moving back and forth into Afghanistan. An appropriate sentence which complies with WP:DUE within the lead accordingly becomes relevant (I've added one and will find more sources). Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That whole paragraph in the lead has bothered me for some time because it strings together two completely unrelated sentences. I support adding a subsection on the topic of TTP safe havens in Afghanistan and additionally propose that another section be created to address Pakistani military efforts against the TTP.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the short paragraph on Afghanistan was too wordy and sort of overdoing weight in the lead. That's why I've tried to reduce it into a single, concise sentence. You're welcome to improve and make modifications of the sentence's tone and help it reach perfection. Mar4d (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with RDavi. A sentence in the lead, not until the content is added to the article body. Then we can see if all points can be addressed in one sentence. JCAla (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Added a new subsection as proposed by RDavi. JCAla (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just took a look at the section. It looks fine though there are some issues with the content - related to relevance (I stress this point in particular), the title (Afghanistan-based militants moving back and forth across the border is hardly a controversy or anything unusual), context as well as NPOV and the tone of language which I'd like to point out when I'll be free. Otherwise, good job. Mar4d (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that you merged the subsection into the Afghan Taliban section. Was there a particular rationale for that? Mar4d (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is about TTP allegedly moving into Afghan Taliban-controlled areas. Also, part of the content had already been placed under Afghan Taliban before I moved it. So I moved it back to that section where it fits best as other editors had also correctly placed it there. JCAla (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Execution of 15 Pakistani soldiers

Why was this section removed? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a better question is: why does this incident merit it's own subsection under "Claimed and alleged attacks"?--RDavi404 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the same question as Rdavi from my side. JCAla (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I placed the incident back in order with the rest of the section. I fail to see how this incident is any more significant than any of the other previous attacks. Also, I removed the commented out sources since they seemed to be rehashing the same story and were only adding clutter. If needed they can be retrieved from the history. Thanks,--RDavi404 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. JCAla (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article project

Shall we seek a peer review first? Cheers, JCAla (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. The article should benefit from having a fresh set of eyes reviewing it.--RDavi404 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review has been requested.--RDavi404 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see already that we will have to check the references. JCAla (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mangal Bagh?

Are Mangal Bagh and Lashkar-e-Islam part of the TTP? If wouldn't surprise me if they are, but neither of the articles nor the refs seem to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavi404 (talk • contribs) 19:40, August 25, 2012‎

I don't think LI is part of TTP, recent news stories in fact say the opposite that TTP local chapter of Khyber agency and LI are fighting with each other. --SMS ^Talk 20:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This profile of Bagh indicates that he has made efforts to distance himself from the TTP. Accordingly, I will move his name from "Current" to "Pakistani Taliban but not allied to TTP."--RDavi404 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2012

Tehrik-e-Taliban Spokesman for Darra Adam Khel and Khyber Agency Mohammad Afridi

Reference: http://dawn.com/2012/12/23/bashir-bilour-assassinated-%E2%80%A2secretary-7-others-die-in-blast-%E2%80%A2ttp-claims-responsibility-%E2%80%A2govt-declares-day-of-mourning/

Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you want changed? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Links with Foreign Secret Services

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) are funding Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) for terrorist activities in Pakistan

The sole source for that article is a statement by the Pakistani government, hardly a neutral source, particularly given the widespread reporting elsewhere that the Pakistani government financially supports TTP. 153.31.113.20 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Links

>> Pakistan PM pushes for talks with Taliban>> Pakistan and the Taliban: To talk or fight? >> Pakistani politicians snub Taliban talks >> Pakistan-Taliban peace talks delayed >> Pakistani government and Taliban hold talks >> Pakistan Taliban sets tough terms for peace>> Pakistan halts talks with Taliban >> Pakistani Taliban announces month-long truce (Lihaas (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)).

Flag

Could the TPP flag be used on this article? This is the official TTP website with a screenshot: http://www.dawn.com/news/1098058 It's similar to the Afghan Taliban flag. StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling: Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan vs. Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan

I'm accustomed to seeing the name of group spelled in English as "Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan" (with an "e" not followed by a hyphen), rather than "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" (with an "i" followed by a hyphen). The former is the spelling overwhelmingly used by U.S. Government agencies; for example, all references to the group on nctc.gov and fbi.gov use the E spelling, with one exception each, and on state.gov, the E spelling is preferred over the I spelling by a ratio of more than 10 to 1. In U.S. media, the E spelling is more common as well: for example, it's preferred on nytimes.com by a ratio of 9 to 1. Can anyone clarify why this article (except one footnote) uses the I spelling? Is that a British spelling, or perhaps the spelling used in English-language sources within Pakistan? (My initial checks of British media show that thetimes.co.uk and guardian.co.uk seem to use the E and I spellings with equal frequency, a puzzling oversight in their otherwise consistent editing.) For what it's worth, TTP's own official website launched in April 2014 spells their name "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan," but I'm reluctant to rely on that because it appears in English only once and whoever wrote it also misspelled "Offical" (sic). 153.31.113.20 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100210101650/http://thenews.com.pk:80/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27020 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27020
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110227070035/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2011%5C02%5C21%5Cstory_21-2-2011_pg7_14 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\02\21\story_21-2-2011_pg7_14
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120325164108/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Pakistani-Taliban-training-Frenchmen-Officials/articleshow/12403827.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Pakistani-Taliban-training-Frenchmen-Officials/articleshow/12403827.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091125015145/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/updates.asp?id=69346 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=69346
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090821132544/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-maulvi-faqeer-is-acting-tehrik-i-taliban-chief-qs-11 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-maulvi-faqeer-is-acting-tehrik-i-taliban-chief-qs-11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090822053543/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2009%5C08%5C20%5Cstory_20-8-2009_pg7_4 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\08\20\story_20-8-2009_pg7_4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090825001536/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-rifts-as-pakistani-taliban-deputy-claims-leadership-qs-10 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-rifts-as-pakistani-taliban-deputy-claims-leadership-qs-10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090826200323/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/03-doubts-remain-as-hakeemullah-annnounced-new-leader-ss-07 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/03-doubts-remain-as-hakeemullah-annnounced-new-leader-ss-07
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091109081440/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2009%5C08%5C23%5Cstory_23-8-2009_pg1_5 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\08\23\story_23-8-2009_pg1_5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101224230305/http://twq.com/11winter/docs/11winter_Siddiqa.pdf to http://www.twq.com/11winter/docs/11winter_Siddiqa.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100704070110/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-vengeful+new+militant+group+emerges+in+pakistan-hs-02 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-vengeful+new+militant+group+emerges+in+pakistan-hs-02
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090425043059/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2009%5C04%5C22%5Cstory_22-4-2009_pg1_1 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\22\story_22-4-2009_pg1_1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723235021/http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics?post_id=669 to http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics?post_id=669
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100601185703/http://www.ctc.usma.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinel-Vol2Iss4.pdf to http://www.ctc.usma.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinel-Vol2Iss4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110209194551/http://www.aei.org/outlook/100967 to http://www.aei.org/outlook/100967
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081110092255/http://www.dawn.com:80/2008/11/07/top1.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2008/11/07/top1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091008022442/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20091006/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091006/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091015061727/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20091012/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100711065502/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-mohmand-blast-qs-02 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-mohmand-blast-qs-02
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140224171737/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hwlsR4rmwXZZP-C3GX36_jO4KuNQ?docId=CNG.8d52d8a6dba835c4ac54aab3f3c8031b.651 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hwlsR4rmwXZZP-C3GX36_jO4KuNQ?docId=CNG.8d52d8a6dba835c4ac54aab3f3c8031b.651

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100704070110/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-vengeful+new+militant+group+emerges+in+pakistan-hs-02 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-vengeful+new+militant+group+emerges+in+pakistan-hs-02
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723235021/http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics?post_id=669 to http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics?post_id=669
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110623145145/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/daily_detail.asp?id=196050 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=196050
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090830133459/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/provinces/pre-iftar+suicide+blast+kills+22+border+guards to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/provinces/pre-iftar+suicide+blast+kills+22+border+guards
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101207135600/http://www.dawn.com:80/2010/12/06/eight-killed-in-mohmand-explosion.html to http://www.dawn.com/2010/12/06/eight-killed-in-mohmand-explosion.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141104222736/http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=4183&Cat=13&dt=23%20February%202011 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=4183&Cat=13&dt=23%20February%202011
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140224171312/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jpHEdPNWU78d3sNXQ_h-pox3xx4w?docId=0c131bbba3c84900a1f7f1d26f4b4298 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jpHEdPNWU78d3sNXQ_h-pox3xx4w?docId=0c131bbba3c84900a1f7f1d26f4b4298
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140224171309/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hiq2yiR9QpCxQIK5SBvvbYu8bgVg?docId=4cf68cfd30c7403d8bb0ed5ecf6a9c43 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hiq2yiR9QpCxQIK5SBvvbYu8bgVg?docId=4cf68cfd30c7403d8bb0ed5ecf6a9c43

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100704070110/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-vengeful+new+militant+group+emerges+in+pakistan-hs-02 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-vengeful+new+militant+group+emerges+in+pakistan-hs-02
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723235021/http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics?post_id=669 to http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics?post_id=669

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

([1] doesn't work. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC))

Verifiability of sources

The article cited a Youtube video [2] which itself is not recommended. Moreover, the video claims that its video of Hagel giving a speech in Oklahoma's Cameron University however Hagel is shown against a black background and video appears to be doctored. This video was not reported by any verifiable source. However, even the content of so called speech says :

'India for some time has always used Afghanistan as a second front, and India has over the years financed problems with Pakistan on that side of the border. And you can carry that into many dimensions, the point being [that] the tense, fragmented relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been there for many, many years.'

The speech is about Indian and Pakistani race for gaining strategic foothold and influence in Afghanistan.

On the other hand wiki article quoted the above 'source' and wrote that :

'India has over the years financed terrorists activities to increase problems for Pakistan on that side of the border'

Removed. Collagium. You may speak. 02:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted a poorly explained informationectomy...

An anonymous IP excised considerable material, offering an angry edit summary as their only explanation.

Only simple and non-controversial edits should be solely explained by an edit summary. Complicated or controversial edits require their explanations on the talk page, or occasionally, some other fora. Complicated or controversial edits trigger disagreement, and represent a huge temptation for those who disagree to offer their rebuttal in their edit summary, when they revert the edit.

The result is an instant edit war.

I reverted the edit and look forward to the contributor who made it returning here to offer a more detailed and less angry explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Placement of Afghanistan and India as allies of TTP

It appears that some editors have placed Afghanistan and India in the "allies" section. There are even claims that Pakistan supports the TTP too. But when I tried to add it, it was deleted claiming it was not a "reliable source". Then when someone else removed Afghanistan and India, their edit was reverted. How is this neutral? And why should Pakistan's claims be given importance over others?Apollo4659 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Its absolute nonsense and makes no sense since both the Afghan & Pakistani Taliban are enemies of Afghanistan and see the current Afghan government as illegitimate. Why would the Afghan government support the TTP when both are against each other? Its obviously been inserted by a Pakistani user with a weak source. I don't want to touch it though since i might get an edit warning. Akmal94 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Real Truth Behind

They are not Pakistani Organization, actually this group is created by those people who are not from Pakistan, and they only want chaos and bloodshed in Pakistan, they even don't know any slightest basics about Islam or Quran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saman Reyasat (talk • contribs) 06:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Improper map depiction

The map used shows the boundaries of India and Pakistan in an incorrect fashion. The map needs to be removed or altered to show the areas of PAK and Gilgit baltistan as DISPUTED Dr. Blu MBBS (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Flag of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2021

Please change the second instance of <ref name="LWJ-17Aug2020"> to <ref name="LWJ-17Aug2020"/> without the "cite web". The ref is expanded twice, leading to an error message. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:94BE:73E1:CC01:3A46 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Living Concrete (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Future of Taliban doctrines in central Asian countries

Where it will lead Khalil Hyder (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Outdated & incorrect Information

Under the heading "INVOLVEMENT IN THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR" it is mentioned "Tahreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is anti-Pakistan and Afghan Taliban are struggling to end the foreign occupation of Afghanistan"; while we all now know Taliban has ended foreign occupation in Afghanistan similarly, TTP fled pakistan during the Operation Zarb-e-Azb. 2.50.54.209 (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-protected?

Why is this article extended-protected? There have not been much disruptive edits. There was just an edit war between 51412techno and Lightspecs. Even the Islamic State (ISIS) article is not extended-protected. Please change this to just protected.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

Add the state allies of the TTP back to the infobox. They were in the article (and as you can see their inclusion was well sourced) until they were removed for some reason. Cipher21 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please obtain a consensus in favor. Although I suggest against that: it will be a certain way to get blocked/banned for disruption. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Of the five supporting sources, four are from the defense establishment of Pakistan. The profile from CISAC used to have, Pakistan's security agencies allege that TTP is financially assisted by foreign intelligence agencies such as RAW. However, the line is missing from the current profile. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

All of these are from the defense establishment of Pakistan?... Cipher21 (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You had proposed to [a]dd the state allies. The version you pointed to had India among them, whose supporting sources I dissected. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So you have no objections to adding Afghanistan back? Cipher21 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not acquainted enough (unlike in the case of India) to make a determination. Despite this, I foresee the change to be controversial and won't enact the edits without a favorable RFC.

@Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning: If either of you will like to execute the changes wrt Afghanistan. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Cipher21 needs to propose here what he wants to add and obtain consensus. Filing an edit request to reinstate deleted content is cheeky. If it gets reported to admins they will take a dim view of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A quick search and found https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-militants-idUSKBN17S1VN Jawadjee7 (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Should the state supporters of the Taliban be added back to the infobox? (RFC)

Should the state supporters of the Taliban be added back to the infobox? If so, in which format?

• Option 1: Afghanistan, India
  
• Option 2: Afghanistan, India (alleged) or (alleged, denied)

Cipher21 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Afghan support (neutral): Afghan & Indian support (per Taliban spokesperson Ehsanullah Ehsan): Afghan & Indian support (per Taliban commander Latifullah Mehsud): Indian support (neutral): Indian support (per UAE security officials, Wikileaks): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipher21 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Indian support (allegations by Pakistan): Indian support for terrorism in Pakistan in general (per US SecDef):

Cipher21 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) IMO it's absolutely clear that it should be limited to Afghanistan Infoboxes are useful for slam-dunk facts that 90%+ agree on. They are a big problem for others because they consist of brief, categorical unqualified statements without all of the wording necessary to properly handle these. So, based on that, the answer regarding infoboxes is When doubt, leave it out Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@North8000:, it's slightly unclear what you propose should be limited to Afghanistan. As 90%+ agree on the fact that there is alleged support from India, do you believe option 2 is the best? (many militant infoboxes use "alleged.") Or do you want to omit India altogether? Cipher21 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for India, no comments about Afghanistan:

• There is not a single high-quality source which establishes links between TTP and India. Pakistan Govt. (or Pakistani media) claiming fancy stuff does not matter and it is beyond ridiculous to take an ex-spokesmen, who "surrendered", at face value. What Cipher21—true to his subtle brand of POV pushing—skips is that the neutral source of Foreign Policy noted, A Washington South Asia expert, among others, wrote to dispute the allegation made by a former U.S. intelligence official cited in the piece that India is aiding the Taliban, although he said such support may be going to other anti-Pakistan insurgent groups. Sec. Hagel did not anything about TTP and hence, is irrelevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bharat Karnad on Hindustan Times is not a high quality source? And after threatening people with blocks for seeking consensus you've started labelling other editors as POV-pushers? Cipher21 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• I do not recall threatening you with blocks; it was an intimation that you might be sanctioned if you continued with your POV-pushing barely masked in attempts to seek consensus. Karnad is (obviously) not; let him make the claims in some peer-reviewed literature, of which there is no scarcity on our subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose India per User:North8000. The sourcing for India is not very strong: Taliban spokespeople and claims attributed to various other countries' officials. The sourcing for Afghanistan is somewhat better as the claims are attributed to Afghan government officials. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 The fact that India is alleged to have supported TTP or various other anti-state militant outfits is a no-brainer and common knowledge. Likewise, that India denies providing such support is also nothing surprising. Isn't that exactly what Option 2 states? So what are we exactly trying to discuss? Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Pakistan alleges a lot of things, most of which turn out to be ...... So, please cite independent sources (preferably, scholars) who confirm India to have aided our subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Read Option 2 again. It establishes exactly what I said above – that there's an allegation and denial of the said support. The "confirmation" means nothing, because that implies Option 1. Mar4d (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Allegations by unreliable sources mean nothing. Adding India here, especially in the form of (alleged, denied) would be inaccurate - The current situation is (alleged by unreliable sources, denied by reliable sources, denied by nation). To me, thats not something to be added into the infobox. The "allegations" have been covered in the article already, even though most of them are random claims unsupported by fact.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp You're giving far too much weight to the "denied by nation". There's also the "alleged by nation". Wikipedia states facts, not opinions. The fact is that there's an allegation made by a government, and a denial by another government. The rest is all conjecture and opinion. The only neutral option in this case is Option 2 "(alleged, denied)". It's not your or my domain to decide which government's claim is "reliable". That's not Wikipedia's agenda. Mar4d (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated allegations are little more than slander - Unless Indian involvement is a major theory, stating it in the infobox is not helpful to the reader and lends false weight by equating the accusations and denials in a simplistic manner. And yes, Wikipedia does decide which claim is more reliable - And it does so by looking at RS. As for your desire for a "neutral version", read up WP:FALSEBALANCE. When one side makes claims with barely anything to back them up, Wikipedia does not need to still try and balance both sides. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Mar4d, I had requested you to cite independent sources (preferably, scholars) who confirm India to have aided our subject - where are they?

Jack Sparrow, good points about False Balance. Pakistan Govt., an involved party, claiming something—with no support from either academics or IR pundits or even other governments—ought not bind us into carrying them at the infobox. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp and TrangaBellam: Sorry, I don't buy it. The "denials" in question are from the government of India (GoI), a non-third party itself. WP:FALSEBALANCE is for viewpoints upon which there is "consensus of opinion". Please point me to the said "consensus" – an internationally accepted, stated position, preferably non-government, non-Indian, and unreservedly accepted by all independent scholars, that irrefutably supports the GoI position. There is zilch. Asking to "substantiate" the GoP position (or for that matter its counterpart) is in itself a fallacy, firstly because we're not on a mission to prove or disprove tenability of government positions, and secondly because it just confirms you didn't read Option 2. The only requirement for Option 2 is to determine whether or not there is an allegation, as per GoP or non-GoP sources, e.g. Kiessling. The "denial", also in brackets, accounts for the opposing perspectives. I would suggest you both kindly scroll up and read the "Options" again. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose India per TrangaBellum and North8000. Not familiar with afghan activities, but given what is there in this article the allegations seem weak enough to not be included either. Infobox is supposed to give an overview - If the allegations contain little to no substance, the proposed format would be extremely misleading to a reader. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022

malakand and muweilah northern areas of pakistan Fl1cky1738 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Denial of link by Afghan Taliban

@Khestwol: I don't see Dawn listed at RSP, and our article on it describes it as a paper of record. Besides, they are just passing on the words of Zabihullah Mujahid, who is obviously qualified to give the IEA's official positions. He says in the interview:

"They are not, as an organisation, part of IEA and we don’t share the same objectives... The IEA stance is that we do not interfere in other countries’ affairs. We do not interfere in Pakistan’s affairs."

Including this information doesn't say anything about what's happening in practice, but it's clear they deny any cooperation. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What you are doing seems WP:OR to be honest. I think we need a better source to claim that the Afghan Taliban deny that they are allies with the Pakistani Taliban/TTP. Dawn is not even listed on WP:RSPSS and is not considered very reliable. Also, the wording at Dawn is ambiguous, which merely denies that the TTP is not a branch/part of the Afghan Taliban. Everyone knows they are not a branch but they are allies, as corroborated by Al Jazeera, VoA, and others. We need an *explicit* reliable source before making the extraordinary claim that they are "not allies". Khestwol (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you read anything I wrote? I didn't make the claim they're "not allies", I in fact explicitly said that's not what I was doing. They are allies. I'm not disputing that. All I said is the Taliban deny they are allies, which is true, and not OR. How can they be allies when the Afghan Taliban say they "do not share the same objectives" and they "do not interfere in Pakistan's affairs", and has publicly called on the TTP to "seek peace" with the Pakistani government [3]. You are not making sense. And not being listed in RSP says nothing about a source's reliability. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

So is there no better source? Khestwol (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the original interview in Arab News. It is just an interview, they are not verifying the accuracy of Mujahid's claims. But they do reflect the official position of the IEA, as he is the top spokesperson of the IEA. Again, the Afghan Taliban is still described as an ally. I didn't change that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, but if we are necessarily going to use these sources in the infobox, then at best we may write that the Afghan Taliban say they *don't share the same objectives*. Because there is a very big difference between that and the claim that the Afghan Taliban *deny being allies*. Because they are giving shelter to them after all. Khestwol (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

They didn't just say they don't share the same objectives, they also called on them to make peace with the Pakistani government and said they "do not interfere in Pakistan's affairs". That is a denial that they are helping them in any way. They're lying, but the official stance still needs to be communicated. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I added "publicly" to make clear they could still have agreements behind the scenes. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Both your sources (Dawn and Arab News Pakistan) are weak, because media in Pakistan (and Saudi Arabia) is highly censored and biased. (Arab News PK is not the main Arab News btw, it is a Pakistani version.) As the claim made in the infobox is about the Afghan Taliban "publicly" denying being allies, the least we can do is use an Afghan mainstream media source, if a generally reliable source is unavailable. Khestwol (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It's the chief spokesman of the Islamic Emirate making these comments. He is qualified to give their official position. I don't get what's hard to understand about that. Are you suggesting that Arab News faked the contents of the interview? Because if so, I'd imagine we would've heard about that by now. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The comments may be true. But the interpretation of it out of context may be wrong. Al Jazeera, AFP and other generally reliable sources repeatedly say the two groups are allies. So that interpretation contradicts what generally reliable sources have been saying. Khestwol (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly that giving their official public stance is NOT an endorsement of the idea that they are not actually allies. But it does give important context to their relationship. That you are continuing to bring up this WP:STRAWMAN argument is frustrating given that I have said multiple times that I consider them to be allies. Again, if they are listed as an "Ally" in the infobox, that means they're an ally! But they have a right to deny it. War infoboxes on Wikipedia have always included a denial if there is one. None of this is contradicting any of these other sources, only adding new information. The Taliban is still the top ally in the infobox. Do not misrepresent what I'm arguing. All this is doing is communicating to readers that their cooperation is covert, rather than overt. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Even the Wikipedia article on the Kramatorsk railway station attack states that Russia denies responsibility, because it's an important fact in itself. This is despite the fact that the article states unambiguously that Russia *did* do the attack. I get that you are opposed to the Taliban, that is very understandable. But putting in the article that they are lying about helping the TTP actually makes them look worse, not better, because it exposes their duplicity. I should not have gotten so heated, and I apologize. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) KevinNov3 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan → Pakistani Taliban – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and more WP:RECOGNIZABLE, especially for English-speakers. Supported by Google News search by a good margin, where "Pakistani Taliban" gets 33,800 results, but "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" gets only 6,130 results. Also supported by Google Books search, with more English books mentioning "Pakistani Taliban." And on Google search, "Pakistani Taliban" gets 520,000 results, but "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" gets only 86,400 results. And lastly, this Wikipedia article itself, mentions "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" only 16 times, but mentions "Pakistani Taliban" as much as 52 times. Khestwol (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Opposite, this organization’s name in UNSC and Pakistan government also use Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in English. 45.137.148.244 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. IP, please read WP:OFFICIAL. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:02, 10 May 2022 (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.