Talk:Republican insurgency in Afghanistan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox

To only put the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" in the Belligerents section is misleading. The republic is factuallöy defunct; it only exists as a rallying point for several pro-republican / anti-Taliban groups. The actual belligerents are, as of now, the NRF and the Hazara groups. Both operate without contact to each other. The Hazaras are already covered in the unit section as well - see "Pro-republican militias in Wardak and Daikundi". Applodion (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you ever heard of the case of Taiwan, but as long as the republic still controls territory, it still exists technically, even if as a rump state. I don't think it is misleading, as the situation somewhat resembles the case between Republic of China and People's Republic of China, which the ROC still maintains effective control over one single province of China technically. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan still exists as a rump state, at least throughout the Panjshir battle. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan is literally the worst comparison you could take; Taiwan still has an entire government, landmass, economy, military, etc.. The Islamic Republic has no land left, no functioning government, no economy. It only has some supportive militias. You know, dozens upon dozens of articles for military conflicts include certain armed groups in the "Belligerents" section for this very reason - even if they are affiliated with a country / state. As you got into a lot of conflicts over infoboxes previously (judging from your talk page), I feel like that your position in this regard is not widely shared. Applodion (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the Hazara groups are indpendent because the sources cited in the article say so. Applodion (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No land left? The Panjshir Province doesn't exist? And don't make judgements out of your own personal feelings. This is Wikipedia. I don't see anybody else who support your position yet. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You know that the Panjshir Province was controlled by the NRF, right? The NRF was formally led by Saleh, the self-proclaimed President of the Republic, but it was not a replica of the republic. The republic itself did not govern Panjshir Province because it had collapsed when Kabul fell. Applodion (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Independent. So I did respect their nature of independence. I didn't put them under the NRF. I put them under the 'independent militia' section. Please pay attention. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Your organization of the units section is a complete mess. You put the NRF as the one under which the remnants of the armed forces are grouped, despite the fact that ex-soldiers also fight alongside the Hazaras and thus not as part of the NRF. On the other side, you put the Hazara groups equal to Massoud's militia, even though Massoud's militia was part of the NRF, while the Hazaras are not. You also removed the special forces and commandos for some reason. Applodion (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Now it is even worse. Massoud's militia was not indepedent. It was part of the NRF. Applodion (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Would it be ok for you if I put the Massoudist militia under the NRF? The special force and commando section is far too as they're all remnants of the afghan armed force. Triple bullet tiers are far too much for an infobox. And most ANA remnants fought under the banner of NRF, those you've mentioned are exceptional cases. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it would not be. Your organization is the very reason why it is complete chaos right now and we cannot include the commandos - despite the fact that they are arguably among the most important army troops involved in this conflict. The issue remains that Afghan National Security Forces remnants are fighting as part of militias as well. Trying to split everything up as you do completely wrecks the actual setup of the groups in this conflict.
In addition, what the heck is "Local Panjshiri militia" supposed to be? The only Panjshiri militia was Massoud's. There were other groups around Panjshir, but these were not Panjshiri.
That's why we had the NRF and Hazaras as Belligerents. In this way, all units in the unit section could be included in both the NRF and the Hazara factions. Applodion (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is Massoud's militia suddenly "Massoudist" and "Tajik"? "Massoudist" suggests there is some ideological alignment which is false, and Tajik is unsourced. Applodion (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Look, can't we simply go back how the infobox was? It was stable, understandable, well-sourced, and somewhat ok-ish organized. Applodion (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. 'Other militia around Panjshir'. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

These minor adjustments do not change the basic fact that the infobox includes stuff that is simply false as of now: The republic is not the main Belligerent. The important commandos and special forces are excluded. Several groups are mislabelled. The army remnants in the militias are excluded. Applodion (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of massoud's men are Tajikis. BTW, if you've ever been to Afghanistan, you'll know that the Massoud clan has quite a personal cult there. His late daddy's portraits were literally everywhere. But, if you insist I guess I'll be ok with the term 'Ahmad Massoud's militia', although it's better keep the ethnicity part because they're mostly Tajik as a matter of fact. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"Massoudist" and "Tajik" are still not sourced, whatever you think about it.
I just don't understand why you scramble around all this content even though it was previously just much better. Applodion (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My idea was that both the hazaras and the NRF fought in the name of the Republic. So by using Republic you can include both Tajik NRF and them Hazzies. You can't neglect the fact that Panjshir valley existed, and as long as the republic still controls territory it continues to exist. For the minority of ANA remnants who fought under the Hazaras, I don't think we should care about the labelling that much since they're really...a minority. All is well as long as we mention 'republic armed force remnants'. All who had previously served the republic's armed force can be included by this umbrella term. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I can make concessions, but you have to respect the fact that the republic still exists as long as it controls some territory, and that both the NRF and the Hazzies fought in the name of it. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I outlined how the previous structure was logically better (as it included more groups and gave a more accurate view of the reality on the ground), and you counter with your personal opinion on what you feel is better. So you decide that a minority is not noteworthy? Just like that? Applodion (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I will move the discussion to the article's talk page, so others can give their opinion. I don't think we will find a solution here. Applodion (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have copied the discussion to Talk:Panjshir conflict#Infobox Applodion (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking about personal opinions you seems to completely ignore the fact that the republic still exists. And, I didn't say they aren't noteworthy. I say that they're already included. 'Remnants' included everybody who has served the ANSF. That simple. Pktlaurence (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Applodion I didn't see your message as I was typing. Please at least reply this first. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I will take a short break from this discussion. I already noticed that I got somewhat emotional and confrontational, and that's not a good thing. I also felt that we made no progress in your dispute. Accordingly, I think that it's best to look if others have further ideas, etc., and then we can continue. That way, nothing gets out of hand. Applodion (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Btw, your structure is logically erroneous as you assumed the republic has ceased to exist. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I based it on the assumption that the republic has fallen, not that it has ceased to exist. There is a difference between the two. However, we can continue this on the article's talk page. Applodion (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

NVM I'll have to get dinner soon too, CUTMR. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And that doesn't matter as such assumption is still erroneous, you gotta acknowledge the fact that the republic still exists at least before the Panjshir skirmishes. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, but also add NRF to the infobox. We already have other examples of infobox being designed in such a way in Afghanistan, where a local militia fights a battle independently but on behalf of a larger entity. See Panjshir offensives (Soviet–Afghan War). See the column Islamic state of Afghanistan here Battle of Kabul (1992–1996). Also see here Afghan Civil War (1996–2001) under Islamic State (Northern Alliance) BasilLeaf (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@BasilLeaf, Pktlaurence, and Applodion: I think it is contradict to use Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, because in Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, it says the government is totally collapsed. If you, Pktlaurence want to say government still exists, then you need to change the article of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan first. It already discussed in Talk:Islamic Republic of Afghanistan#Government in exile?, and if you see users' statement, many reliable sources asserted that Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is ceased to exist. So, we shouldn't keep Islamic republic in infobox, unless the main context of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan change. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Editing of "Foreign Involvement" section

A large number of users have asked me to provide reasons for my editing of the "Foreign Involvement" section. It is advised that users first read this section and explain their reasons for reverting my contributions before resorting to threats of sanctions, in line with Wikipedia's own rules for editing that can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring.

Firstly, the statement that claimed Sheikh Rasheed said the "top leaders" of the Taliban were trained uses an article from Hindustan Times as a source. Hindustan Times is known for having a clear bias against Pakistan and occasionally providing misleading and sometimes false information, as is mentioned by Media Bias/Fact Check: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/hindustan-times/. Sheikh Rashid's claim could not be found on any other website nor does Hindustan Times provide the video clip of him saying the statement. Therefore, the statement cannot be added to this article unless a neutral source can be found to back the claim.

Secondly, the line "Pakistan's special forces assisted the Taliban in attacking the resistance." is misleading. The source itself clearly mentions that the allegation of Pakistan's special forces in Panjshir is a claim of Afghan MP Zia Arianjad whereas this article is shown that the allegation is a fact. Therefore, I changed the wording of that line to clearly show that it is an allegation of Zia Arianjad instead of a factual statement. Amaan4210 (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, you could have done a bit of research before reverting. It literally took me 60 seconds to find the video recording: [1] (at 01:15). — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

That is true, I could not find the video before. However, the article of Hindustan Times is still declaring false information. Nowhere does Sheikh Rasheed state that the Taliban were "trained" in Pakistan, only claiming that some of the members grew up there. Therefore, the Hindustan Times article is still not a good enough source to restore the deleted paragraph. The full video of his interview can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gpfGY6_5Hg —Amaan4210 (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't clicked on MediaBias website because it is considered unreliable on Wikipedia. The India Today link (another reliable source) provided by Kashmiri use the term "harboured" which is not exactly different than "trained". Overall it supports interpretation by Hindustan Times. Your own video link starting from 19:00 shows Rashid saying that Pakistan provided them education, and he use the word "taleem" which can also mean "training"[2] and then the video at 19:16 quotes Rashid as saying "kayi ye Taliban leader jo Top hein..." That means the Hindustan Times's report is entirely correct but your every single claim here is misleading. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Rashid says the Taliban leaders were brought up and educated in Pakistan, and some might still be studying in Pakistan (this was Pakistan's 'service'), while on the other hand India was funding terrorism in Afghanistan. In this context, "taleem" means education and not combat training as you are implying. Urdu speakers are welcome to chime in.

As for India Today and Hindustan Times, both have a history of sloppy and unreliable reporting when it comes to Pakistan (as does Indian media in general). For example, recently both of them misquoted a Pakistani diplomat who was speaking on a TV show (India Today, Hindustan Times), and were later proven to be wrong by fact checkers. Cipher21 (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a side-note: Just because fact-checkers have proven that stories pushed by certain news sites are false does not mean that the entire news site is untrustworthy. For example, most Western media supported stories during the First Libyan Civil War and Syrian Civil War which were later proven to be fake news. In another case, not so long ago, it was proven that a renowned journalist for Der Spiegel, a well-regarded German newspaper, had literally invented most of his stories. These incidents do not mean that we suddenly have to label The New York Times or Spiegel as completely useless sources. As pointed out above, the Indian media discussed here has also recived international acclaim for some of their reporting. Applodion (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

References

News sources can be considered reliable or unreliable in only certain contexts or topics. It's pretty clear that Indian media on the topic of Afghanistan and Pakistan are grossly unreliable as a whole due to repeated bad and false reporting on subjects related to them. Hiding behind awards is just appealing to authority instead of looking at their work on the subject and determining the merits from there. TranceGusto (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

End

Seem like we have several sources calling the conflict finished, with a Taliban decisive victory [3], [4], [5], [6]. Do we have similar sources saying the conflict is continuing?--Aréat (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

[7] For a name, the conflict is ongoing and the situation fluid. 2405:204:322D:3A66:E5C7:9BB0:1F63:6276 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Decisive would be overstating it. But account to the New York Times there was no sign of fighting when they visited. --Kathy262 (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

They did note that the NRF was still holding out in the mountains, even interviewing one of their members. Just because fighting has ceased for now does not mean the conflict is over, at least not until the NRF is gone. Applodion (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The mentioned NYT link verifies this. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we change the name into "Panjshir pocket" or "Panjshir campaign"? This was until now not a prolonged conflict by far. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

End Date

It seems the fighting has pretty much stopped, with the resistance leaders having fled Afghanistan. Here are two sources which basically say that the conflict has come to an end with the departure of the leaders:

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/panjshir-resistance-folds-up-for-now-saleh-reportedly-in-tajikistan-massoud-in-france-315178

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/after-renegade-province%E2%80%99s-fall-panjshir-resistance-leaders-surface-tajikistan

Note that the sources say the conflict has transferred from military clashes, what this article is about, to political dispute, which this article isn't about. I think this conflict should be given an end date. This post is for discussion; with these sources, what do you think? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5ED:6FC:9C0D:DA4D (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Most sources concur that a large number of militants and civilians have fled into the mountains; until these people actually surrender, we should not declare the conflict over. Applodion (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This article seems to be grasping at any scrap of information to make it look like an active military conflict is still ongoing. For instance the infobox and description mention that militias are resisting the taliban in other provinces even though there haven't been any reports of fighting for weeks. - 85.94.240.45

That's because the media only cared about Panjshir. The only sources reporting the Hazara revolts were insiders / academics who have covered the Afghanistan conflict for years. The latter only release updates every few weeks or so, however, meaning we have no idea what is going on in central Afghanistan at the moment. Applodion (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Islamic State - Khorasan Province

Hello, I'm PatriotMapperCDP. I believe that we should add the Islamic State - Khorasan Province to the belligerents section either as a third and seperate side or part of the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan side separated by the '----' thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriotMapperCDP (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

PatriotMapperCDP Do you have reliable sources saying ISKP have been involved in the conflict? BSMRD (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• User:BSMRD, the following sources show events related to IS-KP and the Taliban that have taken place in Afghanistan during the Panjshir conflict. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Afghanistan-turmoil/Afghan-chaos-mounts-as-ISIS-K-tries-to-tarnish-Taliban-triumph https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/afghanistan-news-taliban-refugees-08-26-21-intl https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/large-explosion-at-abbey-gate-at-the-kabul-airport-report-677790 https://www.thedailybeast.com/explosion-reported-outside-kabul-airport https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/26/asia/afghanistan-kabul-airport-blast-intl/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/politics/marines-kabul-airport-attack.html https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/live-updates-taliban-gain-more-ground-in-afghanistan-as-they-close-in-on-kabul#post-444 https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/08/28/taliban-claims-to-have-caught-two-malaysians-fighting-for-is-k-in-kabul https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/08/27/ambitious-new-isis-k-leader-becomes-talibans-wanted-enemy-kabul/ https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/taliban-provincial-governor-mullah-neda-mohammad-vows-to-fight-isis-2531541 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/18/afghanistan-several-reported-dead-jalalabad-blasts User:PatriotMapperCDP (talk)

PatriotMapperCDP Not what I meant. Do you have evidence of ISKP fighting in Panjshir? We already have an article about the Islamic State-Taliban conflict. BSMRD (talk)

BSMRD Not that I can find, however we did show ISKP as part of the War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) and the Islamic State-Taliban conflict. On top of this, we have covered battles outside Panjshir and inside Panjshir, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to show it in the infobox. On top of this, there is potential for ISKP to fight in Panjshir (https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/world-news-explained-the-warlords-that-will-decide-future-course-of-civil-war-in-afghanistan/393801). PatriotMapperCDP (talk)

Disputed U.S. Statement

Despite U.S. intelligence that Massoud and Saleh have fled Panjshir shortly after September 6th, there is just way too much evidence that has proven this claim is inaccurate. The videos and images of NRF fighters along with Massoud show that the intelligence is disputed, and not a clear confirmation, especially as Tajikistan rejects this claim, I will try to post a source for this. PanjshirLions (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/resistance-leaders-massoud-saleh-still-afghanistan-diplomat-says-2021-09-08/ PanjshirLions (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

https://mobile.twitter.com/NRFmojahed/status/1438552975769849856 PanjshirLions (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

https://mobile.twitter.com/NRFmojahed/status/1437586321959231489 PanjshirLions (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

In the section "Timeline", "Taliban siege of Panjshir valley" here is my proposed prose:

A journalist from Foreign Policy revealed that leaders of the Afghan resistance alongside with former senior figures of the toppled Ghani administration are regrouping with the aim of forming a government in exile.

It contains enough informations it needs. El Boulboul (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: I don't think this is noteworthy at this point, as nothing has actually happened. People discussing maybe forming a government in exile is quite different than actually forming a government in exile. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Tense change

Should the tense be changed to past tense? Both leaders of the resistance have left Afghanistan and there is no more conflict. See here. —  Melofors  TC 19:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It would need more than a report in the Tribune. Although not reliable, at Twitter there are reports of the fight continuing (adopting guerrilla tactics), and resistance leaders pledging to continue the fight. Also talk of biding their time (winter is approaching) and establishing supply lines. So we need more reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Still seems to be a crackdown at least: Taliban Brutally Executes Child Whose Father They Suspected To Be Resistance Member in International Business Times. --Kathy262 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Time to call this one a Taliban win

All the international media are no longer challenging it. I think it is time to call it. Also, witht he Taliban victory here, it effectively ends the greater Afghanistan Conflict spawned when the Sovs invaded it. We're all out, the Taliban have taken over unchallenged. Any new Afghanistan Conflict is, well, it would be something brand new. It is time to put that article to bed too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.246.108 (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic. This is an encyclopedia article related to people killing each other in relation to sociopolitical control; it is not a sports show. Boud (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Panjshir conflict#Tense change. —  Melofors  TC 04:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan 3

Why is Pakistan still listed as a belligerent, when it has been clarified and well established, that they were fake news. We have users on this talk page, literally implying India Today as being one of the greatest newspapers. It doesn't take a genius to realise that this was a rumour started by Indian Media or at least a rumour which started on Social Media and then propagated through Indian Media, and now turned into a fact through Wikipedia, and abundance of references have been cited refuting this, and considering the fact that the soft vote clearly showed that more users were opposed to the references cited, it really shouldn't be on here. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 17:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read the source. There were fake news, yes, but also reports by much more credible sources, including some governments and people from Panjshir. Applodion (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Applodion: Who are these "credible" sources, that don't go against WP:QS? Both references cited were refuted. I see no reason for them to be there, and if there are "credible" sources then why not provide those and replace it with the references which have been clearly refuted. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The claims by the NRF and other Panjshiris were never refuted. The claims by Iran were not disproven. No one has disproven the statements of Babak Taghvaee and Panjshir governor Kamaluddin Nezami either. Applodion (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Applodion: Please ping me, when you respond. Also how are they reliable sources? I think it was you who said that the media was consistently monitoring/reporting on Panjshir? Yet the only "sources" you have, after Indian Media being utterly refuted, is one 1. (Without disrespect) a government mouthpiece, and 2. An Iranian newspaper/journalist - which can be argued as a circular reference. I have yet to see any reliable source actually bringing proof that Pakistan had engaged in this conflict. All these so called "sources" are WP:QS.  :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 16:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: I said that the media focus on Panjshir compared to the Hazara revolts in central Afghanistan; overall the reporting by international media on this conflict is quite lacking. Anyway, your view of these sources is your view. The Indian media's claims have not been "utterly refuted"; the only refuted thing was the claims about some fake video, and this video was never used as a source for this article. When Afghan sources (including locals in the conflict zone), the Iranian government, an expert (who, btw, is Iranian but has no good relationship with the Iranian government), and Indian media are all claiming something, such claims cannot be dismissed outright. Applodion (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Applodion: I'm sorry but this is incredible! Again, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this was still a rumour which has been turned into a fact. Both references, India Today and "The Week", rely on a former Iranian MP, who fails to, just like the newspapers fail to, provide any sort of proof that any sort of Pakistani Airforce or military was a part of this conflict. The "proof" that was given was broadcast on air on Indian news channels as addendum to these headlines. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together to understand that 1. This was unconfirmed rumour that Indian Media rushed to "report" on, hence why whenever you search "Pakistan" and "Panjshir", users only get Indian Newspapers, not even Iranian newspapers, where the story originates from, and 2. In a bid to provide "proof" when they realised that actually word of mouth has no value, Indian Media just rushed to publish any "proof" they were receiving, hence why we got clips of video games, and other unrelated clips being passed of as "Pakistani Airforce". There was no fact checking! This is all a shambles.

I don't understand what's so difficult here? Under WP:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable, it states:

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

This is literally an example of it 🧐. They are unreliable and unsuitable, as they have, on many occasions, published and propagated fake news against Pakistan and especially here they are not verifiable and certainly not neutral. So no it's not "my view". It is a question of verifiability, which you are trying to play down, for whatever reason. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 01:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: Please first read the refs in the "foreign involvement" section; the Indian media refs provided in the infobox are not the only ones supporting Pakistani involvement, as I explained above. Personally, I regard the Indian media refs as the least important sources here. Applodion (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: You say that yet you made zero efforts to remove the paragraph which cites only Indian newspapers - not to mention that only two references in the infobox are Indian Newspapers, and here you are strongly defending them, but you have the audacity to say: "Personally, I regard the Indian media refs as the least important sources here." I mean if it's 'too much' for you to handle - I'll make some edits? On top of that, let's say you're being honest about your above statement - the only two references are 1. TOLONews and 2. The Europa website - which isn't even meant to be a reference as it is a motion waiting to be discussed (?) - so theoretically it's a circular reference - nothing here is presented as facts. So what you're telling me is that you will base this entire accusation on an article written by ToloNews, which has already been discussed in the previous sections? I mean that's great "proof" there. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 17:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: Look, I am not "strongly defending" the Indian sources. I am just plainly stating that your arguments about them being unreliable are your opinion, and your arguments do not suffice to cause their removal. The sourcing of the Pakistani involvement was discussed in depth in a discussion above, where the counter-arguments mostly boiled down to "I don't think that x source is reliable" without firmly proving that; so far, you do the same. You just claim that whatever source is stating that Pakistan is involved in unreliable or a "circular reference" without actually proving it. Your concern about the bias and sensationalism showcased by some Indian outlets is certainly valid; however, just because Indian news have pushed some fake news stories does not mean all their stories are trash. My point about the Indian sources being less important was not a comment about their reliabilty; it was based on the fact that we literally have Afghans in Panjshir who claim that Pakistani drones bombed the NRF. These are biased people, sure, but essentially eyewitnesses. The main reason why the claims about Pakistani involvement should be included (mind you, claim; the article goes out of its way to state that Pakistani involvement in not confirmed) is the sheer number of sources saying that Pakistan is involved. If it were only some, we could ignore it. But with so many? We have to mention it.
And again: No, Indian sources are not inherently unreliable. No, the Iranian government is not inherently unreliable. No, locals in Afghanistan are not inherently unreliable. The same goes for ToloNews: So far, the only people claiming that ToloNews is unreliable are those who just say that all sources alledging Pakistani involvement are unreliable, always without any firm proof. Applodion (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Applodion: I forgot that this ridiculous discussion still existed. No you are defending it. How can you even deny that at this stage? I'm literally saying that give better references, yet you're choosing to defend existing ones. You are out here basing this entirely Indian Media - and yes it is! Tell me how many references are not Indian Media? :::::::::I am just plainly stating that your arguments about them being unreliable are your opinion, and your arguments do not suffice to cause their removal ~ Oh so articles being full of fake news, propaganda, bias, and rumour-turned facts doesn't hit the criteria of them being removed? 😂 - what a joke this is!

"I don't think that x source is reliable" I am literally losing my patience at this point. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME OR MY OPINION! Are you living under a rock, or are you a genuine shill for Indian Media?

is involved in unreliable or a "circular reference" without actually proving it. Oh so claiming the Europa website to be reference when for 1. It's a motion being presented, NOT facts, 2. Is a "reference" that came out a week later after all this propaganda with Wikipedia backing it, only for Wikipedia to turn around and use the Europa Website to strengthen this propaganda - that isn't a circular reference? Unbelievable. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 23:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: You are clearly convinced of your own view of things, but that does not change the simple fact that your arguments are not good enough to warrant the removal of sources. You have still not adressed the fact that many sources besides Indian media say the same (i.e. Iran, analysts, and Afghans), and that just because some Indian news sites are crap does not mean that we cannot use Indian media at all. You have not proven that the Indian news references used in this article are full of lies - you only point at other Indian reports which are not cited here, and say that we thus have to disregard all Indian media. You also have no proof whatsoever that any of these so-called "circular sources" are actually circular. If "came out a week later after all this propaganda with Wikipedia backing it" is a reason to regard a source as circular, we would have to nuke Wikipedia because by that logic every source since Wikipedia's start would be "circular". Applodion (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

New Updates

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/21/world/asia/resistance-fighters-taliban-afghanistan.html

The IEA has been pushed back in several districts. PanjshirLions (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not only is that article is from two months ago, it is already cited in our article. BSMRD (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Massoud and Salah Tajikistan false

There was a major incorrection in the statement that Massoud and Saleh fled. This is false as countries like Tajikistan have confirmed they did not flee, and the "U.S." intelligence has been proven false too as images of Ahmad Massoud leading prayers came out as well as other videos. If Amrullah Saleh left it was to get help from the international Community, which there's no solid proof he did. Also Ahmad Massoud did not flee Panjshir, he's staying there no matter what, and if he did the resistance could likely collapse. Major Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/resistance-leaders-massoud-saleh-still-afghanistan-diplomat-says-2021-09-08/ PanjshirLions (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Also there have been some ridiculously false claims such as Massoud fleeing to France. This Is extremely unlikely and he as well as Saleh declared they will be fighting till the death. PanjshirLions (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Test PanjshirLions (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia is glitching and it stopped allowing me to post, but I will continue to work on the problem. PanjshirLions (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: I am also having a hard time posting sources but will continue to work on the issue PanjshirLions (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14000620000590/Srce-Ahmad-Massd-Sill-in-Afghanisan PanjshirLions (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The propaganda seriously needs to stop, the resistance just released in interview on france news PanjshirLions (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The old sources were refuting old claims about Massoud and Saleh having fled into exile. You need newer sources to refute the new claims. Applodion (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the article with newer NRF denials, although also added that most experts agree that Saleh and Massoud have relocated to Tajikistan. Applodion (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright I will gather some new resources PanjshirLions (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

https://amp.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-interview/20211005-taliban-not-victorious-in-afghanistan-s-panjshir-region-parallel-govt-official-says PanjshirLions (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"Ali Maisam Nazary added that Ahmad Massoud, the leader of the anti-Taliban NRF, "is inside the country", is not planning on leaving Afghanistan, and is "going to continue resistance until we achieve freedom and we achieve victory." PanjshirLions (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This claim is already covered. Applodion (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

Change “ and on the other side “ to “ and the “ for conciseness. The change requested is in the intro section of the article at the beginning of the page. 2607:FA49:2A42:F00:4535:5E8A:89F5:1F4C (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Not done. While your proposed rephrasing is more concise, I fear some readers may find it less clear. The sentence is phrased as (A and B) vs C, this change would make it A and B and C. Some readers may misinterpret it or struggle to interpret it. Alsee (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Although many have agreed to conclude that "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" ceded to exist, this article still includes Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as a belligerent in infobox. I think this is contradict to main context on Islamic Republic of Afghanistan itself, and also it is not fit with other resources and references which regard Islamic republic as collapsed country. But I want to be sure about whether to put Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as belligerent here, and want to listen the opinion of other users. -- 08:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Wendylove (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@BasilLeaf, Pktlaurence, and Applodion: Add three of you, because you had talked about this issue before.

Strictly speaking, the Islamic Republic is indeed dead. However, it also cannot be disputed that the anti-Taliban forces have, to a certain extent, rallied under its banner (so to say). The fact that Saleh put great importance in portraying himself as the new President showcases that these were not just empty statements. The resistance also includes a substantial number of ex-security forces members. As long as they still maintain that some form of the republic remains, it still exists in some form. Perhaps the best way to deal with this would be to add something to "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" in the infobox, for example "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan remnants" or "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan loyalists". Applodion (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I think rather than creating a neologism it would be best if we instead added a clarifying note to "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan", perhaps something like Though the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan ceased to exist on August 15 2021, many fighters in Panjshir rallied under its banner. BSMRD (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Applodion (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: We'd need reliable sourcing for these sort of notes. I'm seeing some (Hindustan Times, CNN-News 18, Zee news) indicate that the remnants (referred to as a government-in-exile) are indeed supporting the "Panjshir Resistance Front", so I'd be fine with the proposed note there. Since this is something that could reasonably be contested, there should be an inline citation within the note to support it. (Summoned by bot) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment about text as much as flag - I think it is inherently confusing to refer to a state being at war with the same state (albeit, different regimes/eras of the same state), especially when one 'state' (IRA), no longer meaningfully exists. Would it not be clearer to refer to "an ongoing armed conflict between the remaining forces of the formerly dominant Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including … etc." Or a similar phrasing that makes it clearer that the IRA state ITSELF as a regime no longer exists? Pincrete (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Over?

It seems the conflict is largely over, and I think we should probably reflect that on the page itself. Flalf^Talk 14:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The Zenn article linked in the final paragraph of the conflict section notes that "militant activity" by the resistance has ceased. What ever anti-Taliban fighters there are remain outside Afghanistan, that is why they are, according to the source, possibly depending on ISIS activity to later reconstitute themselves back in the country (emphasis is mine). There has been no news of resistance activity in the country, and they have been reduced to looking for political patrons to form a government in exile, that is all. Thus, the fighting is over.

For reference: https://jamestown.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/TM-PDF-Draft.pdf?x35765 2601:85:C101:C9D0:A824:CAE8:41F7:DBD0 (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree, though it should be noted that NRF still claims that it has loyalists in Afghanistan. However, seeing as a respected researcher in this field (Zenn) believes the NRF to be inactive in Panjshir, and we have heard no more about the Hazara resistance, we might as well mark an end for now.
Seeing as the last combat was reported on 6 October 2021, I suggest we use that date as ending. Applodion (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that not only is the conflict over, but it has been for some time now. The more interesting question is what end date do we provide for the conflict? Does anyone have any good sources or suggestions for an end date on this? BSMRD (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that the conflict is over. As to the end date, the Taliban declared that they had captured the valley on September 6th, and that appears to have been largely true. 1 2. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Journalists in the area confirmed that NRF holdouts were still operating in Panjshir after that date, though (see here and here as examples). The last combar report dates to 6 October 2021. Applodion (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the conflict is over, from what I've seen some small-scale fighting is continuing to occur in and around Panjshir, including small-scale fighting reportedly occurring near Khost wa Fereng on November 12 according to a report by the Persian-language branch of The Independent: https://www.independentpersian.com/node/191926/%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B9%DB%8C/%D8%AF%D9%88-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D9%87-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%88-%DA%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D8%B6%D9%88-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%BA%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86-%DA%A9%D8%B4%D8%AA%D9%87-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF. I would suggest splitting the conflict into "phases", with the "main phase" being over at October 6th or whatever is the agreed date, while small-scale fighting/low-level insurgency continues to this day. And plus, if the conflict between the Taliban and the NRF resurfaces, then it would be easy to add another phase of fighting. Glakes (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that changes things. Then this clearly a problem of English media losing interest in the conflict. Accordingly, I oppose marking the conflict as over. Applodion (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Also, i dunno if this is reliable enough however, some journalists working for Radio Télévision Suisse and Journeyman Pictures visited Afghanistan presumably around October 25, including Panjshir, where despite denial from the local Taliban officials, fighting occurred between the NRF and the Taliban at that time as well (specific numbers of casualties were not stated in the video, but according to the reporter, the NRF got the upper hand in that particular confrontation). Here is a link to their video on their website: https://www.journeyman.tv/film/8163. I will try to gather more information from reliable or at least semi-reliable sources on any post-October 6 battles/confrontations between the NRF and the Taliban. Glakes (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Locations

I posted the exact same thing in National Resistance Front of Afghanistan but I thought I would bring it up here as well.

Various groups across Afghanistan have posted videos pledging allegiance to the NRF and Ahmad Massoud outside of the provinces mentioned in "locations". Many of these have been reported by Aamaj News, which I have heard is semi-reliable although I cannot confirm so please correct if I am wrong. One was reported by the NRF's spokesman Ali Nazary, while a few others were reported by pro-NRF accounts on twitter.

List of videos of groups apparently pledging allegiance to the NRF (I will update it if I receive more information): Takhar - reported by Aamaj News: https://twitter.com/aamajnews24/status/1457645699726725123?s=20 Ghor - reported by Aamaj News: https://twitter.com/aamajnews24/status/1455215445628366849?s=20 Badakhshan - reported by Aamaj News: https://twitter.com/aamajnews24/status/1452576708826222593?s=20 Balkh - reported by Ali Maisam Nazary: https://twitter.com/alinazary/status/1453000655694667776?s=20 Kapisa - reported by Aamaj News: https://twitter.com/aamajnews24/status/1450359493741715467?s=20 Kabul - not directly mentioned in video apparently but claimed by the journalist in the post: https://twitter.com/MaryamA89699850/status/1457988066258399235?s=20 Laghman - reported by a pro-NRF account: https://twitter.com/QaderFaqirzadah/status/1458091482934566922?s=20

While I do not know if those are reliable or suitable enough to be included in "Locations", I do believe that it is at least worth mentioning them either as a note or somewhere in the page. Glakes (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

Add after "On 12 November, clashes between republicans and Taliban forces took place at Khoshudara, located in Baghlan Province's Khost wa Fereng District. Both sides suffered several losses. A local informed The Independent that the NRF still held settlements in Khost wa Fereng." "On November 19, a journalist from Tolo News and the former director of Bakhtar News Agency reported an ambush in the Dih Salah District, which resulted in the death of Taliban commander Mawlawi Nizami and five of his fighters." Glakes (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now Twitter, as WP:UGC is generally considered unreliable. Do you have any WP:RS covering this? If so it can be added, otherwise it's best to wait for one to pick it up instead of citing tweets. BSMRD (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

Add after "However, some NRF holdouts continued to be active." "On October 15, Russian news agency Interfax reported NRF forces conducting a guerilla attack in Andarab, Baghlan, with Taliban losses being reported as six killed, four wounded, and two being captured by pro-NRF forces. Fighting was also reported in Balkh. " Glakes (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done by you Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Doesn't seem to be still on going in Panjshir

As far as I can see, the sources are either directly from the rebellion claiming to still be fighting, with the chiefs not having fled at all, etc, so basically war propaganda we can't use as reliable source, or secondary sources talking about fighting happening outside of Panjshir. What's the rationale then to talk about an ongoing conflict?--Aréat (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is rooted in this conflict having no proper name. Fighting indeed appears to have stopped in Panjshir, yet NRF holdouts are clearly still operating in surrounding areas. Yet we cannot just rename the article to "NRF-Taliban conflict" either, as non-NRF groups have also been involved in the insurgency. Anyway, the larger anti-Taliban rebellion by pro-republican forces is clearly still ongoing, which is reflected by this article being marked as ongoing. Applodion (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

To me it seems while fighting is definitely less active in Panjshir than it was before the takeover, occasional fighting still occurs (see https://www.journeyman.tv/film/8163 as an example), so I don't think we should mark fighting in Panjshir as coming to an end. I would be up for renaming the conflict title though, seeing NRF and pro-republican forces continuing the fighting outside of Panjshir. I'd suggest maybe "Anti-Taliban insurgency" although by that logic this would include the ongoing Taliban-ISKP conflict, unless we make it the "Republican resistance against the Taliban" or smth. Glakes (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the way the sources describe the situation, I think there should rather be a different article akin to "Anti Taliban rebellion" which would include mention of this page. There's ongoing sporadic fights in several parts of Afghanistan, but it's not the battle of the Panjshir holdout, which ended in september, it's a nation wide guerilla rebellion. I do aknowledge I wouldn't know how to make that whole new page, though. It just seem that calling this specific battle ongoing isn't quite right by now. --Aréat (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I disagree the article should be split. Perhaps we could instead divide the conflict into "phases" in the infobox, with the "main phase" ending with the Talib takeover of the valley, while the "guerilla phase" or "insurgency phase" is ongoing. Now in terms of the article name, "Anti-Taliban rebellion" seems a bit broad considering the ISKP-Taliban conflict but "NRF-Taliban conflict" seems to narrow, so I'm guessing somewhere in between would be most suitable but I dont have any suggestions at the moment. I'll chip in if I have any, feel free to suggest. Glakes (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Why not split it? Make sense to have a separate page for a conventional battle in a localised territory over a short period of time, and a separate one for the nation wide guerrilla that may very well span years. It's two very different conflicts in every ways. I agree with NRF-Taliban conflict, though. --Aréat (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As almost the entire early conflict was concentrated on Panjshir, it does not seem sensible to split the article. We should just rename it. I think Glakes' suggestion is sensible, and we should use a title like "Republican rebellion in Afghanistan", "Republican-Taliban conflict" or something similar to include non-NRF factions, as most of the non-ISK anti-Taliban groups appear to profess some kind of loyalty to the old republic. Applodion (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the early conflict being almost entirely concentrated on Panjshir on the contrary justify it being its own article? The current country-wide, guerilla-like fights are nothing like it.--Aréat (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The early phase of the conflict included a lot of back-and-forth fighting in Panjshir's neighbooring Baghlan province and other provinces. If the mid-November news report by The Independent is anything to go by (https://www.independentpersian.com/node/191926/%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B9%DB%8C/%D8%AF%D9%88-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D9%87-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%88-%DA%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D8%B6%D9%88-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%BA%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86-%DA%A9%D8%B4%D8%AA%D9%87-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF), then it seems that part of the NRF presence in Baghlan (and possibly in the other provinces) are remnants of the troops that clashed in Baghlan during the early phase of the conflict. And overall it seems likely that as long as all these militias operating across Afghanistan express loyalty to the NRF, they will be involved in the greater Taliban-Republican conflict including the one in Panjshir. And again, while this is yet to be fully confirmed the various commanders of the NRF are still largely involved in the recent guerilla activities. Overall I do not believe that splitting the article is needed. Glakes (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

There were also uprisings in central Afghanistan by pro-republican Hazaras (who were unconnected to the NRF) around September, though almost no one reported on them, and we still don't know how the fighting there ended (or whether it ended at all). Applodion (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Would agree with this article being closed and another covering the general state of a low-level insurgency (whose motivations are not easily clear at this time outside "anti-Taliban") or altering this article into one about a low-level insurgency with a detailed section on the "early" period that focused on the seizure of Panjshir by Taliban forces. Apache287 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said before I oppose splitting this article up. However I could agree to a re-arranging of the article, dividing it into an "early" or "active" phase and an ongoing "insurgency" phase. Glakes (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That would therefore be doing the latter where the article is re-defined and expanded as focusing on the Anti-Taliban insurgency where the brief Panjshir engagement was the main point of resistance back in September/October Apache287 (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I also have to repeat that the "early" period was not exclusively focused on Panjshir. There was heavy fighting in provinces around Panjshir, as well as central Afghanistan. Applodion (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Co-belligerents?

I'd like to request that we add co-belligerents to the infobox for Iran and the Islamic State due to the 2021 Afghanistan-Iran clashes and the Islamic State-Taliban conflict that have been going on in Afghanistan along the main Panjshir conflict.PatriotMapperCDP (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

Pakistans air forces alleged involvement should be removed since it is an indian source that turned out to be videogame footage from the game Arma 3. source is right here https://www.pcgamer.com/arma-3-pakistan-footage/ Kittensarereallycute (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

The user Abhishek0831996 is violating wiki policies. They are sharing unreliable sources that have been disproven. When something is alleged, then disproven, that source has no credibility and that claim is invalid. Like user Taimoorahmed11 pointed out, "Couldn't find any non-Indian or other reliable sources. Happy to have it reverted if any neutral sources are sourced" Kittensarereallycute (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No, he is not. The inclusion of Pakistan was discussed several times; the claims about the Pakistani support being disproven have been demonstrated to be false. There are also Afghan and Iranian sources as well as some researchers saying the same thing. The statement "Couldn't find any non-Indian or other reliable sources. Happy to have it reverted if any neutral sources are sourced" is blatantly POV, as Taimoorahmed11 literally tried to delete non-Indian sources referenced in the article. Doing so and then making such statements borders on bad faith. Applodion (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Applodion: Really, I am one with bad faith? Sources which quoted a fake twitter account, an Iranian politician, and ones which used video game footage to show so-called 'proof' of Pakistani jets, and other sources like the Afghan newspaper which had no forms of proof at all to back up their claim, are credible to you? You're quite dishonest, especially considering the fact that the entire foreign involvement section is riddled with Indian references, and on top of that I kept the claim about Pakistani forces, as well as the ToloNews source in my edit. You just want to keep the Indian sources, without proving their credibility. Why don't you back your references with neutral and actual credible references, that don't have an inherent bias? :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 20:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: You did not keep the "claim about Pakistani forces"; you completely removed Pakistan from the infobox, and removed the refs which quoted non-Indian sources in your first edit. In your second edit, you removed the European Parliament resolution and modified the Tajik one to exclude the statement about Pakistani air strikes. You basically removed all sources but the TOLONews claim. Furthermore, this article never cited the video game footage source. Never. Not once. All the Indian sources included in this article cite local sources and regional researchers; and no one, in any of the previous discussions, has provided actual proof that everyone is just lying about this. Neither do you. You just claim that this is fake news, even though you have no evidence of falsification on the side of the sources currently cited. And I must repeat: "currently cited". It does not matter that some Indian newspapers have spread fake news; the refs included here have not been disproven so far. Applodion (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Applodion: 'Regional and local sources' are quite the fancy way of saying that the Indian sources, at best, cited Aamaj News, ultimately the Iranian politician, or the NRF, which are hardly unbiased! Also, what was the statement of the actual politician, and what proof did he actually give regarding his claim? And if you trust Aamaj News so much, why not use that instead of using the Indian Media articles, or why do you not care to bring any international, or unbiased references? Also, I did keep it in the Foreign involvement section, hence why I included my edit, I obviously removed the Indian sources outright, because they are unreliable. I'm sorry but at this stage, when you are aware the situation, it's seriously difficult to assume good faith if one thinks that Indian Media can be considered reliable, especially here. Yes, the articles never themselves used any video game footage, but TV channel by the same organisations definitely did - and also they didn't because I'm pretty sure the supposed footage news came out later. If BBC did something similar, it would considered unreliable and removed. I removed the Europe parliamentarian source because, again, it was not meant to be used as a reference, rather they're essentially the minutes of the motions presented - ie. motions presented by people on what they think of events that they have heard about - not a shred of proof. When you read the motion, it's quite clear that they're only trying to amplify or attribute links between Pakistan and Taliban, generally - which in itself is an entirely separate debate. The Tajik embassy statement did not state that it was Pakistan, rather that a 3rd country was involved - that's why I edited it, unless you can show me where I'm wrong? [8]. You should be asking who was the one who changed the statement to say that the Embassy specifically stated Pakistan was involved? This entire thing lies on a string, and it's being portrayed as a bridge. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 22:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We preferably cite English-speaking sources, and Iranian media is mostly in non-English.
The sources here are international and reliable. It does not matter that they are Indian. Being Indian does not make a source automatically unreliable.
You realize that the same publisher does not mean that the same people are involved. In regards to reliability, for example, Wikipedia literally splits Fox News into several different sections which range from utterly unreliable to somewhat reliable. What a TV station puts out is irrelevant for the stuff produced by a newspaper. Thus, if the BBC did as you describe, we would only remove one faulty article or the TV stuff, not all of BBC.
What proof do you have that what so many sources say is wrong? None. You just claim that you know better than, lets say, members of the European parliament, NRF fighters on the ground or reasearchers which have published academic articles. These sources might be biased, but we attribute the origin of claims in the article and state that the claims are "alleged".
Simply put, unless you provide firm evidence that the Indian and all the other refs cited here are lying, you cannot remove them. It is as easy as that. Applodion (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Applodion: Aamaj news does actually have a digital English Newspaper, and even if it didn't - I'm pretty sure that you can cite non-English newspapers, you even have the option to highlight the language in references. And considering the amount of weight it is being given here, it clearly should have been mentioned. The sources are international to anyone who is not of Indian origin, but not "international". BBC is international outlet, so is TRT, so is France24, so is Al Jazeera, and are credible. They have global presence and report on incidents from all over the world, first hand. Indian newspaper, by definition, may not be unreliable, but they are certainly not credible and are dubious when it comes to reporting to incidents relating to Pakistan, come even you must admit that is true, and that is the case here. I'm not here to argue the credibility of Indian newspapers for Wikipedia wide-cite, I'm here to argue that here, in regards to the Panjshir conflict and the claims involving Pakistan - it is unreliable. When have you ever seen European Parliamentary motions being used as a reference for crucial events, where the entire world is paying attention, but not some reliable or authentic newspaper? I certainly had never seen it before on Wikipedia until the Panjshir conflict, and I wouldn't expect anyone to, either.

~ What a TV station puts out is irrelevant for the stuff produced by a newspaper.  : Ah yes, so the TV channel can push out whatever conspiracy bs, it wishes and that definitely won't be influenced by the newspaper side of things. 🤦

~ Simply put, unless you provide firm evidence that the Indian and all the other refs cited here are lying, you cannot remove them.: But they themselves, provide zero proof(!), that's the entire point! Your words are literally the contrary to what has been said at WP:QUESTIONABLE. Teh fact is, even after a couple of months, there is no proof to say that Pakistan was involved, or whether these claims were correct. The fact is they still remain dubious. Simply put, you are trying to portray a piece of string as a bridge.

P.s. Conflict in edit. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 23:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What else can I say? When a dozen sources disagree with you, you cannot just delete them, even if you personally think that they are unreliable. This discussion is basically a repeat of several previous ones on this talk page, and all ended the same: The sources currently cited are not proven to be false, thus they can stay. Applodion (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Applodion: Well, the previous discussions had held soft votes in which, not only me, but most people agreed that Indian sources should not have been used. Yet, you want to ignore that, and the fact in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, these sources should not be used. Yet, you only want to enforce your opinion. @El C: Here, now you can't say that I didn't try to come to a compromise. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 23:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

At which point did you propose a compromise? You literally want to delete almost all sources which support the inclusion of Pakistan, without proving that they are unreliable. Applodion (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Applodion: My compromise that I would keep the Indian sources, providing that they could be backed up by actual international and credible sources, as a separate claim, and not just a quotation from another person, or another newspaper. I wanted to remove the Pakistani claim outright, but even in my edits, I kept it in the Foreign involvement section, and kept the TOLOnews article, even though it provided no proof, as well as the Tajik Embassy statement, though it had nothing to do with Pakistan. I even worded in a way so that the weight carried more towards it being a fact, rather than a claim by the NRF. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 23:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, that can hardly be called compromise, unlike, again, in-line attribution, for example. Also, Taimoor Ahmed, twice now you mentioned some sort of a soft vote, and twice you've just left that hanging, with no link to the discussion. You weaken your own position by not backing up your claims and making them accessible to readers of this talk page (accessible = proof → proof = link). El_C 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I mentioned the soft vote, once directly to you on my talk page and second here to remind Applodion, that it wasn't just me who objected to this. And I did link it to you, on my talk page, named as "literally", I assume you didn't click on the link, because it had linked the original archive. Talk:Panjshir conflict/Archive 1#Pakistani involvement where all the discussion began. You say I'm not backing up claims, please explain what I'm missing, which media outlet, do you assume, will go "that Indian/Iranian newspapers that published an article saying that Pakistan was involved with the Taliban ... well it wasn't, because ... It wasn't?". I mean france24 has gone to the point where they've called out India Today for publishing out of context photos or videos. His reply is simply "can't take it into account because not in the article". So? The topic is literally the same and is being discussed by the same entities. I can't be expected to keep on providing references, when he's not going to accept them. He knows that there's no proof to the claim that Pakistan was involved in the Panjshir conflict, even though the onus is on him to prove that the claims can be verified - which they can't, especially since no international outlet has talked about it, but on the flip side, no international outlet has bothered giving importance to Iranian or Indian Media, so they can't be 100% refuted. That's his only point, and he's not coming down from that. And how can you say that I wasn't trying to come to a compromise? What other comprise do you think there could be that's equally beneficial?

Also WP:QUESTIONABLE literally says:

~ Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

Well let's break this down, the two references, mainly India Today and The Week ultimately quote an Iranian politician who did not give any sort of proof for his claims- does that not rely heavily on rumours and personal opinions? Applodion, didn't even reference the original article from Aamaj news.

It is further said ~ Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead

Well is that not true when it comes to Indian Media and events relating to Pakistan or Pakistani individuals or institutions? I gave you multiple references to back that up.

Then, additionally it is said: Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires.

Erhmm .... I think it was quite apparent that at the time Indian Media was definitely not fact checking considering they sourced, fake Twitter accounts, used out of context videos, and referenced a politician, without any additional inquiry or interviews. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 01:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Taimoor Ahmed, your reply is too long. Please condense. I can't read that. Excess length and excess boldface may come across as filibustering. Please try to be succinct. Thanks. El_C 01:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It is now clear that you, Applodion, have a clear bias. The video game footage was the ONLY source that received recognition internationally in an attempt to malign Pakistan. The indian sources have already been exposed as fake (see https://in.ign.com/arma-iii/166118/news/arma-3-gameplay-panjshir-valley-pakistani-airforce-indian-news-channels https://www.thegamer.com/indian-news-arma-3-pakistan-taliban/ https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/news-channels-air-video-game-footage-as-pak-airforce-attacking-panjshir-fact-check) India has used such video game footage in the past to make itself look credible (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmAr-nWFfG0). Now, please remove the Indian sources since you, yourself said, you will remove them once they are proven to be fake. I just proved it to you. Also, the other source you cited, was made on an Indian newspaper (clear bias) Babak Taghvaee "defence analyst" that is living in exile in greece which is nowhere near Pakistan or Afghanistan who was accused to be working for foreign intelligence agencies made this allegation. It should be taken with a grain of salt since this person isn't a reliable source especially after being quoted on an Indian newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittensarereallycute (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Whoa, did ARMA 2 gameplay capture pass for real, again? Crazy. Good game btw. El_C 01:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, ARMA 3 this time. Makes sense. Gotta upgrade. Better graphics. El_C 01:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Looked at the sources

Okay, a couple of things:

1. The two sources cited are brief and their reporting seems fairly uncontroversial, journalistically, in that they quote statements and don't really embellish.
2. The two sources cited, India Today and The Week (Indian magazine) don't seem all that special as far as RS go.
3. The two sources cited do not seem to be akin to sources such as, say, Republic_TV (See also controversies), which was involved in the ARMA fiasco.

Maybe I'm missing something, but all this mention of "Indian sources," as if they're all the same and all unreliable on these matters, that may well not be so. El_C 01:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Because they are? 4 Indian Media references are used. India Today, The Week, Hindustan Times and The Hindu. 3 of them, leaving The Hindu, quote an Iranian MP, but provide zero proof. The Hindu mentioned "CENTCOM" but I literally couldn't find anything related to them and Panjshir with Pakistani involvement. It is an Indian Media thing. Do you think this would have been mentioned, had it only been Iranian Media who had talked about this? How can you say that isn't the case?:
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 01:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay, 4 sources (sorry, the changes are confusing). I've now reviewed those as well. I don't think you understand the WP:RS guideline here, though. Those are secondary sources. The Iranian MP or CENTCOM, those are their primary sources. The fact you may not have access to reports RE: CENTCOM is really of no consequence. Whether it's fog of war or misinformation or even disinformation, that's for RS to establish. But what you are saying, RE: Indian Media (overall) is probably a matter better suited for WP:RSN / WP:RSP than it is this page. El_C 02:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for outlining this again, El_C. As I said above, it is not our job on this talk page to decide whether a source is inherently unreliable. None of the sources currently used are generally bad, thus there is no valid reason to doubt their reporting per se. Applodion (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

For sure, glad I could help. Again, I suggested in-line attribution as a possible compromise. Something like a number of Indian newspapers reported that [ ... ] would not be a bad idea, especially if all the sources we have for this are from India. The reader can read into that what they may. El_C 14:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the latest ARMA fiasco should be added to the ARMA 3 page and both the ITV ARMA 2 incident and it (Republic_TV ARMA 3 one) should probably be added to the ARMA (series) page. As for adding it to this page: if a decision is made to do so, I'd caution against conflating the more problematic Indian sources involved in that sloppy reporting with more restrained mainstream Indian publications. El_C 15:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Iranian media (such as Tasnim), Afghan media (such as TOLONews), and (German media like ORF) have also reported the alleged Pakistani involvement. As far as I can see, the claims' origins are already attributed throughout the article, with the exception of the infobox - where it is just marked as "alleged". Perhaps I can find a more accurate note/description for the infobox. Applodion (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. Yeah, maybe something like unconfirmed or disputed...? Whatever works. El_C 15:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I came across this on RSN and have re-written the section, without using India Today and instead using ORF. "Unconfirmed" might be the better word, that does seem to be the impression one gets from how the sources describe it, none of which assert involvement in their own voice. Also the "pro-NRF" section needs some rework as well, it barely contains anything on Tajik involvement even though there are sources for it in the infobox. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Also on a sidenote regarding the sourcing, I'll re-iterate El C has said above. India Today and The Week are no Republic TV (RSP entry), which you can't use anyways since that is deprecated. Individual sources need to be assessed on their own merits since they are of course not the same. Also The Hindu (RSP entry) is generally a high quality source and its article mostly talks about Pakistan's denial of the reports. That said I'd caution against using India Today outside the magazine pieces, considering that some of its reporting from the broadcast department has almost resembled that of Republic TV (and its counterparts like Zee News and Times Now). For this article that is, they are usually a lot better when it comes to major national stories in India. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Thank you very much for adding more sources. Yes, "unconfirmed" might be the best way to describe it. Applodion (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate and El C: Coming back to say that I appreciate the comments and suggestions. I've seen the improvements, and feel the section is more neutral now, than previously. :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 04:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

In the info box, change where it says Pakistan (unconfirmed) to Pakistan (alleged). Every other country with unclear involvement are written as such. Pakistan is no different in this regard. 216.165.127.20 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It does not appear there is consensus for this change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Outdated informations

Please remove the current map of the conflict,nothing new since January 2022 105.101.86.51 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the section "Guerrilla campaign by the NRF and other groups", detailing events up until April 2022. Applodion (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

They have a point; the infobox and map are woefully out-of-date. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

How? In which way? Applodion (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The map has not been substantively updated in months and is still relying on sources from as far back as September 2021. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will look into creating an updated map. Applodion (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Split

I feel like this article should be split between what happened in Panjshir last September and a new page called NRF insurgency or Anti-Taliban Insurgency. Thoughts? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I oppose any split. IMO, we should just rename the article. "Anti-Taliban Insurgency" would not work, as other insurgencies against the Taliban exist and have existed in the past. I propose "Republican rebellion in Afghanistan" or "Republican insurgency in Afghanistan", as non-NRF groups are also involved. @Glakes:, what do you think? Applodion (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the article should be renamed to "Anti-Taliban Insurgency" or something like that, while dividing the conflict itself into phases. Glakes (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I also agree, since it is no longer only the NRF involved in the anti-taliban resistance Dogeimations (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 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 section.

---

Result:
Moved. See consensus below to rename this article as proposed. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 00:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Please be patient, because this article is fully move-protected, and a technical request is in place awaiting admin action. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 08:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Panjshir conflict → Republican insurgency in Afghanistan – There is now ample evidence that anti-Taliban rebellions in Afghanistan are now active outside of the Panjshir valley. The article itself references this multiple times, and media groups have taken notice as well, such as here: https://www.voanews.com/amp/afghan-fighting-season-ushers-in-new-anti-taliban-groups/6542148.html as well as here: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/11/afghanistan-resistance-taliban-offensive/ In light of this evidence, I think it’s time to move the article. Jogarz1921 (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my arguments in previous discussions. Applodion (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Support also per my arguments in previous discussions. Glakes (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am not sure about "Republican", as the insurgency has many factions and not all of them identify with the former republic, I would prefer "Anti-Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan".Polmas (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Polmas: This article is specifically only about the pro-republican resistance or groups whose anti-Taliban activity is in some way connected to the Republican insurgency - for example Taliban dissidents that revolted due to be mistreated as a result of suspicions about them possibly supporting the republicans. The Jihadist resistance is covered under Islamic State–Taliban conflict. No other blocs - which support neither the Republic nor IS - have emerged so far. Applodion (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

My issue with “Anti-Taliban insurgency” is that name also applies to the also ongoing ISIS conflict between ISIS and the Taliban, which has been happening since before the Taliban even seized power. Unless we want to merge the two articles (which is a valid option), we should use a more specific name. Jogarz1921 (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Afghan Civil War (2021-present) - in line with other similar articles in the Template:Campaignbox Afghan Civil War. Wlcidar (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"Afghan Civil War" would be about the wider conflict, not just this insurgency, as it would also include the IS rebellion. Not to mention that no experts seem to call the ongoing fighting a "civil war" yet. Applodion (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed new titles are vague, and most of the reporting related to this conflict has been about the events in Panjshir, the only province that the NRF managed to hold the majority of. A move could run afoul of WP:RECENTISM. It's not a civil war, either, but a low-grade insurgency at most. ISIS looks to be a bigger problem for the Taliban than the NRF at the moment. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tartan357: No offense, but what are you talking about? Roughly 40% of the article is focused on events outside of Panjshir. Basically 100% of the reporting since December 2021 is about fighting outside Panjshir. At least three new pro-republican rebel groups have begun operating outside Panjshir, plus nearly all NRF activity since the start of 2022 is happening outside Panjshir. This is not WP:RECENTISM at all. And how is "Republican insurgency in Afghanistan" vague? This is literally the only republican insurgency currently ongoing, and it is probably the first republican rebellion in the history of Afghanistan (unless one counts the old Maoist rebels). Applodion (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course we can and should find sources for the continuing events, but the sourcing quality has dropped off precipitously as the international media spotlight that was on the conflict at the beginning has all but disappeared. I'm invoking WP:WEIGHT here. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Just why? Just because Afghan media is mainly reporting? Please provide a proper reason to doubt the sources used here before basically claiming that all these different newspapers are worthless. Applodion (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, global coverage merits more weight than local. That is only about weight, not reliability. This is important to WP:COMMONNAME. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Thanks for the clarification, but your argument still makes zero sense. You do realize that international media often stops caring about most non-Western conflicts after some time passes (as happened here)? And international media also did not dub this rebellion the "Panjshir conflict". "Panjshir conflict" is a literal placeholder title. There does not exist a WP:COMMONNAME for this insurgency. This insurgency has no official name, neither in local nor global media. Thus, why should WP:WEIGHT apply to the article title? Only because when the world cared most, fighting was concentrated in Panjshir? That's not a sensible reason at all. Applodion (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor note: The NRF has recently launched an offensive in Panjshir, meaning that the province has returned to its contested state. Regardless, rebel activity remains a feature throughout northern Afghanistan. Applodion (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support While the main force of resistance is still focused in and around Panjshir, it has spread all across the north with many more groups than just the NRF popping up.--Garmin21 (talk) 16:42, 9 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.

War crimes

Should we add a section that deals with war crimes/human rights violations committed during the conflict? Glakes (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering that both sides have reportedly committed war crimes (though the Taliban did far more), this seems sensible. Applodion (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

"Sometime around early July, the Taliban captured Golwarz village near Bakhlab as part of a general campaign against the Bakhlab insurgents. Several war crimes were reportedly commited by the Taliban against the mostly Hazara population throughout the campaign, causing refugees to flee to neighbooring provinces." The word in bold, neighbooring, should be changed to neighbouring. 2607:FEA8:A3C0:7280:B9EF:9D7C:4A7D:4108 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done BSMRD (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

Can the Tajik Taliban (separate from the NRF or any other militia) who revolted from the IEA in January of this year and who according to the war template control the districts of Ab kamari and Qadis be added to the infobox? Source to prove. And can the Hazara Taliban led by Mehdi Mujahid and who recently revolted and control the district of Balkhab also be added here? Source for this Cryw 9 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 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. @Cryw 9 Thinker78 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Hasht e Subh

Considering the relative lack of coverage of anti-Taliban insurgent activities by english-speaking media, much of our sourcing has relied on Hasht e Subh. However, has it been established on the reliability of said source? And do any of you know of any other major/reliable source that covers resistance developments in Afghanistan. So far I am aware of the Independent's Persian branch as one, while major sources like Voice of America occasionally mention the anti-Taliban insurgency,. Basically, what is the consensus on the relative lack of outside coverage of the insurgency? Glakes (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that Hasht e Subh Daily provides reports compatible with other sources. The best thing for the moment would be to find sources about Hasht e Subh, start the Hasht e Subh Daily or Hasht-e-Subh Daily article, so that available third-party info about it can be provided and NPOVed and discussed on the talk page where necessary, and attribute (according to ...) reports here that seem dubious.

Other sources: TOLOnews seems to self-censor to some degree in order not to get closed down, but does publish a few hints of events (often in slightly ambiguous English) every now and then; the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission publishes occasional (quite rare in 2022) reports in English on human rights violations, some of which are related to the insurgency and Taliban repression of the resurgency; UNAMA may have some in-depth reports, though this report only has a few sentences: Armed clashes persist between the de facto security forces and armed opposition groups in the Panjshir, Baghlan, Kapisa, Takhar, and Badakhshan provinces. Boud (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2022

reference 224 is a dead link please replace it with Nonamesoda (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

References

8am.af website down

8am.af has some good info on the anti-Taliban insurgence, but the site is down. Hopefully the pages can be archived. Ominae (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe they have a new website under 8am.media that still works 72.138.54.50 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Saw that. Looks like they changed. Regardless, the 8am.af URLS need to be archived ASAP. Ominae (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well considering I found a replacement for reference 224 on .media I think it's possible to replace the .af dead links with .media articles but would take forever with the current protected edit thing going on at the moment. Nonamesoda (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

My trust in Voice of America is weak

The site also claimed in another article on December 30 that "enormous" progress was made in security.[9] This is not accurate, as shown even by the List of terrorist attacks in Kabul article.Speakfor (talk)

Voice of America is a reliable source and is one of the better ones when it comes to Afghanistan reporting, and we will not remove sourced information from it because you personally lack trust in it. Please don't do that again unless you have reliable sources to support your view. It will be considered disruptive editing. Them claiming that the security situation is improved since the Taliban takeover is not a reason to consider them unreliable. It is the prevailing viewpoint of analysts according to The Council on Foreign Relations: "Analysts say that the security situation has generally improved throughout Afghanistan, with fewer civilian casualties in 2022." 25stargeneral (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding recent revert.

The source you provided doesn't contradict VOA, which you have shown clear partial bias with sources to support your view rather then numerous others and ignoring the source itself.

Inside the source it says "Concentrated in the Andarab", which is likely referring to the district itself, and shows no fact that the NRF currently control Andarab or even any territory around it. And as aforementioned, numerous sources conflict with what you are trying to show on the page. And as @25stargeneral had shown you as well in a talk page statement above this just 24 days ago. @Speakfor Please don't try to put sources to support your view while disregarding the plentiful of others. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not imply that Andarab is a Province or that there was full control. Another source in the article notes they have a position there. "Multiple sources" do not contradict this. If they are they based there, then logically, they have some "territory." It is noted in a section in the article that they repelled a Taliban attack there. https://8am.media/eng/clashes-between-taliban-and-nrf-forces-in-baghlans-andarab-leave-dozens-dead-and-wounded/ Speakfor (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Since there position are not considered to be "territory" by consensus, I can't imply that they have territorial control. However, it is proper to note they have positions.Speakfor (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yet again, this is unneeded edits that is breaking MILMOS#INFOBOX. You are saying "logically", but you are saying this to fit your own view, and again this is contradicting the sources. and despite repelling an attack, it clearly states they control no territory and are leading hit and run attacks. Any further attempts to pose your own view will be seen as disruptive editing.Noorullah21 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That is your view to claim I am making it because of "my own view." Khaama News Agency is a reliable local Afghan news source. I am untrustworthy of the true intentions for erasing my edits. That's why I can't make anymoreSpeakfor (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I have not said that Khaama News Agency is an unreliable source. The wording is not only dubious, and the additions your making is breaking some rules of Wikipedia including in MILMOS#INFOBOX, alongside with the sources we have presented push forward the fact that the NRF do not in effect, control any territory, and are only leading hit and run attacks against the IEA, I already explained that is why I have reverted you. If you wish to make a change like this, it is better to discuss on the talk page before editing it where it may be in conflict with other editors.

Specifically move for consensus or ask other editors (including me, 25stargeneral, etc) specifically editors who have recently edited this page in general for concerns.

I gave you my concern and so did 25stargeneral's before, and as explained which is why we reverted your edits. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fighting season possibly starting again

recently while checking up on Afghan news sources I noticed that reports of combat have been steadily increasing with even the NRF stating a beginning to a guerrilla campaign in Afghanistan not much else but might be a good idea to keep an eye on it.

https://www.afintl.com/en/202303296531

https://8am.media/eng/new-season-of-nrf-operations-ahmadi-claims-attack-on-taliban-educational-center-in-kabul/ Nonamesoda (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

"On May 1, NRF claimed its fighters killed two Taliban soldiers in an assault on a Taliban outpost in Parwan Province. The attack came two days after insurgents from the AFF killed two Taliban fighters and wounded another in an attack on a police station in Kabul."

After this paragraph please add

"On May 7, the NRF claimed that its fighters had killed 8 Taliban fighters and injured 15 losing 4 NRF fighters in Khost District of Baghlan Province. The clashes came after the Taliban conducted house to house searches in the Jangalak village causing a skirmish to break out between NRF and Taliban forces lasting up to 10 hours. The NRF also confirmed that the Taliban were using heavy weapons and barrel bombs during the attacks."

Source: https://www.afintl.com/en/202305089518

} Nonamesoda (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done DreamRimmer (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

Shouldn't the timeline of the insurgency get its own article? I mean the Russian invasion of Ukriane, Tigray War and the Sudan conflict has their own. THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)]

I don't think so. In fact, I think the opposite: much of the "timeline" content here should be removed. The content is puffery and wishful-thinking from a period of about 3 weeks in summer 2021 when editors hoped this "insurgency" would become more than it has. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Contested Territory

It seems that from several media sources ISKP, the NRF, and AFF control territory and the Taliban try to cover the facts. 2603:8081:7300:1B4A:A64D:5CAB:C6A0:FD56 (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you link or name these sources? Zowayix001 (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)