Talk:Republican insurgency in Afghanistan/Archive 1

Title
I don't think "(2021-Present)" is particularly useful when it's still 2021. It smacks of WP:CRYSTAL. If this article survives what I'd say is an inevitable RfD, then please consider changing it to "(2021)". If the conflict goes into 2022, then you can change the title then. Moncrief (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Chetsford (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes.Slauv (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Title, Again
Title way too long and rambley, doesn't disambiguate, propose to rename to Panjshir Conflict Flalf Talk 21:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't fundamentally object, though, I think it would behoove us to wait a couple days. Both parties to the conflict claim legitimacy over all 34 provinces, it just happens that one party's influence is limited to just Panjshir. The conflict is not over the territory of Panjshir but over the territory of the whole of Afghanistan. And since there's no evidence of warfighting at the current time, it would be incorrect to insinuate that conflict was occurring "in" Panjshir. Chetsford (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The conflict is already spreading outside of Panjshir; strong disagree with that particular renaming.  Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 22:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with the latest unconfirmed reports that Charikar has fallen to the ANA, we should probably hold off for just a bit. Chetsford (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose to rename it Anti-Taliban Resistance in Afghanistan (2021) instead, sounds more fitting and may be kept in the future even whether the ANA secures some strongholds outside of the valley or Panjshir strongholds falls and the resistance is left to guerilla warfare in the mountains. Also, Panjshir conflict is too specific considering that in the case of other modern conflicts it is globally used to denote an attempt at secession, while the Panjshir-based movement is clearly a continuation of the Afghan state. Another alternative naming could be "Panjshir-based Anti-Taliban Counter-offensive", but it is more prospective. Larrayal (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it should be Anti-Taliban Insurgency, because clearly this will spread across the nation soon and will not be directed just by the Panjshir region. But we will see, I'm good with Anti-Taliban Resistance in Afghanistan (2021) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.243.36 (talk • contribs)


 * "Resistance" might not end up being the right term if Saleh ends up gaining international recognition, it might become more of a civil war. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 23:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mate its already a civil war
 * For now it's unlikely there will be an international consensus over it, and it's kinda both early and WP:CRYSTAL for me to talk about "civil war" (given that in an immediate future offensive the Taliban may take the valley, it's very early). For now, talking about whether "resistance" (which was the term used back in April-May, Resistance II/Second Resistance, and Ahmad Massoud use the term "Resistance" in his letter) or "insurrection" (which I like less, because it implies less a continuation of a fight and more the beginning of a new fight) is probably the safest way to keep things accurate for now - but strongly agree once with the civil war denomination if the ANA manages to conquer back more provinces. Larrayal (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved it back to its former name following the non-consensual edit. It would be good to find a new naming soon, to clearly distinct it from the Second Resistance movement. Larrayal (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved it to the one thats agreed upon here. Any further changes should be discussed. Flalf Talk 01:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Who agreed? The only person who has stated support for moving it to "Anti-Taliban Insurgency" is a single IP editor. Chetsford (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-Taliban Insurgency violates WP:NPOV. We have no WP:RS describing it as an "insurgency" and "insurgency" insinuates an unlawful attack against lawful institutions while the IRA claims to be engaged in a lawful attack against unlawful institutions. Further, "insurgency" portends militarized action. We have no RS indicating any fighting has occurred. Chetsford (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I have moved it to Panjshir conflict due to RS predominantly focusing on that and the many concerns expressed about the unwieldiness of the previous title. Zoozaz1 talk  02:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of "many concerns". I think I'll move it back in a bit. Chetsford (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is kinda childish from everyone involved including myself. I'll say that "Panjshir" is too specific (especially considering there is no actual fighting in Panjshir but instead allegedly in Charikhar, and that "conflict" is generally used for a separate war and not a separate battle (which it is clearly, the situation in Panjshir being a direct consequence of the 2021 Taliban invasion of Afghanistan. That said, I suppose one should organize a vote. Too much messing with that subject leads to frivolous consequences such as the debate on the capitalization of the F in "Fall of Kabul". Let's not fall in this rabbithole and stay cool. Don't forget that this will maybe become the general accepted name of the infighting for the time being, given Wikipedia's unexpected influence over medias. We need an accurate name, not a name who sounds good. Also this discussion is becoming larger than the article content, despite several sources talking about Charikhar which should be investigated, and I feel like this is a more useful occupation than parish debates. Larrayal (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is ridiculous, my rationale was that, since we all seemed to have a consensus that the original name was unhelpful, we should have settled on a name we all didn't hate until we could further discuss a name, instead of leaving it on a name that would be confusing for the reader and far too long. On another note, the use of the word "insurgency" does not violate WP:NPOV, its simply the term for a revolt against the power in control, which would now be the Taliban, so imo is rather fitting for the article considering the resistance is not limited to Panjshir, and the fact that the article Panjshir resistance already exists about the group doing the resisting.  Flalf Talk  02:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "we all seemed to have a consensus that the original name was unhelpful" That's incorrect. "its simply the term for a revolt against the power in control" A lawful authority cannot revolt against an unlawful authority, only the reverse can occur. The IRA claims to be the de jure authority; to say they are engaged in an "insurgency" delegitimates that claim. Chetsford (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion × 6

 * This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because the information is currently relevant if anything it should at least be merged with another relevant page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.98.151 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... Current events involving war in afghanistan about the anti taliban forces should stay up or be merged into a different article because it is a factual article about possible afghan resitence north of kabul. 2A05:1D43:118:0:A064:80EB:A121:FA84 (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The target article Panjshir resistance deals with a specific organization. This article, Panjshir Conflict, deals with a militarized conflict with which said organization is involved. Just as we do not delete World War II because we already have an article called Japanese Imperial Navy, nor would we delete Panjshir Conflict because we have an article on the Panjshir Resistance. Chetsford (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... Potentially a new conflict is starting. --Worldwar1989 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, it's said that i'sthe same topic as the resistance group, but it isn't this is the conflict the resistance group fights in. such things are to be seperated --Norschweden (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because a merging is currently going on, and the deleting seems primarly motivated by a speedy and butched change in the name which is currently contested. Wait for merging, perhaps. It is also a military conflict, and not an organization. The reason it is virtually identical with the so-called Panjshir Resistance is that we barely have informations about talibans wereabouts in the area. When we'll have that, we'll be able to differentiate them sufficiently. --Larrayal (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that the article shouldn't be deleted *right off the bat, since it is an ongoing situation and linked to current split events.
 * Would Strongly Support a merger with other articles that this resistance coalition or sequence of events is tied to & relevant towards if such proposals were to have a consensus
 * (Such as the page on the broader conflict/war or next phase as part of the offensive that is now happening after) Daseiin (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Consolidating these, and slightly refactoring where needed, to avoid them taking up six sections on the page. Noting for the record that I wound up removing the A10 tag as an uninvolved editor, as allowed for by WP:CSD—which I think has been borne out as a reasonable decision given the diversity of opinion expressed at the various venues discussing this page's future. -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sincerely apologize as just getting to grips with editing comment errors, I accidentally replied to a comment in the batch instead of trying to get it added from here. Is it possible to have mine consolidated aswell as the proposed alternative? Daseiin (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting deletion: Crystal Ball
There is hardly any information about this whatsoever and is only alleged to have existed for a day. The article should be deleted and possibly revisited when we can know whether or not it even exists. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , See WP:AFDHOWTO if you wish to nominate the article for deletion. The talk page is not the correct place. Zoozaz1 talk  03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I will copy what I wrote at Articles for deletion/Panjshir resistance here to support a merge to Panjshir resistance:

Panjshir resistance is longer, older, and better developed than the conflict article and is not burdened by constant renaming (around 8 or so in the past few hours for Panjshir conflict). Almost of all of Panjshir conflict's text is duplicated there. The theoretical difference is that this article is to detail the resistance group while the other is to detail the conflict, but practically at this point with the amount of (shared) content they should be the same article. Zoozaz1 <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b> 02:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Panjshir resistance is about a purported organization whose existence is sourced to Tweets. Panjshir conflict is about a conflict that involves multiple parties. We wouldn't merge World War II into U.S. Army. This proposal is as ridiculous as that would be. Further, a merge would violate WP:NPOV by de-legitimizing non-Panjshir parties to the conflict. Chetsford (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming the content from Panshir resistance is moved onto this article, I don't have a problem with merging that article into this one instead. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  02:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt there's any redeemable content. Any useful content is already here. The rest is summaries of Tweets. Chetsford (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are only two tweets cited on that article, out of 18 citations. This article has 5 citations. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  02:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a lot of WP:SYNTH in there, too, we can safely axe. We should avoid using our imaginations to create organizations that don't actually exist. Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) The Panjshir Resistance has since graduated from Tweets to mainstream media such as The Washington Post, France 24, The New York Times, Fox News, BBC.
 * 2) There is no WP:NPOV issue with "Panjshir Resistance", that's just what it's called; even the opposing side could call it that. Other examples of this include: French Resistance, Korean Resistance, Greek resistance, Luxembourg Resistance, Belgian Resistance, Dutch resistance, Banadir Resistance, etc..


 * Oppose Talked about it in the Talk page too. It is too early to do it. Don't care about which is merged with which, but it shouldn't, as one is military history and the other a supposed grouping of people, and the naming issues about this article are not a legitimization for a merging. Larrayal (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Merge, but reversed Doesn't really matter which article the content ends up on, but I would support it going onto the article about the conflict, as evidence of a "Panjshir Resistance" that is in some way separate from the remnants of the IRA is... shaky. BSMRD (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I wouldn't have a problem with merging the article into this one instead. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  03:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The organization behind the resistance and the conflict itself are two separate things, although I think we may need to wait awhile until both the conflict and the organization become more defined as time progresses. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What organization? The only evidence of an organization is a Wikipedia article that imaginatively claims there to be one. Chetsford (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Merger Panjshir resistance is not much like an organisation I believe, rather it's a resistance based there which precisely is a conflict. USaamo (t@lk) 08:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per @USaamo Ytpks896 (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Support for merge in any direction - If there are problems with this article that will get parts removed, replaced or even full article rewrite then perhaps it'd be best to merge the accepted portions into the resistance article and have their conflict in a section as part of the series of events which was the resistance Daseiin (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is clearly an emerging topic and a group that exists in reliable sourcing, and appears to be a movement that will not be long constructed to just one region. For now, it should remain separate. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merging the belligerent into the conflict is non-nonsensical and has no reason for merging. The conflict is the overall anti-Taliban resistance, and the belligerents are the various different organizations in that conflict. You don't merge them into a single article. Des Vallee (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose One is the group and the other is the conflict. They need separate pages.LordLoko (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The conflict and the group are separate, as stated already by opposing editors. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose While related, these are clearly articles about two different things. I understand this proposal being made when the articles were first created and there was only limited information, but they have grown and changed since then. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support, its because of the RESISTANCE in the Panjashir that we are actually discussing on this topic, otherwise there wouldn't be any CONFLICT like rest of the Afghanistan.They are resisting to something that's sweeping their existence unlike getting involved in a conflict Rupk (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose this page is different from the other one. This page is about the conflict whereas the the Panjshir resistance page should be about the resistance organisation itself, so that page should be focused on who the resistance are, their mission, leaders, structure, and equipment, like any Army page would be. Leaving this page with the actual detail of the conflict, where, when and how the war is going. <b style="color: darkgreen; font-family: comic sans ms">ThinkingTwice</b> contribs &#124; talk 11:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose They are different things, this page is about a conflict and the other one is about the organization involved in the conflict and that was said before. 197.52.52.134 (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reasons as . Soapwort (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support merging conflict into resistance
 * 1) There hasn't really been all that much of a conflict yet.
 * 2) A Google search for "Panjshir Resistance" shows 130,000 results, while "Panjshir conflict" has a mere 1,740; that's a 75:1 ratio. ("National Resistance Front of Afghanistan" has 28,000 results.)
 * 3) "Panjshir resistance" results include notable sources such as The Washington Post, France 24, The New York Times, Fox News. I don't see any notable sources in the "Panjshir conflict" results. ("National Resistance Front of Afghanistan" is mentioned by several reputable news sources including the BBC).
 * 4) Searching the news for "Panjshir", most of the headlines seem more about the resistance, than any conflict.
 * 5) Future events may change things, but as of now, the "Panjshir resistance" seems to be more dominant than the conflict.

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose The recent move of Panjshir resistance to National Resistance Front of Afghanistan proves that these two articles are about different things. Charles Essie (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The NRF is now (in my opinion) notable enough to have a standalone article on its own since it has been confirmed by official sources and is backed up by credible proof as well. Nsn2635 (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose both topics are distinct and notable enough at the moment. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - these are complementary but closely related topics, each with enough good sources and with no sign of either finishing any time soon. Boud (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Rename proposal
With no prejudice for future renaming if a proper name begins to be invoked by RS, should this article be called ... Chetsford (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC); edited 03:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Conflict between the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2021)
 * 2) Panjshir conflict
 * 3) Anti-Taliban insurgency
 * 4) Panjshir-Taliban stand off
 * 5) Some other option
 * Option 1 Option 1 is the original and stable title. "Insurgency" is a weasel word not used by any RS; it violates NPOV by delegitimizing the claim of one-party to be engaged in a lawful use of force. "Panjshir conflict" is entirely inaccurate as it makes it sound like there is a conflict over the Panjshir Valley; in fact, this is a conflict over the whole of Afghanistan, it merely happens one party to that conflict is headquartered, for the time being, in the PV. Until RS create a proper name, we should use a descriptive title, even if it is slightly cumbersome. Chetsford (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC); edited 04:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Panjshir conflict This article is about a part of the War in Afghanistan that involves Panjshir. If the article was the "conflict between the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan," then that is functionally the same as the War in Afghanistan article only with a more restricted time period and should be merged into that. This is a specific conflict in that war localized to Panjshir, and nothing more (at this moment), and the title Panjshir conflict best reflects that. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  03:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "This article is about a part of the War in Afghanistan that involves Panjshir." That's incorrect. This article is about a conflict between the Taliban and the irredentist state using the name IRA that onset on August 15. The only connection to Panjshir is that one of the two parties in that conflict currently has its command post there. By your rationale, we would rename World War II to "Berlin conflict" because Germany had its headquarters in Berlin. Chetsford (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For your first part, I disagree. The Panjshir resistance is effectively the same as the IRA, headed by leaders of the IRA. For your second part, that is a fundamentally different situation. In this situation, with the absence of a common name, we adopt a descriptive name. The name that best describes the conflict is Panjshir conflict. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  03:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Panjshir resistance is effectively the same as the IRA" No RS say that and there is no evidence of the existence of anything called "the Panjshir Resistance". "The name that best describes the conflict is Panjshir conflict. " That would only be true if this were a conflict over Panjshir. It is not. It is a conflict over Afghanistan. One party to the conflict is headquartered in Panjshir, the other is headquartered in Kabul. Chetsford (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree. Only time will tell. However, I agree there is no named entity called the "Panjshir resistance," as it is a descriptive name. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  03:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously you don't believe it's merely a descriptive name and not an entity as you keep edit warring it into to the infobox . Chetsford (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean, adding it once? I don't see any problem with adding a descriptive name of a loose grouping of fighters to an infobox. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  15:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 2 or 3 Anything besides option 1. Option one is too long and doesn't disambiguate well. The other two are both fine to me, as they are more specific and accurate, while being brief. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see the reason to open an RfA like this. We already have two discussions above on name. I think better options could be done through actual discussion instead of picking from what we already have. I think RfA is always better as something after lengthy discussion on name. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the reason to open an RfA like this. You don't? The page was renamed seven times in three hours and had to be move protected. Chetsford (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, but an RfA isn't going to be productive when we haven't even settled on options yet. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Everyone is kinda right, but it's ridiculous to keep that tone. It seems likely for the time being (from unreliable sources from now I must admit) that this resistance or conflict or insurgence or whatever will soon turn into a regular military counter-offensive from the ANA against the Talibans on Charikhar and Mazar-i-Sharif. Nothing is confirmed yet, but Panjshir seems more and more like a strategic retreat preceading an offensive than a proper resistance, so stop arguing on something that'll be changed in 14 hours. Saleh claims to have taken Charikhar, Dostum is still waiting for revenge in Uzbekistan with Nur and has, according to some, started mobilizing 10.000 soldiers and expects to join with the ANA, the situation is rapidly evolving without good media covering as both Talibans and the  Resistance II are aware that the less they talk about strategy and positions the better it is for them, we should keep the most neutral title for the time being, even if it is obnoxiously long. If we put Panjshir Conflict, in two days the same debate will maybe stupidly start as the mujahideen secure the northern districts once again. Let's just wait and see the events before inventing new fancy terms. Even if Panjshir Conflict is very fancy. Larrayal (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or Option 3. Option 1 is a ridiculous and unwieldy title, that also gives undue weight. As of right now the Islamic Republic is basically nonexistent outside of some holdouts in Panjshir and the Taliban rule the country as the Islamic Emirate. The title gives way more weight to the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic and dismisses the Islamic Emirate, as well as being an unnecessarily long and very ambiguous title. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 03:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "gives way more weight to the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic and dismisses the Islamic Emirate" I wouldn't have an issue with replacing "Taliban" with "Islamic Emirate" in the title. Chetsford (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Not Option 1 I don't particularly care what the article is named, but we can't use Option 1, which is so vague that it could apply to any point from 2004 to now. BSMRD (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I accidentally left off the "(2021)" that appeared in the original article's title. I've fixed it now. Chetsford (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Much better, but I'm still not a huge fan. Option 1 really says nothing about how this is at all different to previous Taliban/IRA conflicts (and is also effectively synonymous with 2021 Taliban offensive). BSMRD (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Question Serafart and Flalf -- Editors are now adding instances of conflict in Nangarhar Province, Kunar Province, Khost Province and Parwan Province to this article. To clarify, do you still support naming this article "Panjshir (province) conflict" as per your !votes above? Chetsford (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm still up for discussion on what the name should be, I'm just certain it shouldn't be option 1. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 23:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 4: Why not “Afghanistan Conflict (2021)”? It’s a neutral title that avoids conferring the problematic connotations of the other suggested titles.Jogarz1921 (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because this article is not going to cover 1 Jan 2021–15 Aug 2021 except for a brief background section. (The Taliban's Twitter/Whatsapp campaign was highly successful through to 15 Aug in making opposition seem pointless, and is not the topic of this article.) If we insert a date, then this proposal gets closer to one that I suggest below, Afghan conflict (17 August 2021–present), though I argue that Afghan civil war (17 August 2021–present would be more consistent with the series of articles on the multi-decade Afghan civil war (capitalised or not). Boud (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - This can go roughly in 3 different ways. 1. Whole thing will be solved through negotiations, in which case this article should be probably merged as a separate section into some larger article dealing with Taliban takeover. 2. Fighting starts, but is limited to Panjshir, in which case current title "Panjshir conflict" will work. 3. Fighting starts, and spreads outside Panjshir, in this case we should follow standard practice for other civil wars in Afghanistan since 1989 and title it "Afghan Civil War (2021)".--Staberinde (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As of 18 August, Emergency (NGO) TOLOnews in Panjshir being treated is increasing. As Emergency is a doctors' NGO, it's unsurprising that there's no statement about which group the injured belong to; doctors don't distinguish patients on that basis. It's evidence that some sort of military conflict is taking place in Panjshir. War injuries don't happen without war. This can be "upgraded" to "civil war" later if needed. Boud (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4 (other): Afghan civil war (17 August 2021–present). With Parwan Province and Baghlan Province involved, Panjshir conflict is starting to get misleading as a descriptive title. We currently have Afghan Civil War (1989–1992), Afghan Civil War (1992–1996), Afghan Civil War (1996–2001). The lower case "c" and "w" in this proposed name indicate that this is a descriptive name, not (yet?) a common name. Alternatives could be Afghan civil war (August 2021–present) or Afghan civil war (mid-August 2021–present), although the Fall of Kabul date of 15 July seems reasonably uncontroversial as a significant historical dividing line, and we don't have evidence of opposition fighting on 16 August. Another alternative could be Afghan Civil War (2021 Fall of Kabul–present), but that would be about as unwieldy as Option 1. Afghan conflict (17 August 2021–present) might have a chance of achieving consensus too, although the only claims we have of the civil war being over are those of the Taliban, and the reliability of their statements doesn't seem to be much better than that of typical politicians. Boud (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is clearly a precedent for this, but I think it is absolutely too early to call this a "civil war". I don't know if it has been labelled as such in any reliable sources, all the ones I've seen mentioning a civil war are just talking about the likelihood of the conflict escalating into a civil war. This is an option I could support in future, if evidence starts to point to the conflict turning in that direction, but not for now. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the one above me. As of today, it's too early to call this a 'civil war' when not even one credible source labels it as such. Nsn2635 (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Panjashir campaign - This is not a separate conflict, it is merely a campaign within the greater afghan war.XavierGreen (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 1: "Conflict between the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" - For now atleast in agreement with reasons given by others, and is more neutral compared to the insurgency one while avoiding giving new names not used elsewhere.
 * Current name could be confusing and misinterpreted as to where current conflicts are and there is no evidence of the existence of anything called "the Panjshir Resistance" with sources observed at this present moment only that one of the groups that are involved has a post there Daseiin (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: In addition to the previous vote
 * Might be worth considering this as part of a wider conflict instead of splitting before we know what's happening for sure afterwards.
 * Perhaps a merger with some of the other related articles? Daseiin (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If the conflict remain and the resistance could take control on territories outside of Panshjir Province so I suggest to call this article "Afghan civil war (2021-present)" Mohammed 2976 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It s a stand off so far, the resistance leader asks for negociations and an inclusive national union government. No significant battles/clashes so far. (AFAIK) Any name emphasing war and conflict would be factually misleading by virtue of WP:due weight. Yug (talk)  22:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 2 for now as while the conflict has spilled out of the Panjshir valley, it is still centered around it. Option 1 is quite an unnecessarily long title and also has the added problem of using "Taliban" instead of "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" in a title about a conflict with the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan". Option 3 is problematic as it would need a good amount of sourcing that describes this situation as an "insurgency". Option 4 is confusingly worded, as it seems to indicate a standoff between the Taliban and the Panjshir Valley itself. Ultimately, I think it's too early to discuss changing the name of the article. As the situation develops and if sources begin to use a specific name for the conflict, that's when this discussion may be worth revisiting. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait - Panjshir conflict is good enough for now per Staberinde's logic. Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Should this RfC be aborted and discussion started anew?
Based on the direction of !votes in the RfC, as well as the direction of fighting which has spilled to provinces other than Panjshir, should the RfC be aborted and a new discussion started to gauge interest in the following options that have been suggested? To clarify, this is not a question on renaming the article, only if this discussion should be terminated and a new one initiated with the above options. Pinging previous !voters (Grnrchst, Yug, Daseiin, XavierGreen, Boud, Staberinde,Larrayal, Zoozaz1, Serafart, BSMRD, Flalf), sorry if I missed anyone. Chetsford (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Afghan civil war (17 August 2021–present) or Afghan civil war (2021)
 * 2) Afghanistan conflict (17 August 2021–present) or Afghanistan conflict (2021)
 * 3) Panjshir conflict
 * 4) Anti-Taliban insurgency
 * 5) Panjshir-Taliban stand off
 * 6) Something else
 * Abort and start new discussion with above options The situation on the ground has changed significantly since the RfC started to the point that early !voters may wish to revisit their !votes. In addition, a number of alternative names have gained some traction. Finally, given the increased amount of involvement now on this article, versus when the RfC started, a formal RfC may no longer be necessary. The RfC is both out of date and is now so confusing it will be almost impossible to close. Chetsford (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I stand by mine previously and the point I made in it, if I were to vote again then it would be to the closest option (Option 2 - Afghanistan Conflict in 2021)
 * Oppose - Voting for discussion to run its course without being aborted and/or accepted as concluded, feels as if its been discussed at length with many points made and that it wouldn't be good to wipe the slate and start again after everyone has made their points and cast their votes. Also potentially unproductive vote to get a consensus from if has Option 6 in as "Something Else" where people could split further in putting many suggestions in.
 * Daseiin (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see no reason to start a discussion about a discussion, or to terminate the other one. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  23:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose in favour of restoring/updating the options in the existing thread. Better would be to restore "4" as "some other option"; create "5" as "Panjshir–Taliban stand off"; and add to your original list: # 6a. Afghan civil war (17 August 2021–present) or 6b. Afghan civil war (2021) and # 7a. Afghanistan conflict (17 August 2021–present) or 7b. Afghanistan conflict (2021), so that the original numbering is preserved but extended, and recommend to people who wish to do so to use  to withdraw their original preference+arguments and add their new choice either with an extra indent or as a new entry at the bottom of the list of responses. It seems that you're now arguing against Option 1, but some people were in favour, so it's better to withdraw your support by striking it, and adding a new preference if you have one, without dismissing the support argued by other people. This solution would also avoid the confusion where right now we appear (according to the Option numbers) to have several people (including me) arguing for "Panjshir–Taliban stand off" but the text of our comments shows that we're not. Boud (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would repeat my earlier argument to simply wait. We still can't predict what way this will develop, and the current title is a reasonably passable temporary solution for now.--Staberinde (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, this should be only a temporary name for now depending on developments. With the conflict potentially spreading far beyond Panjshir (and a separate anti-Taliban militia rising in Maidan Wardak) it will probably become Afghan Civil War soon to accomodate everything. --Weaveravel (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, this should be only a temporary name for now depending on developments. With the conflict potentially spreading far beyond Panjshir (and a separate anti-Taliban militia rising in Maidan Wardak) it will probably become Afghan Civil War soon to accomodate everything. --Weaveravel (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment alongside previous vote - Currently Agreed with stance made by Boud, and also feel that consensus is weighing on the oppose side against the action which would potentially undo all of the discussion so far and render the votes and points made on them wasted. Dasein (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Tentative summary
Since any new name that has a fair chance of consensus will have to go through a WP:RM, here's an attempt by one of the involved people (me) to summarise the arguments. I've listed usernames where the point seems to have been raised by only one person (which doesn't make it wrong). I've numbered the options in the way I sugggested a few minutes ago. Boud (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify: please wait a bit to see if Chetsford agrees to update the list of options above, and then use in your old comment if you see arguments justifying a change in your recommendation. The main content that will be summarised by someone looking to prepare a requested move proposal will be the list of * points above, since the list immediately below is done by just one person. New people joining the discussion: please add your preferred option(s) + arguments in the main list of points above, in the usual way. Boud (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Boud (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Conflict between the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2021)
 * 2) *con:
 * 3) ** much too long and unwieldy
 * 4) ** makes the "Republic" sound like more of a state than the "Emirate", while right now, it appears that in terms of political-military power, the reverse is the case
 * 5) ** doesn't start after the 15 Aug 2021 fall of Kabul, so overlaps too strongly with 2021 Taliban offensive
 * 6) Panjshir conflict
 * 7) *pro:
 * 8) ** still centred on Panjshir
 * 9) *con:
 * 10) ** fighting reliably sourced in several provinces, not just Panjshir
 * 11) Anti-Taliban insurgency
 * 12) *con:
 * 13) ** WP:WEASEL
 * 14) ** gives recognition to Islamic Emirate as de facto or legitimate government prior to wide international recognition
 * 15) Some other option
 * 16) Panjshir–Taliban stand off
 * 17) *con:
 * 18) ** "stand off" is too colloquial for a descriptive name, and is not a common name; maybe "stalemate" would be better?
 * 19) ** fighting reliably sourced in several provinces, not just Panjshir
 * 20) Afghan civil war (17 August 2021–present) or Afghan civil war (2021)
 * 21) *pro:
 * 22) ** consistent with names of earlier articles, except for non-capitalisation since it's a descriptive, not a common name
 * 23) *con:
 * 24) ** too strong given the small scale of fighting and apparent negotiations
 * 25) Afghanistan conflict (17 August 2021–present) or Afghanistan conflict (2021)
 * 26) *pro:
 * 27) ** currently more accurate in terms of small scale (dozens of fighters from the two sides killed) than "civil war"
 * 28) ** consistent with the pattern for other ongoing armed conflicts: see List of ongoing armed conflicts, e.g. Oromo conflict + Benishangul-Gumuz conflict
 * 29) *con:
 * 30) ** too strong
 * If I may propose another alternative: How about "Northern Afghanistan conflict (2021)"? While the threat of overlap with the Taliban offensive exists, as the latter also took place in the north, it would be a generally neutral name without giving anyone undue recognition or taking a POV perspective. It would also have the bonus of not ignoring that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan & Panjshir resistance as well as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan & Taliban are no longer the only players, since some anti-Taliban revolts have already been staged by local groups which are not directly aligned with anyone (not to mention that both Taliban and anti-Taliban forces include groups of differing interests, most visibly seen in the different aims of Saleh and Massoud). Applodion (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a good title, I'd support that. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 00:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * A few objections:
 * the lack of a precise date would suggest that the pre-15-August conflict should be included;
 * if the conflict extends to southern parts of Afghanistan, then the article will have to be split or renamed, rather than just having the content added here;
 * whether the region is descriptively "north", "east" or rather "north-east" is a bit ambiguous, given the orientation and shape of Afghanistan.
 * Boud (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I disagree with Northern Afghanistan. The Panjshir and surroundings are not core "North". In Afghanistan the term "North" would normally refer to the Balkh Province and surroundings there, which is much further west, so Northern would be a misleading term. Secondly, as this WSJ article from last week reports there have been clashes between the Taliban and local Hazara militants in the Daikundi Province and Maidan Wardak Province, both of which are Central Afghanistan and not North. -- WR   15:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * With the start of Hazara revolts, I agree that "Northern Afghanistan conflict" no longer really fits. Applodion (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible closure via a RM
I started Requested move 3 September 2021 below based on the current state of this RfC. The RfC was intended to generate likely candidates for a name, without expecting a fast decision. My feeling is that we have a fair chance of consensus on the name proposed below, so it's best to test this specifically. Boud (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like my prediction of the result was wrong, but at least we should be able to get closure on the issue by an uninvolved editor in a week's time: people seem to be giving clear answers and avoiding long discussions. Boud (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Saleh in Charikar according to some
So, for this article survival, whether it is legitimate or not. There's an article (http://www.uniindia.com/~/afghan-vice-president-saleh-s-forces-retake-charikar-area-from-taliban-source/World/news/2480065.html) that states that's Saleh has taken Charikar. I don't know about reliability in Indian media, and this information is coming apparently from a russian network. So, is this source at least credible, which means there's effectively a military campaign of whatever name in the region led by Massoud and Saleh, which would invalidate both the deletion claim and the merge claim, or are the informations not credible yet, which mean we can continue talking shit about each other ? Please, respond seriously. I don't take it as reliable for now personnaly, but it seems likely. It is also cited on the very protected and very overlooked 2021 Taliban offensive page. So, any advice ? Larrayal (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem with all of these discussions is that the entire situation is uncertain. Not only do we disagree, we disagree on what we are disagreeing about. That is probably why it's best to wait a week or so until things have settled down, but at this point it is probably too late for that. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  03:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

May We Step Back

 * I would agree with the prior: "The problem with all of these discussions is that the entire situation is uncertain." This is a current, fluid, and ongoing action by people. By including these new articles (now seemingly posted or edited daily by one or more individuals with an interest in or part of the conflict in Afghanistan) is Wikipedia being turned into a 24/7 news organization by outside players? My understanding (and prior editing punishment) is we accept articles and content based on facts which can be cited to provable sources. I'm not saying this lightly. None of the current events activity should be cited until it is history. Do we want to be swept up into being part and party to the events of the day which can swing by the hour on social media. Wikipedia needs to maintain it's solid reputation for protecting factual content from incidental changes by warring parties.DAZMasters (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have seen similar reports, though given the ambiguous sources given and the general situation, and also the lack of many reliable sources corroborating the situation, I believe that it may just be a report of forces planning to advance towards or advancing towards Charikar that was lost in translation Serafart (talk) (contributions) 03:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP lists Sputnik as an unreliable source. UNI is fine but, in this case, it's laundering a Sputnik article. "I don't take it as reliable for now personnaly, but it seems likely." For a variety of reasons, I generally agree with you. We should continue looking for a RS that verifies this but leave it out for now, IMO. Chetsford (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Sputnik at all. My interpretation of the various primary sources is that there is an army of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in the Charikar area that has not acknowledged the Taliban government.  Claiming they have "captured" anything is simply flowerly language.  Without better sourcing, this should probably be left out. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with power~enwiki. It's been inserted again by Cordyceps-Zombie, this time laundered through a South African newspaper's syndication, but I think I'm at my 3RR limit so someone else will have to remove it. Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I have caused trouble for you guys. I was simply trying to say that certain events had been "reported" with caveats that those reports have not been conformed. Perhaps I am being too journalistic in my editing, trying to report every snippet of news I can find. I will defer to the judgement of other editors in this regard in future.Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "I was simply trying to say that certain events had been "reported" with caveats that those reports have not been conformed." This is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. We don't chronicle "unconfirmed" rumors. Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Will this work? (https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/afghan-crisis-panjshiris-remain-defiant-claim-uzbek-leader-dostums-support-299043)? No traces of it being sourced with help from Sputnik. Ominae (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess. In my opinion, I'd be deliberate in the wording, though, as the Tribune only reports they "claim" to have taken Charikar, not that they actually have. Chetsford (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Guess that's the only way. Ominae (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Shift Charikar takeover from 'resistance' to 'conflict'?
Any objections to shifting the (apparent) Charikar takeover by Resistance II from Panjshir resistance here to Panjshir conflict? That's at least one item which makes more sense as part of "the military conflict" rather than "the group(s) of people who are organising as the resistance". A bit of redundance between the two articles is acceptable, but until/if a merger is consensed on, we should at least try to make it clear what the complementary roles of the two articles are, so that we can at least see if keeping the articles separate is viable. Boud (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't object, provided whatever we're bringing over doesn't use non-RS (which has been an issue with the Charikar rumor). Chetsford (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (By someone other than me.) Boud (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove military infobox
This is an article on a political conflict and we have no evidence of fighting. We should remove the military infobox which is reserved "to summarize information about a particular military conflict" per Template:Infobox military conflict. It can be reintroduced in the event of the militarization of the political conflict. 05:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chestford (talk • contribs)
 * Since it's been more than a day and no one objects, I'm going to remove this. The military conflict infobox should only be used for military conflicts, not conflicts of other varieties, like political disputes, football matches, fashion shows, etc. Chetsford (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Aaaand it had been added back with mentions of casualties without any RS. Strongly advocating for semi-protection until everybody calm down. Larrayal (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox is helpful and adds valuable information to the article in an organized fashion. Just because RS haven't reported shots being fired in Panjshir doesn't mean we can't have a useful infobox. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  18:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't have serious reports of shots being fired, but we do have the Emergency (organization) report of increasing numbers of war injuries. The infobox seems justified to me. Boud (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the war injuries. The source seems reliable, but we really don't know when they were made. Also, this is probably earlier than Saleh's alleged conquest of Charikar. This is maybe more the partisans of the Resistance coming with their own injured soldiers during the retreat to avoid letting them in the hands of the Talibans than injuries made in Panjshir itself or under the orders of Saleh. Kinda cautious for this one Larrayal (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point: there are multiple possible inferences on when/where the war injuries occurred. Boud (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Liberation of new districts by the resistance - Baghlan
Confirmed news that the following three districts in Baghlan, neighbouring Panjshir has been liberated by local militias: I heard the news on BBC Persian TV, stating that "a former security official of Baghlan" has confirmed the news. Sputnik website has the news posted too, Here. This link says that the former defense minister confirmed the news too. BasilLeaf (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Dih Salah District
 * 2) Andarab District Aka Banu District
 * 3) Puli Hisar District
 * , Are you certain Banu district is Andarab district? I started a discussion on Talk:Panjshir resistance about it. Panjshir resistance implies that Banu is separate from Andarab. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  17:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zoozaz1, I was going to ask the same question. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  02:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021
From: As of August 2021, a negotiated end to the political impasse has been attempted, with Saleh calling for a "peace deal" with the Taliban.[6][21]

To: As of August 2021, a negotiated end to the political impasse has been attempted, with Saleh calling for a "peace deal" with the Taliban.[6][21]

Notes on what I suggested: a new source. Marsuli111 (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Mel ma nn   10:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Battle map
I added a battle map. If anyone feels it makes the article too crowded, please feel free to remove it. Chetsford (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this is useful, thanks. There was a mistake with the coordinates for Puli Hisar I believe, I corrected them. The locations are all pretty close together, so I think it would be more readable if we used a map that only showed the relevant area. Unfortunately I don't know where there is such a map or how to quickly make one. QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I modified the original map to show more of a close-up of North West Central Afghanistan. Hopefully that improves readability a bit. Chetsford (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Taliban claims are not a reliable source for front line/map changes. Especially given their history of deception & disinformation. This needs confirmation from better sources. Until then their "recapture" statements should be treated as claims only in the article (& on maps etc.), not as confirmed facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.224.223 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a ceasefire or not?
Reports are emerging that fighting has resumed. Should someone edit it? Abedagoat12 (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not without sources. Boud (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we even have any actually reliable sources on the ceasefire? There isn't much on it, especially since the Taliban would've atleast announced it a lot to try to show they negotiate. Can anyone find RS? <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 04:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * TOLOnews "The first round of talks between the Taliban and Massoud delegations was held on August 25, during which the two sides agreed to not attack each other until the second round of talks." TOLOnews. Boud (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Tolo news has recently started clashes have begun. Should we make it ongoing rather than ceasefire? Abedagoat12 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Stated Abedagoat12 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that there are, in fact, clashes ongoing, as reported in the article’s body itself. We should definitely remove the “ceasefire” descriptor.Jogarz1921 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the valley controlled by Islamic State in Khorasan Province be shown with a separate color?
It WAS on Taliban Insurgency maps as recently as this July, and marking them the same color as the Taliban is clearly unwise in hindsight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Which valley do they control and who has reported this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsuli111 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It was on the old Taliban Insurgency map format we used before the offensive, with the white and red colour scheme. Check late June — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The Pre-July template included the small area controlled by IS-K, there's no info to suggest they lost it, I think it was just cut for simplicity, here's a map from late June with it, black blob on the right middle https://i.redd.it/xgbpl93898b71.png. Seeing as their quite notable again, I think it would be wise to mark ISK seperate from IEA and NFR.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021
Zaid1893 (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

On 5 September 2021, Taliban spokesman Bilal Karimi said the districts of Khinj and Unabah had been taken, giving Taliban forces control of four of the province's seven districts. "The Mujahideen (Taliban fighters) are advancing toward the centre (of the province)," he said on Twitter.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if either one of you understands Persian, but link below is BBC Persian nightly news, and starting from 3min in, the analyst explains on the map the Taliban Claim and the resistance claim, and how vastly different they are. BBC Persian - 60min - Sept 4th The point being, the situation in all districts in question is highly fluid. I think it's immature still to write either one up. I do not know if we are supposed to keep track of either side's daily claims despite lack of verification or not. BasilLeaf (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus here is to wait for sources to emerge and converge, and for the event to develop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Panjshir conflict → Afghanistan conflict (17 August 2021–present) – An RfC was launched to try to find a likely consensus name at Talk:Panjshir conflict. Based on my tentative summary, Afghanistan conflict (17 August 2021–present) seems the candidate most likely to achieve consensus. Reasons for the proposed name include: "civil war" is not justified, since the conflict is not currently on such a big scale; the time frame is well-defined; consistency with similar Wikipedia pages; avoids problems with other proposed names. Reasons against include: one person felt, as of 20 August, that "conflict" was too strong given the sources available and used in the article. Boud (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - (proposer) descriptive name; matches level of conflict as currently supported by the sources (not civil war, but armed conflict rather than civil disobedience); geographical constraint is literally wider than that based on the sources, but there is no specific geographical name for the set of provinces/districts currently in armed conflict; time constraint avoids overlap with the events that led to the Fall of Kabul (2021). Boud (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait there is a lot of non-reliable reporting that something may have happened in Panjshir today. Within 48 hours, it should be clear that either the conflict was contained to Panjshir and is now over, that the conflict continues outside of Panjshir, or that despite a lot of rumors nothing has changed.  Until then, I cannot vote on a title change. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Afghanistan conflict (2021–present) because Wikipedia never uses the exact date in distinguishing the different phases of a conflict. Charles Essie (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Aside from the fact that there isn't a clear consensus in favor of the name changes suggested so far, the conflict is still unfolding. While there have been skirmishes outside of Panjshir province, the conflict is still inexorably centered around the Panjshir valley. Calling it the "Afghanistan conflict", regardless of dating, could imply a much broader scale that this conflict hasn't yet reached. As the situation develops and further sources are released that label the conflict as one thing or another, then I think a rename/move request will be appropriate, but a move right now would be premature. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support, but keep it Civil War There’s 3 main factions at the moment. The IEW, the NFR, and IS-K, all of whom control some land. I’d like both on the map(we used to mark IS-K land on the map in the old white and red template, so it should still be there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:5c0e:a14f:74f5:1e1c (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait This could be short lived. No need to hurry, this a current events BTW.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The conflict has mostly been centered around Panjshir. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Based on article's content that i see, it is centred in Panjshir. If the conflict spreads beyond the region, it will be reasonable to rename but change as "Afghanistan conflict (2021-present)". 36.77.95.92 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, Counter proposal It's way too early to know the nature and geographic/demographic spread of the situation on the ground, things evolving rapidly. Also, might I suggest instead "Anti-Taliban Resistance", or something similar. If you'd wanna write an article covering ALL of Afghanistan's events since August 15, the uniting factor is them being Anti-Taliban. The name is more specific to the nature of the conflict. We're not here to create an aesthetically pleasing list of "phases of Afghan war since 1978 organized chronologically". We are here to present clear and factual representation, and I'm afraid a generic "Afghanistan conflict (2021–present)" doesn't meet the criteria of being a clear name for this topic.BasilLeaf (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. It is premature to assume that the conflict will significantly spread beyond the region, or will continue for an extended period of time.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The Special Service Group is not a confirmed belligerent in this conflict. The source is dubious.
I request for the Special Service Group to be removed from the belligerents it has not been confirmed and contributes to misinformation of this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.185.160 (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2021
Pakistan Air Force has officially started its offensive against the resistance. Pakistan is officially supporting the Taliban 2001:8F8:1B69:34ED:25A8:6D1F:A3AB:EF25 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Source? Wowzers122 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See this source. India Today is a IFCN certified fact checker and thus a reliable source for Wiki standards. IP is correct with his suggestion. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The same has been independently covered by CNN-News18 too here. Not covering it would tantamount to be a violation of WP:NPOV if you ask me, and that would be beyond acceptance. 2409:4050:2E0F:6AE8:9956:A111:35C0:F2C8 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Any Indian sources taking about Pakistan should be just assumed to be fake news. Any mention of Pakistan should be removed until neutral, non Indian sources have corroborated it.

Dubious sources on PAF involvement
Add (alleged) to any references to the Pakistani military in the infobox. Clearly, no valid, provable sources corroborate this. Even the source given, an Indian site, only cites the word of a pro-Resistance governor.

MysticFlarePlayz (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ for the time being. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021
Zaid1893 (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

On 6 September 2021, Taliban senior spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid, claimed to have captured all of Panjshir on Twitter, However Resistance forces has not commented anything.
 * Twitter is not a reliable source. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Fox News have announced Panjshir is now under Taliban. Please declare Taliban victory in the article. Taliban now have absolute control of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.221.22 (talk • contribs)
 * Multiple news channels have broadcasted claims by both sides that contradict each other. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Belligerents
“ Anti-Taliban Hazara militias”, first sources mentions Hazaras four times in unrelated context nowhere mentioning them fighting at Panjshir, and the second source doesn’t even mention the word Hazara even once. - 2406:e003:823:a601:fd94:9c72:aed8:cef1
 * You are both misinterpreting and misreading here. Despite this article's name, the current conflict is not limited to Panjshir; as repeatedly stated in this article, there is also fighting in central Afghanistan, namely in Wardak and Daykundi Provinces. Both references for the Hazara militias mention the fighting in central Afghanistan. In the second reference (by The Hill), the ethnic group is misspelled as "Hazards". Applodion (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Minor Edits
"An Italian" instead of "A Italian" (Ctrl-F to find it in the article)
 * ✅ Someone (not me) fixed it. Boud (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Map
According to the Long War Journal "The fall of Panjshir puts the Taliban in full control of the country". Should the map be taken out? Viewsridge (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was going to bring this up actually. It should be removed. All sources in the article say the Taliban have taken control of all districts, with the resistance fighters retreating, vowing to continue fighting. I have removed it and linked to this discussion in case there is any opposition. — <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:black">Melo</b><b style="color:#f2b611">fors</b> </b>  TC </b> 21:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that we should keep the map but only with the general area of the conflict highlighted in red. Territorial claims and control of that area are heavily contested with conflicting news reports. Cganuelas (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Word on the Resistance's whereabouts in the media, at least in the sources used here, are extremely vague. I don't think that's possible. — <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:black">Melo</b><b style="color:#f2b611">fors</b> </b>  TC </b> 02:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2021
}} Jone Nasir (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC) I have a development in panshir conflict please I have a friend in panshir he is telling about some devlopments in conflict


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2021 (2)
Take out Pakistan from the infobox, 4 support vs 11 oppose its inclusion in the discussion above. Viewsridge (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Viewsridge (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please wait for discussion to finish before requesting an edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no set time for the discussion. It's WP:SNOW 3x vs 1x. No sense in delaying this. Take it out for now but add it back if the overwhelming consensus some how flips.Viewsridge (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't anywhere close to WP:SNOW yet. A majority of the comments in that discussion are by WP:SPAs, and do not provide policy-based reasonings for their comments. Further discussion by experienced users is necessary.  Java Hurricane  17:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not valley
Panjshir valley not province was captured PanjshirLions (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Finally my thread works PanjshirLions (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The thread wont publish the evidence but we need to fix it to valley and not province, most media outlets say this too PanjshirLions (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Panjshir is not captured
Please stop changing the territorial changes, almost every outlet says this is disputed, you are putting false news out PanjshirLions (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've probably sent a dozen threads check them for all my sources PanjshirLions (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have corrected it to "Panjshir Valley". Every source, including the NRF, confirms that the valley has fallen. The NRF maintains to hold out in the mountains. Applodion (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The mountains are in Panshir, this happened before in 1997 PanjshirLions (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Also every source says the claim is disputed, even TRT analyst PanjshirLions (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If you need more evidence I will get more inside information, maybe the NRF will reach me again PanjshirLions (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

But while the Taliban claimed that they had conquered the entire province, the opposition group, the National Resistance Front, disputed that account, saying that its forces were still positioned across the Panjshir Valley.

“We assure the people of Afghanistan that the struggle against the Taliban and their partners will continue until justice and freedom prevails,” it said on Twitter. PanjshirLions (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/world/asia/afghanistan-panjshir-taliban-resistance.html PanjshirLions (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It should be marked that the valley but not province fell possibly eoth a citation, I got a tweet from a Twitter but I am yet to confirm its validity PanjshirLions (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That even though the claims of the valley are still being disputed PanjshirLions (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems that war crimes (archive) or possibly worse, subject to investigation and prosecution by the ongoing International Criminal Court investigation in Afghanistan, are being carried out by the Taliban against the civilians of Panjshir Province, but a tweet is not a reliable source for Wikipedia; a news source that can judge the credibility of the tweet and cross-check information by other means is needed. Boud (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone really sure all of the valley has fallen? It seems Bazarak is probably under Taliban control, but there is a lot more valley than that. Netanyahuserious (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A lot of fanboyism here. All reputable news sources report that the province is under the control of the Taliban and there hasn't been any evidence of serious fighting for two days. Are we going to keep this conflict open-ended just on the basis of a few tweets claiming that the Taliban haven't won?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:678:546:7b00:401c:325d:a567:9b8e (talk • contribs)
 * The current wording is still confusing per Netanyahuserious. Can you modify it to something else? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mmmh, how about "Taliban capture most of Panjshir Province"? This allows for the continued presence of NRF troops in Panjshir's mountains and more remote areas. Applodion (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Best option indeed PanjshirLions (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Saleh reportedly still in Afghanistan??
DUSHANBE (Reuters) - Panjshiri leader Ahmad Shah Massoud and former Afghan Vice President Amrullah Saleh have not fled Afghanistan and their resistance forces are still fighting the Taliban, the ousted Afghan government's ambassador to Tajikistan said on Wednesday.

Zahir Aghbar, envoy to Dushanbe under the government of ousted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, told a news conference in Tajikistan's capital that he was in regular contact with Saleh and that the resistance leaders were out of general communication for security reasons.

"Ahmad Massoud and Amrullah Saleh have not fled to Tajikistan. The news that Ahmad Massoud has left Panjshir is not true; he is inside Afghanistan," Aghbar said. PanjshirLions (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed per Reuters report. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There any further details on Registani being killed?
Mixed bag so far. Even some Afghan watchers like Bilal say that his contacts who reached out to the NRF and vice versa said that Registani was wounded. Ominae (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan Involvement 2
Despite the previous discussion, the article still states that Pakistan has supported the Taliban in this conflict, what for? One would assume that by now, you would understand that Indian Media, overall, had not been fact checking, and had published articles, as a form of propaganda. BBC has even come out with an article, debunking these 'reports', as well as various Indian fact-checking newspapers. It was also established by UK Defence Journal, on Twitter that Times Now had been circulating a video, as a Pakistani F-15(?). So despite the evidence, and fact checking, why is Pakistan still listed as a belligerent? This isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as some users where keen on implying, it's misleading. 217.137.41.57 (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BBC article debunked nothing, but it notes that the US also maintains that Talibanis are getting support from Pakistan. Rest of your links are about "F-15 video" that have no relevance to this article or any discussion above. Gaslighting is bad and weakens your already diminshed argument. 2401:4900:5557:545F:D188:831F:15E5:F3FB (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC article does not say anything about Pakistan supporting the Taliban in Panjshir, and in fact labels these claims from Indian and Iranian media as misleading. It says Pakistan, in the past, has been accused by the US of supporting the Taliban, NOT that the US has confirmed that the PAF is in Panjshir. Cipher21   (talk)  05:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who talked about PAF claim being confirmed by the US? You have poor reading ability not only because you couldn't understand the above message but you also misrepresent BBC. BBC does not "labels these claims from Indian and Iranian media as misleading" but only say "in some cases using misleading photos". Gaslighting is bad like I said. 2401:4900:5557:545F:ACC6:8FE7:F42E:159D (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of personally attacking me, you should read what you yourself wrote. BBC article debunked nothing, but it notes that the US also maintains that Talibanis are getting support from Pakistan. The BBC article does not say the US claims the Taliban is currently getting support from Pakistan, especially not in Panjshir. Rest of your links are about "F-15 video" that have no relevance to this article or any discussion above. Firstly, this is relevant considering people are trying to push dubious Indian sources (which use footage of video games and American F-15s as "proof" of Pakistani involvement) as credible.Secondly, the BBC article terms these same reports as "misleading," as have other sources, and further states "there's no solid evidence that it (Pakistan) has (used drones in Panjshir), and some doubts about whether it would make sense to do so.". Other than that, they're "claims [which] have been widely shared by social media accounts," but you can try convincing others that random claims made on social media are reliable if you want. Cipher21   (talk)  08:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will just repeat the above since you are only repeating yourself: "BBC article debunked nothing, but it notes that the US also maintains that Talibanis are getting support from Pakistan. Rest of your links are about "F-15 video" that have no relevance to this article or any discussion above. Gaslighting is bad and weakens your already diminished argument." 2401:4900:5557:4069:7DA6:717F:D9BE:BC (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of these claims have been widely shared by social media accounts, to show what they say is evidence of Pakistani interference in Afghanistan's affairs.


 * Iranian and Indian media have had reports alleging Pakistani involvement, including in some cases using misleading photos said to show Pakistani military hardware. and ... At the moment, there's no solid evidence that it has, and some doubts about whether it would make sense to do so. ~ is what is written on the BBC article. I think that sums it up pretty well. It's definitely misleading to use dubious articles to portray a narrative, and considering the polticial climate and how everything is focused on Afghanistan these days, 1. Whether you write alleged or not, a naïve user will, undoubtedly just assume that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban in this conflict, despite it being "alleged", and 2. Is a bit suspicious that only Indian Media, and some Iranian newspapers are talking about it, because given that it was true, it would be a headline on every single popular newspaper. 217.137.41.16 (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "some cases using misleading photos" has never been relevant to this article because this article is not depending on those claims. 2401:4900:5557:4069:A9C9:6EF0:1F83:EAAE (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I too have read the article, and know what it says. BBC dwell on the variegated possibilities and relativities, but do not make their own judgement. Putting words in their mouth they never intended, words that are not there, betrays an utter lack of scruples in resorting to disseminating falsehood. It doesn't get more unhelpful than this. 2409:4050:2D8B:5E7E:DCE8:881F:F671:ED6 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Overly focusing on one point raised by the editor is ignoring the point being raised. The assertion of Pakistani involvement in the Panjshir conflict is based on questionable sources that have been shown to have little to no regard for fact-checking and accuracy, relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumours and debunked falsifications instead. TranceGusto (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the allegation is covered by reliable sources like India Today that no Pakistani publication can ever level? Your frequent lies are revealing your insecurities. 2401:4900:5557:4069:7DA6:717F:D9BE:BC (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find your strong endorsement for India Today, quite disturbing to say the least, because it really isn't the perfect newspaper that you're trying to portray it as. One might even assume that you have connections with the company. India Today, has often published fake news in the past, especially when the topic concerns Pakistan, and I don't understand why it's so hard for you to accept that it can be wrong, as it is here? 217.137.41.16 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it fishy that this unregistered IP has come here for the sole purpose of shilling for India Today, despite it being proven to be unreliable. It's possible this talk page is being brigaded from another website or discord server. Cipher21   (talk)  06:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not wrong about this particular report though. 2401:4900:5557:4069:A9C9:6EF0:1F83:EAAE (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, that's the whole point! Again, its deeply disturbing to see you still endorsing Indian Media in this, and I didn't appreciate your comment about "no Pakistani publication can ever level", like what is that even supposed to mean, as if to say that you are direct stakeholder in Indian newspapers agenices? The India Today article has been debunked, they literally quoted a fake twitter handle! Why are you still defending them?  Your frequent lies are revealing your insecurities ~ WP:NOPA 213.107.67.243 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you quit your constant personal attacks on other editors and stick to the topic at hand. reliable sources like India Today India Today is notably not reliable due to being caught floating fringe conspiracy theories that have been proven false. and have done so multiple times in the past, particularly with other news stories on the recent events in Afghanistan. Could you provide reliable, verifiable evidence that points to the contrary? TranceGusto (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * India Today definitely cannot be considered reliable in this conflict and needs to be removed. Both Indian and Pakistani sources have verified that they are, whether deliberately or not, misrepresenting information. https://www.dawn.com/news/1644845 https://www.altnews.in/india-today-aaj-tak-publishes-report-on-fake-handle-on-ahmad-masood/ I don't see any contestation regarding the Week's claims however.Angele201002 (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like to say that, I do also contest both references, because undoubtedly, both newspapers will have the same source. I would also propose that Indian sources can't be used, when the topic concerns Pakistan and vice versa, except in certain circumstances, but I wouldn't know how to propose that here. 217.137.41.16 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Angele201002 is just gaslighting while you are not doing anything different. Overall, the claim about Pakistan supporting Taliban is more of a general claim than anything shocking. You know that too. 2401:4900:5557:4069:A9C9:6EF0:1F83:EAAE (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Except even on that level, it's only an allegation and specifically here - when it concerns the Panjshir conflict, it's baseless. 213.107.67.243 (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that the source being used for both references have not been discredited by reliable sources, only India Today's reliability as a source for this conflict. So it is incorrect to claim that The Week's information is false. Using Indian sources is possibly problematic considering India and Pakistan's history, however, that does not refute the veracity of the article.Angele201002 (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see any contestation regarding the Week's claims however. I had already pointed out the problems with The Week in the first Pakistan Involvement section. To summarize, their sources are from Facebook and Twitter pages that regularly post fringe conspiratorial posts that don't match up with reliable, verifiable sources. For instance, one of the sources cites talking to the governor of Panjshir over the bombing subject, but the person they claim to be the governor is not the person multiple other sources said is the actual governor. The Week doesn't seem all too different to the other questionable sources being cited on this subject, particularly since they all seem to cite the same dubious sources for their articles. TranceGusto (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Possibly, however, but this needs to be the work of reliable sources and not Wikipedia editors. As long as The Week's article is not refuted, it must not be removed.Angele201002 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Pakistani involvement must stay alleged as there is not concrete evidence indoctrinating Pakistans involvement. However, these claims cannot be fully dismissed either as there are major accusations, and strategical errors that went wrong in the Panjshir resistance. People from Iran, India, and Tajikistan have been examples of places to state Pakistani involvement. It is best that we do not edit anything and keep it how it currently is. PanjshirLions (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with this in general, however, the use of India Today is problematic due to reliable sources verifying that they have been providing false non-neutral information related to this conflict.Angele201002 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

'Islamic Republic of Afghanistan' → National Resistance Front of Afghanistan
The 'Islamic Republic of Afghanistan' does not exist anymore as an entity, so why is it in the info-box under 'belligerents'? Nowhere is this resistance referred to as the 'Islamic Republic of Afghanistan'. I have seen the group being described as having 'former members of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's military' but that is all. It is referred to as the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan or Panjshir Resistance and uses a different flag modelled after the old Islamic State of Afghanistan and Northern Alliance. --Donenne (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem stems from recent changes to the infobox by Pktlaurence. See the discussion above termed simply "Infobox". In essence, the infobox previously outlined that the NRF and Hazara groups are the main fighting forces, with both having expressed some loyalty to the old republic. I have already adjusted the infobox, returning it partially to the old version. Applodion (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. It's editors like them which give the impression that Wikipedia is a lousy source for credible information. --Donenne (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That goes a bit far. This is a content dispute; Pktlaurence has valid arguments. Applodion (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is,the Islamic Republic does exist, at least in theory. The thing is that the Taliban government isn't recognized internationally, and so Afghan embassies abroad are still run by the diplomats appointed by the now deposed Ghani government. So, almost all Afghan embassies are run by ambassedors who claim to represent the fallen Islamic Republic. So, in this way, the Islamic Republic still exists outside of Afghan soil. Internally .... yes you're right, it's not "Former Islamic Republic military" fighting, but a resistance front that's run by a guy who had no association with the former government. Nevertheless, despite flying a different flag, they kinda claim to fight for the restoration of the Islamic Republic. So, my conclusion is, we can't really ignore or omit it yet.BasilLeaf (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that it's now common knowledge that the NRD displays the Green-white-black flag of 1992, and using this link as my source, I've also added the NRF flag to the infobox. "The NRF’s flag is green, white, and black, as was the Northern Alliance’s." BasilLeaf (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2021
Change Sepetember to September at foreign Foreign involvement Pro–NRF. Forest576 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed along with a few other typos. BSMRD (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Death of Haji Bahlol in Panjshir
There is a news in circulation that one of NRF's top commander Haji Bahlol is killed in Panjshir by Taliban. I can't confirm if it is the same person who is Former Governor of Panjshir. Adveagle (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Some pro-TB/NRF accounts suggest this. Ominae (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2021
Change Pakistan's status in the belligerents section of the infobox from "(alleged)" to "(alleged, denied)," because they've officially denied military involvement in the conflict. Cipher21  (talk)  13:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to get confirmation from the said belligerent. Reliable sources don't really use the word "alleged" to describe Pakistan's involvement except as far as the involvement of their air force is concerned. As for the addition of "denial" the word "alleged" speaks volumes. Don't start a new thread every time but stick to Talk:Panjshir conflict where you have already commented. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "Alleged, denied" is nothing new on Wikipedia. See al-Qaeda and Taliban. Talk:Panjshir conflict is about removing the claims from the infobox altogether because they originate from dubious sources. Cipher21   (talk)  05:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not conflict pages like War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) where "denied" was not added. Your overall argument makes no sense anyway per WP:OTHERCONTENT. 2401:4900:5557:545F:ACC6:8FE7:F42E:159D (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Conflict pages like Iran-PJAK conflict have "denied" as well. The claim of Pakistani involvement has been denied by both Pakistan and the Taliban, which warrants including it in the infobox, especially considering the claims themselves originate from dubious sources, as discussed above. Cipher21   (talk)  08:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Both are least reliable on this matter too. Your overall argument makes no sense anyway per WP:OTHERCONTENT. 2401:4900:5557:4069:7DA6:717F:D9BE:BC (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are POV-pushing by implying that the NRF somehow is more credible than Pakistan and the Taliban. All the claims of Pakistan's involvement originate form NRF sources. See WP:WEIGHT. Cipher21   (talk)  16:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Cipher21 stop reactivating the edit request when it has been already answered. Develop consensus then come back but without developing one is considered disruptive editing. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021
There are many wrong accusations against Pakistan in the article which are followed by mass fake news in indian mainstream media. Many of the involvement of pakistan in the article is led by indian media sources, which infact has been proved wrong by fact checking and other news sources. The mention of use of drones was also taken from the game, video clip of fighter jets were infact from Wales showing the American jets and used to portray the alleged involvement of pakistan airforce in the incident. Tayyabk52 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Pakistani involvement
Is there any evidence or reference that Pakistani Air Force participated in the conflict besides the claims of the Panjshir resistance leaders? Should Pakistan be included as a combatant in the infobox based on these claims? You can write your opinion with Support and Oppose if you wish. Viewsridge (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How about listing sources before having 'oppose/support'? I see India Today (archive). Zia Arianjad is claimed to be a former member of the Afghan parliament for Samangan Province, which would make him a notable person, even if because of demographic bias, he does not yet have an en.Wikipedia entry. Boud (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per The Week (currently cited in the article): Kamaluddin Nezami, governor of Panjshir (and thus notable), also claims that Pakistan bombed the valley. Defense analyst Babak Taghvaee even attributes the deaths of high-ranking NRF commanders to Pakistani airstrikes. Taghvaee seems to be kinda reliable, as he has written at least one book (Desert Warriors: Iranian Army Aviation at War) which was published by Helion & Company, a publisher specialised in military matters. He has also been cited by other experts on Middle Eastern conflicts. His claims have been seconded by Massoud himself. Iran has officially accused Pakistan of supporting the Taliban offensive. Applodion (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Massoud's official statement says "foreign mercenaries" - it doesn't state Pakistan specifically (archive p1 p2 p3). Boud (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, The Times Nows is clearly misquoting him. Thanks for pointing this out. Applodion (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there's a misquote. I gave a link to an English translation of Massoud's written statement. The Times Now talks about a 19-minute audio/video: "Massoud released a 19-minute tape and confirmed bombardment by Pakistan and Taliban". Journalists are secondary sources who choose which information they judge to be relevant out of text and audio/video sources. (Their judgment might be wrong, of course.) I didn't look at the audio/video. Boud (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion based on the current understanding of the conflict. As of now, some NRF members / leaders, Indian media, Iran, and at least one regional expert accuse Pakistan of aiding the offensive. More than enough claims to warrant an inclusion, IMO. Applodion (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Taghvaee is actually a very unreliable source Applodion, he is an OSINT Twitter user AFAIK. His Twitter account almost creates daily hoaxes such as Israeli jets bombing Iran on his Twitter account. I don't think he should be cited on Wikipedia at all. Viewsridge (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If that is true (not disputing it, I honestly don't know), I wonder why he is quoted by academics. Applodion (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose None of the above sources and statements of accusation are accompanied by evidence. The stated source for an apparent "official" accusation from Iran is an Indian news site where the article itself cannot quote such an accusation, and instead relies on a journalist's suggestion that the quote "alludes" to Pakistan.
 * I also Oppose unless third party evidence shows up supporting the claim. Viewsridge (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support India Today is a IFCN certified fact checker thus very reliable for Wiki standards. There is nothing dubious about the information which is labelled as "alleged" thus I find the tagging as "dubious" to be WP:DE. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * India Today recently quoted a fake twitter account of Ahmed Massoud that claimed that a Pakistani fighter jet has been shot down in Panjshir. See here. This was later proven to be false by other fact checking website in India. So I don't think they are doing any fact checking when they are reporting their news. Secondly, the fact checking segment of India Today works independently and separately from from the editorial operations of India Today according IFCN code of principle. I don't see why India Today website as whole should be considered as fact checking website when they didn't do any fact checking before spreading the claim of a fake twitter account. AlphaTangoIndia (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still same website. We don't consider Twitter to be a reliable source so it does not matter what happened there. They retract if the information is wrong so it wasn't intentional. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What? George, India Today was the one to cite, not just Twitter but various social media accounts, and pass it off as a fact. If social media is considered unreliable, and I agree, why are you even deeming e-newspapers which do the exact same thing, reliable? India Today, is clearly not fact checking and is just jumping on the trend train, and this wasn't a one off, various articles were debunked as being fake news. 213.104.124.123 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Times Now is a horrible source which posted a video of an American F-15 in Wales as "proof" of Pakistan invading Afghanistan. Indian sources are notorious for churning out rubbish when it comes to Pakistan, and this is no exception. We should be careful when using Indian sources about Pakistan, because most of them are either filled with nationalistic chest thumping to appeal to their audience (like Republic TV), or flat out spreading fake news like ANI. Cipher21   (talk)  17:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody used "Times Now". Stop dreaming. 2401:4900:5557:545F:ACC6:8FE7:F42E:159D (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been 3 days since I wrote that. Forget Times Now, Indian Media as a whole has shown it is an unreliable source on matters pertaining to Pakistan. Cipher21   (talk)  16:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: Enough serious sources have backed the claim. No reason for Iran to lie about it considering they have a working relationship with Pakistan. Should be considered credible enough. Incidentally any attempt to delink Pakistan from the Taliban is simply laughable. -- Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please cite these serious sources to improve the article. As yet the article has references to accusations. The statement about Iran's "working relationship" is immaterial as there is no quote to indicate an accusation, only a conjecture in the NDTV article from its writer. The matter of de-linking Pakistan from the Taliban is not the question that is being debated here, it is to cite credible evidence of military operations in Panjshir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:6084:7000:6566:d724:9c92:b473 (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC) — 2a02:c7f:6084:7000:6566:d724:9c92:b473 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose: Unless there can be credible sources for these claims, we can't let are own biases decide what's fact and what are allegations. Unless evidence is provided by reputable sources, trying to cite something as fact just because it makes sense to you is backwards logic. Rnqeeb (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC) — Rnqeeb (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose: I honestly think waiting for more reliable sources would be a better option. Involvement of airforce of a foreign country is not a small matter that would be ignored. Since the start, the international media has covered the whole conflict in great detail. So I don't see why they would suddenly choose to turn a blind eye to such a aggression from the Pakistani side. AlphaTangoIndia (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is little evidence to suggest that the international mainstream media's coverage was accurate and balanced in the details; the Taliban had and have a highly effective Twitter, WhatsApp and media-savvy public relations campaign - "Today's Taliban uses sophisticated social media practices that rarely violate the rules", Washington Post, "Their outreach was fantastic." Saad Mohseni of TOLO News, NYT. Hindsight in academic analyses five or ten years from now will (may) tell us how accurate the coverage was. Whether or not the NRF have lost military control of Panjshir, it's clear that their online media power is weak compared to that of the Taliban, especially with the internet blockade on the province. Photographing Pakistani drones and getting the info out to mainstream Western media through an internet blockade is unlikely to be easy - it's still controversial whether or not UAE drones were used against the Tigrayan forces in the initial phase of the Tigray War in the Nov/Dec 2020 phase. Boud (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose: None of these Indian or Iranian sources (who rely on the Indian sources) have evidence for their claims. India Today quotes Aamaj News, a Facebook and Twitter account, not reliable sources. India Today has been shown to use as a source a fake Twitter account for Massoud claiming an F-16 crash in Arizona in 2018 took place in Panjshir. CNN-News18 quotes nebulous "sources" and makes similarly grand claims with no evidence to back it up. Times Now used a fake NRF Twitter account posting footage of a USAF F-15 in Wales to claim that the Pakistani Air Force was in Panjshir, complete with "news" anchors and reporters making one unsubstantiated claim after another like professional spinsters and repeatedly shown as such . The list of goes on. If such overflights and bombings actually place, there should be ample evidence, but all that any of these Indian "news" agencies have to offer are Twitter troll accounts, falsely attributed pictures and videos, "sources" which turn out to be false and nonexistent and even passing video game footage off as real . Until actual reliable sources produce evidence, such edits shouldn't be made, certain users should be put under more scrutiny before they continually edit pages on the subject matter and Indian sources should either be barred or put under strict review as they have repeatedly shown to be unreliable sources peddling false narratives. TranceClub (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC) — TranceClub (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This user is blocked indefinitely over username. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They've been unblocked. Cipher21   (talk)  05:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue over my username has been resolved, so hopefully the discussion could go back to the topic at hand from here. TranceGusto (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support with attribution to NRF: We now have the Pakistani Air Force drone info directly from TOLOnews, attributed to the NRF: The National Resistance Front officials said that he was targeted by Pakistan Air Force drones in Anaba district of the province. Boud (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a fact, and it can't be passed off as "proof", when the article says that the journalist claims he was targeted by Pakistan Air Force. There's no mention of proof or anything. 213.107.67.203 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that TOLOnews says that the NRF says that Fahim Dashti was targeted by a Pakistani Air Force Drone. Please read WP:VERIFIABILITY regarding the difference between sources and facts. I would also strongly suggest that you read the source. Fahim Dashti does not claim that he was targeted. He's dead. Boud (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wrote that by accident, but my point still stands. It's still a game of accusations, where nothing is confirmed. NRF says he was targeted by PAF, whereas the Taliban reject it, and blame it on "internal conflict". 213.107.67.203 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the NRF says that it was targeted by Pakistani Air Force drones. This fact is not disputed. Boud (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I said, how can that be confirmed? Who are the sources. It's easy to say "officials say", without it being verified. That's the problem. 213.107.67.203 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The source of the information: "the NRF says that it was targeted by Pakistani Air Force drones" (info, not quote) is TOLOnews. You can confirm that by reading the article. Boud (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TOLOnews claims that an unnamed NRF official claimed that they were targeted by Pakistani drones with no evidence to support such claims. Who specifically in the NRF made the claims? Where were the claims made? Press release? Facebook or Twitter? Their claims are dubious at best considering how much false information is being put out their by various parties. For all we know it could be yet another fake NRF account since they don't cite sources. TranceClub (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC) — TranceClub (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Mainstream news sources very rarely prevent their detailed evidence. In the case of a well-established media organisation in Afghanistan, there are quite likely many different methods of checking the credibility of information, based on in-depth knowledge of the country and networks of contacts and cross-checking multiple sources. Boud (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are a lot of assumptions for what in the end is an unsubstantiated source. WP:RSBREAKING points out that you should distrust anonymous sources and unconfirmed reports, exactly what is going on with TOLOnews. It also points out avoiding potential hoaxes which has been proven to be rampant on this specific subject matter on Panjshir, including impersonators of NRF officials being used as legitimate sources. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and a single unquoted unsubstantiated source from a single newspaper doesn't hold muster. I would suggest waiting for better, substantiated sources to appear if any. TranceClub (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — TranceClub (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The assumptions are the same assumptions as for The New York Times, The Guardian, BBC News, Al Jazeera English, The Washington Post, The Telegraph or non-English-language mainstream media. From the Wikipedia point of view, TOLOnews is a better judge of who is a real or fake NRF official than you or I. The claim of NRF claiming Pakistani drones being used is not at all exceptional in a war situation with Pakistan widely being accused of supporting the Afghan Taliban. Boud (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The assumptions are indeed not the same, those other news agencies usually put in a minimal effort to verify and substantiate their claims in order to keep their reputation as reliable news agencies, while this article just a single unsourced line making an extraordinary claim. And who are the ones widely accusing Pakistan of aiding the Taliban and bombing Panjshir besides news articles citing Twitter posts and using false footage, pictures and unverified claims as evidence? You need evidence for those claims, not assumptions and rumours. There is a lot of the latter going around, but none of the former, and if you are writing an article to inform people on a subject you should use sources with evidence. If there is no evidence and just internet rumours and verified hoaxes being reported, it shouldn't be included at all. TranceClub (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — TranceClub (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Week (Indian magazine) "is the largest circulated English news magazine in India" as of 2011 and has won multiple awards for excellence in journalism. The claims in The Week are directly about Pakistani drone attacks, not about NRF claiming Pakistani drone attacks. This makes support with attribution to NRF quite conservative. TOLOnews + The Week as two independent mainstream sources, one Afghan, and one from the world's largest democracy, make it quite reasonable to include this in the infobox, especially if we attribute it to the NRF, even though it's not only the NRF making the claim. Boud (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of relying on appeals to authority, look at their claims and their sources. Their first source is Aamaj News, which I noted before is just a Facebook and Twitter account, not reliable sources.
 * Second is Tajuden Soroush who cites no sources for any of his Twitter posts and seems to spend his time floating unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that have already been debunked, making it likely he has an agenda rather than any commitment to journalistic integrity. The Week claims that he claimed that a person called Kamaluddin Nezami is the governor of Panjshir and told him that Pakistan bombed Panjshir. The last verifiable governor of Panjshir that I could find is Mohammad Amin Sediqi which was corroborated by both the NYTimes and TOLOnews last year. And there is still no evidence of this supposed bombing campaign; no craters, damaged buildings, downed aircraft, unexploded ordnance, nothing but unsubstantiated falsified news.
 * Next is someone called Babak Taghvaee, yet another Twitter account posting and retweeting unsubstantiated and debunked conspiracy theories. They similarly provide no verifiable or reliable evidence for any of their claims.
 * They then talk about Pakistan procuring drones from China which, while verifiability true, is unrelated to the previous claims. Without a verifiable connection between those drones and a supposed bombing in Panjshir, requiring extraordinary evidence for such exceptional claims, it is clear that they want the reader to infer that those two unrelated parts of the article are related without doing journalistic work to do so.
 * So what we have here is an article that solely sources multiple Twitter accounts making several unsubstantiated claims, which is not reliable in the slightest. Appeals to authority is not evidence, it's a logical fallacy, and I would recommend not relying on it to support questionable at best "news" organisations and articles that at minimum lack the journalistic integrity and fact-checking capability to be considered reliable sources. TranceClub (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — TranceClub (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strongly Oppose. I think there are strong efforts to turn this into a fact, when it is pretty much a rumour, and considering there is no reliable source to confirm this. 213.107.67.203 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC) — 213.107.67.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sorry, but violations of WP:AGF are not acceptable in Wikipedia discussions. Please read WP:AGF if you haven't read it before. Boud (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll assume good faith at first, but given how little attention this is being given to by international media, especially considering that Afghanistan is the main topic being discussed these days, it comes as a suprise that such news is being shunned, either that or there is misinformation being spread. 213.107.67.203 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Needless to say really, Indian media is impossible to trust on this subject. The amount and intensity of simply fake and falsified news running through their system is immense. Come back when a non-Indian-inspired source says something -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Impossible to trust on this subject" is a very strong claim to make about the media of the world's largest democracy. More specifically, The Week has won multiple awards for excellence in journalism. Boud (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Winning awards and their country of origin has nothing to do with whether their claims are substantiated and if their reporting on this subject is reliable. Many award-winning Indian news agencies, websites and figures have already been caught floating debunked conspiracy theories on previous Afghanistan. If their claims and their sources are shown to be false or dubious, they don't get a pass because of some past accomplishment unrelated to the subject at hand. TranceClub (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — TranceClub (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You can't just go around allege someone of someone else doing. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Abbasi786786: That is downright nonsense. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. India Today is an IFCN certified fact-checker thus very reliable whether you like it or not. That said, you are also underestimating the amount of coverage this information has recieved. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like just a propaganda news and completely based on one source. It would be better to remove it from the article. Ofcoarse, it can be re added if their are any reliable sources for Pakistani involvement --Kerostopher (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — Kerostopher (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 1+1 = 2, or 1+3 = 4 if you count the three sources listed in The Week separately:
 * TOLOnews, attributed to the NRF: The National Resistance Front officials said that he was targeted by Pakistan Air Force drones in Anaba district of the province.
 * The Week (Indian magazine): The Week lists three different sources:
 * former member of parliament Zia Arianjad;
 * Kamaluddin Nezami, governor of Panjshir;
 * Babak Taghvaee, who generally seems to have a strong track record as a journalist (the claims stated above about him being an MI6/Mossad/CIA spy were Iranian prosecutors' charges, not terribly convincing).
 * So this is more than just one source. Boud (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those sources are all questionable at best as I've already pointed out in comments above. TranceClub (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — TranceClub (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See WP:RS, WP:IRS and also WP:IDHT. They are not questionable. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's be fair. Indian sources will not neutrally report on this matter because of the general anti-Pakistan sentiment prevailing here in India. TOLO should also not be counted, because it is an Afghan source after all. We need neutral sources which have no stakes at all in the problems in South Asia. Do you have a reliable, neutral source with a good record of quality reporting and fact checking, especially for the South Asia region? Something like AFP, Reuters, NYT, etc.? If not, the present sourcing is pretty flimsy and easily challengeable for reasons mentioned before. We can't use such refs for such a major claim.  Java Hurricane  13:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose only few Indian news paper reported it, not any international media confirm it. those Indian media has record to publish fake news before. they should not take seriously --Kamal 11:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to read the sources instead of passing misleading assertion. For a name, ToloNews is not Indian, and see WP:IRS. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You are misleading yourself big time. First of all there is no such "consensus" but people got topic banned for treating Indian sources as unreliable when it comes to information on Pakistan conflicts. Can you modify your initial "oppose" given you support with attribution now? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think we can safely discount Indian sources in this case due to the fact that they will likely be biased, for obvious reasons, however reliable they otherwise may be; when it comes to reporting on Pakistan-related matters, they are highly likely to be biased and therefore unreliable. All sources depending on the Indian sources can be discounted as being dependent on highly unreliable (in these matters) sources. That pretty much leaves us with little quality, reliable coverage on this matter. Unless sources which can neutrally cover the ongoing conflicts in South Asia (such as BBC, NYT. Reuters, etc.) report on this matter, explicitly naming Pakistan, we can't say that the PAF has participated in the conflict.  Java Hurricane  13:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you not to buy into the arguments by opposing voters above and make up your own mind. India Today is a WP:IFCN certified fact checker thus you can't rule out such high quality source per Wiki standards only by targeting its physical presence. Such imaginary criteria should not be used to evaluate sources per WP:IRS. Tolo News and Iranian sources have also reported the claims about Pakistani involvement. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know pretty well that India Today is generally reliable, having used it for years. Those years of experience about India Today (and most Indian news outlets in general) however have also convinced me that we can't use it as a reliable source when dealing with matters like Pakistan, at least partially due to the inherent anti-Pakistan bias in India which unfortunately also affects Indian journalists. As for TOLO news and Iranian sources, I would like to see someone like IFCN classify TOLO as reliable; I'd discount the Iranian sources as they seem to be dependent on the Indian sources, which are not of great reliability in Pakistan-related journalism, just as Pakistani sources will have reliability problems with India-related reporting. My main concern is that given the seriousness of the claim that is being debated, we should use an iron-cast source with a very good track record of reporting in the conflicts of South Asia, something like NYT, Reuters, etc. that no sane person would dispute. Unless we have a such a source which can be used without objections or other controversy regarding reliability, I would be very reluctant to put this claim into the article. The currently available sourcing simply does not cut it for me at least.  Java Hurricane  14:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am, however, okay if the involvement of Pakistan is described as "alleged", and the body very clearly attributes the claim to India Today and The Week (but not Times Now, whose reporting in general is unconvincing IMO). We certainly don't have a source solid enough to make an unattributed, outright claim that Pakistan bombed the valley, but I think a properly attributed claim, something like "Indian sources have claimed that the PAF bombed the Panjshir Valley", can be acceptable. And no, I haven't been swayed by the SPAs above.  Java Hurricane  14:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:BIASED and don't make up nonsense or your own imaginary criteria to resist legitimate content borne out by and still being covered by WP:RS. What goes in an article is governed by the policies of this site and it is not our fault if you happen to have an inadequate understanding of the same or simply ignorant of the same. 2409:4050:2E0F:6AE8:218F:97D4:B226:BC7E (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, only that there exists a clear history of biased and unreliable reporting by Indian sources about Pakistan.  Java Hurricane  10:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your personal convictions and experiences remain immaterial, and so is your argument predicated on the same and devoid of any merit, and not in the slightest grounded in policies. Need I say more? 2405:204:1381:32D7:C814:C5DA:6E77:B6D7 (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no "personal convictions" here. There exists a consensus among editors for a long time that Indian sources tend to be highly biased and unreliable against Pakistan. The burden of proof is on you to show that this is not true  Java Hurricane  11:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The touchstones are the policies, and vague handwaves have done no good to anyone. Maybe, channel your efforts towards developing the intellect to get a ready command over the policies, which may enable you to reason in a superior way. 2405:204:1381:32D7:C814:C5DA:6E77:B6D7 (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to change the initial comment; at any rate a formal close will be needed for this discussion, and the closer will go through the whole thread I suppose.  Java Hurricane  13:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting in this discussion the recent EU resolution on the matter, which pretty clearly names Pakistan. I still think that we should be using only "alleged", though if current trends, including the Pakistani politician's word on the matter, continue, it may well be that we'll have good enough sourcing to remove "alleged" from the infobox.  Java Hurricane  13:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support alleged Lot of SPAs running around on this one. I am loathe to trust some of these sources WRT Pakistan, but it seems that at the very least, allegations of Pakistani support are verifiable. I wouldn't be overly surprised if the allegations were true, but the reporting by these sources is unconvincing, and they have a clear and well documented bias that needs to be accounted for. BSMRD (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The SPA issue here is quite notable. Recently created accounts citing in-depth policies is already suspect, compounded with the fact that this article is being linked and targetted through external websites makes it even more so. Gotitbro (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: We need to ignore the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument largely insisted by the SPAs above and focus on enlarging the section describing Pakistan's involvement since Pakistan officially admits they are training members of the Taliban (see: ). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is yet another alarming suggestion to further "enlarge" and edit articles without evidence, and part of a worrying trend to randomly conflate claims. The topic is to provide evidence for a specific claim of military involvement in a specific conflict, not to use it as a vehicle to pad out with hobby-horse stories 2A02:C7F:6084:7000:1C0D:8B20:8FC3:D994 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. This is ridiculous. The same 'journalists' in India are making these claims who said Pakistan was training insects to invade Indian farms. The most popular news anchor in India on a mainstream news channel made this claim. That clip is still available on youtube in their local language with subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su4C7P4sWEE&ab_channel=TRTWorld . Should we put up that claim as well? After all, it was from a mainstream and 'reliable' Indian source. The only FACT here is this: There is ZERO actual evidence from any 3rd party source to support the claim that the Pakistani military is engaged in this conflict. India is not a neutral party here, nor is Iran. And Indian media is known to be heavily biased even by Western reports. Ghost1736 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The off-wiki canvassing as evidenced by Gotitbro is appalling. The sources supporting the information are reliable and that's why we don't have to WP:CENSOR this specific information. So far we have sources hailing from Afghanistan, India, Iran as well as Pakistan's own officials who admit that Pakistan is helping Taliban. I would support the mention of "alleged" only where "PAF" is mentioned, but elsewhere the word "alleged" needs to be removed in infobox. SignificantPBD (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Whilst there are reports of people in Panjshir being killed by drones – including, unfortunately, close connections of my friends – and we know neither the US or the Taliban operate drones over Afghanistan – the available sourcing is simply too weak and too partisan at the moment. I venture to say that this will change within 2 weeks or so, when more hard evidence may come to light. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  09:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)