Talk:Taliban/Archive 5

Archiving
Why the hell is topgun reverting the archiving dates which I set up? The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of edit warring you could have created this section on the first or second revert. And beware of the consequences of passing uncivil comments.


 * Read WP:DEADLINE. There is no deadline for editors to participate, In such case, assuming that an editor won't reply and archiving the discussion just after 5 days is not sensible. Your argument was that you want to archive all the other discussions (60 in number) on this talk page. The age I've set is 14 days (which too I think is less), and all those articles are other than that and will still be archived. What is your problem then? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are an idiot. Some of those section are a year old. I set up the auto archiving so they would get archived, your RFC would not have been touched as the last four sections do not get archived, I am now reporting you for your breach of 3R. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do, while I report you for misconduct. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reported your inane edit war to the edit war notice board feel free to explain your stupidity there. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I've seen myself quoted in the edit summaries during this edit war so I figured I'll start the discussion here instead of warring myself. The first thing we need to look at is WP:LEAD. It says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." So the question is, is ISI support of the Taliban an important aspect that should be summarized? The next question is, how long should it's inclusion in the lead be? To address the second question, we need to look at WP:NPOV and take emphasis on proportionately. Ideally, any mention of ISI support should be equal to the proportional weight given in the article. I would say that the answer to this is that a single sentence, two at most, should be used.

"Reports by Human Rights Watch and the United Nations show that Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily, with senior Pakistani army and intelligence officials planning and running Taliban military operations inside Afghanistan and Pakistani soldiers and nationals providing combat support."

This sentence is too long. It needs to be cut. I think cutting it at the first comma would be sufficient. The rest can be explained in the body. Even then, the word "show" needs to be changed because it demonstrates as fact that a Government supported the Taliban. It needs to support all viewpoints similarly to the body of the article. It should say:

"'Reports by Human Rights Watch and the United Nations suggest that the Taliban may have received support from the Pakistani intelligence service, which Pakistan strongly denies.'"

Now, back to the first question. Is this an important aspect of the article? My first glance says is: no. The topic contains no headers in the table of contents. It exists as a prose in the "International Relations" under "Pakistan". If we are going to mention it at all, then our final paragraph in the lead should quickly summarized the major players in international relations including the United States, Pakistan, Al Queda, ect. That paragraph should be four sentences and should cover all viewpoints.--v/r - TP 14:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is of course an important aspect, you need bear in mind the ISI did help found the Taliban, they have trained, given monetary support and used them as a proxy army. The ISI alliance with the Taliban is a major part of the Taliban's history and current operations. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the quoted paragraph an important aspect to the article's lead. Keep in mind that the lead of an article summarizes its content in proportion to the context of the content.  You've given quite a few reasons the ISI was or is important to the Taliban but that is only a small part of the entire article.  So, with the entire article in mind, does the brief 2-3 paragraphs on the ISI merit inclusion in the lead?
 * Here is an exercise for you. Read the entire article, then write a brief summary of what you read.  Let's see what you come up with.--v/r - TP 20:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That ISI support needs expanding upon, you need look at the vast amount of sources which discuss the alliance between these groups, to not mention it in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE in my opinion. Without the ISI the Taliban would have been ground into the dirt a long time ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For instance, "Pakistan had all but invented the Taliban, the so-called Koranic students" Osama: The Making of a Terrorist By Jonathan Randal pp26 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is/were the case, then it needs to be written in that context. The way it is written now makes it appears as if Pakistan is a major player in a war against the US.  It needs to be written from a NPOV given both perspectives and in the proper chronological context.--v/r - TP 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is next to nothing describing the contrary point of view.  Night w   07:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

1) We are now talking about the period 1995-2001, which has not been discussed before.

2) As Darkness Shines said, not to mention Pakistan's support for the Taliban in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE

3) The international majority view as represented in and by reliable sources is that Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban militarily from 1995-2001. This view includes international sources widely perceived as impartial such as the United Nations or Human Rights Watch. (see sources and citations below the post)

4) The description in the lead must present this appropriately. Two sentences for the majority position and one sentence mentioning the minority position. This could be done in the following way:


 * From 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power as well as in their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Among a variety of international sources Human Rights Watch and United Nation reports i. e. state that senior Pakistani army and intelligence officials were planning and running Taliban military operations inside Afghanistan and Pakistani soldiers and nationals were providing direct combat support. Pakistan has denied providing direct support to the Taliban.

The above gives due weight to the two views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. See WP:UNDUE “Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. … Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.”

5) I reject Nightw revert which was based on missing in-text attribution of a commonly held majority view. WP:INCITE states, “it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text.” WP:INTEXT says, “normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution.” Even if we were to attribute the majority view it would be very hard to find one term encompassing all those reliable sources mentioned below. JCAla (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with TP. Any addition made to the lead should not exceed 3 to 4 lines and in case the consensus is to add the support of ISI (read Pakistan) in lead, then the support of other nations and their Intelligence should also be added in a similar way to the sentence including CIA (read United States) and any other notable. Also, a point to be noted is that the lead addition should rather focus the whole time span before 2001 which includes soviet invasion era and the groups that were once Mujahideen where ever notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Taliban are a distinct group which first made an appearance in Afghanistan in 1994. This article is not about the Soviet era and the mujahideen. The mujahideen and Soviet era are a completely different issue which the article does not cover and has not relevance at all for the lead. There were former anti-Soviet mujahideen in both the Taliban and the anti-Taliban faction. Further, the provided reliable sources do not mention the United States, which officially did not recognize the Taliban regime, as providing direct support to the Taliban. The only other country which could be mentioned is Saudi Arabia who is described by one source as being a major financial contributor to the Taliban until 1998. JCAla (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're close to coming to an agreement here. The only problem I have with JCAla's suggestion is that it gives too much detail for a "summary".  I suggest the following:


 * According to several international sources such as Human Rights Watch and United Nation reports, from 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing direct support to the Taliban.


 * This is much closer to giving due weight that meets both WP:UNDUE and also WP:LEAD. The mention in the lead should be proportional to the body of the article.--v/r - TP 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * JCAla's details are clearly deliberate introduction of UNDUE and POV. He has been bent on adding "training, supplying & supporting" where ever possible and now in the lead. The denial by Pakistan itself is enough to reduce the content related to it in the lead. Although I agree with your suggestion, but I think it can be made even more shorter to put lesser burden on the lead and to give proper weightage. For example:
 * "Several sources claim Pakistan and other (mentioned) nations' support to Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001 which is refuted by Pakistan."
 * The sources here need not to be mentioned since they would be tagged. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, that is better. Sources can be listed in the body.  For grammatical fixes, I suggest:
 * "Several sources claim Pakistan and other nations' supported the Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001; which is refuted by Pakistan."
 * What do you think?--v/r - TP 17:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think my grammar was correct. I meant to say that the sources claimed "other nations' support" to Taliban, "nations' supported" would be incorrect. Also, I actually meant to replace the word "other nations" with actual names. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sentence doesn't make sense. The word "to" makes "Pakistan support" a noun, it's a thing, and it then lacks a verb.  That's why my sentence makes more sense; minus the apostrophe at the end of nations.--v/r - TP 18:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually took Pakistan as a noun since it's a country name, even if I didn't, things can also be attributed with belongings with apostrophe. But your new amend/correction removes this whole debate. So that would do. The next thing, "other nations" should have names. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your last suggestion is clearly violating WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY. 1) It puts equal weight on the majority position and the minority position and it does not identify the majority view. It thus does not represent what is in the reliable sources. "Several sources" and "claim" does not represent appropriately that this is the majority view. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. 2) The "other nations" are not in the sources provided below. No other country (other than Pakistan) provided direct military support to the Taliban. Including "other nations" suggests to the reader that Pakistan and other nations were providing an equal amount of support when this is nowhere to be found in the sources. 3) "Refuted" implies that Pakistan has provided evidence for its stance, but it just has denied. 4) Also, I would like someone's else input on whether, given the amount and reliability of the sources, it is necessary to give in-text attribution. I suggest a mix of TP's and my version:
 * From 1995-2001, as outlined by a variety of international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban.
 * JCAla (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you on that. The sentence never mentioned about military support, it just said 'supported' and that does include other countries. The rest is already mentioned in the body. The lead just needs to mention whose support they had. And that is what needs to be mentioned. Your inclusion of specific source names not only makes the sentence long but your phrase 'a variety of sources' also gives undue weight to the accusing side. It is enough to mention that there was an accusation which has been denied. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's try this:
 * According to the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban.
 * Agree?--v/r - TP 13:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would do, but any other names should be added to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The reliable sources below clearly talk about military support. Further, it is not just the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, but it's internationally acclaimed academia, different international governments (which are not aligned with each other i. e. United States and Iran, Russia and Europe) and worldwide media reports (i. e. by the New York Times or the Washington Post) which all state as a matter of fact that there was military support. I agreed to cut out the specifics such as the "planning and overseeing" and the "direct combat support" (which was cited from reliable sources) in the lead but the sentence should make clear that a majority view is being described and what that view is exactly as described by the sources. It should either be:
 * From 1995-2001, as outlined by a variety of international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban.
 * or
 * According to a variety of international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban.
 * I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors about whether a clear majority view fulfilling the criteria of WP:VERIFY needs in-text attribution just because a minority view denies the majority view. JCAla (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are confusing "minority" with "involved party" or the "accused party". And "several" is the neutral word here which is already a plural. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It still remains the clear minority view. The fact that it is the accused party, gives the need for the latter sentence informing about the denial. Otherwise, according to wikipedia, there would not be a need to mention this distinct minority view. JCAla (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're putting too much in the lead. The details will be explained in the body of the article.  It needs to be a summary, not a stand alone description of the support.  I'm still set on my last proposal, your's don't fit with WP:LEAD.--v/r - TP 21:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine fits perfectly with WP:LEAD and WP:VERIFY. The only difference between my and your last version is that you dropped the "militarily" and did not present appropriately that this is the majority position of a variety of sources. So the difference between my and your version is what ... 8 words ... 8 words which make the statement more in line with the reliable sources. JCAla (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support for JCla version as it is concise and aligned with what majority sources say on the matter Darkness Shines (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * With the allegations and refutations explained in body, this being presented here claiming a 'magnitude' of sources is exactly what undue is. It would imply on an unaware reader that one side of the story is correct while other might not be so, while the purpose of the article is to present the details and let the reader decide, which he can do well after reading the body text without having his mind made up. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * After this edit by JCAla, exactly against what we decided about infobox on this article I can safely say that his sole purpose of adding the lead as he says is disruptive and full of POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * JCla - How is what you have in line with WP:LEAD? It says, and I quote, "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs."  The lead is already 6 paragraphs.  Those eight extra (pov) words are not helpful.  The lead needs to be condensed while still summarizing the article.  That's why the smaller, neutral, and balanced version I've provided fits better.  The article body will inform the reader of Pakistan's role with the Taliban.  The reader doesn't need the details in the lead.--v/r - TP 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What details? And what pov? The extra word "militarily" is hardly a troublesome detail and it is hardly pov when it meets all criteria of WP:VERIFY. The sources explicitly speak of "military support". Your version simply does not meet WP:WEIGHT. If you do not want to put the majority view as a simple statement but insist on in-text attribution, then we have to describe exactly who is holding this majority position. My seven words is the shortest way to mirror that appropriately. If you have another formulation encompassing all the different reliable source below, tell me. JCAla (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Militarily" is the point of view of the sources. We are giving almost zero weight to the opposite point of view, instead saying simply that "Pakistan has denied providing support".  We are running into a problem where the article lead is already too long and has to be cut.  When in the context of the discussed sentence, you are right that giving more weight to Pakistan's denial is WP:UNDUE, however, in the context of the entire article it is also WP:UNDUE to give so much space in the lead to this particular issue.  In this sense, we need to look at WP:LEAD where is defines the size of a summary, a lead, and stick to it as it gives us hard and firm numbers to base the lead on (four paragraphs).  If we can decide on this particular issue, I am willing to take on the task of rewriting the lead to meet WP:LEAD entirely.--v/r - TP 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Militarily" is the majority position not pov. We need to represent what the reliable sources and the majority position say correctly. Pakistan's support is important for 5 out of 5 (excluding etymology) main sections of the article. More than half of the history section deals with 1994-2001. The ideology, governance and economy also all stand in connection to Pakistani support - not to mention the international relations section. I restructured the lead according to the timeline. Now we have 4 paragraphs. And as you can see one is suspiciously lacking information. I didn't ask you to rewrite the lead, I just asked you to give a valid term for all the sources holding the majority view (if you don't want to agree with my formulation). JCAla (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We already gave you the term "several" which gives just enough weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I don't agree that "Militarily" is neutral. Further, I think that it can and will be sufficiently discussed in the body of the article not to warrant inclusion in the lead.  Why is this term so necessary?  The lead isn't meant to give details about the sources, it's supposed to summarize the article.  The article will give details from the sources.  The lead is a tertiary abstract of the sources.  Why don't we ask for a neutral opinion on this?  Can we agree that if we ask at WP:3O for a (random) editor's opinion that we'll stick to whatever they decide?--v/r - TP 15:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem here is, already four editors are involved. 3O might be turned down, don't you think? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. We can always start an RFC here as well which is more binding.--v/r - TP 16:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can try, I filed an RFC above and it stayed unreplied to for weeks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The term is necessary because it is what all the sources below are explicitly stating: military support. So, you can't just leave this out because of your own pov. We should remain true to the reliable sources. And as I said above, I already agreed not to include all the details in the lead such as "direct combat support", etc. We should also include the situation today.
 * "According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Some institutions and international officials maintain that this support continues to this day. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban whether in the past or present."
 * Agree? JCAla (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making it uselessly long giving undue weight to the allegation. You've taken the one line suggestion by me and TP to a paragraph. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You've managed to go backwards. We were close to agreeing and you've gone completely 180.  Now you've given too much weight to this section of the article in the lead.  The lead should be proportional to the article.--v/r - TP 21:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we were close to agreeing since you were blocking any suggestion which complied with WP:VERIFY and WP:WEIGHT. Instead, you tried to make the majority position the position of "several" and were starting a very annoying discussion about one term which is explicitly mentioned by all the five categories of sources. The United Nations say "military assistance", Human Rights Watch says "planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and directly providing combat support". The academic sources state "Taliban were made into an effective political and military unit by the Pakistan government, [and] the ISI" and "It became more and more of a direct military alliance" and "an unholy alliance combining ISI, Al Qaeda and the Taliban". The media i. e. writes, "Pakistani military advisers, were spearheading a merciless Taliban offensive against moderate Muslim communities in Northern Afghanistan". And a majority of international governments said "Pakistan sending its air force to bomb the city in support of the Taliban's advance" (Iran), "Pakistan directly participating in the Taliban military offensive in northern Afghanistan ... Pakistan planning the Taliban "military expansion" in the north of Afghanistan and directly participating in the Taliban military operations and taking care of their logistics ... large number of Pakistani servicemen taken prisoners by the units of northern alliance" (Russia), "U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban" and "Islamabad was in violation of U.N. sanctions because of its military aid to the Taliban". Then of course there is also the witness testimonials by Afghans themselves. Considering all these sources, your insistence on not including the term "militarily" makes it increasingly difficult for me to assume neutrality on your part. So, my last suggestion for the 1995-2001 period (whether to include today can be discussed elsewhere):
 * "According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan denied providing support to the Taliban."
 * Agree? JCAla (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We already know most of the content in this paragraph as your supporting point,don't make it tedious for us. This is exactly what was opposed, I don't see what's the point of circling around and quoting this again? I think there has been a reasonable amount of time and effort given to this and no consensus was achieved to add the content you want. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus to add the content but not a consensus on how to add the content. JCAla (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I said the content, you want. In anycase the default would be to 'do nothing' till there is one for the finalized addition or to add the one by me and TP (since you don't object to that rather want to add to that) and the rest can be added only when you have a consensus for it. This is stuck as far as I can see. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I do object to your version. I do not fully object to TP's first version, however, the term "militarily" should be added and "several" dropped. Then we would have something like: ""According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, which Pakistan denied." JCAla (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘ JCAla has asked me to give my opinion on the matter, as he says he trusts my neutrality (thank you). You can see the discussion on the issue at my talk page, although it is mostly just a rehash of everything said here. Please note, we've interacted in the past on administrative issues, but never collaborated on editing; I am just trying to help as a neutral editor.

In any case, while this looks difficult, I think it is important to handle it properly and with brevity (I'd like to point out that the American founding fathers struggled with similar issues ).

Perhaps we could try something as blunt as this: This this is making use of the passive voice, which is bad according to snooty English teachers everywhere. But I think it's appropriate here. It conveys the sense that the vast majority of international opinion holds it to be true (even if not universally so), but also that Pakistan is against it.
 * "Pakistan is widely believed to have provided military support to the Taliban, though Pakistan does not acknowledge it." (h/t on the wording from nuclear weapon's lede regarding Israel)

Also, I might be overstating the case (how widely is this believed? I honestly don't know), or overgeneralizing (was it only parts of the ISI, acting outside of the chain of command? Or did this come right from within?). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am fine with this wording. It represents the sources appropriately and attributes due weight to the positions. JCAla (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A possible reword, if preferred: Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "''From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed to have provided military support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against an insurgence, though Pakistan does not acknowledge it.""


 * Hi, thanks for contributing to this somewhat stuck case. I hope you will disregard this canvassing statement of the inviting user "Unfortunately, the editor User: TopGun has made it his job to try to block any such content being added." The opposition here is on the words 'military' and 'widely' (and its synonyms). The previous suggestions have been on excluding the word military from the lead and let it be alleged in the body as it is. Also, the term widely is pretty much based on WP:TRUTH and the references given are enough to term it as 'several' at most. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, also fine, but I would rather say: "'From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed to have provided military support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan does not acknowledge it." Insurgence is not the right term for the anti-Taliban force who was recognized internationally as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, with the Taliban being only recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. JCAla (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

re TG pt 1: of course I judge things by facts on the ground, not by partisan language. I watch too many news and political shows to not know better.

re TG pt 2: so you're sayng it's not considered universal? Perhaps instead we might say "most international observers".

re JC: I think insurgence is appropriate if the Taliban was the main government. The word doesn't have a pejorative sense. Perhaps "in the Afghan civil war from 1995-2001" might be a better phrase in place of "in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces". Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is not universal and in addition, it is refuted. And there's no statistical data to say that it is 'widely believed' or believed by 'most' sources. The user has provided some sources to which I provided an appropriately neutral word 'several' which is inclusive of the plural weight. If you have an alternate suggestion you can tell. As for the use of word 'military support', that has been ruled out as being undue weight as the 'support' is already mentioned and then it's the lead we are talking about. JCAla is still insisting on it. To be in context, you can take the above consensus where JCAla wanted to include ISI in the infobox as Taliban's ally; this seems to be a WP:POINT in that context. For the last part you are discussing, it's trivial that the support would be to the anti Taliban sources. Why not end without naming the opposition of Taliban? No dispute that way. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: most vs. some - is there a secondary source which synthesizes the sources and says "most"? If we can find a reliable source that says that, I think it would be worthy of inclusion. If not, or if there are contradictory secondary sources (i.e., there are reliable sources that say the opposite), then we'll have to stick to "many international observers" or even "some international observers" (yuck... User:Einsidler/Some argue... but I see no alternative). I realize this might sound nitpicky, JCAla, but surely if most international observers think it, then there will be a source stating as much, and we can find it. Also, we shouldn't state it based off our own analysis, of course, per WP:SYNTH. Please understand, I want Wikipedia to state the facts on the ground as accurately as possible, with reliable sources (I certainly don't have an agenda to push... just trying to come to an agreement).

Re: military support: it's only a single word we're talking about here. And I'm not quite following what you mean about "it's already mentioned" (sorry).

Re: infobox: Actually that doesn't seem quite as malicious to me as it might seem to you. I remember reading frequently in US newspapers that Pakistan was the only major ally of the Taliban. However, I don't think it's appropriate anymore, as the Taliban has significantly radicalized and changed since 2001 (according to news sources in the US). Also, I'm agnostic on whether it might say be appropriate to put "Pakistan (1995-2001)" as an ally, as I'm not as fully acquainted with the history as perhaps some of you are; but it doesn't immediately seem like a good idea given Pakistan rejects it. Perhaps something more like "Pakistan, 1995-2001, partial support only." But this is probably best hashed out separately. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I was arguing about, that the word 'most' here has been taken by JCAla based on the no of sources he presented.


 * What I meant is, the use of words 'military support', since it is denied and discussed later in body, gives undue weight to the allegation in the lead and is opposed on those basis all over the current discussion.


 * The infobox is decided by consensus and the given basis for that consensus. News sources might say that in US, but they say opposite in Pakistan and then they acknowledge and say how other party is denying. So keeping in mind that we are not deciding the real world facts on wikipedia as described in the consensus for previous case, we should just present the points of view in equal weight as they are. Since in this case we are talking about the time period 1995-2001, we can state it like "...Pakistan is accused of supporting Taliban from 1995-2001..." wrapped in rest of the decided sentence. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Militarily" was not rejected generally (as of by all) as TopGun claims, "militarily" was rejected by TopGun and TP and it was accepted by Darkness Shines, me and obviously you, Magog, also seem to agree that it is a valid term given the reliable sources. Anyways, reliable secondary sources identifying a quantitive nature of the majority position: Most reliable secondary sources just state this as a matter of fact (this in itself shows that it is a majority view and thus widely believed): This is the position of the United Nations. The United Nations normally remain "neutral" until there is overwhelming evidence in a certain case. It also is the position of the United States, Russia, India, Iran, the EU and Afghanistan. It is the position of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc. It is stated as a matter of fact by the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, etc. This qualifies as "widely" to every neutral person out there. We even have the term "widely" for today (although I agree with you to discuss this separately another time): "widely-made charge that Pakistan underhandedly supports the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan" Christian Science Monitor
 * "Although it is officially denied, there is widespread agreement that the Taliban gained crucial early support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
 * "Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support." Human Rights Watch 2001
 * "Pakistan is widely believed to support the Pushtu-dominated Taliban guerrilla force." ABC
 * "The Taliban emerged as a significant force in Afghanistan in 1994 ... which marked the beginning of a long-term alliance between the group and Pakistani security forces." Columbia Encyclopedia
 * "The Taliban have been receiving arms and other military support from Pakistan." New York Times

As for the other discussion I think we should stick with "rise to power and war against anti-Taliban forces" since it is the most neutral description of events.

So, I would either back the neutral version of Magog (without insurgence, since anti-Taliban forces were running the embassies of Afghanistan everywhere except Pakistan, Saudi and UAE):
 * "From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed to have provided military support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan does not acknowledge it."

or take the version from the impartial Encyclopedia of Social Sciences in a slightly modified way:
 * "Although it is officially denied by Pakistan, there is widespread international agreement that the Taliban gained crucial support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force from 1995-2001."

JCAla (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nightw reverted you in the first place for adding this content. And then you are opposed by me and TP with sufficient arguments. You have not given a source that says 'most sources' support it. You gave stand alone sources that said it is 'widely believed'. You are trying to assume reliability statistics on your own. And now you've gone further back by turning Pakistan's strong denial to denial and then to 'does not acknowledge'. You have put a lot of weight on the allegation which you support and left a small phrase of denial (now 'does not acknowledge') here. Further more your version(s) go into unnecessary details that give WP:UNDUE to the allegation; your last version from 'impartial' encyclopedia has even peacocking in it. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See below sources, then see TopGun's edit, then see below sources again. Thank you. Getting tired of responding to someone who generally refuses to acknowledge what reliable sources say and repeatedly mispresents wikipedia policy and what happened during the dispute (who wrote/did what, etc.). JCAla (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Re @TG: you're right, it doesn't say "most sources" - it does, however say, "widely believed". We can copy that phrase verbatim and stated that it is "widely believed." If you believe the sources are themselves exhibiting a bias (which does happen), perhaps we can try to delve a bit more deeply into them and figure out what they mean by "widely believed". Perhaps we could say something like "it is widely believed among western observers" or "among the international community". This is a situation where the claims of the international community in fact do seem to point to a widely held belief, whether it's justified or not.

Re @JC: just a brief reminder to keep things civil and assume good faith. Statements like "repeatedly misrepresents wikipedia policy and what happened" aren't necessary (although I do understand the frustration of dealing with other editors; I've lost my cool on a few occasions). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right on both issues. JCAla (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that would do, rather taking from all the sources and yet keeping neutrality "Pakistan is widely alleged.." might do better and not to mention statistics about 'sources' at all since that would be WP:SYNTH. About the 'military support' I'm still in disagreement. 'Support' would be just enough weight in the lead and as might notice, we were planning to keep it down to a 1-2 sentence in the lead. Body would give the details; it's not like the content is being censored rather weighed in the introduction. How about:
 * "Pakistan is widely alleged by western observers to have supported Taliban from 1995-2001 which it strongly denies."
 * Here the issue of sources and their non existing statistics is removed (the term 'observers' referring to academics as well as governments) along with the issue of against whom Pakistan supported Taliban, which would be trivially clear without writing 'anti-Taliban' forces. And in the end, this sentence comes out to be in proper weight and yet putting the least load on the lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How about: where [military] and [vigorously] could be up for further negotiation/discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "''From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed by the international community to have provided [military] support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against an insurgence, though Pakistan [vigorously] denies it.""


 * This is fine too, if JC doesn't have an objection to the term insurgence, in which case refer to my version above. The term believed should be replaced by alleged and vigorously or strongly should be included to balance the term 'widely'. The term military doesn't need to be included as described above. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this much discussion is taking place on a single line and even longer one on a previous case of infobox inclusion, the article is an obvious target for vandalism for which I'd request you to indefinitely protect it as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree on vigorously when you agree on militarily. Both is accurate and meets WP:VERIFY. But, again, plese use "anti-Taliban forces" which is neutral. So, that would be the version then?
 * "From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed by the international community to have provided military support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan vigorously denies it."

JCAla (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The term 'vigorously' is not balancing 'military' here and rather 'widely'. And I don't mind if 'strongly' is used instead of it. And there's no agreement on the term 'military'. I think western observers would be a better term instead of international community since not all allege that. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The United Nations are the international community. And the United Nations explicitly accused Pakistan of military support. Also, Russia, Iran, India and Afghanistan are not "western observers". The term vigorously describes the Pakistani position appropriately while "militarily" describes the international community position correctly. We ought to describe both positions as they are. JCAla (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The term 'vigorously' or 'strongly' describes Pakistan's position against the 'wide' accusations. That would be in balance. 'Military' is a separate matter giving weight to a single point. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You can add what you want "strongly" or "vigorously". That is up to you. But, the accusation by the international community is explicitly one of providing "military support". That is not providing weight, that is their position, which we ought to represent correctly, not as we might like. JCAla (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are so many other details that are verifiable and the position of other parties but it doesn't mean that we add them all to the lead. This violates WP:UNDUE for going into details and implicating the accusations to be true which you were first adding by inserting many different aspects of alleged support and now 'military' which are all having the same implicating effect. It is very clear that there's no consensus for adding 'military support' so stop beating the dead horse and let's go ahead with finalizing the sentence to be added. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What other parties? We have one clear majority position. Wikipedia according to WP:WEIGHT generally describes the majority position. In this case we describe the majority position and a minority position (Pakistan) because the minority is the accused party. But the majority position generally needs to be described accurately. The majority position is that Pakistan provided "military support". As I wrote earlier, I already agreed to drop the details of "direct combat support", etc. JCAla (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You 'agreed' to drop the details yet here you are adding one. The majority position is getting the inclusion. But here you are assuming WP:TRUTH for the 'majority' by further adding a detail. And notice that this specific word ('military') is being opposed since the start of this discussion, that is a week ago. So there is no consensus on taking any action in support or against it, which means it can not be added. It's time you WP:HEAR that and continue with the rest. There's no point in discussing if you are stuck on one thing and insisting to add it when you don't see a consensus being built in its support. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Militarily" is verified not assumed.You are stuck on one thing and you are blocking. I will see and WP:HEAR what others have to say. You should do the same. (And, man, this use of "wiki-policy language" is way over the top.) JCAla (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the disagreement, not 'blocking'. And the fact that you recognize the disagreement, you should know about this detail not getting a consensus to be added and that doesn't mean that the rest of the sentence should not be added. We go by consensus and cite policy and conventions which represents a wider consensus on how to take actions. If you disagree, you are not bound to edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
Gentlemen - let's be calm about this. We can all come to an agreement without dropping consistent WP:OMGWTFBBQ-filled attacks on the integrity or competence of the other person. We're close enough as is. So let's take it one step at a time.

First, let's come up with a statement which is as uncontroversial as possible to each party, even if it doesn't include everything that either party wants. Then we can work out terms like "militarily" after the sentence is added (this sentence isn't a finished product). At this point, I propose: It isn't perfect: I don't like the term "alleged", I think "against anti-Taliban forces" could be substituted with "militarily", and another fix or two. But that's a separate issue. Can you both agree to that sentence for now?
 * ''From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces [ref link], though Pakistan vigorously denies it.[ref link]"

Also, @TG: no, I cannot semi-protect the article indefinitely due to a dispute; this can only be done for consistent vandalism, and in fact it was already done in March. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The protection was a side note not related to the dispute, but just referring to the extent of the controversial nature of the content. Anyway, no real issues with that as yet.


 * I fully agree with the sentence you provided and I think since there has been no objection to that content, it can be added right now by you as it is. You can replace 'alleged' with 'accused' may be? Or any other alternate with the aim being to present the same meaning. 'anti-Taliban forces' can be replaced with 'insurgence' or totally removed whichever suitable. I would continue to oppose the term 'militarily' on reasons given before by me, TP and Nightw. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Magog, I can agree to the above sentence by you - for now - then we can discuss terms such as "militarily". I thank you for your very constructive input so far, given that it is not always so easy to deal with things that are getting politicized. I would like to know whether you'd include militarily and where such a dispute (about something that is obviously in the reliable sources) can be handled. BTW, Pakistan is not necessarily denying being supportive of the Taliban until 2001, it is "vigorously" denying "military support", so the sentence in itself is not truly a finished product. JCAla (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I smell hypocrisy in adding the sentence with a single side's citations and leaving out the others on me (which I've now added) when you apparently agree here on the addition of the sentence and even took the job to yourself. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I have provided enough for my position regarding this issue, while you provided what (besides from sticking to your point). It's your turn to take up at least some of the responsibility with regards to WP:VERIFY. But looking at the 3 refs you added to the article, this is what can be observed: Only ref#2 qualifies as a ref for the denial, but puts into question the way you wanted things to be formulated. JCAla (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ref#1 is not about 1995-2001, it is about 2001-present. The only sentence about 1995-2001 says: "Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States."
 * ref#2 says: "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite."
 * ref#3 doesn't even mention any denial.


 * You should read the third one again. First one has declined any support for Taliban and does not mention dates which you assume. The second one though the author thinks the 'reality' is the opposite, it is not cited for that since we already have other citations placed by you for the purpose. It, however, does confirm the denial and that it is duely representing. I've checked all references for denial - you must check it again if you want. Nothing is being put into question here since what I cited is acknowledged by the references including #2. Right, you can stop pretending to be so responsible here since you added the paragraph which Magog should have added as a neutral editor and then you left the citations only of your choice. The citations are complete, with the sentence added, and I would not like to waste any more time on this. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. The first i. e. explicitly is referring to the denial of the 2011 BBC report, etc. (don't want to wast my time on this). As can be seen here, you have this habit as the other editor explained to you of "edit warring. going around removing huge chunks of info ... this info is duly sourced and has been a part of the article on a long term basis." What you did with this article, you are doing with other articles. You are having a huge WP:NPOV problem and people will recognize with time. JCAla (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is referring to the denial of BBC report and yet it does not say that it is limited to the dates you assumed. It explicitly says that there has been no support of Taliban and not a single bullet has been given to them. Let's not bring irrelevant topics here for that discussion is in no way related to this one. I don't remove 'large chunks of information' from any article. Duplicate content from a main article is another thing. As far as I remember that is the exact thing you were doing on this very article by copy pasting the content from 'Pakistan' section to another section you created for ISI. Let's not comment on POV of each other since you have already been told once in the consensus right above on the infobox issue to find another article to edit if you can't limit your POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been distracted and missed the ongoing discussion here. I support Magog's proposal and I'm also willing to continue the discussion with JCAla on the use of "militarily" if he wishes to continue discussing it.--v/r - TP 02:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We've some what come to a solution and added a sentence (see lead). The allegation of military support has a detailed explanation in the body, I think that needs a balance too. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you changed your opinion on "militarily", TP? Otherwise, what could I possibly expect from having to discuss with the dream-combo again? If you are ready to provide neutral input the way Magog did (and maybe does again?), I'd be glad to discuss the term. But unfortunately, a look at the previous discussion, shows how existence and explicit content of a majority of reliable sources is simply being ignored alltogether. So, if for you the sources provided below are still not enough to prove that the majority accuses Pakistan of "military support", then I see no way how this discussion between us three could go any forward and I'd rather hear the opinion of other, neutral, people. JCAla (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You should learn to agree to disagree to start with. The discussion did finally go forward only by that way here and the sentence did finally get added. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion went forward because I sought the advice and input of an experienced and neutral administrator and Magog was so kind as to provide it. JCAla (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sidenote: TopGun, are you not busy with your other hundreds of agenda-motivated discussions?(removal of 10,000-byte sourced content,merger proposal in order to reduce Pakistan-critical content,removal of sourced content with regards to ISI,calling of RFC for merger proposal because of anti-India agenda) For someone who just ignores the very existence of reliable sources, you + friends (one of them, Ambelland, I had the pleasure dealing with his sockpuppet User:Gbh123 in the past) are being rather effective with your consistency. Gotta give you credit for that. Although, of course, that does not further wikipedia and as I said before, with time, people will eventually realize. JCAla (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I owe you no explanation related to any other disputes that I'm involved in and my use of valid dispute resolution procedures which you do not like. There's no compulsion on me to stop me from editing controversial articles and building consensus or challenging content. You have made serious allegations here which you can not prove. You seem to be including every one who disagrees with you in my 'friend-list', and that even includes TP as per your comment on Magog's talk page. Your attempt to work around this dispute by getting me blocked on a matter that did not concern you has already failed and along with this is mounting up evidence against you. If I finally report you, it's you who will make me do it. I'm not planning to respond to a reply to this so you can keep your efforts to the content instead and keep the off topic content to userpages. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let TP read what I wrote at Magog's page, the term "friend" does not come up, rather he will read "share an opinion". You connection to Ambelland is no allegation it is plain for everyone to see i. e. here. And again, you are mispresenting. Besides the article you were edit warring on getting full protection, this was said in the administrator result at the edit warring board: "Top Gun has recently been blocked for edit warring (December 1) which suggests he should be more careful. I have some concern he is going to ignore this advice, in which case we may see him here again soon. He has removed over 10K bytes of material three times since November 18, with no evidence of consensus that I can see." I am not going to continue this discussion here, since it does not belong here. But the sidenote above needed to be done in order for people not to be too naive. Last thing, I am fine with people disagreeing. When working on the Pakistani Taliban article I had many disagreements with RDavi, but there was a common understanding of what constitutes a reliable source and honesty about the content. That way, discussions went very smoothly and compromise was always reached. JCAla (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone here is an experienced editor as far as I get it and knows about reliability of sources, but the debate here is of NPOV and proper weight vs undue weight. Let's keep our comments short and to the point and get done with it. If there's no agreement (and remember it is not necessary to have an agreement there is some times simply no consensus) on addition of military a new section can be created for the related content in body. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Otherwise, what could I possibly expect from having to discuss with the dream-combo again? If you are ready to provide neutral input the way Magog did (and maybe does again?)." I'm not sure how Magog was anymore neutral than me. Their solution also did not include "militarily" and I'd love to hear Magog's interpretation of my involvement here. I think I've been very neutral both here and on WP:DRN where I got involved. For the record, I've never met/talked to/interacted with 1TopGun1 prior to this issue. Feel free to go through both of our contribs to verify. As far as discussing it with you, I'm not someone who lets their pride get in the way of editing. I am willing to concede points where valid counter points are made and I'm willing to compromise with others. I think my talk page archive can attest to that. Now, Magog has made a proposal that you've supported. I said I'd continue discussing it with you because I didn't want you to feel like once you've agreed to this temporarily, we'll all just disappear as "consensus achieved" and just revert you anytime you try to change it. I wanted to let you know that you could still make an argument over the words you've asked for and I will willing to listen because consensus can change. So please, don't accuse me of buddying up with TopGun against you because I'm a POV pusher. Again, feel free to stalk my contribs and I invite Magog's opinion as well.--v/r - TP 14:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, then let me tell you something and we will see if your pride does not get into the way of listening. First, you started this discussion with this interesting position: "Is this an important aspect of the article? My first glance says is: no. The topic contains no headers in the table of contents." (If Darkness Shines would not have provided his strong position at that point, you very likely would have retained that position for the rest of the discussions.) Do you think this (your initial position) was at all - even in the slightest way - correct? If you do, do you really think you got enough expertise with regards to Afghanistan issues? Second, this was your "neutral" version you simply adapted from TopGun immediately after he had thrown it into the discussion: "Several sources claim Pakistan and other nations' supported the Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001; which is refuted by Pakistan." Is it your sense of things that "several" describes a majority position? Did you make sure that the "other nations" are in the sources? (Because as I already told you above, they are not.) Is the term "refuted" (nowhere to be found in any source) an equivalent of "denied" to you? How come you so easily agreed on a non-verifiable version of TG but continued to battle with me over single terms which meet WP:VERIFY for days? I am not interested to "stalk your contribs". The above is enough to show a good sense of humor describing you as a "dream-combo". Don't take that too seriously.


 * Now compare that to Magog's inputs. First Magog searched for similar controversies and found as an example the wording from nuclear weapon's lede regarding Israel. Then he made truly neutral suggestion which put due weight and were aligned to the content of the reliable sources. After more discussions he proposed a transitional version. This is Magog's (transitional) neutral version: "From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces [ref link], though Pakistan vigorously denies it.[ref link]" And this is what he further had to say: "It isn't perfect: I don't like the term "alleged", I think "against anti-Taliban forces" could be substituted with "militarily", and another fix or two. But that's a separate issue."


 * And now have a very good - open-minded - look at the sources below. JCAla (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Accepting my suggestion puts an editor (who joined in from a noticeboard) in a team with me... way to go. It just proves my point here. And now what, settler's remorse? P.S. Is the intended discussion to continue or is that plan cancelled? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So let me understand your question correctly. You ask "Well, then let me tell you something and we will see if your pride does not get into the way of listening. First, you started this discussion with this interesting position: "Is this an important aspect of the article? My first glance says is: no. The topic contains no headers in the table of contents." If Darkness Shines would not have provided his strong position at that point, you very likely would have retained that position for the rest of the discussions."  So, your question is 'Is this a perfect example of where you did not allow your pride to get in the way by conceding a point when someone makes a well thought out argument?'  If that is so, then my answer is "Yes, yes it is."--v/r - TP 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You conceded because you realized your initial position would become untenable. And no, that was not my question, obviously. You did not address any of the points I made above, so this discussion is just a waste of time. JCAla (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I conceded because Darkness Shines made a point and I agreed with it. I'm not set in a firm opinion that is unshakable.  There isn't an issue of my "initial position would become untenable" because this thread was opened to discuss the matter.  That I have an opinion is not a crime.  I am allowed to give it, discuss it, compromise, and find agreement.  It is also not a crime that I am willing to compromise as evident by my conceding the point to Darkness Shines.  Unless you're in my mind, I'd suggest you not continue to explain my motives.  I didn't ask to join this discussion, you two were quoting me in edit summaries and you both got blocked for warring.  I came, as a neutral party, to help you solve an edit war.  That I've disagreed with you on a few points does not mean I am your enemy and you've treated me like I am on the opposite side of a battleground.  Both of our intentions are to improve this article and I suggest you remember that and forget this train of targeting me personally.  I've made a good faith offer to continue discussing this with you.  If you decline that offer, that's fine.  I'm perfectly happy leaving consensus with Magog's proposal.  Magog said the proposal was temporary and I was trying to show that I was on board.--v/r - TP 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As an addendum: I'm pretty much done responding until Magog returns and sets this conversation back on track.--v/r - TP 17:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you obviously want to evade addressing any of the valid points I raised above. So, yes, tell me your current opinion re:militarily. I am interested to see any sign of open-mindedness and neutrality. JCAla (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - has anyone attempted WP:MEDCAB? This would seem like a perfect case for them (parties that can't come to an agreement on their own, but with some external assistance have made some headway). It needn't be a drawn out process, just one that has everyone come to an agreement. I'll try my best in the meantime but I don't promise my time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think too much time has been wasted on a small part of the article and that would only add more to it since we are in the middle of this now. Since we were able to finalize some content, we can probably try to discuss the rest. JCAla should note that consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. If he doesn't agree, a consensus is still possible (and the same stands for me), so I'm not 'blocking' the content here but reasoning over it. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

@Magog, I have never done WP:MEDCAB, could be worth a try, if things don't move ahead here. Any other boards you'd suggest? RSN? As first try, I opened up a new section below. Thanks again for your time, I think this whole discussion is nothing but a waste of time - although there is always chance for learning - for all of us considering the reliable sources. JCAla (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of prior section

 * I refuse to participate in this discussion with you any longer and firmly oppose your proposal until you retract your allegations that I am unwilling to compromise. The evidence you provided is clear example of me compromising and I find it laughable and ludicrous that you would suggest that evidence of me compromising on one issue based on another contributors suggestions is evidence that I am stubborn and unwilling to collaborate.  Further, opposition to a idea is not stubborness.  It's disagreement, and disagreement is allowed in a collaborative environment.  I am not obligated to bend to the will of those who would have their way; or face accusations, lies, and personal attacks.  Furthermore, I find the hypocrisy of the accusing purely childish.  My accuser cannot point to an instance in this conversation where he himself has compromised on an issue but demands so of others.  I strongly suggest TopGun also strike from this discussion any further until JCAla acknowledges that he derailed this conversation off track to personally attack his perceived opponents to target our motives rather than the content and merits of our suggestions.  I request that any neutral party involving themselves in this conversation review how this conversation was derailed, correct the course, and re-invite me when a productive dialogue can resume.  Until JCAla acknowledges that it is possible, encouraged, and collaborative to for two people to disagree and still be productive, I refuse to respond to them.  I have the patience to wait for JCAla to make stronger personal attacks against others or POV pushing, find themselves blocked, and at that point this article can return to productive construction.  I'm not going to participate in a conversation with someone who cannot acknowledge the value of their opponents.--v/r - TP 19:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you this would improve and you would return. I was talking you as a neutral editor rather than as a support for my view and yet seeing such accusations has only taken the contention further. He has tried more than that on me; reported me of a non related matter to get me blocked to get a work-around here, advertised my block (where he too was blocked) on RFPP, and added the sentence (decided) to the article on his own with only citations of the side he supported. At this point my backing out would look exactly like you pointed out, ie. getting a consensus and disappearing which was not my aim. But I would not go through another complete process of MEDCAB for one word addition to this sentence which might be (/could have been) decided here with some other form of small balancing in the sentence. I, however, still am in opposition on the content based reasons (as discussed) for the alteration of the current lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

TP, seriously, I am over with this discussion. I am sorry if any of what I said offended you personally. Still, I raised valid points which you refuse to answer. Your "I strongly suggest TopGun also strike from this discussion any further until JCAla acknowledges ..." is not helping your cause, no matter how loud you cry "foul", instead it reinforces my perception of the "dream-combo". Now, don't take that personally against you, again. I have nothing against you - not even against TopGun. This is purely about content - for me at least. JCAla (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Military support" - Neutral feedback requested (new)
Anyone please take a look at below sources and tell us your opinion whether you think JCAla (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Pakistan is being accused of "military support" in these sources, and if so
 * 2) it is due or undue to mention that in the lead sentence ("From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely alleged by the international community to have provided [military] support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan vigorously denies it.")
 * Support the use of them having given military assistance, this is widely reported upon and there are sources from the academic press which discuss the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, the support has explicitly been characterized as "military support" in and by the reliable sources and it constitutes a majority position. Therefor it is verifiable and due to present the nature of the majority position correctly. There is no case for dropping a single term explicitly used by the reliable sources to characterize the nature of the support. JCAla (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per extensive discussion and arguments given above. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per what all the sources say. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose See my arguments above.--v/r - TP 14:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of editors involved in this dispute
OK, as I've been asked for assistance from numerous editors so far, I am going to give it. And here it is:

Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The next person who has been involved in the Pakistan/Taliban wording dispute above, who makes any comment about the intentions of another editor will be blocked or banned the page for a period of time (enforceable by block if necessary). This extends to disputes about the positioning of another editor's comments, or wikilawyering about it by moving all of one's comments in such a way that it affects another editor's comments. This includes postings on this page, my page, or any other page on Wikipedia. There is to be no more arguing about arguing - period. Only comments on what should or will appear in the article. In short, I am enforcing the WP:AGF guideline with a stick. This means, another editor's conduct or motivations (whether past or present) is not to be mentioned on any noticeboard or page, whatsoever. And don't try to weasel around it. You will assume good faith, a desire to be neutral, and competence, even where evidence is contrary. And you'll like it. (OK, I can't enforce the last sentence). This doesn't mean I'm forgetting about past conduct, or taking a side, only stating that the past is null and void and you will begin anew.
 * If someone sees a need to mention something elsewhere, s/he may post a link to this comment with the wording "I have problems with this editor's conduct, but I am not allowed to comment on it further." Or you can get around it by using email. If someone sees a need to bring up conduct at a noticeboard because the situation becomes unbearable, please contact me, and I will get back to you within 24 hours (if not, it means I'm dead or unavailable; contact me by email).
 * If someone sees a violation of these terms, s/he may notify me on my talk page. Anyone who desires to comment may do so, but may not do so more than once for each incidence. In short, if I get more than one notification from a user posting on my page regarding the same behavioral issue. And you are not to bring up the issue on a different page.
 * In order to keep the playing field level, this extends to other administrators - as administrators, you will no doubt have the self control to abide by this.
 * I will assume that, by posting on this page, you have read this comment and understand and will abide by it. I would appreciate, as a token gesture of good faith, if you post here an acknowledgement that you have read this and agree by it.
 * Now get back to negotiation.
 * Acknowledge and agree.--v/r - TP 16:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Magog. Agreed to this. Maybe you would like to remove the time stamps from your comment so that this discussion does not get archived and stays as a notice for the future disputes between other editors here. And you might want to close the discussions on your talk page. :] --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunni?
I can't find the word "Sunni" in neither the article nor this discussion page. Aren't Taliban Sunni? 88.91.87.7 (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but I don't think the Taliban self identify as Sunni, and I don't think other Sunni consider them as such. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Analysts do, but then that is subject to sources and attribution would be required if put in the article. -- lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan vigorously denies it
One of the citations used to support this statement may not be used, as this is what it actually says.While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite. This is a gross misrepresentation of a source so I am going to remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is being used to represent Islamabad's point of view while you are trying to remove it for what the author thinks. Even this source (which is on contrary to Islamabad's claims) does accept that Islamabad denies it. The citation is correct. This has also been explained previously in the lengthy section above. Read that before commenting on this so as not to go in circles. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is being misrepresented. This is against policy. Another source used also is misrepresented The source also says apart from the Pakistani denial Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. This is another misrepresentation of a source, I shall amend the article to reflect this. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is certainly not being misrepresented. It is not a citation for whether or not Pakistan supported Taliban, it is a backing up the fact that Pakistan denied this... and this is very clearly stated by the source inspite of it concluding opposite to that. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If your aim is to draw me into an edit war, I will not do that - I'll report you for WP:POINT and editwar. -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 11:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is you have to follow policy, you may not pick a sentence out of context to suit your POV. Policy is Policy. The last source used does not so far as I can see support the sentence either Please quote the section in full which supports it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No matter how many times you repeat that what you believe is policy wont help it. This was not an out of context quote. The source very clearly states that Pakistan denies the support in this very context. The author's conclusion is not being cited here. It is just like citing a Pakistani claim from an Indian source about a war which can be cited with that source even though the auther would later conclude that it was incorrect. That has no effect on the reliability of the claim itself (regardless of it being correct) since the same reliable source would be citing it. For the [13] source you've now mentioned, I reviewed it - it actually does not mention either and has been tagged on both sides. If there's no quote, it should be completely removed from these lines. It does at one point say that some of the the Mujahideens were raised in refugee camps but it does not say (or atleast I didn't find it - you may) that Pakistan supported Taliban. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Taliban/Sharia Law
In the second paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on the Taliban, it is stated that "While in power, the Taliban enforced one of the strictest interpretations of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world,[7] however most of the criticism on their interpretations came from leading Muslim scholars.[8]" The second half of this sentence is irrelevant and unnecessary. If it could be deleted that would be great.

Thank you all, Ryan Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.248.18 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus by community to enforce 1RR on this article

 * Proposal: I propose to enforce a 1RR on this article which would specifically be inclusive to keep from reverting of the same content by a different editor as well (and the same rule or canvassing/stealth-canvassing or tag teaming must be implied) until consensus established on talk for all further disputes. Measures should also be made to amend this so that purely valid reverts are not WP:NINJAed. If a talk page would not be enough to attain such a consensus this should be transcluded to the right pages (say ANI?) so as to form one. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As what you are actually saying is that you will decide what goes into the article by reverting anything you disagree with. This takes WP:OWN to a new level. I have also removed this as a subsection of the RFC, it has gotten messy enough as is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I will not decide that. It would be decided by consensus and I'm not the only one who can revert seeing that you've already mastered reverting. And this is a solution to this mess. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Further improvement to proposal: I also advise to include Magog's restrictions in a section above on all further disputes on this article whether any participating editors have voluntarily agreed with it before or not. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You called me a troll, even though you agreed to those proposals. I did not and will not, I will follow policy as usual. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not. I called a specific act that was trolling and is unrefuted even by you where I asked about it on the relevant talk page. So I've not broken them. You don't have to agree to them. The proposal is to enforce them and you already oppose that... but what ever the consensus says has to be followed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TopGun said nothing about DS here, nor about the fact that he would be the one who decides what is a revert and what isn't. The fact that DS thought so shows more about DS's battleground thinking than anything. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He called me a troll on your talk page Magog. And yes, I do know what a revert is. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who says I cant play nice with the other kids Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An unrefuted verb, not noun. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
There are multiple contentious neutrality and factual accuracy issues disputed on the talk page so appropriate tags: pov and disputed, for that should be added to the article. I don't want to edit war with the editors making top on edits. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose At least to the factual accuracy, all content I have added is sourced to the academic press, which is usually very factual. Perhaps you should let us know what you think is not factual. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See above section, I see a dispute. Denying the dispute itself wont make it go away. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The section were I am asking for sources and you refuse to give any you mean? Anyway, you are talking about neutrality there, not factual accuracy. What in the article is factually wrong please Darkness Shines (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I get it, you are on 3RR and you believe adding a tag will put you over right? So your doing this. Just add a POV tag yourself, it is not a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've provided you with references. The factual part is where you have not attributed your sources and stating things as facts inspite of NPOVN consensus (yeah whatever, if you don't believe that was a consensus or anything else). You are on 3RR too... any edit counts as a revert... but then again, I don't want to edit war here. Unless you want to answer the edit request, don't comment here and keep the dispute to its own section. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No you have not, you do realize anyone can look in the section above and see not one single reference provided by you right? You cannot question an articles accuracy and not say were it is in fact wrong. And no, I am not on 3R at all. Why have you asked for the article to be locked down for two weeks? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is simple as this: Even if Pakistan would currently deny it supported the Taliban until 2001, according to WP:Weight we cannot and should not put equal weight on the reliable sources describing not only a majority position but a statement of historical fact on the one side and denial by a military regime on the other side. As an example, the Second World War article does not question that Germany attacked Poland first, although Nazi Germany in 1939 attacked Poland claiming it was only defending. History has been researched and written in both cases. And the majority of reliable sources are clear in both cases. JCAla (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're posting in the wrong section.. this is strictly for the edit request related to the tag. Post above for the dispute related comments. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)