Talk:Taliban/Archive 6

Change Pakistani military interference
to Role of the Pakistani military Any objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Should be changed to "Role of other countries" and only "Pakistan" as a sub-heading. Further countries can further go in their own sections as consensus is built. -- lTopGunl (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Aborted
Per all the sources in this section and these sources
 * (2007) Terrorism Financing and State Responses: A Comparative Perspective Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0804755665 pp96 "Pakistan provided military support, including arms, ammunition, fuel, and military advisers, to the Taliban through its Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)"
 * (2002)Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban University of Washington Press ISBN 978-0295981116 pp111 " Pakistani support for the Taliban included direct and indirect military involvement, logistical support"
 * (2003)Falling Terrorism and Rising Conflicts Greenwood ISBN 978-0275978570 pp14 "Pakistan was the main supporter of the Taliban since its military intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) formed the group in 1994"
 * (2011)Confronting Al-Qaeda Naval Institute Press ISBN 978-1591145035 pp138 "the Pakistani military's Inter-services Intelligence Directorate (IsI) provided assistance to the taliban regime, to include its military and al Qaeda–related terrorist training camps"

Should the article mention the Inter-Services Intelligence military support to the Taliban in the article body. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: all editors are strongly advised to go through Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28 and this discussion above which has a thorough reasoning on all detail with no consensus for such changes including this DRN which had no consensus to do so. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Commentary
The NPOV link was about the infobox. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No it was about the whole article and its neutrality... see my starting comments and the comments by closing editor. And don't move my comment - it was meant for the main section and not a piece of commentary. The RFC introduction is neutral content. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, it should mention the military support to the Taliban. Obviously. JCAla (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Haven't the points mentioned above already been thoroughly discussed before (looking at similar previous discussions)? Mar4d (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No consensus was ever reached, so an RFC is the next logical step. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they've been very thoroughly discussed, the discussion ensued for 2 months with administrator involvement and there was no consensus. There was also a related consensus to be neutral and on all the issues regarding this dispute at WP:NPOVN and there was no consensus achieved at DRN. So per your own correct guess I would advise you to strike 'comment' and make it 'oppose'. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose and close per WP:SNOW: This is just a WP:POINT attempt without any respect to the decisions where consensus was considered achieved (NPOVN) to keep neutrality and there was no consensus for such edits and where there was declared no consensus here and at DRN). Also see my reply to Mar4d. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In your response to Mar4d you said there was no consensus, in your vote you claim there is a consensus? Got a diff to this consensus? You do realize an RFC is a part of the dispute resolution process? Perhaps you should WP:AGF and not accuse people of being pointy? Now how about a policy based reason for your oppose? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've clarified my oppose comment now which is not a vote. I've given all my reasons based on policy. You need to read WP:POINT. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No diff's then? Then the closing admin can just ignore your vote. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noted the discussions in the main as a note. Diffs alone are not required rather full discussions are required which I've provided. The comments are not votes.-- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: There was no consensus on the issue Darkness Shines requested comments on. Requests for comment "is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content." This is a logical next step. Also, there is no policy prohibiting the discussion of a certain issue (isn't it called a free encyclopedia?) and see WP:CCC anyways. JCAla (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC doesn't apply here in any way since the same editors are not hearing. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TopGun, there really isn't a point in saying "the other side isn't hearing" when from their point of view they feel exactly the same. It's just not a valid argument.--v/r - TP 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, JCAla agreed to that sentence as well, infact he eagerly put it into the article before a neutral editor could do it. So what they 'feel' is irrelevant here. WP:CCC would apply if some one else (or may be he) contests it on a new reason. I can not see anything like that -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note:I've reverted the recent edits to the standing revision of the article since they are exactly against the discussion in above section. The sentence that was decided in 2 months has been changed by the opposing editor which is highly disruptive since he agreed to that and put that there himself. I've not violated 3RR since I have made three edits only two of which were to re add a removed citation (which was I guess settled there as far as it is concerned with direct edits) and the current one is a BRD revert to status quo with no intention to edit war. I've also asked for administrator intervention and no further edits should be made. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your damned right I will revert you, you removed all the improved references I made to the article, had added sources from the academic press and you just blind reverted the lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The valid parts (citation additions only as you claim) can be added back via edit conflict.. not the changes in the sentence and other parts against consensus. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you on? What can be added back via edit conflicts? You blanket reverted out high quality sources which has nothing to do with your petty issues. You are a disruptive editor. Your moaning on about what is mentioned above was not even added to the article, there was no addition of military support being given, which is what you said you did not want in the bloody article to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been warned at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733 to remain civil and not to make minor personal attacks, and you should adhere to that. Here's the diff of my revert . The sentence was changed and was weaseling around the same issue. Headings were changed to non neutral too. My revert was valid and consistent with my previous support. Feel free to add only the citations without reverting the rest. You are the only one being disruptive here and there's not even a need to comment on JCAla's edits which changed the same content he agreed on. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you miss this edit and this one which specifically mention military support. Also this one by you restored the ISI which we dispute needs to be in the lead and should be mentioned in the body?  You and JCAla restored plenty of disputed content.--v/r - TP 14:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No they do not, They say the ISI and the Pakistani army provided support, which btw is what the sources say. Those edits do not say military support was given, which was the edit you guys did not want in. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As I've said every other time a new attempt to develop consensus has been tried and we five have been the only editors, I feel that JCAla has misrepresented many of the sources by neglecting the timeline of events and what support was provided. Further, I have concerns that the WP:LEAD is giving too much weight to this small part of the article and too many details. --v/r - TP 14:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm ... ??? Do you perceive the sources as not saying that the Pakistani ISI and military provided military support to the Taliban 1996-2001? JCAla (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the comments about denial and then neutrality of the lead. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not address the question to you and this is about accurately describing the allegation. JCAla (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter who you address the question to, this is an RFC not a user talk page. The sources tell both about denial and the accusation and the NPOVN concluded all content to be strictly added in a neutral way. This is about that. I've replied to the general part of your question... TP can answer the 'allegation' part. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I support coverage of the details about Pakistan military, intelligence, and other nation's support in the article body as long as it gives due weight based on the sources in a neutral point of view. My oppose above was based on the misconception that we were still discussing the lead.--v/r - TP 22:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first impression I got here was the same, ie. the lead being discussed. If there's consensus to mention the support in the body, it should adhere to NPOV... but the edits made along side this RFC were opposite to what the RFC claimed. JCAla changed the settled sentence again to "military" support and added further details which he thinks are correct. This is still misleading... I do support addition of other nations' support (and even Pakistan's support) to the article (body) given it is in due weight and everything is attributed with denials directly in line... but then if that was the purpose there's already a section there named "Pakistan's military interference" - why this? Darkness Shines comment on your talk page is confusing in context to all that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which edit by JCAla? He wrote the Pakistan military had given support, not that they had gotten military support? Is that why you reverted all my edits? Because you misread what had been written? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this the edit? "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Pakistani military had given support" or "they got military support from Pakistan"... very slight difference there and still that was put in without consensus. I didn't misread it. There was no consensus for putting that in lead and specifically amending that sentence in anyway. Also, this RFC asks for addition of military support in article which is already in the article... pretty much misleading... what a mess. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TG, this is what the sources say, why is it such an issue to have "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence[1] and the military[2] are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces" as opposed to "Pakistan is alleged to"? Look at the majority of sources, they speak of ISI and military support. Come on, this is a no brainer. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All the sources were considered in a 2 month debate which concluded with no consensus and just this sentence making its place in the lead. It is wikilawyering just to amend it a bit and re add and is objected to other wise as well (and with all sources considered). Also read TP's comment below as an answer to this. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't think it should be in the lead. It's too detailed and it cannot be equally refuted in the lead because it would no longer be a summary of the body.  We feel that the details about the ISI and any military support should be described in the body of the article.  That's our dispute.  Do the sources say "military support"?  Yeah.  But other sources dispute how much support.  There is no way to include "military" support in the lead and still weigh both sides properly to be neutral.  I don't dispute the use of these things in the body.--v/r - TP 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the thing TP, it does not say military support. It says the ISI and military have been accused of giving support. Majority of sources say this, not that Pakistan has given support. "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence[1] and military[2] are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces" This does not say they were given military support at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All details that would change this sentence were objected to previously. And the final consensus was to keep this sentence as in the article now without amending anything since it was giving unnecessary detail and that includes this change specifically. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * DS: Just seeking clarification...So your point is that "Pakistian" as in the government did not provide support but the military, without endorsement from the government, did and that's why you want to say "Pakistan Military" instead of just "Pakistan"? I might understand and that might be agreeable, but I'd like some clarification.--v/r - TP 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, the Military and the ISI run Pakistan, not the government. They are a country within a country as it were. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this clarification is contentious non encyclopedic content/assumption. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think I would not be able to provide sources? You will get them later, I`m off to bed. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be dismissed under speculation. Supporting Taliban without endorsement from government as TP said is one thing... "running the state" is contentious speculation. If you do provide sources for ISI being claimed to support Taliban without govt. endorsement, you'll have to replace "Pakistan" with "ISI" and not add it per your own comment. Otherwise it is just a detail and those details were objected to in the previous discussion since they belong to the body. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Problem: Darkness Shines commented above, "No consensus was ever reached, so an RFC is the next logical step." Now this clearly indicates along with many other comments that this was a continuation of the previous issue, ie. of the lead. The lead was also changed along with this. Now Darkness Shines has claimed it is only about the article and not the lead. If that is the case... this is already there in the article, what is the RFC for then? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So long as we are talking about neither the infobox nor the lead, I don't see a problem with this. In fact, there isn't a problem with adding any accusations of ISI support so long as 1) attribution is provided within the text, 2) it is discussed proportionately to the rest of the article, and 3) notable contrary viewpoints are added alongside. If Darkness could provide an example of what he would like to add and where, I will probably support.  Night w   13:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't have problems with the body text that way (which I actually asked for myself in the dispute related to infobox and over all neutrality). But this is a bit confusing since, 1) RFC is asking for comments on adding information that is already there.. perhaps the RFC intro needs to be retermed? Something like what Darkness shines wants to add instead of simply "add". -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the section Role of the Pakistani military I wish to add all military aid from both the Pakistani military and the ISI. Starting from the help given with the foundation of the group to the "students" joining from the Maddrassas of Pakistan. There are hundreds of sources which discuss this. I was under the impression that we were not to mention military aid at all, hence the RFC. TG says adding this information is not neutral, but he has yet to provide a source which says Pakistan did not give aid before 9/11. After 9/11 of course the say they do not, but there are no sources yet given which refutes this from before 9/11, nor have any been given which refute the ISI founding the group. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * DS, you are not accurately quoting me here. I said mention of Pakistan military in the lead is not neutral. What you posted to TP for clarification, if you had posted here, it would have been a lot more easier since the text in the body is being taken much more lightly than the lead which needed a stricter balance and weight. To start with, I've provided sources for Pakistan refuting the support ever. The post 9/11 has many sources so I don't need to specify here, but the pre 9/11 is the one cited in lead (to which you were disagreeing - but whether or not it declares the support to be true, it does say that Pakistan denies... right? Which is all what I'm saying and citing here). Now, founding of Taliban needs attribution and denial since Pakistan even denies the support. This is also being discussed at NPOVN right now, so maybe we can get some input from there too. About 'all the other details' even the article text no matter how long gives certain weight to all sides. Now I agree with Nightw... mention it here maybe we can get a consensus to add some thing... after all JCAla was able to get the lead modified just by discussion here (though only the word military was not added - but then again... that happens in consensus). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Section break
Global security: Afghanistan and Pakistan, eighth report of session 2008-09 By Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons The most important strategic areas of government are under the direct control of the military, and there is no pretence that they are otherwise. 2010 My life with the Taliban Columbia University Press Now, as then, the ISI acts at will, abusing and overruling the elected government whenever they deem it necessary How many would you like? Pakistan on the brink: politics, economics, and society Lexington The military rulers do not believe in sovereignty belonging to the people of Pakistan, and usurpation of power is justified A Line in the Sand: Canadians at War in Kandahar Douglas & McIntyre ''The isi is a power unto itself. The civilian government (when there is one) is not even allowed to know what the isi's budget is Best American Political Writing 2009 Public Affairs And it is certainly the military and ISI officers who are doing the managing—not the country's elected leaders'' This is common knowledge Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * These are claims, not common knowledge. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved Comments

 * Changing to oppose. This seems to be evolving into another pathetic squabble contest. Mar4d (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. An RFC should try and foster comments from outside parties, not consist of two editors squabbling. Nobody wants to get involved in that. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani military interference
The claim about Taliban being founded by ISI needs to be attributed to the sources and the denial mentioned per Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, why don't you add "Pakistan denies" behind each and every single sentence although some things are common knowledge and a majority position? JCAla (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You rely on that one discussion a little too much TG. That discussion has nothing to do with the founding of the Taliban does it? Again, statements of fact do not require attribution, cheerio, more content to add. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI: Neither the opinion that the Taliban are supported by Pakistan nor that they are not is appropriate for Wikipedia to state as fact. Quoted from NPOVN linked above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares? You are arguing about support when what it says is founded, these are not the same things. Bye Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How many times?? You have already been warned about mispresenting consensus in the past. This was for 2001-present and about the lead and infobox. 1994-2001 is totally different since there is a clear majority position among secondary reliable sources making statements of fact. JCAla (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines, support or founded.... wikilawyering now? JCAla, That consensus was not only about that time span. Read the full closure. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus was purely about the current situation which remains disputed. Only the current situation was discussed. JCAla (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you see where the closer says that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to state such as a fact or not? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see everything. Do you? JCAla (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TG were is your source which refutes the academic press? Were is your source which says the ISI did not help found the Taliban? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are added in the lead. You've already taken a look. Do we have to call an RFC on every single instance of the same related text? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no. The sources in the lede all state Pakistan denials post 9/11. I would like to see from you, Denials of them helping found the Taliban, and also them denying giving aid before 9/11. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC report that was denied by Pakistan clearly states an argument denying any support "not a single bullet or financial support". The other citation which you have quoted already your self, "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban" though the author says the "reality was opposite", clearly mentions that there was no support. Saying now that they founded it would be ridiculous. That needs to be either removed or denial added right after it. You've not yet added the attribution to the sources you've added yet as well. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. going in circles here. The sources you added to deny the claims all say they aided the Taliban up until 9/11. Do you understand this? You need to provide a source in which Pakistan denies giving aid before 9/11. Do you understand that? You also need to provide a source which says they deny founding the Taliban. I am not about to misrepresent a source to keep you happy, sorry. Until you provide the needed sources the content will have to stay as is. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And what is this you've added all about? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've provided sources for both. And any support to Taliban is denied founding is just another way of saying the same with more contention. You've ignored the attribution of your sources, that's what it is about. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is my last edit here until you provide the sources asked for. Give the links, here on this page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out the references to you... you have reviewed the references and even debated on them in a previous section. I will not give the same links here on your demand. You've previously denied referenced claim on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment as well. There's no point in giving sources if you simply deny that they even say what they say. Review the sources again if you want. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This addition has issues and needs further discussion before it is re added. Both the founding part and the futher additions about terrorists need to be addressed before adding to the article. If there's any disagreement feel free to continue at WP:NPOVN where the "founding of Taliban" is already raised as a POV issue. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove reams of reliably sourced content just because you do not like it. If you have an issue post here and explain what it is please. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works. See WP:BRD. You add information (regardless of its length) and it is reverted, you don't re add it. The next step discussion. You have to leave it be per bold, revert, discuss. The challenged content gets into the article by discussion not by repeatedly adding it back. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind which section you wish to discuss this in, see my response below. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit war
Darkness Shines, when you are reverted, instead of re adding the content discuss it at talk. Just because the content is sourced doesn't means it is automatically acceptable as well since I challenged the neutrality here. I'll ask you to self revert here and discuss the content instead of editwarring. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Either explain what you think is wrong with the content or leave it be. Saying "It has problems" is not good enough, I would like specifics. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To start with... read my last comments in the above section. There's no deadline so don't add it back right away. It needs to be discussed first and then added unless the aim is just to keep it there that way for maximum time as it might go down later. I've told you the specifics of the first part. The second part has not a bit of neutrality in it. I've repeatedly told you the specifics about attribution which you have completely ignored. Now are you willing to discuss it or not? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please state what you think is wrong with the content, all of which is sourced to the academic press. If you do not in your next post state what you think is wrong I shall not respond. You need to say xxx line is wrong because (your reasons here) Darkness Shines (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that sources are present and I've not asked for them so you don't need to mention them again. Coming to the specifics, none of the lines have an attribution and that is POV and not in weight. The content about setting up terrorist camps (even though with sources) is speculation and has no denials in place not to mention Pakistani stance for it. Before telling me to bring the references for that, see WP:VOLUNTEER. The content you have added, if not NPOV, will be removed until it is fixed and you should have fairly represented all sides in the first place along with the references. And if I do have to bring references at a point later, I've added the in the lead and shown you before (they're considered presented since they are in the article). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The references in the lede do not cover the content you just removed. To begin, please provide a source which says Pakistan did not help in the setting up of terrorist training camps. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are not going to add or discuss attribution? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 01:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Attribution does not need to be added if no other POV is presented. Do you have the requested source or shall we discuss your next objection? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It does per Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28, And finally that you accept that there's no other POV presented... you need to add it because it is not NPOV just per yourself. Second, claims like terrorist camps and similar need a rewrite which should be done here on the talk page, third "bombed to stone age" and such inflammatory remarks are not for wikipedia and need to be re written. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 01:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(out)Please stop using one discussion to try and cover the additions of all content to this article. As you have no sources denying the setting up of the terrorist camps we can move on. Being bombed back to the stone age is not inflammatory, it is also accurate to the sources used, and is quite a notable event. How would you phrase it? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That one discussion was for all further neutrality issues with the article and not just then since the closer has clearly indicated in the use of tense. You have not covered all points of view, this is your responsibility to add some balanced content in the first attempt. The current form is not acceptable in way. For the last part, before phrasing it, use of the word threatened is enough. For example, "USA threatened Pakistan that it would too be attacked if it did not cooperate in the war on terror." (was there a mention about support to Taliban at all in that statement by US?) -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No TG, one discussion does not cover all article content. I will not discuss that particular issue further. I believe the use of the highly notable wording in the sources is fine, and yes the Taliban was mention in both sources. I believe we can also cross this off of the list along with terrorism. Any further objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Close paraphrasing is not the correct way and the wording is aggressive and inflammatory. The phrase I've suggested is a pretty modest form of it. There was no point of asking for a suggestion if you thought that it was "fine" that way. Unilaterally striking off objections is not the way to solve a dispute. This discussion is useless if you do that untill you are left with "no further objections".
 * "Within the article, claims that other organizations or individuals assert that Pakistan supports the Taliban should be specifically, reliably cited at the point of inclusion. Claims that Pakistan does not, including those by the Pakistani government, should equally be cited directly following the claims or statements. Both sides are requested to review NPOV policy and our policy against using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote causes. There is voluminous evidence both that Pakistan denies such support or involvement and that others, including some in the US government, have claimed that Pakistan does in fact offer such support. Both should be stated fairly and accurately with the best and most appropriate citations for them."
 * Above is a part of the closer's comment in the cited consensus. They stand for the whole article as quoted. I'm reverting you per that. If you think otherwise feel free to find dispute resolution. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 02:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Please, note, the closer was purely referring to today. He was not referring to the time period 1994-2001 which was not discussed. Note, the present tense: "support" not "supported". There is a huge difference between these time periods. So, do not bother people with this again. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The part about WP:NPOV applies for all time periods.--v/r - TP 18:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, since it is a general wikipedia policy. But the complete consensus does not apply to all time periods. The last part of the closure "There is voluminous evidence both that Pakistan denies such support or involvement and that others, including some in the US government, have claimed that Pakistan does in fact offer such support" specifically refers to the current situation - which was the only thing discussed. For 1994-2001 - the time period that was not discussed there - the situation of sources is completely different because all (except Pakistan) say the Pakistani military supported the Taliban. So there is a very clear majority position. JCAla (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not neccessarily. Even between you and Darkness Shines there is a difference of opinion.  Darkness Shines has said that the Pakistan Military runs Pakistan and has provided support independent of the government.  If that is true, than saying "Pakistan provided support militarily" is inaccurate.  The government did not provide military support, it was independently provided.  The arguments you two have presented are different despite that they appear very similar.--v/r - TP 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Our arguments are the same, they just have been expressed differently. It was the Pakistani military together with the Benazir Bhutto and following governments. "Pakistani military" is perfectly correct or simply "Pakistan" (as the Bhutto government, notably Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar who called the Taliban "our boys", was also involved). But the military is indeed running Pakistan, thus the true government of Pakistan. JCAla (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But not the internationally recognized government of Pakistan.--v/r - TP 19:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since both, the internationally recognized government (civilian government) and the actual unofficially recognized government (military), supported the Taliban, that doesn't really matter in this case. JCAla (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is where you and Darkness Shines differ. Darkness Shines said "That's the thing TP, it does not say military support. It says the ISI and military have been accused of giving support. Majority of sources say this, not that Pakistan has given support".--v/r - TP 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, he is right. A majority of sources generally speak of the Pakistani military and ISI. JCAla (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that even between you two, you arn't clear on what exactly the sources say and they arn't all saying the same thing.--v/r - TP 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see a difference. I agree with DS. A majority of sources refers specifically to the Pakistani military and ISI. So that is the term best to use per WP:RS. JCAla (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you said "the internationally recognized government (civilian government) and the actual unofficially recognized government (military), supported the Taliban," There is a distinct difference where NPOV is involved.  In one case, the government sponsors terrorism.  In the other, the government lacks control of it's military.--v/r - TP 20:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The government lacks control of it's military, yet, civilian government officials such as the interior minister (calling the Taliban "our boys") were also supporters of the Taliban. But since a majority of sources generally refers specifically to the Pakistani military and ISI, that is the term best to use per WP:RS JCAla (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, we might be able to find some agreement here. What are your proposed changes along these lines?--v/r - TP 20:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the lead or the article body? JCAla (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Either or both.--v/r - TP 21:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, the accusation should be presented exactly as it is. The specific sentence should be:

"From 1995-2001, the Pakistani military and its intelligence service Inter-Services Intelligence is widely alleged by the international community to have provided financial, logistical and direct military support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan vigorously denies it."

Regarding the article body, I think there are hardly many articles on wikipedia which have as well-sourced content removed. I support this content to be reinserted. A minority position by one military regime should not be given the same weight in this case as a clear majority position among all the other international sources and even Pakistani scholars. What do you think? JCAla (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of my problem isn't only WP:NPOV but also WP:LEAD. Can you condense your lead proposal to 2/3 the size?  I havent read the diff you provided but I think I've seen it when watching the warring go on.  However, I'll comment on it later when I get the chance.--v/r - TP 22:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that sentence is too long for the issue. We could also reduce the sentence for the 1995-2001 period and instead write something short about the current situation. "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces. Though Pakistan denies giving aid since 9/11, some international officials allege the ISI continues to support the Taliban." Let me know what you think. JCAla (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A different origin story for the Taliban
The linked article is called Turkmenistan and Central Asian Regional Security by Murad Esenov published by Oxford University Press in 2001 in the volume Security and the Caspian Sea Region. The current wikipedia article, and a similar article on the Northern Alliance, say the Taliban started in opposition to a local governor, and the freeing of hostages. Esenov tells a different story, putting an emphasis on a security arrangement, a few months later.


 * Practical implementation of the Pakistani-Turkmen accords began in the autumn of 1994, when cargo convoys started shuttling between Turkmenistan and Pakistan across the Afghan territory and preparations got under way to set up an international consortium on a gas pipeline construction project. It is noteworthy that the emergence of the Taliban movement on the Afghan military-political scene was directly related to an active phase in this Pakistani-Turkmen cooperation. In the late autumn of 1994 a group of Afghan Mujahideen seized a caravan moving from Pakistan to Turkmenistan. To secure its release, the Pakistani Interior Ministry tapped a small and little-known religious sect, led by Mullah Mohammad Omar, based in the south of Afghanistan. Before long that sect rapidly evolved into the Taliban movement, which subsequently began its triumphant march across Afghan territory, turning around the entire military-political situation in the country.

Another good quote, which adds to the story:


 * All accords reached between Turkmenistan and Pakistan relied on the use of Afghan territory to promote bilateral cooperation. However, representatives of Afghanistan itself were not parties to these accords. Moreover, on 5 March 1995, the then President of Afghanistan, Burhanutdin Rabbani, speaking on Kabul Radio, sharply criticized the agreements that had been reached between Pakistan and Turkmenistan and the intentions behind them. In particular he described these plans as “attempts by the Pakistani leadership to help the opposition Taliban movement.”

JoshNarins (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good input, Josh Narins. Indeed Afghanistan is the way for Pakistan to Central Asian natural resources since Pakistan has no own borders with Central Asia but desperately needs the resources. Will add another source to this. JCAla (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Economy
I and JCAla rewrote the section on the economy [ ] May require copyediting. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Merged sections
I have merged and rewritten the sections on Taliban massacres & Treatment of women with this edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Terrorists or not
Just a note to DS for citing BRD to re-revert to a 'consensus version' at the igniting edit war on the article. "There is no such thing as a consensus version" per WP:BRD. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read again, I reverted to the consensus version. I then invoked BRD. Your section title is misleading. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as consensus version. The section title was to facilitate if the discussion started here since that is the content being reverted. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 02:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this in reference to this text?
 * They use terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals.
 * If the sources support then it seems like a reasonable edit.   Will Beback    talk    02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no, sources are important but there's a problem if they are making descriptive judgments or passing opinions rather than simply being used to verify facts; and if they then are cherry-picked. The sentence above is a pretty good example of that. I'm sure I could find 101 sources that claim they use "classic guerilla tactics"; as I could for both the following statements - "the western intervention in Afghanistan liberated the country" and "the western invasion was the latest stage in a long history of imperialist adventures in the region". Which do we prefer? Do we have both so that the paragraph reads like a list of competing descriptions? The other problem is of course that it tells us nothing, since "terrorism" is a pretty nebulous concept as well as a subjective one. All it tells the reader is that the editor who added or returned it likes the description and then went to find it in a book or website they once read.
 * If the sources support then it seems like a reasonable edit.   Will Beback    talk    02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no, sources are important but there's a problem if they are making descriptive judgments or passing opinions rather than simply being used to verify facts; and if they then are cherry-picked. The sentence above is a pretty good example of that. I'm sure I could find 101 sources that claim they use "classic guerilla tactics"; as I could for both the following statements - "the western intervention in Afghanistan liberated the country" and "the western invasion was the latest stage in a long history of imperialist adventures in the region". Which do we prefer? Do we have both so that the paragraph reads like a list of competing descriptions? The other problem is of course that it tells us nothing, since "terrorism" is a pretty nebulous concept as well as a subjective one. All it tells the reader is that the editor who added or returned it likes the description and then went to find it in a book or website they once read.


 * This edit summary precisely sums up the point and the problem, through missing it. If there are indeed sources that offer concrete examples of when the Taliban blew up schools with children in them, include that fact, phrased that way - not an unattributed interpretation/description of what that kind of action might "mean". Is that terrorism? Quite possibly and almost certainly some sources will categorise it as such. But why do we need to say it? And should we say it about every bombing that kills civilians (assuming we find sources for it, which we almost certainly would be able to)?  N-HH   talk / edits  10:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback. To use the term "terrorism" is reasonable. Common definitions of terrorism refer to 1) violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), 2) are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and 3) deliberately target civilians. One example for Taliban terrorism: Acid attacks on schoolgirls. These acid attacks are 1) violent acts intended to create terror, 2) are perpetrated for ideological goals and 3) deliberately target civilians (children). It is certainly not guerilla warfare. JCAla (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, one brief CNN article reports claims by an Afghan anti-Taliban governor about something that happened and who the alleged perpetrators were and who paid them, which you then - as an individual WP editor - deem to be proof that the Taliban engage in "terrorism", even though that specific report doesn't even use the word, and this justifies the inclusion of such a bold, unqualified statement? No wonder WP is such a mess. See my comment above - "All it tells the reader is that the editor who added or returned it likes the description and then went to find it in a book or website they once read" - expect that you haven't even reached that threshold, at least on the basis of this one piece. Now, have the Taliban (and 101 other such groups around the world throughout history, including Afghan groups that now form part of the government, such as the Jamiat e-Islami) done some pretty vile things? Sure. But everyone here seems to be rather missing the point about how to write content for a neutral encyclopedia and the rather basic distinction between verifiable fact and subjective description.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I one-hundred percent agree with every thing you've said above. It is not Wikipedia's job, or up to Wikipedians, to decide what does (and what doesn't) constitute "terrorism" (WP:WORDS makes this very clear). Words like "guerilla warfare" seem better fitted than terrorism in this context. Using CNN clippings or other sources and concluding everything under the category of terrorism is just pure synthesis. Mar4d (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The CNN article was cited as one example out of many - and I explicitly said so. Others have already provided more sources. Some (out of many) further examples: Again, these are not guerilla tactics. All these attacks are 1) violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), 2) are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and 3) deliberately target civilians. These specific Taliban's tactics with regards to Afghan civilians have been described as "terrorism" by a wide variety of sources (see sources provided by Darkness Shines). And on a general note, U.N. figures show that insurgents are responsible for 80 percent of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. JCAla (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Taliban have targeted both Afghan civilians working for the government and their families. Their victims include the 11 year old son of a policeman who was hanged as a 'spy'."
 * Attack on Kabul supermarket killing a female human rights activist, her family and other civilians. The Taliban and Hezb-i Islami claimed responsibility.
 * Taliban bomber detonated his device at Charsad Bestar Hospital where medical students were eating lunch killing Afghan medical students and civilians. The Taliban claimed responsibility.
 * Amnesty International has documented how the Taliban and other insurgent groups ... have increasingly attacked ... hospitals, schools, and mosques. The Taliban killed a headmaster of a girl’s school in May this year, and insurgents have also attacked and killed female MPs.
 * Well, half those links don't work or are sub-only. Anyway .. one I looked at referred to an attack on a police station; another to an attack on politicians; one doesn't even ascribe responsibility to the Taliban for the attack mentioned; most don't actually use the word terrorism. Citing them and then explaining your chain of logical deduction again doesn't help, as I thought should be clear. Anyway, neither I nor Wikipedia are interested in you and I arguing about whether such acts "are" terrorism or not.
 * That aside, I never disputed that there will be sources that do refer to terrorism. But even that is missing the fundamental point of principle that this is a subjective description; someone else could find counter-examples where a lot of what they do is described as "guerrilla tactics" - eg by Time ("the adaptability of the Taliban style of guerrilla combat"), Channel 4 ("guerrilla insurgency") and even by Fox ("The Taliban has sought a return to political and territorial influence ever since, primarily through guerrilla tactics"). Or as outright criminality. So, which do we prefer? Do we use them all to produce a contradictory mish-mash list?  N-HH   talk / edits  13:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No we use decent academic sources, such as the ones I used. Here are some more . Bombs and ballots: governance by Islamist terrorist and guerrilla groups pp42 Key concepts in political geography pp248 Coping with terrorism: origins, escalation, counterstrategies, and responses pp65 Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, I see your problem. Yes the Taliban use guerrilla tactics (planting IED's, ambushes and so forth) They also however use terrorism against the civilian population, hence the edit They use terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the references. They all are explicitly mentioning terrorist attacks against civilians. As Darkness Shines just wrote, one of their tactics is terrorism against the Afghan population. Thus, they use terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals. JCAla (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The arguments apply in precisely the same way, whether we use academic or media sources. Media sources are not barred, and I cited them because they are easy to link to and my post was in direct response to a list of media cites (which, btw JCAla, still refer to what you describe as terrorist actions, as already pointed out). There are plenty of academic sources that will talk about the Taliban as primarily a guerilla movement; and, as it happens, that refer to the US as the perpetrator of terrorism of its own, as well as of imperialism, wars of aggression etc. Pretty much all these labels remain subjective descriptions, often intended to be pejorative rather than illuminating, which should not be included as if they were pure, inarguable "facts" - whether used by a university professor, any other notable author or a news reporter. They should certainly not be cherry-picked so that we highlight only one over any other alternative or additional description. Even if we accept the terrorism description for some of what they do, the current formulation is just plain misleading; just as an unqualified sentence in the US army page that "US soldiers use rape and murder as a tool to intimidate Iraqis" would be as the only line on US military tactics there.


 * In fact, that's a wider problem with the lead - it reads like a charge sheet or propaganda tract against the Taliban, with excessively undue focus on the alleged role of Pakistan. That's probably pretty easy to compile but the lead rather glaringly has absolutely nothing about how and when they were founded, where they came from, their relationship to the anti-Soviet mujahideen groups, the context in which they first took power etc. This is meant to be an encyclopedia entry, not a "Why the Taliban are b#stards" [twinned with "Why Ahmed Shah Massoud is a hero", which is what fills the early parts of the main body] blog post masquerading as one. Even if they are.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ps: would anyone support these bold, unqualified standalone statements going into the lead? "The Taliban brought much-needed stability to most of Afghanistan after the vicious civil wars of the 1990s"; "the Taliban offer swift and effective justice in the areas that they control"; "the Taliban are a national resistance force that employs guerrilla tactics against a foreign invader and its local proxies"? All of those are entirely accurate by one reading and could no doubt be cited to respectable sources, but are rather manifestly POV statements that do not belong in an article lead in isolation or as written; just as this one about terrorism is.
 * (ec)I had rewritten the lede, it seems to have become bloated again. I will trim it. How they were founded can be found in the RFC above. All this content was removed and as such per WP:LEDE I do not see how we can state in the lede how or why they were founded as that information is no longer in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) You are mixing up a strategy with crimes by individuals. The Taliban use terrorism as a strategy - a method. Rape and deliberate murder by US soldiers against civilians in Iraq was not a strategy but the crime of individuals. You will barely find any source considered reliable on wikipedia stating that this was a strategy of US forces in Iraq. There are, however, plenty of reliable sources stating the Taliban use terrorism against the civilian population as a strategy. Wikipedia goes by majority view among reliable sources.
 * 2) I would not support your example statement since it lacks factual accuracy and does not comply with WP:V on mostly all accounts. The Taliban brought stability to southern Afghanistan but massacres and war to central, western and northern Afghanistan. They offer swift and effective solutions to disputes. Stoning, amputations and public beating with no court proceedings, however, hardly meet the common definition of "justice". To meet the criteria of a national resistance force the Taliban would need popular support, which by a majority of reliable sources they do not have among a majority of the Afghan population. 60 % of the population of Afghanistan are Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks who have deep hatred for the Taliban and many Pashtuns also do not support the Taliban. As Afghans were fighting the Taliban long before "the foreign invader" got involved, without support of and even against the opposition of "foreign invader", they hardly meet the criteria of "proxies".
 * 3) We have a whole section about the emergence of the Taliban, even rightly stating how they saved a child from the hands of the abusive local governor of Kandahar in 1994.
 * JCAla (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of my examples was precisely that they fail as good content, despite being technically accurate and (potentially) sourced/verified statements. Deconstructing them - especially again by deploying your own logic on them - is hence a bit pointless (although, as it happens, the statement that "US soldiers use rape and murder .." did not purport to suggest that it was an official strategy btw; and one can still be, now, a proxy for an invader even if you were already fighting before they arrived). For the fourth time, I have never denied that sources exist suggesting the Taliban use "terrorism". However, despite the plethora these days of academic experts on "terrorism" it remains a subjective description - there are alternative and additional descriptions that could be put there, in its place or alongside it. This is cherry-picking. Claiming - without evidence - that this is the "majority" view and citing wp:weight doesn't help.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ps: my point about the lack of info on how the Taliban started was very explicitly referring to how this is not reflected in the lead

Could you put your several "ps:" above your signature, this would make it easier to see through your posts. Point is, your examples were technically not accurate and not verifiable since not factually correct. In contrast, the statement that the Taliban use terrorism against the civilian population of Afghanistan are both technically correct and verifiable. Hence your comparison was pointless. If you think the term "terrorism" is a subjective description, feel free to replace it with "attacks against civilians". JCAla (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the suggestions that the Taliban brought stability to much of the country in the 1990s, that they offer swift justice [of a sort] and that they are fighting a campaign against foreign armies [as well as other Afghans] are all incontestably true, or at the very least just as "technically correct" and verifiable as any judgments about "terrorism". The first two in particular are so commonplace as to have become cliches. My comparison is actually generous, not pointless. Again, the description terrorist is a subjective description, not something that is amenable to being proved true or "correct". The point is that none of these things should be in the lead as standalone, definitive statements without qualification or explanation. Currently, only one - the one you happen to like and probably the most misleading of all of them when stood on its own - is.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you seem confused. The article does not say they are terrorists, it says they use terrorism as a tactic. These are different things. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Shall I repeat what I wrote above? They did bring stability to southern Afghanistan, but they brought massacres, war and destruction to central, western and northern Afghanistan. The central Hazara highlands were calm and stable - until the Taliban came committing large-scale massacres. The western city of Herat under Ismail Khan was relatively calm and stable - until the Taliban came and attacked the city. Many parts of northern Afghanistan (i. e. the Shomali Plain, Panjshir, Takhar, ...) were calm and stable - until the Taliban came. Even Kabul had witnessed relative calm for several month with the Islamic State consolidating control over the city when the Taliban came and initiated a bombardment campaign against the city. Amnesty International wrote about the first Taliban campaign against Kabul in 1995: "This is the first time in several months that Kabul civilians have become the targets of rocket attacks and shelling aimed at residential areas in the city." For the other point, yes, the Taliban offer swift solutions, but not justice. Yes, they are fighting a campaign against a foreign army, but not as a national resistance movement in the sense of having popular support. JCAla (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not in the least bit confused - I have not being arguing about the article explicitly saying they are terrorists (which I cannot see that it does and have never said it does) but about the word being the one used - exclusively - to describe their tactics. That is misleading in so far as the sentence on its own a) suggests that terrorism is their primary or only tactic; and b) in any event represents a subjective and debatable judgment.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you be happier if it said "since their fall they have engaged coalition forces using guerilla tactics and use terrorism against the civilian population to further their ideological and political goals" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A work around is to state that Taliban are listed as a terrorist group by the government which would be a simple fact while saying that they are will directly state it as a fact from Wikipedia. This is not much different from the issues being discussed above in the RFC... attribution and neutrality is necessary (off the record, I personally agree that Taliban are terrorists and use such tactics). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 01:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I got more dragged into this than I really wanted to, over the one sentence, but I think it's an important point.
 * @JCAla, I'm really not interested in debating the ins and outs of the facts behind my statements, which were there as debating points - indeed the point is of course that they are misleading without qualification. Your (repeated) invocations of the details of recent Afghan history are only proving that, not that they are untrue or unverifiable in a basic or broad sense. Although I would say that your claim that what the Taliban call justice is not justice, because it doesn't fit with your preferred definition only further reveals the subjective way in which you approach this whole issue. Justice is a pretty broad concept after all; and just as there are indeed sources that talk about the Taliban and terrorism, there are sources that talk about the Taliban and justice in this context (both in respect of flogging and executions and the more mundane business of settling minor civil disputes). Hence what my point is all about. It's pretty easy to construct any narrative you want - and defend that version as unimpeachable by WP policy - if you select your sources according to that narrative.
 * As to better phrasing, I would be more interested in the lead being more specific in terms of saying what the Taliban do, without going into mega-list territory; and less judgmental in terms of putting value-laden adjectives on it (whether "terrorism", "brutal repression" etc). For example "The Taliban have used suicide bombings, IEDs, guerrilla raids against Afghan government and foreign military forces, assassinations of officials and attacks on civilian targets in their campaign" etc. Also, if we are going to tell the world that they have killed lots of civilians - which they have and which is relevant - we should perhaps also mention that there are edicts against this (just as we kill civilians while saying we're not really meaning too). Like I said above as well, we perhaps don't need quite as much detail of allegations against Pakistan and others in the lead. But we do need more on the foundation of the original Taliban regime and what it did when in power beyond banning education for girls, putting women in shrouds and massacring Hazaras (something fans of Ahmed Shah Massoud might be able to enlighten us all on, btw). Even Mussolini made the trains run on time etc etc; actually I'm not sure he did, and apologies for being flippant, but no WP lead should be primarily "look! nasty fascists!"  N-HH   talk / edits  11:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, I have been rewriting the article, perhaps the usage of terrorism would be best suited, not in the lede but in a section on tactics? The article is currently a jumble but I hope to get the rewrite down over the next week. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That is what they did while in power. They spent above their budget on war. They did not built schools, roads, hospitals, ... They did not reform the country. If you find something they did which is missing, please, share it with us. I am open to add it, if factually correct, if you don't want to do it yourself. BTW, your way of "glossing over" what they did, I find rather misplaced. Your theories about "being not sure" of Mussolini "running trains" I have no comments for, but I see now where you are coming from. JCAla (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Article too long
I think article could be broken down to smaller sub articles. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. See Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda or Hamas. JCAla (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing those. For example the section Taliban can easily become International relations of Taliban. The section can be even broken down more as each entry there can be an article on its own. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference/Footnote 71 is incorrectly linked
Reference/Footnote 71 is incorrectly linked. Should be http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal31.pdf instead of http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal32.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.96.153.92 (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede rewrite
The Taliban (طالبان), alternative spelling Taleban, (ṭālibān, meaning "students" in Arabic) is an Islamist militant and political group that ruled large parts of Afghanistan and its capital, Kabul, as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until October 2001. It gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The main leader of the Taliban movement is Mullah Mohammed Omar.

While in power, the Taliban enforced one of the strictest interpretations of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world, and leading Muslims have been highly critical of the Taliban interpretations of Islamic law. The Taliban were condemned internationally for their brutal repression of women. Most Taliban leaders were influenced by Deobandi fundamentalism, and many also strictly follow the social and cultural norm called Pashtunwali. The Taliban movement is primarily made up of members belonging to Pashtun tribes, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan.

From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces though Pakistan denies giving aid since 9/11. Al Qaeda also supported the Taliban with regiments of imported fighters from Arab countries and Central Asia. Saudi Arabia provided financial support. The Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians and conducted a policy of scorched earth burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes during their rule from 1996-2001. Hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee to United Front-controlled territory, Pakistan and Iran.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001 the Taliban were overthrown by Operation Enduring Freedom. Later it regrouped as an insurgency movement to fight the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (established in late 2001) and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). They use terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals. According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 75% of civilian casualties in 2010 and 80% in 2011. Today the Taliban operate in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. It is believed one of their current major headquarters is near Quetta in Pakistan.

I rewrote the lede so it is a little more concise, I also improved the references used to academic books. Any objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, some minor objections and proposals.
 * The connection to Al Qaeda needs to be mentioned. This is the part:
 * "Al Qaeda also supported the Taliban with regiments of imported fighters from Arab countries and Central Asia. In the late period of the war, of an estimated 45,000 force fighting on the side of the Taliban, only 14,000 were Afghans. "


 * Instead of "From 2001 to 2007 there were 940 terrorist attacks, with the Taliban responsible for 58% of them." we should use the most recent data which says:
 * "According to the United Nations, the insurgents were responsible for 75% of civilian casualties in 2010 and 80% in 2011. "


 * The statement by Mullah Zaeef is very relevant to see that cruelties were a policy not a crime by individuals.


 * The sentence, "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces though Pakistan denies giving aid since 9/11." is not coherrent. Because the allegation is for 1995-2001 but the denial you mention refers to another time period. That would need a rewrite.


 * Plus, I put the terrorism part under the part dealing with the current situation.

Agree? JCAla (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Quetta is one of their major headquarters, not the only headquarter. The way it is currently written in the article (...US and Afghan senior officials say one of their headquarters is in or near Quetta, Pakistan) sounds better as it makes note of that. When you write this article, don't try to forget that the Taliban's homeland is Afghanistan, not Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed per you suggestion. JCAla, You are giving undue weight to Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef. I looked for better sourcing and it is not very widespread, It should be in the body. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the part on Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef would be better served in the body. Mar4d (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Mar4d, you are right. One of the major headquarters is in Quetta. (changed that) But consider the significant Taliban leaders reside in and operate from Pakistan. All Taliban leadership councils are based in Pakistan. @DS, what do you say about the other suggestions? Agree? JCAla (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quetta Shura/Pakistan (Mullah Omar) controls operations in Helmand, Zabol and Kandahar.
 * Miranshah Shura/Pakistan (Haqqani network) controls operations in Paktia, Paktika, Logar, Kabul and Khost.
 * Peshawar Shura/Pakistan (Taliban but also Gulbuddin Hekmatyar) controls operations in Kunar, Nurestan, Laghman, Nangarhar, and Kabul.


 * Financial support from Saudi Arabia and military support from Al Qaeda. JCAla (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * {ec}Have added Al-Qaeda and Saudi support per your suggestion. Any further objections? It does not matter if he was god to them, to much for the lede.Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Saudi was not my suggestion. If mentioned, I would specify it to: "They also received military support from Al-Qaeda and financial support from Saudi Arabia."
 * Instead of "From 2001 to 2007 there were 940 terrorist attacks, with the Taliban responsible for 58% of them." we should use the most recent data which says:
 * "According to the United Nations, the insurgents were responsible for 75% of civilian casualties in 2010 and 80% in 2011. "

JCAla (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)I think we should leave military support for the body, the lede is going to get bloated again :o) Add the UN report and strip out the one I have, that can go into the body when I rewrite it. Darkness Shines (talk)


 * Changed the UN thing in your proposal. But I still think the Al Qaeda support needs to be elaborated on. This is after all the official reason for NATO going into Afghanistan. Then there is still the issue with the Pakistan sentence. In its current form, it is not coherrent. If you write denial for today, you got to write the allegation for today. Otherwise we should just leave the sentence for the 1995-2001 period. JCAla (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ecx2)The denial is for today, the allegations were always there, they just did not deny it until 9/11 :o) Can we remove your version above? Just edit my version, it would be easier Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Already done so. :) Then you also have to add the allegation that they are continuing the support today.
 * For Al Qaeda, I suggest, "Al Qaeda also supported the Taliban with regiments of imported fighters from Arab countries and Central Asia. Saudi Arabia provided financial support." JCAla (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I`m good with that, replace the lede Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, done. What about the Pakistan sentence? "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces ..." Then what? :) JCAla (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Regarding continuing support, I think that is better left for the section on Pakistani help, it will just cause trouble to add that to the lede. If you look on my talk page you will see I have already written about this I think leave it as we have it for now Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Added some specifics. Do you agree with that? I also think the refugee crisis needs to be mentioned with one sentence. With regards to Pakistan's current involved there is a large section about that under international relations. Be careful not to add it to the Taliban Emirate vs United Front (Pakistan military role) part. This is solely about the military role during that war in that part of the history. :) As for the Pakistan lead sentence, I don't know. I still stand by what I wrote before. If you mention that they deny providing support today, you have to mention that they are alleged of providing support today. Otherwise, we should just stick to the 1995-2001 period. JCAla (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have read it again, maybe for now, we can leave it as it is. JCAla (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK as M's only objection was covered I think we have a consensus, I will self revert if asked by any admin though. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to have created some reference errors? I have to go out, do you have time to fix or should I revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am working on something at the moment. Maybe revert first. JCAla (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Again, regarding that Pakistan sentence. What about: "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces. Though Pakistan denies giving aid since 9/11, some international officials allege the ISI continues to support the Taliban." The sentence would be factually correct. But I think some editors will have a problem with dropping "which Pakistan vehemently denies" for the 1995-2001 period. JCAla (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not pointed anywhere that I agree with the lead, so I'm afraid that assuming it as a consensus would be incorrect. I strongly believe that before modifying the lead, you should take into confidence (and address) the issues raised by TopGun, TParis, Magog (or others if I've missed out anyone). Until then, this is hardly a consensus. Mar4d (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we remove "against anti-Taliban forces" since it's a given and it'll help condense the sentence? Also, I'm concerned about the last part because it can read two different ways.  First first is "Pakistan denies it gave aid after 9/11, but admits to giving aid prior." and the second is "After 9/11, Pakistan has denied giving aid but previously did not deny it."  Can we clarify that sentence?  I have no issue losing 'vehemently' as I felt it was a bit WP:EDITORIALIZING anyway.--v/r - TP 14:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to my above suggestion or DS's sentence? Their "rise to power" ended in 1996, so the "fight against anti-Taliban forces" (1994-2001) is necessary, it also introduces the reader to the fact that there was a war 1994-2001 and not simply Taliban rule. JCAla (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with TP on losing anti Taliban forces. Since 9/11 Pakistan has officially stopped aiding them, however a great many sources say they still do. There have been instances were ISI officers have been captured or found dead after a battle. The former PM of Pakistan himself has said they gave aid to the Taliban up to 9/11. I am unsure what is actually wrong it it as it is? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How about. "however after 9/11 Pervez Musharraf immediately dropped all support for the group" Sourced to Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't quite work out either because they are accused of still giving support. So saying they "immediately dropped all support" is a bit definitive.  How about "after 9/11, Pervez Musharraf claims Pakistan has dropped all support for the group."--v/r - TP 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, BTW, that must have been the shortest wikibreak of all time :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really hate reading the PDG...its so boring.--v/r - TP 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, if we add Musharraf's denial, then we need to add that they are accused by US, Afghan and other international officials of still providing support. What about "After September 11, 2001 Pervez Musharraf claims Pakistan has dropped all support for the group, although international officials such as Mike Mullen allege that parts of the Taliban still act as a "veritable arm" of the ISI."? I also do not like that the Pakistani support is not specified. JCAla (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or simply the sentence of DS from below: "Pakistan has been accused of continuing to support the Taliban since 9/11, an allegation Pakistan denies." JCAla (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather the second option than the first. The first one is just too long once we add all of that.--v/r - TP 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I add the second one then. JCAla (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we merge the two? "Pakistan has been accused of continuing to support the Taliban, however, since 9/11 Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the group."--v/r - TP 17:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can. But I suggest to adjust it slightly to "Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today, but Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the group since 9/11." Ok? JCAla (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--v/r - TP 18:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I provided a source for Pakistan denying the claim before 9/11 as well. "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite.". Here although the author is weighing both sides and concluding one but he does confirm that Pakistan denied the claim then too. "Pakistan claims to have dropped all support since 9/11" also suggests that Pakistan accepted that it supported them before, which it did not. The lead currently mentions that ISI and military were accused which is redundant as ISI is a part of military. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You wish to use that source to write "Pakistan denies ever helping the Taliban"? Or words to that effect? If you use that source then we will have to use it in full, IE "Pakistan denies ever helping the Taliban the reality was quite the opposite." You may not cherry pick a sentence from a source to suit a POV and blatantly ignore the rest of the source. There is an overwhelming consensus of sources which state Pakistan helped the Taliban, from the founding to direct military and financial support. All the sources I have used are of the highest quality from the academic press. One of them is from a Pakistani author whose book fully supports all claims made by the other sources. Per WP:UNDUE what you propose would be against policy, the denial of support post 9/11 is already in the lede, that is enough as it is historically accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking here about whether Pakistan actually supported Taliban before 9/11 or not. The source says Pakistan denied the support which is notable. That needs to be included. This wouldn't be cherry picking as the lede already suggests the claim for the "reality being opposite". Using that exact sentence here would be editorialing which might be fine for that source but not for wikipedia. I've provided the source just to back up my claim that Pakistan denied the support before as well, this would be cherry picking if I was adding it somewhere where it was being assumed that Pakistan never supported Taliban as a fact, but this not being done here rather just mentioning a real world fact of denial which is reasonable given the accusations. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess these issues are now depended on the consensus from the below RFC as the content and attribution is being discussed there. Will continue this after that is completed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there was a consensus for the changes to the lede. What is proposed below has nothing to do with this. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The lede should obviously reflect that Pakistan denied the support both before and after (which will actually take lesser length) 9/11 if it is stated in the body. I'll wait before continuing here till the RFC completes. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They never denied support before 9/11. At least, I have yet to see a source in which they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)