Talk:Taliban/Archive 8

Edit request on 7 March 2012
The beginning of the article has paragraph 4 stating: After the attacks of September 11, 2001 the Taliban were overthrown by the 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).[29] THEY use terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals... I just think that the word THEY needs clarification, since the text has led to the discussion of the final over throwers as the "OEF" regrouped with "ISAF" It sounds like it is being said that the NATO "ISAF" is promoting the terrorism. Or is the statement true as written??

108.34.98.183 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on wording. I was led to other links that caused ambiguity. the above statement "NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)" led me to which states "Paragraph 1: The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001 by Resolution 1386[1] as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement.[2] It is engaged in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)." Which agrees with above. But then the above statement "Later it regrouped as an insurgency movement to fight the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" led me to which states "The Taliban insurgency began shortly after the group's fall from power following the 2001 war in Afghanistan. The Taliban forces are fighting against the Afghan government, which is led by President Hamid Karzai. It is also fighting against the US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)" So is ISAF led by US or NATO??


 * The ISAF is commanded by NATO see here for clarification. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Small error
There is an error at "(of whom 11,000 where non-Afghans", where–>were. --Danquebec (talk) 17:23, 13 march 2012 (UTC)
 * Big article, which section? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- S M S  Talk 16:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Taliban "per se" is not a U.S. enemy
The Vice President of the United States Joe Biden has released a new statement recently, in which he said the Taliban are "not an enemy" of the United States. (Links:, ). This news has made several rounds in the press and should probably be added somewhere in the article (such as the lead or the body). Mar4d (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And the infobox... also I found some links to ensure an equal call for CIA to be at least mentioned in the lead with Pakistan for helping Taliban before 2001 . --lTopGunl (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's way too much in the lead. We can't list everyone who has ever supported the Taliban and how they supported them in the lead.--v/r - TP 15:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No we cant and I'm against putting much content in the lead, but a mention in an already placed sentence about Pakistan's support would do. Mar4d's comment however are on the body I assume. The body should have a section about that. About infobox, although I'm not sure whether it calls for removal of US as an enemy but it has to be discussed. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No and no. Joe Biden is known for his loose mouth. The US military disagrees with these remarks. They can be mentioned in the body, but there is no way of basing an discussion on whether the US is currently fighting the Taliban or not on those remarks. TopGun's links about the CIA (both "history commons", similar as wikipedia) are neither reliable nor equal to those about Pakistan's military support to the Taliban. JCAla (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not give the links to be put in the article. I gave the links to be checked out for the content. That text is sourced with reliable sources at historycommons and that is the source we will be putting here. About your reply to Mar4d, I think the Vice President has seniority over the assumed disagreeing military officials? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how whether Biden has a "loose mouth" is particularly relevant. He is, after all, the VPOTUS.  So, even if you made uninformed comments that don't reflect US policy, they are still notable, or are perhaps particularly notable, if informed commentators reflected on the apparent policy schism.  Do you know how the SR-71 came to be officially named the SR-71?  Previously all USAF reconnaisence and surviellance aircraft bore the prefix RS.  The plane that was eventually named the SR-71 had been developed in secret, and it had always been the intention of the USAF to name it the RS-71.  But, President Lyndon Johnson had a moment of dyslexia, when he officially announced the existence of the previously secret plane.  He called it the SR-71.  There was whispering among the USAF brass at the dyslexic moment.  Some USAF officials considered following the official announcement with an amendment, stating the plane was actually the RS-71.  But it was decided that if the POTUS said it was called the SR-71 then it was called the SR-71.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Here's another one to be considered . -- lTopGunl (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Pakistan gave military support to the Taliban, running their military operations for 6-7 years. Unless you mention that properly, you ain't gonna mention any alleged less support by others for which you did not even provide reliable secondary sources. 2) What is it exactly you want to add with regards to Biden's remarks? US law has superiority over the VP. A law just passed by the US Congress names the Taliban as an "enemy force": "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." JCAla (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not spill the dispute about the word 'military' here. This is about support (I don't know where 'less' came from). I did give reliable sources (atleast I clearly pointed them out). I'll still mention them explicitly here: Labeviere, 1999, pp. 261-262, Reeve, 1999, pp. 191 , Coll, 2004, pp. 291 and Labeviere, 1999, pp. 262-263 . This would be enough to call for a subsection or divide the "Pakistan's military interference" section (which needs a neutral title anyway) into further two and a mention in the same sentence we added in the lead (being minimal, 2-3 words maybe, without making it long). I'll let Mar4d clarify his comment before replying to that, for now take my position on that being necessary to be mentioned atleast in attribution to the VP since there's no objection to its notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, I'm going to have to agree with JCAla about the Vice President. Just for clarification, I say this as my personal opinion.--v/r - TP 21:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the reason my comment was in a question form. Though still the addition of that as attributed to VP without taking it as a fact would atleast still be a notable inclusion. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On "history commons" your sources do not say what you want them to say. Only Labeviere does. JCAla (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you confirmed one. Good. I'll review the rest. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you have reviewed them earlier? I can only repeat myself, Pakistan gave military support to the Taliban, running their military operations for 6-7 years. Unless you mention that properly, you ain't gonna mention any alleged less support by others for which you did not even provide reliable secondary sources. If you mention i. e. Saudi Arabian financial support, you have to mention Pakistani military support to put things into the right perspective. JCAla (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just pointed out an addition to be made (not added them yet). I'll review when I'm free. And now that you confirmed one, we do have a reason to add. This issue is not about the military support and not even about a detail that would be countered by it. Military operations is not the topic of discussion. No, I will not add "financial" support in the lead. Just the mention of country names along with Pakistan. The detail would go in the body like you've added for Pakistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Pakistan's and Al-Qaeda's military support (BTW, this interesting Jamestown report about Pakistan military-Al Qaeda connections is just out) to the Taliban needed to be mentioned in the lead because of its sheer scope and importance. Most analysts agree that without Pakistani military support the Taliban never would have been able to conquer Kabul 1996 in the first place, never would have risen to power beyond some southern areas and later would have been largely defeated in 1997 by the United Front (Northern Alliance). Minor support by other actors can be mentioned in the body article IF you provide reliable secondary sources. Until now, you have not provided one reliable secondary source for direct CIA support to the Taliban. Labeviere is a French journalist who has been fired by the French media for his reports. You will have to come up with more reliable and mainstream sources for wikipedia. Further, I don't need to remind you that you held the position until very recently that even the inclusion of one more word ("military") would make the lead unnecessarily long. JCAla (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me clarify this. I still main my view about the word 'military' about how it disturbs the balanced lead (and should be noted as such unless I indicate otherwise so a reminder is unnecessary), I know you disagree and I will not discuss the issue about the word 'military' in this section since it has had its discussion. Are you of the view that any further addition to this article is subject to a thorough comparison with that single word which has no consensus for addition after its own thorough discussion? Feel free to review the previous discussion from the start. I had maintained it from the start that the support of other countries be mentioned. A journalist being fired doesn't make his book unreliable. Other editors can comment on the reliability of source. I have provided the needed citation for my claim here. I'll add more to it, though even without that this citation is enough to be cited also, hence this discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify your position. You mean all these very reliable sources describing a majority position do not justify the inclusion of the explicitly used term "military support" in the lead, but this single dubious source justifies the inclusion of disputed content by a disputed author? JCAla (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I said that. the country name has been included per those sources. Further details are in the body. Lead is a summary of everything mentioned in the body. Read my last comment again. This is not about that dispute. These country names have not been mentioned while they are verifiable. I've given the source for them to be mentioned in detail in the body and named in the lead as per WP:WEIGHT, I will ignore further comments about the dispute above in this section. I'll review and add the content in the body which has to be summarized in the lead along with Pakistan. Mar4d's comment might yet be debatable since it is controversial - should be added in body with attribution though, but this one is RS. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: There is no consensus for you to add any such things in the lead. Anything you add to the lead without getting a consensus first on this controversial subject might get removed. JCAla (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm doing here... building a consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just another relevant piece of news, President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai has welcomed Biden's remarks on the Taliban not being an enemy . I really think this warrants an inclusion somewhere in the article, along with a bit on Biden's comment. Also, it's not recent news that there are negotiations trying to be held with Afghanistan's Taliban groups, I'm rather surprised that hasn't been mentioned in the lead or anywhere. Mar4d (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of putting an 'out of date' tag to the article and improving it when I get some free time. -- lTopGunl (ping) 15:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * changed header, his quote was, 'The taliban "per se" was not [an enemy]' -- I have a call (and email,fax) into Biden's office requesting quote   bad boy jamie    talk 15:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

American involvement in the destabilisation of Afghanistan.
According to Stich, the American involvement in Afghanistan preceded the involvement of the Soviet Union. This article about a key player is completely silent on this angle, making the article non-neutral. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "After the Soviets were forced to leave Afghanistan because of heavy personnel losses due to the CIA's arming of rebels, these same rebels then directed their weapons and terrorism against the United States - as earlier forewarned by many people. The United States had called these people "freedom fighters," that is, until they turned their fighting against the United States. Then these same people were called "terrorists." Their hatred for America was fueled initially by the one-sided and deadly support for Israel, and then expanded when the United States placed large numbers of U. S. service people in Saudi Arabia.'' If the U. S. leaders were not so naive they might have listened to those who warned the United States that it was training, arming, funding, fanatical militants who would soon turn their guns and talents against the United States. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One persons opinion is worthless, this has nothing to do with the Taliban, I would not call this a reliable publisher, there are no evidence of fact checking. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And looking again at the website it is obviously self published. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right about the self-published part, however is that good enough to debunk it? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, there's a section on the top of this talk page related to the American relations with Taliban which is yet to be included in the article. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SPS the source is of no use here. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Identity of the author (especially if an expert) helps establishing reliability of self published sources... try WP:RSN. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Invasion
Contra this edit and edit summary, I agree with the previous edit/version, which describes the US/western action as an invasion. What else was it? Invasion is a pretty neutral, factual word, is completely accurate and is used quite happily by serious analytical sources. Even official US government sources don't back off using it. By contrast, as the previous edit noted, Operation Enduring Freedom is sanitised military terminology (and, also, "overthrown by the Operation Enduring Freedom" is weak English, with an extra, unnecessary "the").  N-HH   talk / edits  17:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) ps: I'd also add that not much has changed here since my last look-in - the lead is still a chargesheet that doesn't tell us much about the Taliban's origins or what they stood for other than, apparently, killing people and harbouring terrorists (when they weren't acting like terrorists themselves).  N-HH   talk / edits  17:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire operation is known as enduring freedom, they did not name it "lets invade Afghanistan" Enduring Freedom is the official name for the conflict. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it's the official American name, that's what I and the other editor both said. I'm querying why we are using it when invasion is far clearer and utterly uncontroversially descriptive. And, you'd have thought it was rather obvious that using the official name used by one side in a war is, you know, a bit unbalanced and POV; just as using the official or preferred name of the other side would be, which I'm certainly not suggesting either. Hence why we should go for "invasion", which is factual, neutral and incredibly commonly used. I can't help but noticing, thinking back to a prior debate on this article, that you're rather keen to use the most sanitised and bland terminology for US actions but the most loaded terms, such as terrorist, for the Taliban. Can't we just use clear and non-judgmental language for what both sides do? That's what NPOV requires.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate your implying that I do not keep a neutral point of view in mind when I edit, so to prove you wrong I have self reverted. I have no problems with invasion, I was under the assumption that we used official names. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a stretch to call "Operation Enduring Freedom" the official American term as well, as plenty of Americans, maybe most, would have no idea what that refers to. -Darouet (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Call it the invasion. The Taliban were overthrown by a coalition of foreign armies, only one of whom referred to it as "Enduring Freedom". The American-centric language in the invasion paragraph is disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.63.213 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Taliban's site correct link
Site of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: http://www.shahamat-english.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.58.109 (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Taliban and the Pilgrim Fathers
These people seem very similar ideolgically to Martin Luther, John Knox, and even the USA's famous Pilgrim Fathers. They don't like people having fun and they take their religion ultra seriously. It must be a stage in a nation's process of growing up. Don't imagine that Aghanistan can somehow be propelled four or five hundred years forward into the 21st century in less than a couple of generations at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.13.9 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry there are no sources that talk of such comparisons. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011  16:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For me they do bring to mind the Puritans of post-civil war England, and here's an article that makes that connection: http://www.newstatesman.com/node/141896. The Taliban are still extreme by any standards though. Bombot (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Far Right?!?!
What do you mean by describing Taliban as far right?! LEFTIST SCUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.95.79 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope this is a joke.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Although there is a point here. The label has a source, and I'm sure there are many more such sources that use the description, often quite casually. However, it's not a universal label or, probably, an appropriate one. The idea that repressive, conservative Islamist movements are akin to fascism or any other usual form of extreme-right politics as commonly understood is a contentious and problematic one and it should not be there in the very first sentence of the lead as a statement of "fact". Doesn't "Islamic fundamentalist militant movement" tell us enough and use enough adjectives already?  N-HH   talk / edits  09:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a good source, just a journalist using the term in passing in a book. Very few writers would call them that and books on the far right do not include them.  TFD (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government
Is it accurate to say the Taliban have been "designated as terrorist by the United States government"? They are not on the State Dept's list: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm.--RDavi404 (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that what the US government do and support is at the government site? --Justana (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Rdavi404 is refering to "The Taliban" is not on the US Governments official list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, however multiple organizations under the "Taliban umbrella" are on the list.  dain   talk   08:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But the Taliban themselves appear not to be. Hence the category needs to be removed.  N-HH   talk / edits  22:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2012
182.185.112.191 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC) First modify your definition of Taliban. It is not necessary for a Talib to be a pashtun. There are talibans from across the country and even from outside other countries...

Secondly the history of taliban is quoted wrong. These were the people created by the US CIA with the assistance of Pakistan military to fight the Soviets. They were armed and aided by US. don't forget the fact. Everybody knows it. You better edit it.


 * The first point seems fair - predominantly made up of Pashtuns would probably be more accurate. As for the second, that's a more general issue that can't be covered in a single edit, plus it's a misleading claim. The Taliban per se did not even exist during the Soviet occupation. The movement has its roots in the anti-Soviet mujahideen but then so do many of the factions currently involved in the Afghan government. Nor was the Taliban, or even the anti-Soviet resistance that preceded it, "created" by the CIA, even if the latter received significant support from both the Americans and Pakistan.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed the article per the first request. However the second request should not have been made as an edit request, because it makes no specific recommendation.  I agree with N-HH on the origins of the Taliban.  If however the IP wishes to persue it, I suggest they set up a new discussion thread and provide a source.  TFD (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, on both counts. I would suggest reading some history before editing this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the second para, we have the point again, although there it does say "primarily". Unless you can provide consistent, multiple sources that affirm that every single Talib is an Afghan Pashtun, I'd suggest that phrasing should be the one we use (and that we use it only once as well).  N-HH   talk / edits  22:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Training" section
I've removed the entire section (which was level 2; that's clearly wrong). Here's the text:


 * Taliban members typically attend Darul Uloom Haqqania as children donated to the school by poor parents. Their dormitory walls are decorated with tanks and AK 47 images as they attend Jihad courses. As a madrasa, an estimated 96 percent of students will graduate illiterate, as hardly any focus is placed on reading or writing. However, they will adopt a strong willingness to join local Taliban factions in support of Jihadist activities. In contrast, the United States has spent $433 billion, on killing them and far more to train their own soldiers.

The first sentence isn't supported by any citation, and is clearly bogus (a majority of Taliban members went to a single school? and were "donated" by poor parents??). The second sentence pertains to the mentioned school (again, one whose relationship to the Taliban has not been shown at all), and is thus hanging a documented fact to a bogus statement. The third sentence is not supported by the cited source; in that source, one madras (and not Darul Uloom Haqqania) is said to have a 96% illiteracy rate. The fourth sentence is unsupported by a cite. The fifth sentence is a WP:NOR violation, since the cited source does not mention the $433 billion as being related in any way to the subject of this section, "training". (The $433 billion has been spent on more than killing Taliban; it has killed a lot of al-Qaeda members, for example, as well as built up Afghanistan infrastructure, which isn't to defend the U.S. expenditures, just to point out why the dollar figure is irrelevant to Taliban training.)

In short, I dont' think there is anything here that is worth keeping anywhere in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this removal, the majority of Taliban members come from Maddrassas in Pakistan, certainly not one single school. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I agree, the Taliban Commanders (nearly the absolute majority) were trained at that particular Madrassa. This does not mention "all" Taliban members. Perhaps there should be an article page for that in itself, as it is the equivalent of the United States military's Citadel, West Point, or Camp David.

John Broughton, https://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10220/6513/WP219.pdf <- Page 8 "These poor Muslims do not have any option, but to send their children to Deoband or any madrasah as they cannot afford formal education in secular schools." I will leave it up to you to decide where that information belongs.

P.S. for John Broughton, if you are using this for scholarly purposes, please refer to the Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq of Punjab, India to get scholarly information in addition to this scholarly article. If you do not write anything about the subject, I'm sure the world will acknowledge your reasoning.

Twillisjr (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Taliban
Article lacked information on the origin of this Islamic movement. I added this important info but User:TheTimesAreAChanging keeps removing it. I'm not in the mood for edit-warring. Please read this: Support of the mujahideen fight against the Soviet Union began with the accession of Pakistani dictator, Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, who Bruce Riedel refers to as the “grandfather of global Islamic jihad” (Deadly Embrace, 20). Zia was openly an Islamist and aligned himself with Pakistan’s Islamic Jamaat-Islam Party. He also greatly increased the strength of the ISI.

The ISI had been created in 1948, by British Army Officer Major General William Cawthorne who served as the Pakistan army deputy chief of staff. Cawthorne created the ISI to counter the lack of intelligence and military cooperation Pakistan severely lacked during the 1947 Indo-Pakistan War (Jones, 30). Zia picked a Pashtun who knew Afghanistan very well: General Akhtar Abdur Rahman. Under Akhtar’s guidance, the ISI staff increased from 2,000 in 1978 to 40,000 members in 1988 with a billion-dollar budget making it “the most powerful and influential organization in the country” (Riedel, Deadly Embrace, 21)........[]

Not wanting to confront the Soviet Union directly for fear of a Soviet invasion of Pakistan, Zia ensured all support was done discreetly. Besides the influx of money and supplies the ISI also set up numerous training camps along the Durand Line. The camps were run by Pakistan’s elite Special Services Group (SSG) who instructed Afghan mujahideen “more sophisticated tactics and skills for waging jihad” during a ten-day or three-month course. By the end of the war, the ISI camps had trained at least 80,000 to 90,000 Afghans, including Muhammad Omar, the founder of the Taliban (Riedel, Deadly Embrace, 24).

Zia also had a secondary goal with the ISI camps: to begin training groups to conduct jihad in Kashmir and India. Zia promised leaders from the Jamaat-i-Islam party, which supported the use of force to create a separate Muslim state from Islam, that he “would use the war against the Soviet invaders to help build support base for a Kashmiri insurgency…and that some of the American assistance earmarked for the Afghan jihad would be diverted to the Kashmiri project and that the ISI would help with both” (Ibid). Jamaat-i-Islam was initially reluctant to trust the Pakistani government after being let down in the past, but by 1983 its members were training in the ISI run camps in Afghanistan. Akhtar also approached the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) in 1984 and its member were in the camps by 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilum aw charrs (talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Claiming that the Reagan administration created the Taliban is sheer fantasy, and your failure to provide a source for this allegation is a confession of intellectual impotence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The term Taliban means students, and is specifically referring to the young religious students that were educated and trained in madaras in northern Pakistan since 1979 to be used to fight Communism in Afghanistan. They were part of the broader "mujahideen", whom also included warlords, political leaders, army defects, foreign volunteer fighters, and so on. The Taliban were being religiously brainwashed, teaching them from first grade that Communists were Islam's #1 enemy who are coming with tanks to finish them and that Jihad was the only way. The United States and Saudi Arabia could not send military so they just provided the money. "Taliban" is referring to a specific group of people (excluding the other mujahideen who could not be brainwashed)... ex. the same people that formed the Taliban government in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, and the same people who are now fighting against NATO/Afghans. Nothing about this is disputed by anyone and my idea is for this article to reflect on that. If you want sources, the internet is full of it. There are 100s of well-written books on this by scholars and experts and also probably 1,000s of news articles. There are already a number of articles that deal with these same people, i.e. mujahideen, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Taliban insurgents, and Quetta Shura. My version states "the Zial-ul-Haq and the Reagan administrations" established this movement/organization/force/ in 1980s. Your version is basically telling readers that Taliban came out of no where and began taking over Afghanistan in the 1990s, that is just half of the whole story. Are you saying that a poor peasant named Mohammad Omar and the Afghan refugees who don't have a dollar and are being fed by UNHCR formed the Taliban and right away within a couple of years conquered entire Afghanistan from the powerful mujahideen warlords? Now that is a fantasy and nonsense. This article has too much irrelavant information and is missing key information. All Pakistani politicians and military personel say in national debates that they defeated the Soviet Union, the United States claim that it defeated Soviet Union. How did they do that? Now, when it comes to these religious students (Taliban), all of a sudden they all try to deny their involvement. These Taliban that this article deals with were teens in 1980s studying in madrasa in Pakistan and now they are fighting against NATO/Afghans with help from new recruits from the same madarasas that were built for them in the 1980s, which Pakistan has not closed. That's my point and that is accurate information.--Chilum aw charrs (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * User blocked as sock of banned User:Lagoo sab. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mohammad Omar links to the wrong link
About 90,000 Afghans, including Mohammad Omar, were trained by Pakistan's ISI during the 1980s.[1]

The link for Mohammad Omar here links to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Omar, the page for the Palestenian journalist Mohammad Omer (With an e). For some reason the link for the page says "Mohammad_Omar" which is the same as this guys (which should be the correct link):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza10 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should Pakistan be listed as an ally of the Taliban in the infobox?


 * As the initiator I would say yes, given just about every source which discusses the Taliban in-depth states that Pakistan was, and still is an ally. For a few examples see any of the sources in this section of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This matter was discussed to death at NPOVN noticeboards and arbitration last year and there was no conclusive decision to present Pakistan as an "ally" of the Taliban anywhere in the article without counter-viewpoints. DS knows this and his recent edit is a clear-cut tedentious attempt at reinstating unacceptable WP:POV into the article again. I think this recent edit by DS should strongly be taken as a case for a proposal of a topic ban on all Taliban-related topics. Pakistan's support to Taliban is only alleged, and as has been clear before, Pakistan itself rejects these allegations. Even if this edit is taken into account considering pre-2001 Pakistan-Taliban contacts, that still wouldn't make sense because as per Pakistan's own position, all support to the Taliban was dropped post-9/11. If Darkness Shine's criteria were to be used, then even the United States would qualify for being listed as an ally given that many former Taliban leaders and the Haqqani network were nurtured by the CIA. Besides.. the article content already deals extensively with Pakistan's relations with the regime as it is, there is no need for controversial and highly disputed information such as this in the infobox. Also, the "allies" parameter is only used for other allied militant groups, adding "Pakistan" there does not make sense.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: archives are full of this with consensus formed with a much higher involvement and a thorough discussion (with darkness shines already have had due involvement in discussion - everytime) concluded by a neutral closer "Neither the opinion that the Taliban are supported by Pakistan nor that they are not is appropriate for Wikipedia to state as fact." This and the subsequent archives   are just full of this. Stop wasting everyone's time. I think this is not the only topic left to edit on the wiki to pull back resources and editors over it until your favoured version is restored. Probably admin action would also be needed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose:What? Pakistan an ally of Taliban? lol, they are killing our children and we are their allies? Wake Up please! May be it's a nightmare!  Faizan Al-Badri   -  Let's talk!   13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Putting Pakistan as Taliban ally is misleading information, it is basically claiming that 190 million Pakistanis support Taliban. That is nonsense POV. There may be small percent of Pakistanis supporting Taliban but the majority of Pakistanis hate them. If Pakistan is referring to government of Pakistan then we may also add NATO countries and Afghanistan because they are now making peace deals with Taliban.--39.41.15.71 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC) — 39.41.15.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * O look, TG got another e-mail. Wondering also how Faizan got here to cast his "strong oppose" given he has never edited this page. So you guys think we should ignore all the sources which say Pakistan is an ally to the Taliban then? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us look at what Pakistani politictians have to say, "Munawar Hasan told DW 'nobody knows the Taliban better than Pakistan'" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "BENAZIR BHUTTO: Yes, that's partially true and certainly there is a perception. In retrospect, having seen what the Taliban did, I would say that was a wrong decision by our part." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "In 2000, Pervez Musharraf openly declared Pakistan's support for the Taliban" The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan Harvard University Press p69 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pakistani Interior Minister Babar say the Taliban are "our boys" Taliban Yale University Press p29 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another email? I'm the person who made the first edit of this dispute a year ago and have been repeatedly pulled down into it uselessly by such 'retries'... So technically, per you, people who've edited and those who havn't edited can both not oppose you... that's good going. Anyway, Those details about Pakistani leaders and opinions about both, for and against, have been discussed in the discussion I cited. It doesn't change the consensus. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there are no consensus on this at all, just an arbitrary decision by one editor. And if the former PM's of Pakistan admit to having been allies of the Taliban then it ought to be reflected in the infobox. There are no shortage of sources which says this as well you know, so please provide a reason within policy to support it being excluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Alliances are normally seen as formal agreements, which did not happen here. TFD (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Pakistan can only be termed as an ally if US & other western countries are called one too. Taliban is yesterdays freinds of Capitalist nations turned foes of the world today. So this suggestion doesnt make sense and esp. in the backdrop of current armed operation going on in Tirah Valley in Wazirstan in tribal areas is Pakistan Armed Forces taking on Talibans & TTP head on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Gump (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)  — Tyler Gump (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose - the infobox template says: "allies – optional – the faction's allies in the war" As far as I could see there are no sources which confirm that Pakistan is ally of Taliban in the war. On the contrary, there are plenty of sources about Pakistan being an ally of USA in war against Taliban. There are sources about alleged support Pakistan gave trough its intelligence agency. Even if those sources are correct, it would not be an alliance between state of Pakistan and Taliban. I wrote my comment after being invited by RfC bot.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We have three Pakistani politicians saying they were helping the Taliban, we have hundreds of sources which say the same. "Throughout 1995, the collaboration between ISI and the Taliban increased, and it changed character. It became more and more of a direct military alliance. The ISI was itself divided in this period of the Taliban's emergence about how to conduct its policy in Afghanistan, who to favor." By Steve Coll Darkness Shines (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, elements within the Inter-Services Intelligence may have strong connections to the Taliban, but to say that all of Pakistan are allies to the Taliban would be factually incorrect.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having been invited by RfC bot I read the discussion. The Taliban may be connected in some way to the ISI, but it is in no way an "ally" of Pakistan. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree that "ally" just isn't properly sourced. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a joke right? There is Zero reliable sources (namely the Pakistani Government) that states this as an unequivocal fact. Whilst perhaps (pure speculation, which has no place on an article) there are elements of the Pakistani Government that support the Taliban, they are most certainly NOT as a country, an ally of the Taliban. Otherwise, they wouldn't have provided so much support for the US Attacks against Afghanistan and the US would of almost certainly made a big who har over it and probably declared war on them too. -- MisterShiney    ✉    19:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with all above contributors that Pakistan should not be included as an ally of the Taliban. - Camyoung54   talk  23:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only some people in the government of Pakistan have historically been allies of Talibans...not the whole country!  TheStrike  Σagle   12:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Jihadist Category
This category was removed with edit summary that the Taliban was not a jihadist org. Unfortunately both RS and the Taliban itself describes them as jihadist. From Jan 5th of this year:


 * The Taliban have vowed to continue their "sacred jihad" if the Afghan government agrees to allow the United States to keep forces in Afghanistan past 2014. The Taliban made the statement as the Afghan government is freeing hundreds of Taliban prisoners and the US government is debating the size of a residual force for post-2014. The statement, which was released today on Voice of Jihad, the official website of the Afghan Taliban, is signed by "The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan." "If America wants peace in Afghanistan and the region as well as a way out for its people from this ongoing quagmire then it should immediately remove all its troops from Afghanistan and practically put an end to this futile war," the Taliban said. "The Islamic Emirate shall continue its sacred Jihad against it just as it has for the past eleven years," if a "even a single American soldier" remains in country, the Taliban stated.

That should put paid to the assertion they aren't jihadists. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Other categories that should be added include: Fascist, Racist, Far Right, Neo-Nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.51.84 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppression of women section
Using words like "brutal" and "inhumane" to describe the Taliban's treatment of women implies Wikipedia has an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Diala (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Jirgah link
In 4.1 part (Ideology/Overview), in the very last paragrah, the article refers to "village jirgahs", obviously in the meaning of jirga.

In rural areas the Taliban had little direct control, and the Taliban had promoted village jirgahs, so it did not as stringently enforce its ideology in rural areas.

However, the link in the article (Jirgah) leads to a village in Iran.

The link in the article should be corrected from Jirgah to jirga, by somebody who has the right to modify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.205.101.98 (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for pointing that out. -- S M S  Talk 13:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is Quran not koran
SALAM I guess the headline is enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.236.115 (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence in "Origin"
It seems that there is a syntax problem with the following sentence, found in the paragraph "Origin":

When Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq became President of Pakistan he feared that the Soviets were planning to invade Balochistan, Pakistan so he Akhtar Abdur Rahman.

As if a part of the sentence was missing. Since the article is protected against modification, somebody with the necessary rights should rectify this. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.114.77 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It certainly need fixing, but what should it say? Nurg (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tried to fix it from the inline source. -- S M S   Talk 10:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

delete paragraph referring to "Taliban offering US legal guarantees"
Suggest remove last paragraph. It has little details and the footnoted osurce does not demonstrate what the paragraph suggests.

the last paragraph of the Taliban Resurgance states:

"In early December, the Taliban offered to give the U.S. "legal guarantees" that it would not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries. The U.S. ignored the offer, and continued military action.[148]"

The source is a news stub for South Asian Times.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KL17Df02.html

"The Barack Obama administration is refusing to acknowledge an offer by the leadership of the Taliban in early December to give "legal guarantees"..."

This paragraph lacks details of who, when and is based on heresy. The sourced link does not suggest what the Wikipedia paragraph claims it does.

If it cannot be substantiated with a better source it should be deleted.

Jyoung789 (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't deleted it, since the source does state that. But I have reworded it (in two places) to say "Asia Times online reported that X", rather than just asserting that X is fact. --Stfg (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

admin plz make correctings, in all the way top on rright corner is listed in bottom Opponents: Islamic Republic of Iran,,, this shall be Islamic Republic of Pakistan. plz correct this falsity info. Pakistan army in war with Taliban but Iran army support taliban.

and the taliban never is pashtun nationalism but opposite force to make pashtuns weak, thats why in war (2001 to now) only pashtuns die by taliban. the taliban spreadsing arabi culture on the pashtuns and all ally groups Lashkar-e-Jhangvi[5], Sipah-e-Sahaba, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, Al-Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, Jamaat-e-Islami is arab, uzbek, chechnian, punjabi, baloch, so not pashtun ok. therefore remove pashtun nationalism this is major disputed american and british propaganda used aginst pashtuns

why do you place lie infrmation in wikepida? you feel not scared from GOD? i try fix this but disallowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhtar Khan Swati (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do any of those sources actually state the Pakistan is at war with the Taliban? They are fighting the Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-i-Taliban), I have not seen any reports of them fighting the actual Taliban, what with them supporting them from the get go. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

is Iran is at war with taliban? in the top on rright corner is listed Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-i-Taliban) as ally force and this makes all taliban one single group. taliban kill pakistan army and pakistan army kill taliban so what you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhtar Khan Swati (talk • contribs) 14:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

when or in wich day taliban kill single iran army? or in which day iran army kill taliban man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhtar Khan Swati (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NDENT, and sigh your posts with 4 ~. The Taliban are not the Tehrik-i-Taliban, they are different groups. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Origin of Taliban
The CIA,SAVAK and ISI formed Alfa Group in 1977 who were trained in Afghanistan. The member of Alfa Group were trained to combat war, corrupt the political system and agents eere fully equip with all kinds of arms. They initially spy the Israel policies on muslims country 's economy. Alfa descided to invade iraq in 1980 and the purpose was to control the Iraq and further invade the Israel. The became successfull and war started. War ended in 15th August,1988 and the founder of Alfa group Late General Zia-ul-Haq had been murdered by Mossad recruited sub agents in Pakistan on 17th August,1988. The Alfa Group have no leadership behind and they scattered everywhere in the world. Pakistan had already gained the nuclear technology in 1988 and now this technology was about to deliver to Kingdom of Saudia Arabia so another muslim country will have the name in the super power list.

CIA started another war between Iraq and Kuwait to create the conflict between muslims and that behaviour  was surprising to Pakistan and it stopped pakistan not to transfer the technology to any other muslim country as it is possible for small anger they can use the nuclear technology on their own muslim brother across middle-east.

Alfa group members began to involve in arab worlds and they formed new sub groups in respective muslim countries.

Mossad came to know of regaining of Alfa Group in different ways so they established new wing of Mossad Politcial Imbalance Organization (PIO).

PIO organization and members were fully supported by Rothchild Foundation across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.160.185 (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.197.231 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> Taliban airs Kabul CIA office attack video(Lihaas (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)).

Content removal
Will Mar4d please explain why he is removing reliably sourced content. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying that "it spread from Pakistan" is an ambiguous statement at the least and POV to some extent. People who started/initiated the Taliban movement were mujahideen and were given military training in and by Pakistan, given logistic and moral support by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and US during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. After the Soviet exit Pakistan didn't support the Taliban until it came to prominence on its own (in Kandhar). And it was Pakistan's civil government in collaboration with US that first supported Taliban. So to summarize that all to say that it spread from Pakistan is stretching it a bit far from NPOV. -- S M S   Talk 15:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Apart from the above, we all know what consensus was reached on this article's lead and that consensus is binding. Taliban's relation to Pakistan and other countries are discussed in the lead and further throughout the article. In fact, it is given more than enough coverage than what would be considered WP:DUE. Darkness Shines, you cannot override the agreed and enforced decision of the NPOVN and ARBIPA discussion and reignite what you tried to do on this article ages ago. In my opinion, your recent contentious reverts could even be liable to a block per the sanctions on WP:ARBIPA.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And this was NPOVN board discussion related to this issue. -- S M S   Talk 15:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bollocks, the content was in the article for months, so it has consensus. It is also reliably sourced, and the majority of the Taliban were from Pakistan. There is no stretch of anything here, other than the facts being twisted. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And this RFC, gives consensus to write that the Taliban originated in Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And this edit is source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not misrepresent RfC and other lengthy discussion on this issue to support your new POV. And you are factually incorrect, the Taliban are obviously an indigenuous Afghan movement. ISI support or CIA funding does not make them American or Pakistani.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not misrepresenting anything, we have RS which state that the Taliban originated in Pakistan, per policy we go with what the RS say, not what you know to be true. I will restore the content unless you have sources which refute the RS I have given. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your source does not say the Taliban are native to Pakistan, in fact it says the opposite, that they were Afghans who emerged and were educated in northern Pakistan as a fallout of the mujahideen resistance during Soviet war. The article already says that, so nothing new there. As for the rest of your source, it is talking about the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan who are different from the Afghan Taliban which this article is about. I thought you would know at least this much after so much edit warring in this topic area yet you seem to be bent upon source falsification. Your factual misrepresentation is not going to be added into this article. And beware of WP:ARBIPA.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Accuse me of source misrepresentation again and you will be at ANI. The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course, the consensus form the RFC. The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1994.


 * Don't try to threaten me. Since you had enough time to read from the source, let me quote the rest of it for you: "The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. A predominantly Pashtun movement, the Taliban came to prominence in Afghanistan in the autumn of 1994. It is commonly believed that they first appeared in religious seminaries - mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia - which preached a hard line form of Sunni Islam... But there is little doubt that many Afghans who initially joined the movement were educated in madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan." So there you go, Afghan students educated in Saudi-funded madrasas in northern Pakistan during the 90s. And not to forget CIA logistical and moral support to the anti-Soviet factions ofcourse. As for the rest of your tosh, nothing new there, or anything different from the article so not sure what you are trying to prove by quoting the same stuff over and over again. You know well that all of this was discussed in mediation and the noticeboard, and there was a clear-cut outcome on what the WP:LEAD of this article was meant to be. I am curious, why are you bringing it up again and trying to override your old position into the lead again?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not threatening you, I am telling you what will result should you lie about my actions again. The source says "The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan" It does not matter who the members were, or where they came from, or who paid for them, the content issue is where did the Taliban come from. And that, according to the sources, was Pakistan. And I have no idea why you are mentioning the mediation you did not bother with. So again, do you have a source, any source at all, which refutes the RS I have presented. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it does matter where they came from (Afghanistan) and where they ruled (Afghanistan). Your source says both of that and is contradicting you both times. Was Mullah Omar not an Afghan? So what refutation is it that you are asking for?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing which matters here is the question "where did the Taliban come from", that is it, and that is all that will be discussed. I have presented RS which says the Taliban originated and came from Pakistan, you have yet to actually give a source. When you do, then, and only then, will you be able to revert the addition of the content you removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong yet again, they originated and came from Afghanistan. They were refugees and students in Pakistan during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. All sources, including your RS says that. Provide a source that says otherwise. How does becoming a refugee in Pakistan make you a Pakistani ? Mullah Omar would be Pakistani according to your logic (or even American)? It is for a reason they are called the Afghan Taliban. You are mixing the Afghan Taliban with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan which is incorrect. CNN Al Jazeera.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yawn, we are not discussing the members, but the group. The sources say the Taliban originated in Pakistan. So for the final time, either get a source to refute that fact or give it up. I will of course be restoring the content tomorrow. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverting just outside of the 24 hour period is a bad idea. It's seen as gaming and can still get you blocked.  Why don't you guys just wait until you can agree on something and then edit it to that?--v/r - TP 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually if it were my opinion, DS should have recieved an indefinite block for his recent edits as they are clearly contentious edits in violation of the previous dispute resolution process as well as WP:ARBIPA sanctions.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, I think you two are talking about two different things. Mar4d, you're talking about the people. Darkness Shines, you're talking about the organization. It is possible for the people to be Afgani, travel to Pakistan and form an organization there, and then move back to Afghanistan and then both of your assertions are accurate.--v/r - TP 18:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * TParis, that is what I am trying to say but DS is living in denial. When the Soviets were bombarding Afghanistan, half of that country literally migrated to Pakistan as refugees. It is wrong to say that they are from Pakistan or spread from Pakistan. They were there as refugees and some anti-Soviet factions like the Taliban studied there under Saudi-funded institutions and the CIA provided funds. That is related to the Soviet war and has got nothing to do with their origins. What Darkness Shines is trying to portray is that they are an indigenious Pakistani movement and established themselves in Afghanistan, which is incorrect. They were native Afghans in Afghanistan. They did not control any part of Pakistan so to say they "spread from Pakistan into Afghanistan" and established an empire is fiction and rubbish.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So why not say "Afgani refugees migrated to Pakistan and studied under Saudi-funded institutions and forming the organzation known as the Taliban. Once establishing themselves in Pakistan, they resisted Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, gaining ground and eventually completely settling in Afghanistan."  Is that pretty accurate?--v/r - TP 18:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has covered this.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ::::::: Many of the early Taliban - a name meaning students or seekers - spent time in Pakistan as refugees. They studied Islam in the madrasas and mosques of that country. Who are the Taliban (Islamic law) Where does it say they are from Pakistan? Also, the sentence that you are trying to revert "they spread from Pakistan into Afghanistan" is factually wrong and source falsification as they did not control any area in Pakistan nor were they an official entity in Pakistan.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article already covers all of this information in detail (in fact more than enough detail; some sections need trimming if WP:DUE and WP:NPOV is considered), so there is nothing new here. Just DS being paranoid and going around in circles.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * DS, I have just gone through your first source and I request you to read it again and let me know if I need to go through the rest of these. At least after reading that one source I am inclined to say that it was source misrepresentation to cite that what you were saying. -- S M S   Talk 18:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How is the BBC cite misrepresented? The quote is in the link I gave? "The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan" Mar, get a source or give it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you mean Shaffer, the quote in the cite is on the given page, I just looked. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I am talking about Shaffer, but have you read the lines preceding that quote? also page 266? and page 268? -- S M S   Talk 18:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you have time please also read The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan by Robert D. Crews; Amin Tarzi page 100-102. -- S M S   Talk 19:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just looked at it quickly, I see nothing in there which pertains to where the Taliban originated. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Note to DS Do not falsely accuse me of "lying". Please strike your comments or I shall report you.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 19:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to Mar, you did lie, you accused me of misrepresenting the BBC source, I did not. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * DS you did misrepresent the source and are in fact doing it continously. And to top it off, you are denying it and accusing me of lying twice? You have not refuted, please retract your accusation immediately  Mar4d  ( talk ) 19:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no misrepresentation The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, your accusation is a lie. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again you are source falsifying, the same passage follows and establishes them as Afghan students who were in Pakistan at the time. So your accusation on me of lying is a lie. You are lying and your accusation is null and void..  Mar4d  ( talk ) 19:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And again you are wrong. We are discussing the Taliban, not the members of said group. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, enough How about everyone break for the day and we try again tomorrow?--v/r - TP 19:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should even be going back and forth discussing this. The article is already a POV nightmare in its current form, what with this recent meddling. There is much ado over nothing.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 19:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Indeed the only place a Taliban style jihad was likely to spread outside of Afghanistan was Pakistan because that is where it had originated." Remaking Muslim Politics: Pluralism, Contestation, Democratization p 231 Princeton University Press Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the last time, read what others are telling you. They are not native to Pakistan, they were formed after Afghan refugees fled Afghanistan and received training for the anti-Soviet resistance. The Taliban's origins, it's main commanders and leaders, it's culture and traditions are all from Afghanistan. They ruled Afghanistan and spread through Afghanistan, they did not control any area of Pakistan, they have nothing to do with Pakistan. Pakistan cannot be mentioned in the lead because it is WP:UNDUE and is misleading as it falsely shows that their native territory is Pakistan. If a couple of Syrian militants flee to Iraq and come back to Syria, it does not make the Syrian militants Iraqis.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

""The Taliban originated in the south, in Kandahar province, where they retain their most active network.""
 * Kandahar was the birthplace and stronghold of Taliban.

- NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance, p. 9

"" In early December 2001, when American and Afghan military operations were focused on Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban..""

- The United States and South Asia, Government Printing Office, p. 213

""The Taliban originated in Kandahar province, and this area—Panjwayi district—is one they have always dominated."

- Fob Doc: A Doctor on the Front Lines In Afghanistan, Douglas & McIntyre, p. 45

""The Taliban originated in August 1994 in the small town of Sanghisar just north of Qandahar. Unlike the mujahedin, which are led by Tajiks and Uzbeks, the Taliban are drawn from the majority Pashtun ethnic group of Afghanistan"

- Enemies By Design: Inventing The War On Terrorism, p. 182

 Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the last time, stop removing reliably cited content, the Taliban originated in Pakistan, we are talking about the fucking group, not where the members of said group came from. Nobody, other than you are talking about the nationality of the members, the edit is about the GROUP. Do you get that? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Read what has been told to you above and come back another time.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2014
Taliban are of Deobandi Ideology.

2.50.109.6 (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.


 * hey Arjayay Please read the list of articles that I just mentioned below, I recall reading there that they are partially influenced by Deobandhi ideology, which was present in Afghanistan even prior the existence of Al Qaida and Taliban Student (in my views) Terrorist/Guerrilla (in someone elses) movement.lilpiglet 17:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpiglet (talk • contribs)

A little Bias
I believe that this article is a little bias towards Afghans (Pushtuns). This article is anti-Pashtun. As this article underplays the role Pakistan played in creating taliban, I think there should more objective content on Pakistan involvement in Afghanistan over the years. Also, taliban were not just Pahtuns/Afghans but were people from Arabia, Pakistan (Punjabis) and Chechens. Himalayia (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014
jamaete islami is added as talibans ally.wrong.if you have doubht ask any one who lives in india pakistan bangladesh etc.they love people.they are not terrorists.please stop spreading lies.I know them personally.www.jih.org Pls remove jamathe islami as its ally from first page

Jasimpk (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
No Consensus for adding text. (non-admin closure) -- Green  C  15:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Should the lede mention that the Taliban originated in Pakistan? TAALIBAN.BLOGSPOT.COM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.74.206 (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan


 * Yes per the sources, the Taliban originated in Pakistan and then went to Afghanistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree The Taliban are not native to Pakistan and this was discussed to lengths in the section above. DS obviously does not want to understand what has been argued and this RfC is a way of extending his old position into the article which is in violation of the consensus that exists on this article's lead per all previous discussions and NPOVN/mediation noticeboards. The Taliban came from Afghanistan and did not originate from Pakistan, and this is proven in all sources where they discuss the context of Afghan refugees migrating to Pakistan and the setting-up of training camps and religious schools funded by Saudi Arabia and CIA. But this all happened during the anti-Soviet resistance during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. To say the Taliban came from Pakistan is misleading to readers because as I've said above, it's main commanders and leaders, it's culture and traditions are all from Afghanistan. They ruled Afghanistan and spread through Afghanistan, they did not control any area of Pakistan, and they have nothing to do with Pakistan. They are called the Afghan Taliban and should not be confused with the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistan cannot be mentioned in the lead because it is WP:UNDUE and shows that their native territory is Pakistan. If a couple of Syrian militants flee to Iraq and come back to Syria, it does not make the Syrian militants Iraqis. Pakistan's relation to the Taliban is already discussed elsewhere throughout the article, so there is nothing new coming out from this RfC.

""The Taliban originated in the south, in Kandahar province, where they retain their most active network.""
 * As the sources show, Kandahar was the birthplace and stronghold of Taliban.

- NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance, p. 9

"" In early December 2001, when American and Afghan military operations were focused on Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban..""

- The United States and South Asia, Government Printing Office, p. 213

""The Taliban originated in Kandahar province, and this area—Panjwayi district—is one they have always dominated."

- Fob Doc: A Doctor on the Front Lines In Afghanistan, Douglas & McIntyre, p. 45

""The Taliban originated in August 1994 in the small town of Sanghisar just north of Qandahar. Unlike the mujahedin, which are led by Tajiks and Uzbeks, the Taliban are drawn from the majority Pashtun ethnic group of Afghanistan"

- Enemies By Design: Inventing The War On Terrorism, p. 182

 Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Those sources are junk, two are primary and one is not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironically, one of the so-called sources you've used (Amin Tarzi) above contradicts you.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not cited Tarzi, Enemies By Design: Inventing The War On Terrorism "A century of Anglo-American skullduggery grabbing Gulf oil, in 4 parts: biography of Osama bin Ladeen; Zionization of America; Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq; One Nation under PNAC. An impassioned, fearless, relentlessly documented plea against Zionist racism and the neo-con putsch over America." They also do a nice line in NWO books. & 9/11 conspiracy theorys.. So not RS, and the others are primary. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have used a source from Tarzi above. Have you read from the source Smsarmad pointed out? It is contradicting you. I will do a thorough review of the other sources when I'm free, to see if there isn't any cherry-picking or selective quoting going on there either.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tarzi is an editor, so not cited. I presume you mean the source which says, "The direct role of the United States was not clear until, in a BBC interview, Benazir Bhutto shed light on American involvement, admitting that her government had trained the Taliban in Pakistan with American ﬁnancial assistance"? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See below.

"Led by Mullah Muhammad Omar, the initial Taliban group emerged in the southern part of Kandahar Province in 1994 as a local response to the former resistance and militia forces implicated in banditry, brutality against local residents, and offenses against the local values such as nang (reputation) and namus (local honor with respect to women). Mullah Omar was a veteran mujahedin commander and had previously headed a religious school in a remote district of Kandahar. Through their association and friendship with the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, headed by Mawlana Fazlur Rehman, the strongest coalition partner in the Benazir Bhutto government in 1994, Taliban leaders were brought to the attention of the Pakistani government, which put Ministry of Interior General Nasirullah Babar in charge of logistical support for the Taliban."

- Robert D. Crews; Amin Tarzi, The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan

From what can be seen, they were formed locally in Afghanistan.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not about where they originated from, it is about when they first struck. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite, it says that they were Afghan locals. Btw, the BBC source you have used a couple of times does not mention anywhere they "originated" from Pakistan.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan" is what the BBC says. And again, the discussion is not about the ethnicity of the members, it is about the group. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are some word-to-word excerpts from your BBC source.


 * "Emerged in Afghanistan in 1994" (again a source contradicting you, are you going to accuse my of "lying" again?)
 * "Mainly supported by ethnic Pashtuns"
 * "Toppled after US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001"
 * "Fugitive leader Mullah Omar wanted, whereabouts unknown"

I see you selectively quoted one sentence. Here is what follows your sentence in that source: A predominantly Pashtun movement, the Taliban came to prominence in Afghanistan in the autumn of 1994. After that, the source goes on to continue about Afghan refugees and students. It is quite clear what WP:POV you are trying to present.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, the edit is about where the Taliban originated, I do not care what the members ethnicity are. The sources say the group originated in Pakistan, even Pakistani politicians have admitted to that fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Allegedly receiving support from Pakistan is not the same thing as "originating" from Pakistan, and you are mixing both. Btw, the BBC source did not say they originated from Pakistan.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree - Completely disappointing behavior from User:Darkness Shines. There have been discussions before on this, and this RfC is the violation of the outcome of the previous discussions. DS needs to look at the archives. After failure in edit-warring, after violation of the 3RR rule on February 23, another pointless RfC. He ought to be reported instead. Why he was not taken to ANI? The Taliban are not natives to Pakistan, It would be extremely non-neutral otherwise. I agree with the rationale provided by . The terrorist organization was formed by the Afghans, that's for sure. Saying that it formed in Pakistan is misleading. The references have been given by Mar4d. Your attitude becomes more questionable when you decline the sources given by others as unreliable - as Darkness Shines is doing. Origination and  emergence is the same thing.  Fai  zan  15:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources given by Mar4d are unreliable. This has never been discussed before, at all. Saying were the group was formed and came from is not misleading, it is what the RS say. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Darkness Shines the sources of the books you provided, I can't access them. However just as (User talk:Mar4d) and (User Talk:Faizan) been claiming, the articles as to Origins of Taliban are very much by Afghan Pashtuns after the Soviet left, which resulted in a disfragmented group who was left fighting one another. The Dalai Lama lives in India, does that make Tibetan cause "originating within India", which therefore inadvertantly makes people assume it was either due to their society, religion, politics, or extreme government influence. I would enocurage everyone to read the parts of Pakistan with regards to this. Has anyone managed to see the original document of Wikileaks? The founder has almost undeniably said it was Afghan.
 * Here are the links - and please Darkness Shines, if you can provide sources that are retrievable so that I may read it better; however BBC News can make mistakes in the article - just the other day they had an error where it said LGBT are are not discriminated in Canada; when they are when anal is set at 18; although 3 provincial provinces have chosen to make it "unofficially" equal to the heteronormative legal age (I messaged BBC, but they still have not changed it). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/dostum-the-taliban-killer_1_b_4385095.html
 * The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. CFR members, including Brian Williams, Fareed Zakaria, Angelina Jolie, Chuck Hagel, and Erin Burnett, explain why the Council on Foreign Relations is an indispensable resource in a complex world.[About CFR page] http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/taliban-afghanistan/p10551#p1


 * http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/?offset=0&s=oldest
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/23/world/un-names-4-afghan-royalists-as-mediators.html?ref=taliban::
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/20/world/with-kabul-largely-in-ruins-afghans-get-respite-from-war.html::?ref=taliban
 * http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html
 * Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia By Ahmed Rashid via google books, Introduction and Chapter 1 to get the big picture:
 * http://books.google.ca/books?id=kIBgqHWq658C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false


 * http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2009/03/2009389217640837.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/dostum-the-taliban-killer_1_b_4385095.html
 * http://rt.com/politics/taliban-wikileaks-afghan-assange/ lilpiglet 17:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpiglet (talk • contribs) lilpiglet 17:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No per the sources cited by Darkness Shines in the RFC statement. The first source says that the Taliban movement originated in Kandhar and after coming to prominence got Pakistan's support:

"...The Taliban leader, Mullah (later Amir) Omar, was a local cleric in Kandahar with an honorable war record in the anti-Soviet jihad, but he was neither an important figure in that war nor a player in any of the postwar factions. In 1994 a group of Pashtun Islamic students, trained in Pakistan but having moved to Kandahar, complained to Mullah Omar about the local warlords who had abused the population by committing crimes that included robbery, rape, and extortion. Omar instructed his student followers (or taliban, hence the name) to confront these bands and disarm them. After capturing and executing some of the most notorious of these groups they then unblocked the roads around Kandahar, seized power from other local warlords, and brought a high degree of order to the territories they took under their control. The movement was widely popular locally because it promised security of life and property to a region that lacked both. Its ideology was of secondary importance. Upon seeing the Taliban's strength among the Pashtuns, Pakistan switched its backing to the new movement with the hope that it would have more success than its previous clients..."


 * In the quote that you cited from this book "it had originated" refers to the jihad not the Taliban. In fact there in that sentence the word "jihad" is given emphasis by italicizing it. And also you missed "with Taliban support" in that sentence that gives it different meaning. Here I am giving the complete quote for better understanding:

"...Taliban appeared to take the view that if they wanted to conduct a jihad against their own governments that was their own affair, but it had nothing to do with the Afghans. Indeed the only place that a Taliban style jihad was likely to spread outside of Afghanistan with Taliban support was Pakistan because that was where it had originated. ..."


 * The second source does not delve in much detail, but still it no where says that Taliban "originated in Pakistan". Being "originated in" and "originated by" are not the same and have different meanings, though the other claim is also questionable.
 * The third source again does not talk in detail about how they originated, rather makes one conclusive statement but that again does not say what you are quoting it for.
 * The fourth source talks in detail how and under what circumstances they originated and when, how and why Pakistan supported them.

...Islamabad rejected both the formation of a coalition government in Kabul and the broad-based government mandated by the United Nations. With the support of the CIA and Saudi financing, the ISI pushed for a military victory to install the Afghan Islamists in Kabul without informing major mujahedin field commanders. In the meantime, Afghan Islamist groups were unable to fund thousands of their established religious schools; most of these schools were subsequently taken over by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, another powerful and highly influential Islamist group in Pakistan. These competing factions nonetheless failed to form a national government, and their competition sparked a bloody civil war, which continued for two years. During this massive infighting, some thirty thousand people were killed and a hundred thousand were wounded; the capital was destroyed entirely.

This chaotic social and political environment gave rise to a vacuum of leadership and gave momentum to the appearance of a political force that promised to stop the infighting and further destruction of the country. '''Led by Mullah Muhammad Omar, the initial Taliban group emerged in the southern part of Kandahar Province in 1994 as a local response to the former resistance and militia forces implicated in banditry, brutality against local residents, and offenses against the local values such as nang (reputation) and namus (local honor with respect to women). Mullah Omar was a veteran mujahedin commander and had previously headed a religious school in a remote district of Kandahar.''' Through their association and friendship with the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, headed by Mawlana Fazlur Rehman, the strongest coalition partner in the Benazir Bhutto government in 1994, Taliban leaders were brought to the attention of the Pakistani government, which put Ministry of Interior General Nasirullah Babar in charge of logistical support for the Taliban. This development enabled the Taliban to mobilize forces and take over the strategic province of Kandahar, rapidly expanding toward Herat and then Kabul. The rise of the Taliban was embedded in regional developments. Competition for access to the oil- and gas-rich states of the former Soviet Union in Central Asia added an economic component to Pakistan's policy toward Afghanistan. Bhutto's regime viewed access to these Central Asian markets and the transport of energy as critical to Pakistani industry. Meanwhile, Hekmatyar's forces, backed by Pakistan, were failing militarily and politically to capture Kabul. Moreover, ISI support for Hekmatyar had already antagonized Islamabad's relationship with the Afghan mujahedin government led by Burhanuddin Rabbani.


 * The quote that you cited from this book no where says that Taliban "originated in Pakistan". What it talks about is no where close to the question of your RFC. -- S M S   Talk 08:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is source falsification going on from the sources used by DS. I myself found two instances of source falsification (Amin Tarzi and the BBC source).  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On source one you are mistaken, it says "In 1994 a group of Pashtun Islamic students, trained in Pakistan but having moved to Kandahar, complained to Mullah Omar about the local warlords who had abused the population by committing crimes that included robbery, rape, and extortion. Omar instructed his student followers (or taliban, hence the name) to confront these bands and disarm them." So already known as the Taliban. The second source is not refering to Jihad, it is referring to the Talibans origins. The third source says "Pakistan had all but invented the Taliban, the so-called Koranic students" The forth source says "The direct role of the United States was not clear until, in a BBC interview, Benazir Bhutto shed light on American involvement, admitting that her government had trained the Taliban in Pakistan with American ﬁnancial assistance" So all of those say the Taliban came from Pakistan, as does the BBC source. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * also from Bhutto, "Benazir Bhutto conceded that this group developed out of a joint venture among the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, Pakistan’s Ministry of Interior, and the Pakistani merchants and trucking network." p102 of the Harvard source. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone pointed to a discussion on this above. That discussion is majorly flawed. It directs you to a NPOV noticeboard from 2011. The person forgets WP:CCC Concensus can change. That action there is not binding. There is the previous concensus. We can come to the same consensus. You can mention that you agree with the consensus there. People should read the previous concensus. However the previous consesus is no reason to shut down conversation here. If someone has new information it should be viewed and taken into account. There's isn't really a reason to rehash old arguments if they have been fairly reviewed. Consensus can and does change though.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree - The majority opinion certainly appears to be the Taliban as an organization originated in Afghanistan, from what I've read in this thread. It appears that some of Taliban ideology might have developed first in Pakistan, but that isn't the same. Also the information here is sporadic. In RFCs you might want start with a background section on the entire argument instead of having it disorganized through out the discussion. I'm pretty sure all of that was pre-compiled, if you had discussed this as much as everyone claimed. Gsonnenf (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A middle way. I was invited here by the bot, and it looks like there's a lot here that goes beyond a simple content dispute, but is there and issue with noting that the ideological (or whatever word would be appropriate) birth of the Taliban was in Pakistan, but the modern incarnation that took power in Afghanistan comes from the Kandahar province? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What you've mentioned is already discussed in the article, the issue here is whether it should be in the article lead in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Be more specific "the Taliban originated in Pakistan" is vague and far reaching, and is disputed at best.   When there is a dispute over characterization of the facts, then just present the facts instead of characterizing them.  North8000  (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing Taliban (Talib-ul-ilms) History
Here is a brief excerpt from a delanceyplace.com article 8/18/2014 based on the book: Pages: 1-2

Today's selection -- from Chuchill's First War by Con Coughlin. The irresistible juxtaposition of young Winston Churchill and the Taliban:

"When the young Winston Churchill arrived at the North-West Frontier of the Indian Empire in the early autumn of 1897 he very quickly formed a low opinion of the Taliban. In Churchill's day, the great-great-grandfathers of those who created the modern Taliban movement were known as the Talib-ul-ilms, a motley collection of indigent holy men...

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia procedures could enhance the material by citing additional history including information predating 1897. Currently, the content seems to identify the Taliban as something recent.

Bobmhoon (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Source
> On this visit to Europe he also warned that his intelligence had gathered information about a large-scale attack on U.S. soil being imminent.&lt;ref name="gwu.edu"&gt;Defense Intelligence Agency (2001) report GWU.edu&lt;/ref&gt;

The quoted reference says nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.118.208.70 (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

UAE no longer affiliated with Taliban
I came across these a news article that States that UAE no longer recognizes Taliban as a form of Afghani Government

Aryandevbiswas (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)