Jump to content

Talk:Taliban/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Mullah Omar is deceased according to the New York Times

the leader of the taliban is dead, somebody should make an update — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.131.100 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

New (wrong) introduction

A user has (24 july) changed the first paragraph in a way that contradicts the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&type=revision&diff=672885638&oldid=670689959

The source is just an interview with Musharraf who uses the word Taliban in a rather liberal way, because he is in fact talking of the precursors of the Taliban.

I think all that edition must be reverted. --46.25.48.186 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

block quotes

block quotes are needed in the fourth paragraph of the overview portion of the governance section. They may be necessary in a couple other places too, but I haven't looked.--68.34.35.214 (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2015

look at the talk page, about the new introductory paragraph being wrong. 46.25.48.186 (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: If you look at the history section, this information is already there. Cannolis (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This information has no acceptable sources and contradicts the sourced sections of the article.
Also it's in the history since it was added by those edits! --46.25.48.186 (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Done Stickee (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Taliban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015

The Taliban is Sunni. That should be right at the top about "Taliban." 67.217.126.55 (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Trying to fix referencing errors

@DD2K:, I was trying to fix the referencying errors. Was I doing something wrong for you to revert me? Would you be willing to explain to me how to do it in the right way? I want to learn how to do this.

Referencing errors:

  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Human_Rights_Watch" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Barnes" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Tomsen" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Steve_Coll:_Ghost_Wars" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Tomsen" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Armajani" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Riedel" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Maley2" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Lansford" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Pugh1" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "longwarjournal1" defined multiple times with different content"
  • "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Ahmed_Rashid.2FThe_Telegraph" defined multiple times with different content"</nowiki>

I would love to learn how to do this. Thanks, Jointed.owl (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I reverted because it didn't fix the problems, not because you did anything wrong, per se. I then tried to also fix the article, but was unsuccessful also. That's the reason I added the tags, for someone who knows how to fix the refs to do so. I will say that multiple instances of <ref name= blabla> cause errors. Also, the renaming of the refs(for example Pugh to Pugh1 or Pugh 1 etc) causes errors. You have to keep the ref name the same throughout the article, as far as I know. Sorry I can't help more. Dave Dial (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@DD2K: Thanks for replying. Some of the errors I did fix. I looked up the books on the Internet. I was doing them one by one. Your reverting of my fixes doesn't matter though. I was burning out doing this anyway. It involved an awful lot of work. That's why I was doing it one at a time. Those tags you put on are the way to go. Much better way of dealing with it than trying to fix. Thanks, Jointed.owl (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I apologize for the revert. I can see now that it did fix some errors(I think, there are so many it's hard to tell). I went through and started doing them one by one too, and then said "screw it", I'll just tag the article. -- Sorry! Dave Dial (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


@DD2K: The maintenance tags you added do not refer to Cite error issues. Don't add them again, please. Huritisho 02:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @Huritisho: - It's a cleanup tag, and I've searched for the correct tag throughout the templates and that is the closest one I've found. It states there are reference formatting problems, which is the case. They produce citation errors, and need to be fixed. Either help fix them, find a better tag, or leave the tag alone. Please do not remove the tag without fixing the errors. Dave Dial (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Homophobia and campy esthetics

Thomas Dworzak's book Taliban is lacking here. Blackforest background and gay moustaches. That describes the guys and their personal desires much better than their military achievements. The new Yorker about the glamour shots. Polentarion Talk 17:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Reinstate Giustozzi and other expert commentators' material

Recently significant chunks of material, sourced from Antonio Giustozzi and other academic specialists on Afghanistan, were removed, with the edit summary that not all TAliban are Pashtuns, nor are they fighting to spread Pashtun values, but rather seeking a place in the government. I have reinstated the Giustozzi etc material, but further cited material about the Pashtun/non-Pashtun breakdown of the Taliban will always be welcome in this article, as will be further, cited material on the extent to which Pashtunwali motivates the Taliban's actions, as opposed to the continuing struggle for power. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Taliban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Taliban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Why should the "Shahamat English" website be listed as the website of the Taliban here? It is just a plain example of Taliban propaganda. And internationally designated terrorist groups do not have "official" websites in the strict sense, as they are free to create any content at any Internet venue, and describing a certain propaganda website as the "official" one would inadvertently get the page blocked. Furthermore, the "official website" phrase may unintentionally serve to promote the website in question.--89.173.227.64 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

U.A.E. Incorrect information

U.A.E since 2001 cut off all diplomatic ties with the Taliban. Artooom (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

It seems that there is a typo on the economy section of this page. There is use of the word 'opiated', while the source indicates use of the word 'opiates'. It can be found in this section:

the UN mentioned the "existence of significant stocks of opiated accumulated during previous years of bumper harvests."

source: ( Line 7 )

Thanks! Bleranaut (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Done and thanks for pointing that out Cannolis (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Taliban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Head Quarter Hypothesis

I was shocked by seeing Quetta and Peshawar the two capitals of Balochistan and KPK provinces of Pakistan mentioned as the headquarters of Talibans in the infobox of this article. As I am a well-educated Pakistani editor and aware of all current situation in Pakistan I can assure with highest responsibility that Quetta and Peshawar are not the headquarters of Taliban and never have been, though these cities were terrorism affected but never were the strong holds of Taliban. The claim was made on the base of four articles that I read thoroughly, all of these are poorly researched by the writers I think know nothing about Pakistan and Taliban so are highly misleading. Three articles written in 2006, 2009 and 2009, are based on a proposition of Richard Holbrooke that "Quetta appears to be the headquarter of Taliban" that is a proposition not a proof. And articles are outdated, even if it appeared to be at that time now this proposition is not valid because situation is altogether is changed in these eight nine years. The fourth article used as reference that Peshawar is headquarter of Taliban not even mentions it nor point any clue to that. So this is altogether a wrong proposition. Now I invite all those who don't agree this, should heavily research and present their argument. It is our responsibility to deliver the most authenticated knowledge to people who seeks knowledge on Wikipedia. 

CR Guru PK (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Headquarter concern

I am a well researched teacher, having very well researched thesis on Taliban. So I know Taliban has never any headquarter in Quetta and Peshawar rather they once opened an office in Doha Qatar but never in Pakistan, the references are based on a hypothesis given by Richard Holbrooke mentioned in three poorly written articles all by Indians. That I firmly believe trying to establish that Talibans have headquarters in Pakistan. Though I admit that Taliban has been an active faction in Tribal areas of KPK in agencies but never had a headquarter in Pakistan. These Indian editors are trying to establish a wrong a truly ill proposition. Even when I invited to go into research of the matter my change was reverted by an Indian editor that is a popsucket already. And if you check his history you'll for surely come to know that he is ferociously trying to bring a bad name to Pakistan in any article related to Pakistan. His all edits are based on his hate towards Pakistan. I request to senior editors to look into the details of this matter. Because being a true wikipedian and knowledge lover I believe knowledge should be based on truth and facts not on mere proposition and hate for others. CR Guru PK (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Great! Just cite some reliable sources and put that info into the article.Sinsearach (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist group? no?

Even on wikipedia I am surprised to see this group not stated to be a terrorist organization with many rock solid sources cited.Sinsearach (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of Mullah in the first paragraph

I've never made any edits to wikipedia before, so please take what I say with a grain of salt. In the first paragraph Mohammad Omar is described as "Mullah." It appears here to be used as an honorific. The same appears to be true with Akhtar Mansour, except the honorific hyperlinks to his page. (although his page's URL is still entitled Akhtar_Mansour) In the next sentence Mawlawi is used in a similar context, and like in the first sentence, does not hyperlink to Hibatullah Akhunzada's page. Is there an intentional distinction between Mullah when used for Mohammed Omar and Akhtar Mansour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.193.78 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Typo?

There seems to be a typo in the last sentence of the introduction. "The United Kingdom, the United States, France and the People's Republic of China have not designated the Taliban as an terrorist group."

It should be "a terrorist group" not "an terrorist group"

Glorygeek (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done How very odd. I've fixed it, without taking a view on what it says or how it got there. Thank you for pointing it out. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Taliban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Reagan with Afghan mujahideen

The article presents this famous photo with caption: "President Ronald Reagan meeting with Afghan Mujahideen leaders in the Oval Office in 1983" None of the people in the photo are leaders of anti-soviet resistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.136.199.224 (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

42.110.151.129 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sakura Cartelet Talk 14:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

(Careful with) propaganda

We, Wikipedia, try to make a reliable, impartial encyclopedia. We therefore must always make a sharp distinction between facts and opinions about a subject (like, for example, subject ‘the Taliban’). In articles relating to a war, we should be especially aware of negative opinions of one warring party about another, opposing, party: such opinions are (possibly the most basic form of) propaganda. Colonel Kemp was commander of the British forces in Afghanistan in 2003, afterwards possibly advisor or intelligence coordinator for his government, thus is to be considered partisan in this war between Taliban and ISAF which included the UK.
Ofcourse mr. Kemp is entitled to his opinions. But if he contends e.g. that Taliban used civilians as human shield, and does not even produce the slightest evidence of that allegation, it is just that: an opinion, a presumption, not yet a fact. That allegation might nevertheless even be true, and as a private person or citizen we may believe in that opinion/presumption as much as we want, but in our role of encyclopedist we can’t present it yet as a reliable fact. Such negative presumptions/opinions about a war opponent are quite simply (war) propaganda. Therefore, I’ve relocated this opinion of Mr. Kemp, yesterday, to War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Propaganda, and I have to remove it now once again from section 4.4(Taliban#Violence..). --Corriebertus (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Kemp's claim is carefully attributed to him, not stated "as a reliable fact" in Wikipedia's voice. I've deleted your unsourced "Propaganda" section in War in Afghanistan (2001–present), which exemplifies one of Wikipedia's cardinal sins: Original research. If you truly cannot understand why it is inappropriate to label statements "propaganda" in Wikipedia's voice absent any reliable sources using that term and solely because you personally consider them to be propaganda, then you shouldn't be editing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Use of IEDs, war tactics

Our section 4.4 (Violence against Afghan civilians) until today purported Taliban’s "increasing use of IEDs" in 2009, referring to source Arnoldy (CSMonitor) that stated that Taliban since 2008 had shifted from frontal attacks on security forces to the use of IEDs. But that is a misquotation by CSMonitor of the underlying (and referenced) UNAMA Report of 31 July 2009, which mentioned a shift in tactics of "armed opposition" (not "Taliban") towards guerrilla activities, IEDs and suicide attacks. This information is already correctly mentioned in article War in Afghanistan (2001–present), section 'Tactics/strategy of anti-government elements'.
In general, detailed information on the choice of weapons or tactics/strategy in a war I believe belongs in the article covering that war, in this case article 'War in Afghanistan (2001–present)', not in any article dedicated to any of the parties involved in that war. Article 'Taliban' I believe is meant just for the more general information about that group. As soon as the Taliban article makes clear – as it does – that Taliban are involved in that war, it seems logical and appropriate that Taliban's detailed war activities etc. are to be found in that referenced war article. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Civilian casualties (in war)

Our section 4.4 (Violence against Afghan civilians) until today purported Taliban's attacks leading to civilian casualties to have "sharply escalated in 2006". In general, I think the right place in Wikipedia for such specific, detailed facts (if correct) concerning war activities of any of the war participants in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) would only be that specific war article: as soon as such a specific war article exists, and articles of war participants (like Taliban) clearly refer to that war article, it seems the (only) correct location for all specific war aspects and details (including civilian casualties).
In this case though, that allegation about Taliban in 2006 was an incorrect quotation of the referenced sources in which HRW spoke of sharply escalating attacks by "anti-government forces" or "insurgent groups, primarily Taliban and Hezb" causing 669 civ.cas. in 2006. That does not say, imply or guarantee that Taliban attacks had escalated sharply. That correct HRW information is already mentioned in article Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), being a sub-article to War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Civilian casualties, which, as I said, seems the correct article for such information.

Section 4.4 also purported "Taliban and its allies" to be responsibile for (high) percentages of civ.casualties in Afghanistan in 2009–2011, referring to a UNAMA press release in 2011. That seemed an incorrect citation of that UNAMA-2011 press release which attributed civilian casualties in 2010 (75%) to "anti-government elements", not to "Taliban (and its allies)". That correct information is also already mentioned in article Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present) (and in summarized form in War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Civilian casualties). (The origin of the percentages over 2009 and 2011 seems unclear, but it is unlikely that UN would have used different terminology in other years.)
As for: "[Taliban] and its allies": Wikipedia has no information yet saying Taliban have or had any 'ally'. But anyway: this article is about Taliban, not about any (presumed, suggested) alliance.

In the lead section until today, a row of six ref sources were also supposed to underpin percentages of civilian casualties caused by Taliban, but apparently they don't, either. The 4th ref in that row (UNAMA,2011) is the same one which I've refuted here a few lines higher. The 5th ref (Haddon) spoke of ..killed by "insurgents" (not "Taliban"). The 6th ref (Weekly Standard,2010) spoke indeed of 'Taliban' but that was a misquotation of a UNAMA Report(10 August 2010) that speaks of "anti-government elements". The first of that row of six refs was off-topic, the 2nd and 3rd refs were unclear. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(Presumed) Taliban tactics (in ISAF conception)

The Taliban are at war, as is prominently noted in the lead section. Being at war involves tactics and strategy. Some of our information about that issue (observations of Col. Kemp) had landed in a subsection under §4 ‘Condemned practices’. This seemed strange: war tactics in itself is an important issue, not only after or because they are condemned (and anyway, who is condemning them?) I’ve therefore transformed those comments into a new, main section 7: ‘War tactics’. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taliban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Taliban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please help

... on this revision. Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the user's edits remove the chronology, are too biased and too much original research, and heavily in need of primary and secondary sources. The opposing viewpoint says I suffer from "bad faith". Please help. Wakari07 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's say there there is a "tags" problem above and a "chronology" problem below in the diff. Wakari07 (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Now again he reverts my edit... even referring again to this talk page... should i really bother the admins with this? Wakari07 (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

They are bad faith edits you've called my edits revisionist, propaganda and containing weasel wording when what I wrote was exactly what was in the source. Wingwraith (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You must be mistaken. The points of view that you publish are, first of all, out of chronology. Then they are out of context: they belong in the article on the legal justification of the military occupation of Afghanistan and they have nothing to do with the Taliban, who are the subject of the article. Lastly, they're biased, only explaining how stupid the non-discourse was that very quickly led to the military invasion of Afghanistan. Now is there another argument than my supposed bad faith? I'm talking here... Wakari07 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
By the way, in my country we know no bad faith: we have Freedom of worship. Wakari07 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
::Your comments don't make sense but that is understandable given your kind of political bias. The material is neither out of chronology nor context as it provides background context for a section of the article that accordingly to its title deals with the invasion that led to the overthrow of the Taliban. The fact that you misrepresent what the sources do as "explaining how stupid the non-discourse was that very quickly led to the military invasion of Afghanistan" is just further evidence of the bad faith of your edits. Wingwraith (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. See WP:NPA

Estimates

There are recent estimates putting the number of Taliban at 60,000 or higher. Such as this: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/numbers-afghanistan-are-not-good-n842651 The same article also notes a 2014 estimate of ~20,000 that is conflicts with the one referenced on this page already. The conflicting and uncertain estimates themselves may deserve some comment/comparison. Phil (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia

There are plenty of sources showing clear cooperation between the Iranian and Russian governments with the Taliban, granted that the Taliban once opposed both these nations the Taliban's leadership has changed significantly since the late 90s and early 2000s as has the global political climate and with this alignments have changed, there are even sections of the article stating the cooperation with Russia and Iran, therefore it would also be highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia would support the Taliban given it is being supported by Iran, and in 2017 Qatari support for the Taliban was one of the complaints Saudi Arabia made about Qatar as well as their closeness with Iran, another thing worth noting is that Saudi Arabia's main proxy in Afghanistan was Hezb-i-Islami and they surrendered to the Afghan government in 2016. It would only be fair to include Russia and Iran as state allies with (alleged) written like the way Qatar and Saudi Arabia are written and for Saudi Arabia to be removed. Takinginterest01 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Taliban size

The Long War Journal estimates that the Taliban can boast of anywhere between 60,000 and 120,000 fighters, while Afghan officials say the number is around 77,000. The broad LWJ estimate makes sense considering they're not a standing army, and the number of insurgents expands and contracts in accordance with the "fighting season". The fact that insurgent activity and control has only seen an increase from year to year means that the 4-year-old estimate of 60,000 is definitely outdated. Insurgents in 2014 claimed "around 100" ANSF lives per week, or about 14 per day. In 2016 that number jumped to 22 per day, while today it's somewhere between 30 and 40 troops per day. If the Taliban managed to more than double the amount of casualties they inflict on the ANSF within 4 years, their numbers certainly must have witnessed similar growth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.83.129 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for inclusion of a chart showing difference between Al-Quaeda & Taliban

Arguments for inclusion of such chart: --- Taliban are more localized and "tribal" & localized in nature compared to Al Quaeda. --- There is already a section describing the difference the groups have had with each other in the past, & a chart would be more readable.


References: https://www.rewardinglearning.org.uk/common/includes/microsite_doc_link.aspx?docid=21442-2 Book: "An Enemy We Created: The Myth of the Taliban-Al Qaeda Merger in Afghanistan" By Alex Strick van Linschoten, Felix Kuehn https://www.forces.net/evergreen/islamic-state-taliban-and-al-qaeda-how-are-they-different https://www.e-ir.info/2012/11/17/the-differences-between-the-taliban-and-al-qaeda/ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/the-taliban-is-not-al-qae_b_5455252.html https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-the-Taliban-Al-Qaeda-Al-Shabaab-and-Boko-Haram https://ctc.usma.edu/can-the-us-exploit-divide-between-taliban-and-al-qaeda/

"The Taliban and al-Qaeda remain distinct groups with different goals, ideologies, and sources of recruits; there was considerable friction between them before September 11, 2001, and today that friction persists." Separating the Taliban from al-Qaeda: The Core of Success in Afghanistan Alex Strick van Linschoten Felix Kuehn February 2011 https://cic.es.its.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/gregg_sep_tal_alqaeda.pdf


"The Taliban was, and is, primarily a nationalistic movement and is fundamentally committed to building an Islamist state in Afghanistan. Ironically, in the ‘80s, when the Taliban was fighting the Soviet Union, the U.S. supplied the group with stinger anti-aircraft missiles and other military supplies. Al-Qaeda, formed by Osama Bin Laden, is a worldwide terrorist group that wants to spread mayhem and murder everywhere, especially against Israel and its military suppliers — principally the U.S. — and was willing to bomb civilians and blow up embassies and airplanes anywhere."



A chart similar to the one below, but more info would be a lot better

Al-Qaeda Taliban
Origins Founded by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistanin 1988. Emerged in Afghanistan as a new political group during the civil war which broke out after the Soviet forces left in 1989. When the Soviet-Afghan war ended, the USA and Europe largely abandoned Afghanistan, leaving it to Pakistan to create a settlement. Pakistan did this by creating the Taliban and helping it to take over the country.
Beliefs Strict Islamic Sharia law. ... Strict Islamic Sharia law. Pashtunwalli ...
Aims To eradicate American influence in all Muslim

countries, destroy Israel and overthrow prowestern governments in Muslim states. To use terror to reinstate an Islamic caliphate.|| To restore peace, order and security to Afghanistan; to establish political power in Afghanistan and, once in power, enforce Sharia law.

Actions The attack on the World Trade Centre on

September 11 2001 and other terror attacks, including a previous attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993, the 1992 Yemen Hotel bombings and the bombing of the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, the largest city of Tanzania, in 1998.|| Came to power in Afghanistan in 1994, imposed strict Sharia law, but kept the peace.

Although the chart is malformed above, it can be seen as intended in this revision. My objections stand: I do not think that this chart is useful to readers; it is huge, featuring whole paragraphs of text, and does not rest comfortably on either side of the page, but rather cuts across the center, creating a large gap between the major article prose. Occasionally, charts, graphs, and statistics (as well as videos, photographs, and illustrations) can convey information more effectively to readers than prose alone, but this chart is far from ideal because it is largely text-based and redundant, and because the comparison being made is of dubious utility. Obviously, Rs21867's citations (including quora.com!) are far from ideal, but, to the extent that they are reliable, opinions and analysis therein should be attributed with care—in the same manner as the article body (e.g., "Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn at New York University's Center on International Cooperation claimed that the two groups did not get along at times before the September 11 attacks ... "). This wouldn't be the case if Rs21867 was merely listing hard facts, such as year of inception and number of fighters, in the chart; however, the subjective and ideological statements made in Rs21867's proposed chart (citing op-eds and think tanks; e.g., "[Taliban] kept the peace") should not be treated as objective fact or asserted in Wikivoice. In this context, the chart format itself actually renders Rs21867's edit more unpalatable, because it allows controversial content to stand unqualified and creates the illusion that said material is equivalent to uncontested matters of fact like year of inception. Moreover, although Rs21867 may have good-faith reasons to assume that some in the general public tend to conflate al Qaeda and the Taliban and that it would improve public discourse regarding the war in Afghanistan to have Wikipedia beat its readers over the head with a lopsided comparison exclusively emphasizing the views of those commentators that believe the U.S. should make peace with moderate elements of the Taliban in exchange for the Taliban not allowing al Qaeda (or ISIS) to establish a foothold in Afghanistan again, advocacy of that kind is actually ill-suited to an encyclopedia article like this one, which exists primarily to provide a factual and neutral general summary of what the Taliban is and why it is notable. Looking at Rs21867's chart, I have many questions: Does it have any advantages over the long-standing prose summary that can be found under the "al-Qaeda" sub-heading? (I think not.) If this chart is of value here, should it be incorporated into the main Al-Qaeda article as well? (If not, why not?) Why limit the comparing/contrasting to al Qaeda and the Taliban alone? (Shouldn't readers also be trained to distinguish the Taliban from ISIS and Boko Haram?) Simply put, I've yet to see a satisfactory rationale for how Rs21867's chart affirmatively enhances this article; frankly, it looks like something that was slapped together in order to ensure that one of Google's first search results for "Taliban" articulates a certain viewpoint likely to influence readers's perceptions of the Afghan war, rather than a neutral and complementary distillation of the article's (or the "al-Qaeda" subsection's) major points in an accessible format. I urge Rs21867 not to continue to reinstate this disputed edit without consensus at this talk page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Ideology (Deobandi) Islamic rules

This section states that "Like Wahhabi and other Deobandis, the Taliban do not consider Shiites to be Muslims." This is unsourced and incorrect. The Deobandi scholars do not say that all Shiites are non-Muslims. See the fatwa at http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/en/False-Sects/127 Abdul Muhsy (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

wrap

1. finish this.

2. hoist the national flag tricolor at bagram at 8 am ist.


jai hind.

legion corps command. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.205.181.58 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan

Please stop vandalizing Pakistan off of this page as if it had nothing to do with the founding of the Taliban. I understand many people will be offending by these facts it that does not make them untrue .removing my SOURCED edits is very rude and disrespectful to the effort put in to citing them all because they don’t fit your personal agenda . The Taliban was founded in Pakistan and is headquarted in Quetta and it is important to note this in the first paragraph as it is a big part of it. Please do not vandalize my edits any more thank you Thewinnerz33 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thewinnerz33 please go through the whole page and you will find all the information that you are trying to add is already covered in the page. For instance take a look at Role of Pakistan military section in this page. Under this section it is made clear that the Taliban were founded by Pakistan. Now if you look at Infobox, you will find that Quetta has long been placed as a headquarters of Taliban. So there is no need to repeat the information. Any changes to the "lead" section should be first discussed. Only after obtaining a consensus you should make your edit to the lead. Hence, the current version of the lead is fine as it is. So please don't add information in the lead until you have obtained a consensus regarding your edit.

Also please assume good faith while making any edit or while writing the edit summary. A2kb2r (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thewinnerz33: None of the three sources you cite in this edit [1] write that the Taliban, per your text, "was founded in northern Pakistan". The sources instead argue that in the early phase of the war, a significant body of the Taliban's senior leadership was in Quetta. -Darouet (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Uzbeks and Turkmen are not significant enough in number to be considered as groups in Taliban. Tajiks are also not primary groups in Taliban. They are present in VERY small numbers according to the citation as well as news articles. If you include Tajik, Uzbeks, and Turkmen, you might as well include Punjabis and Sindhis because I'm sure they outnumber Uzbeks or other turkic people in Taliban, especially in Pakistan because no Turkics live there.

Are you referring to the info box at the top? I'm inclined to agree on that, Taliban rule was defined by adherence to traditional Pashtun norms, as far as I'm aware no other ethnic group is especially prominent. I'd also say the inclusion of Tajik is somewhat misleading given they are predominantly aligned with the Northern Alliance. Support cutting it down to "Primarily Pashtuns". Would also say that "groups" is too vague, support changing to "ethnic groups". Editor/123 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Iran

They don’t support the Taliban… the Taliban killed many Iranians in Mazar e Sharif, Iran also supported the North Alliance, it has been denied by the foreign minister here… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=djAdTep1mB0 (around 21:13), and by a security official… http://french.presstv.com/Detail/2019/12/18/614010/Iran-Taliban-US-weapons-Afghanistan-Shamkhani-Daesh (you may not find PressTV reliable but it’s a word-for-word quote). And I would argue that UAE/Saudi funded (source: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/gulf-government-gave-secret-20-million-gift-to-d-c-think-tank/) Middle East Institute is not reliable at all for this particular situation.

The foreign policy article is speculation (Mullah Mansour’s trip to Iran may well have been a simple trip to the doctor. But the trip may have had more nefarious purposes, too. Despite the differences between Tehran and the Taliban, they share some key interests and have often cooperated operationally. Indeed, Tehran and the Taliban have a more symbiotic relationship than meets the eye. In particular, they are both wary of the West and particularly the United States. And each seeks to undercut Washington’s influence.) and a NATO claim (the weapons thing). That is like saying the US is allies with ISIS because Iran claims it.

WSJ I don’t know because it has a paywall but US media is quite often not neutral (as can be seen with General Soleimani’s assassination) when it comes to Iran. Better sources would be Al Jazeera, Russian / Chinese media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking at how its worded I'm afraid your point is mostly moot. The first para addresses the historic conflict between the two, the rest are preceded by qualifiers such as "x believes that...", "US Intelligence Officials assess...". I agree that if there are reliable sources on the other side of the argument they would be a valuable addition, especially regarding Iranian denials etc, but these are clearly portrayed as opinions of experts rather than facts.

Not sure what to make of your second paragraph, you seem to be arguing both ways? Given recent hotilities between Tehran and Washington it's not unbelievable that Tehran would look to their enemies enemy. Support doesn't mean ideological agreement, it merely means that one assists the other. In any case that is speculative, the first two sources would need support from something stronger. The third source is at best tangential, that line of argument would likely fall within Original Research.

In terms of suggested sources, yes to Al Jazeera, Russian and Chinese media is notoriously unreliable, they mostly parrot the states viewpoint so not better in any way. Given that this section cites a large number of generally reputable sources such as Washington Post, CNN, CBS, Bloomberg, the Guardian, as well as several middle eastern sources I'd be strongly inclined not to remove anything. Editor/123 22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Western media (including Americans) are notoriously more trustworthy due to their reputation and objectivity. If we talk about bias, of course there may be but there is less bias than in the media that you mention as the Arabs, Russians and Chinese who take the position that the adversaries of the United States have. Ironically, you and I would be defending a position like any other from a non-neutral point of view, on the other hand, the media along with the quotations (they are American media) are reliable given that if they are not and be the wrong news you would have to submit more evidence and citations to disprove its reliability. To say that Iran supports Al-Qaeda is the same as saying that the United States supports ISIS is not the same, because it is rather that these entities share a common ideology and it is to be anti-Western, not to mention that there are reasons for this as can see in appointments. Not to mention, that a YouTube video plus an article from an untrustworthy medium are not enough to refute it, because as everything is a lie that the minister is going to say `` Yes, we support the Taliban or Iran will remain silent. because both parties recognize that both nations are adversaries in tension. The American media do not always take the American position, unlike those who suggested us that this yes or yes take the position of the Russian, Chinese or Qatari state. I recommend that you provide better sources and do not attempt to remove or change the citations, as the sources are reliable until you provide a better or equally reliable source to change that. --OfficeBlue (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

Remove russia from allies. According to Russian law Taliban is terrorist organisation. Your statement of Taliban being allies with russia embarrasses and humiliates every russian citizen. You are using wikipedia for politics. What a shame. 118.82.233.185 (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail[✉️] 12:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hazaras

If you want to include the Uzbek and Turkmen Tajik minorities, I suggest including a Hazara minority because we could see that the Hazara were more and more present in the Taliban ranks with Malawi Mahdi. « The Taliban group has for the first time appointed a Shia (Shi’ite) Hazara as the shadow district chief of the group ». My source is the Khaama press news agency. AfghansPashtun (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

lack of opponents listed

Needs to have Australia etc added as Australia is not apart of NATO so that does not include them but they have played a very significant role in the war in Afghanistan YamsMDCXI (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

India should be added as well as the FM of India in public statement and long term state policy opposed Taliban.mail2nith (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

translit taliban

it's also meaning seekers https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Taliban bi (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Alleged US support for the Taliban

US Forces Running lol[1]Why isn't USA in the list of alleged countries which supported the Talibans? There is even an Wikipedia article (Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden) about allegation that US funded and contributed to the creation of the Taliban organization in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. This doesn't imply that it's true, but it would be a fair neutral POV since all other allegations were included. There is another source in which Russia accuses US of supporting the Talibans back in the days [2].--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone, any opinions? I think it's important to sort this out since the idea is wide spread, but has little coverage. Also, I find it really strange almost everywhere I see that they talk about Pakistani intelligence support, but we know at that time (when the Taliban movement started) CIA was closely collaborating with Pakistani intelligence.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The Taliban first emerged in 1994. At that time, the CIA had almost no presence in Afghanistan and the miniscule funding allocated to it for Afghan operations related solely to buying back Stinger missiles and to gathering intelligence on the drug trade in the region. (The CIA's legal authority to send arms into Afghanistan as part of Operation Cyclone expired at the end of 1991.) In addition, Pakistani intelligence was pursuing its own agenda in Afghanistan during the 1990s as the CIA—Inter-Services Intelligence liaison had been strained by the abrupt end of Operation Cyclone and by U.S. sanctions on Pakistan, which were announced in late 1990 in response to Pakistan's nuclear program. The CIA (and other American analysts) were taken aback by the rapid speed of Taliban advances during 1994-1996 and initially the U.S. government had no clear position on the group. All of this is documented in reliable sources, such as Steve Coll's authoritative Ghost Wars. There are no reliable sources to the contrary, although some Wikipedia editors and unreliable sources may conflate the Taliban with the Afghan mujahideen who fought the Soviets during the 1980s and were ultimately driven from Kabul by the Taliban following the conclusion of the 1992-1996 civil war. While Taliban leader Mohammed Omar played a minor role in the Hezb-i Islami Khalis mujahideen faction during the 1980s, the Taliban as an organization did not exist until much later; most of its rank-and-file members (at least in the beginning) were Afghan refugees radicalized in Pakistani madrassas built along the Afghan-Pakistan border during the Soviet–Afghan War.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
While this might be true and supported by reliable sources, it doesn't change the fact that all we know about other countries' involvement is only based on allegations. We are talking about secret services here, so it's normal that we can't actually verify the full facts. That is why my proposal was to include all allegations. While your source is claiming the Americans had no involvement, other sources might claim the contrary (such as Russian and Pakistani sources). Also, not only foreign sources point out CIA knew where Osama bin Laden was, but also the western media. After you pointed out that US Army left Afghanistan after overthrowing the Soviet Gov from Afghanistan, let's not forget they came back after 9/11 and that their ally was exactly Pakistani Intelligence. Seymour Hersh, a veteran US investigative journalist, suggests that Osama was hosted by the Pakistani army in Pakistan near a military base and that CIA knew about it [3]. I ain't saying this is necessarily true, but it's an allegation with same value with the allegations that claim Pakistani, Russian, Iranian, Saudi involvement.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen are three distinct factions unrelated to each other. The Wikipedia article in question Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden does not relate to the Taliban and specifically relates to Al-Qaeda, given that Osama bin Laden was not a member of the Taliban and merely allied with them through Al-Qaeda. In addition, the Taliban was not active during the Soviet war in Afghanistan as they had not even been formed. ElderZamzam (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

Update "2002-present (insurgency)" to "2002-2021 (insurgency)"

Below that - "2021-present (government)"

Transition of power to Taliban-led government occurred 8/15/2021 2600:387:F:4A13:0:0:0:7 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Although it seems clear the Taliban will take over the government soon, probably within the next few hours or even less it's not clear that they've actually taken over yet and it doesn't seem they claim to have. They control pretty much the whole country including Kabul and the presidential palace and the previous government has completely collapsed. The current situation seems to be where the Taliban have complete victory but have not yet formed/taken over the government. We're an encyclopaedia so it's fine to wait until it's clear from sources that the Taliban are the government. Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The taliban has taken control of the government now - https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08/15/world/taliban-afghanistan-news

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Section to be added about the role of Pakistan in supporting Taliban during its 20 year isolation and ongoing contribution to spread of terrorism.

'What any violent extremist group needs more than anything else is a secure location where it can plan, organise, recruit, strategise and gather resources. Without this, few insurgents and terrorists survive, let alone succeed. Pakistan provided this to the Taliban, greatly aiding their 20-year campaign that ended in victory this week. Al-Qaida had one from 1996-2001 – and it was the prospect of losing the haven that Afghanistan offered that led many of its most senior leaders to oppose Osama bin Laden’s plan to launch the 9/11 attack on the US.

Many perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere in the last decades travelled to Pakistan to receive training. This was often a vital step, not so much for the knowledge imparted as for the reinforcement of radicalism that the experience brought. The Taliban have tried to at least regulate, if not restrict, the presence of so-called “foreign fighters” but are unlikely to be able to prevent all such visits.'

Reference: Taliban in power may find themselves fighting their own insurgents - Jason Burke - Guardian - UK edition 18 Aug 2021 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/18/bidens-over-the-horizon-counter-terrorism-strategy-comes-with-new-risks "Courtesy of Guardian News & Media Ltd” Correctpen (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That would be a wholesale copyright violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

The taliban ( talibs) are not from Afghanistan they are from Pakistan. Please correct this information as you are putting out false information. 2A02:A458:722B:1:3188:48E3:EC7B:E945 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Should Taliban now be listed as the government of Afghanistan?

I’m no expert on the situation but it seems like the Afghan government just surrendered and the Taliban are forming a government. Should they be listed as the ruling party of Afghanistan? 李艾连 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably in the very near future, yes ([4]). GABgab 16:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting Membership Estimates

Citation 60 estimates 75,000 fighters in 2021, but then the right-hand sidebar estimates 85,000 from citation 21. Perhaps it would be better to list 75,000-85,000 and reference both sources?

Flag

The flag of Taliban (image) is visibly different from the Jihadist flag. The flag of Taliban appears as the Flag of Afghanistan from 1997-2001. Should there be a section about the flag of Taliban in this article, or in the Flag of Afghanistan article? Thanks. Mateussf (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Flag

The flag of Taliban (image) is visibly different from the Jihadist flag. The flag of Taliban appears as the Flag of Afghanistan from 1997-2001. Should there be a section about the flag of Taliban in this article, or in the Flag of Afghanistan article? Thanks. Mateussf (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Good enough?

  • "The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community and the Afghan government to have provided support to the Taliban".
    Comment: Now, the Taliban are the de facto government. 89.8.152.94 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Who becomes a Taliban?

It is my understanding that the Taliban appeared from the refugees who studied at madrasas. Is that still valid? Are today's Taliban former refugees? The children of 1st-generation Taliban? Recent recruits from some ethnic group? --Error (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Map in the infobox

Is the map in the infobox any good? It shows which parts of Afghanistan are under control of the Taliban; it's probably outdated. 67.54.186.80 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In Worship

Not related to building a better article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See also: Salah
While standing in prayers, worshipers recite the first chapter of the Quran, al-Fatiha, followed by any other section.

The first surah of the Quran is repeated in daily prayers and on other occasions. This surah, which consists of seven verses, is the most often recited surah of the Quran:[2]

A Sufi Tale

How effective are religious rituals and spiritual practices? Very effective, according to the Mulla Nasruddin, who performed a peculiar ritual every evening at 5 p.m. sharp. Sitting under a particular tree in his garden, he whistled a tune, mumbled some words aloud, raised his arms to the the Heavens, then lowered his hands, closed his eyes, and sat in silence for about twenty minutes. He concluded the ritual by spreading bread crumbs on his flowerbeds. Eventually, his neighbour asked if he did this to make his plants flourish. "No," replied the Mulla, "I do it to keep away ferocious tigers and wolves." "But Mulla," said the neighbour, "there are no tigers and wolves for thousands of miles." "I know," said the Mulla. "Effective, isn't it?"

considering they are a religious entity, elaborating on their religious practices makes a more complete article. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge this with the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” and redirect Taliban there

Withdrawn, see section below

They are the exact same entity, as the opening paragraph states, and now that they have WON the 20 year long civil war, there really seems to be no reason for the split. It’s the same Islamic Emirate as always, they ruled before the civil war, fought the civil war and suffered setbacks, fought back and eventually won the civil war, and now rule undisputed yet again.

The Taliban distinction made sense in the 2000s when they came off as nothing, but a fringe that would soon be gone, but with them having WON the civil war, it’s no longer a useful distinction, all it does is confuse people with the different names. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:bce7:4b48:c183:4ed1 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. JBchrch talk 16:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Support This has always been technically true, but with the change in Kabul, it’s time we make it clear. 2604:3d09:1f80:ca00:bce7:4b48:c183:4ed1 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


Weak Oppose- If IEA and Taliban are interchangeable and supported by sources. Would not delete the article. The Taliban existed before the IEA and because Taliban wasn’t known as IEA pre-1996. So Keep all info until the establishment of IEA on this page.Manabimasu (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:BCE7:4B48:C183:4ED1 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I agree with above. Islamic Emirate should be for everything from the declaration of the Emirate in 1996 to the present. It’s been the same Emirate the whole time, fighting the civil war for 20 years and winning. Keeping the us article for the 1994-1996 period where they were ACTUALLY just a insurgency called the Taliban and hadn’t declared or taken anything makes sense.


2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:718F:FD32:B5F1:9FDF (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Made a separate post that fixed the issue with this one. Hope for support

Strong Support The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has continued to refer to themselves as such since 1996 in all official statements and communications, has always flown the same flag, has always enforced their laws in areas which they controlled, and has always behaved as a state[3]. The west referred to them as "The Taliban" during the civil war to try and distance them from the fact they were the dominant government prior to the US interference. "The Taliban" could be considered to be The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or it could be considered their military, but either way the two articles should be merged. The pages should be merged since The Taliban is simply an unofficial name designated by the west, and during this period the IEA were a government in exile just as the the Islamic State of Afghanistan were when the IEA held majority control originally. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per @JBchrch: Ytpks896 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, America was not involved in starting the Taliban

This paragraph is wrong:

British professor Carole Hillenbrand concluded that the Taliban have arisen from those US-Saudi-Pakistan-supported mujahideen: "The West helped the Taliban to fight the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan".[101]


This is from the BBC Website "The Taliban, or "students" in the Pashto language, emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. It is believed that the predominantly Pashtun movement first appeared in religious seminaries - mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia - which preached a hardline form of Sunni Islam."

The Americans supported the mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan, some of whom later became Taliban. But most of the early Taliban came from the Madrasas in Pakistan. They were started by Pakistan's ISI, who wanted to use them as a tool to gain influence in Afghanistan.

The Taliban did not even exist when the Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan. They started in the early 1990s. It is very rare for the BBC to make a mistake on something like this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11451718

The opinion of one professor is not a strong source. I just look at several trusted sites, and none claimed the Taliban fought in Afghanistan. It is not up for debate.

Also, I have never seen any concrete evidence that America was involved with starting the Taliban. How would that further American interests? The war in Afghanistan was over. If anyone has access to Economist Magazines from that period, I remember that they covered the carefully Taliban rise. I was in Pakistan in the early 1990s, and leaned about these things, which might add a tiny bit of veracity to my earlier points.

"In fact, neither bin Laden nor Taliban spiritual leader Mullah Umar were direct products of the CIA. The roots of the Afghan civil war and the country's subsequent transformation into a safe-haven for the world's most destructive terror network is a far more complex story, one that begins in the decades prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan." https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/who-responsible-taliban

Harrchurch (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2021 UTC (UTC)

I agree Harrchurch. The book is an overview of the whole history of Islam by an academic whose specialism is the Crusades, plus I can't find the quoted text in the book. Will delete. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Republic as "state opponent"

Now that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has effectively been dissolved, it seems odd to list it as a "state opponent" of the Taliban. Should it now be given a parenthetical (until 2021), or removed entirely? Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I second this, the IR no longer exists. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Not needed as we didn’t do the same when the Northern Alliance dissolved Benica11 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Taliban TakeOver of Afghanistan.

15th of august 2021, the terror group Taliban Took the leadership of the goverment of Afghanistan

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has won the civil war and currently holds majority control, as they did prior to 2001. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Let the Islamic Emirate of Afaghanistan also be given a to push the governance of the very country, the may be successful 41.210.154.193 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=246355933873865
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Britannica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/middleeast/taliban-flag-is-gone-in-qatar-but-talks-remain-in-doubt.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taliban/Archive_9&oldid=1051065732"