Talk:Taliban

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: [1], [2]). 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 [3] [4]. --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 [5]. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:24, 24 February 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."[6] 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 [7], Reeve, 1999, pp. 191 [8], Coll, 2004, pp. 291 [9] and Labeviere, 1999, pp. 262-263 [10]. 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 [11]. 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 badboyjamie talk 15:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There seem to be three views here; that the proposed text adheres to WP:NPOV, that the proposed text would adhere to the NPOV with more substantial attribution, and that the text does not adhere to the NPOV principle at all. Four users, including the proposer, support the inclusion of the text as originally drafted, while another two agree if attribution is strengthened. Three editors - TopGun, Smsarmad and Mar4d oppose the inclusion of the text at all, citing it as a violation of NPOV. TopGun's perspective is that there is a lack of attribution, and that even if attribution was included the text is not neutral enough to be included in the article, due to a failure to include Pakistan's denials and the aggressive tone of some of the quotes. WP:NPOV notes that writers should "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)", which would appear to make the wording of the quotes themselves a moot issue.

Smsarmad and Mar4d both oppose including the text due to a failure to substantially cover the fact that Pakistan's involvement was aimed at achieving strategic depth in relation to India. In response, it is pointed out that the text already includes a mention of strategic depth. I would conclude that consensus narrowly supports including DarknessShine's original suggested text in the article. That being said, there is clearly the issue of attribution (or the lack thereof), and I would suggest that editors work on and discuss this problem separately - possibly as part of a wider discussion on how attribution should work, possibly simply on this talkpage - in order to gain stronger consensus for the changes. I note that this discussion is a lot less fraught with frustration and anger than RfCs on controversial topics normally are, and would thank the participants for that. As an obiter note, as a reader rather than an administrator, I would like some clarification on the strategic depth line. Coming at it as someone not involved in the issue, it's unclear as to what the "North West" is. North West of the middle east? Of Afghanistan? Of Pakistan? Ironholds (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Strategic depth is needed by Pakistan in case of another war with India, they need somewhere to run to. Similar to the Russians in WW2, they had plenty of territory to give up while building up for a counter offensive. Same plan. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I got that. But I look at the article text and my reaction is "North West of what?" What's the answer to that? Is that answer worth including? Talking as a random editor and reader here, not as an admin. Ironholds (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

North West refers to North west of Pakistan (see also NWFP). The above statement about the 'plan' is a contentious one per se. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I shall amend the text to "they were trying to gain strategic depth to the north west of Pakistan". Would that read a little better? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Repetition of "Pakistan". " in the North West "? Ironholds (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth to the North West of their own country? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ergh, also awkward. Could we try splitting it into two sentences? The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan that would be favorable to Pakistan. This was motivated by a desire to gain strategic depth in the north west of Pakistan itself? Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it looked a little daft myself :o) I am good with your suggestion though. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

POV tag (Pakistan's denial of Taliban support pre 2001)

The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor. This is policy, yet TG has refused my request to explain what he thinks is currently POV about this article [22] As such I will remove the tag as policy dictates. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As explained here, the current lede is disputed and the discussion is dependent on the RFC closure. Since closure might make that discussion easier. I've made this clear on that section and this does not make the dispute stale. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede has a consensus and is not disputed by anyone but you, hence no need for a POV tag. The RFC is for proposed content, you may not tag an article for content which may go it. Either explain now what you think is POV about the article in it's current form or I shall remove the tag per policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've said what I dispute in the lede rewrite section along with my sources. And in the above comment you agree that I dispute it. That's it. What a waste of time discussing about a discussion... Don't engage me further into this discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have given you every chance to explain what you think is currently POV about this article, you have steadfastly refused. I will remove the tag. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

However I will restore the tag if TG will actually say what he thinks is currently POV about this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. The lead has been discussed and the current version is the consensus version. Adding the POV tag because of the lead violates WP:POINT and is certainly an issue of WP:STICK. TopGun, just drop this issue unless you have other concerns regarding POV in other parts of the article.--v/r - TP 21:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That is funny... getting a consensus between the same editors who I was working with and then only one editor responding with a no and actually refusing to discuss it himself. This is not WP:POINT rather WP:NINJA. It was not like I participated in that discussion to get a consensus which I'm now disputing. I joined in the end where no further attempts of a proper discussion were made by any one other than me. So I said I'd wait for the RFC which might simply kill the debate. How does the dispute get stale? DS, I've told you what I dispute... source says that Pakistan has always denied the Taliban support (and I don't care if they actually supported or not) and the lede is saying the opposite. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

All major reliable sources state as matter of fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban pre-9/11. If you wanna go by what the sources say, that's it. JCAla (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this will clear this up... is that what I dispute? No. Sources say Pakistan supported... and it has been mentioned as such. A source also says that Pakistan denied (before 2001) and that is not in the article. This is the dispute. Not the actual support. Currently the article states (on Pakistan's behalf) that it dropped all the support after 9/11 which shouts that Pakistan agrees on supporting before. This is pure WP:SYNTH. A source that actually alleges Pakistan of all this also cites Pakistan's denial before 9/11. The lede should read Pakistan claims to have 'never' supported Taliban (not a fact.. this is a dispute about Pakistan's claim). --lTopGunl (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no sources which say Pakistan denied aiding the Taliban before 9/11. Per WP:NPOV in fact we ought not mention their denials at all. I see three editors here saying you are wrong, so admit you are wrong over the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs)

I've given you this source before. Your denial about the source or even the dispute is getting irritating: "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite."[23]. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That source says nothing about support before 9/11 you also, as you have been told quite often, not use a source by cherry picking one line form it, you may add Pakistan denied if you wish, but I will then add the reality was quite the opposite per the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to include that Pakistan says it "never" supported the Taliban, you have to include "although the opposite was true." (per source) I guess the main problem here is that you want to give equal weight to 1) what a majority of reliable sources says and 2) what you say some Pakistani officials might deny or allege which does not even qualify as a minority position since other Pakistani officials back up the majority position among reliable sources. JCAla (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"But the opposite is true" is already explained in the allegations already present. We can not state the author's believe in WP:TRUTH as a fact. I guess the author is already included in the many attributions already attached to the allegations. And this does qualify as both minority position as well as Pakistan's view. Remember this is about Pakistan's claim. Is there a source which says Pakistan agreed on supporting Taliban before 9/11? Because the article is currently stating such. If you provide such, it will kill the debate. But currently it is WP:SYNTH. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Musharraf Pervez In the line of fire: a memoir Simon and Schuster pp209 "When we sided with the Taliban it was for good reasons" If the former president of Pakistan admits it then so can you. I believe this kills the debate. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Also, the sentence now in the lead does not reflect that this is matter of fact not simply an allegation. "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban." should be transformend into "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military provided support to the Taliban." JCAla (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No it does not... is there an explanation of the term 'sided' here? Is that being said in the sense of recognizing them as a government? (that is already mentioned in the article) or is that saying they gave some kind of support? If the latter is being said, then again this is a statement from a biography... unofficial. It certainly can not be added as Pakistan's claim. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it does say it as a matter of fact. You drop something you previously support. Did Pakistan say it 'dropped' the support? I presented a source saying they did not support before either. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you presented a source which described Pakistani claims during that time, which have been revised by Musharraf himself. You did not provide one single source which states as matter of fact, 'Pakistan did not support the Taliban pre-9/11'. JCAla (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

When we sided with the Taliban, it was for good reasons: first, that they would bring peace to Afghanistan by bringing the warlords to heel; second, that the success of the Taliban would spell the defeat of the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance.

So yes, it kills the debate, you asked for a source and got it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban." [24]. This is the official denial. Musharaf's autobiography is his own views. Again... don't make it about the actual support which has already been handled in previous discussions. This is about the denial of support that Pakistan made. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(ecx3)From your source. This new release comes just days after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, acknowledged that, "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil. "for Pakistan, a Taliban-based government in Kabul would be as good as it can get in Afghanistan," And DO NOT CHERRY PICK STATEMENTS Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban , but the newly-released documents report that in the weeks following the Taliban takeover of Kabul in 1996, Pakistan's intelligence agency was "supplying the Taliban forces with munitions, fuel, and food." Pakistan's Interservice Intelligence Directorate was "using a private sector transportation company to funnel supplies into Afghanistan and to the Taliban forces." Darkness Shines (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides what DS mentioned, 1) your 2007 citation is about "military support" not "support" as is currently in the article. 2) Tell me who was Pakistan's leader (and thus "Islamabad") in 2007, when what you quoted was written? Pervez Musharraf. The same Musharraf who now says, 'Yes, we sided with the Taliban in order to defeat the Northern Alliance'. JCAla (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is that cherry picking when I'm not even debating the actual support. For this exact reason I mentioned not to make it about that. I'm citing Pakistan's denial not whether it was the truth or not (the details about actual support have already been added as per many many discussions on this topic). Here you have two sources saying that Pakistan denies the support with one clearly stating it as official view, and you are continuing to put on Musharaf's views on top of it. So just like JCAla said that my previous source was 'revised by Musharaf's (views)... this can be considered revised again. But then again... Musharaf never said Pakistani military provided any support. From what ever you've provided, such can not be implied. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And the sentence in the lede is about the support from the military as well. This is completely in context. And just per your logic.. see my last comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Musharraf was Islamabad, so don't portray him as some kind of private person whose statements are irrelevant. Nevertheless, I understand what you are saying. The question now is, does the denial at that time (which has been revised and thereby rendered largely irrelevant by then Pakistani military ruler himself) merit a mention in the lead or is it better placed in the article body? Although, what light does it shed on Pakistan's current denial of not supporting the Taliban post-9/11 if the previous denial turned out that wrong. From your point of view, I don't know, if I'd even like to have that in the article. BTW, the lead mentions support by the military not military support. JCAla (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not portray him as 'any' individual rather pointed out the difference between when the sources say Islamabad (read Pakistan) and an autobiography by the president. Anyway, we finally have the right discussion. The denial has not been rendered irrelevant by Musharaf since it was repeated after his statement as DS pointed out. It is completely per the source to say Pakistan denies of ever providing military support to Taliban. Presenting just as the source says will kill the debate. Also please do not move comments around. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Were the hell did I write such a thing? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"This new release comes just days after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, acknowledged that," --lTopGunl (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OMFG, that is talking about the document release, not the Pakistani denial. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I referred to. The denial was after the statement made by Musharaf. In anycase... the denial states 'denies that it ever provided'. Stands for all times. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that the source you gave went and asked the Pakistani government if they have supported the Taliban on the day of this release? I doubt that very much as the denial is in fact not attributed to anyone in your source, it is just a generic "weren't me". You have no way to prove that denial was taken from before or after Musharraf made his statement. But worst of all, the source is from 2007. You wish to give equal weight to an unattributed statement over modern scholarly works? I added new sources today from 2011 from academic publishers which say your mob supported the Taliban, so don't even try and use a throwaway statement to discount those. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘My mob? Really? back on the personal attacks? How does a source become less reliable because it was not released today? An autobiography is not a scholarly source. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sick of this, I added new sources today from 2011 from academic publishers Were does it say autobiography? I added them to the RFC. Saying your mob is no different to saying your country, it is not a PA. Stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. It is a historical fact that the ISI aided the Taliban, the sheer number of academic sources actually show an academic consensus on this as there are no, and I mean NO, academic sources which dispute it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't understand the dispute read my comments again. The dispute is about Pakistani denial while you are debating on whether they supported or not. That is why it is a waste of time. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"From 1995 to 2001, Pakistan provided direct military combat support to the Taliban engaging an estimated 30,000 Pakistani regular army troops and madrassa militants in the war against anti-Taliban forces. It further provided logistical, financial and political support to the Taliban. Although Pakistan's then President Musharraf acknowledged that Pakistan sided with and provided support to the Taliban, Islamabad officially has maintained a policy of denial with regards to providing direct military support." => factual accuracy (per sources) JCAla (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, I think we were over with the 'military support'? Are we going back into that discussion again? Haven't we wasted enough time to resolve that? Now to add this denial we reverse all those efforts? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, yes, of course. Their denial is with regards to direct military support. They acknowledge support. So if you want to add the denial, of course, you first have to point out what is the accusation. JCAla (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

DS, what does your 2011 source say? JCAla (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The same as all the others, their are no deviation in the sources, all say the ISI aided the Taliban, to deny it is insane. I will give you quotes if you wish. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We're done with that... it will be counter productive to get back to that debate. Simply change "claims to have dropped all support" to "denies the claims". Do you say that is incorrect? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

DS, I mean with regards to Pakistan's position on the matter, do they say something about that? TopGun, but then President of Pakistan Musharraf himself does not deny general support. What is being denied is the direct military support. JCAla (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So finally you agree on my point what 'sided' may imply here, lest TParis think that I'm wikilawyering over it. There are contradicting sources... but one clearly attributes the view to Islamabad (read Pakistan) and other is a statement by the president in his autobiography (that too not saying military support). The sentence in lead says Pakistan military supported it. This is being denied. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not. None of the sources entertain the notion that Pakistan did not aid the Taliban, all the source say they did. The only academic sources (two which I found in a desperate quest to try and placate TG) say Pakistan has denied support since 9/11, not one source has mentioned denials from before then. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, TopGun. Musharraf at that time denied direct military support in the sense of i. e. Pak air force bombing Herat or regular Pak army soldiers and generals being involved in the offensives against Taloqan or Panjshir, all described in a majority of reliable sources. What Musharraf does not deny however is that the Pakistani military establishment provided general support to the Taliban. There is a difference between a country led by a military establishment providing general support and "direct military support" in the sense of combat support. That is why I am saying to you, if you want to add the denial, you first have to mention what is the accusation that is being denied. The fact that Pakistan's ISI and military provided support to and sided with the Taliban up until 9/11 is not being denied anymore. JCAla (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What you just described was a military attack and not military support. Military support includes provision of equipment. I think you can agree to this if you rethink. Do you have a source which says that Pakistan does not deny this any more? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A military attack and combat support troops are direct military support. Read again: "When we sided with the Taliban, it was for good reasons: ... that the success of the Taliban would spell the defeat of the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance." (Pervez Musharraf) He, Pakistan's military ruler and during that time Chief of Army Staff, explicitly says, Pakistan's military sided with the Taliban to defeat anti-Taliban forces. Thus, "Pakistan's ISI and military provided support to the Taliban" is correct. JCAla (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This was the quote, right?

"When we sided with the Taliban, it was for good reasons: first, that they would bring peace to Afghanistan by bringing the warlords to heel; second, that the success of the Taliban would spell the defeat of the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance."

It doesn't say the military sided (or did I miss something)? Do you mean to say that since Musharaf was a military ruler his saying that "we sided with Taliban for good reasons" means that he means the military sided with Taliban (given that he was also the president and it can simply mean recognition)? This will be unambiguous WP:SYNTH in that case; implying military from Musharaf. On the other hand you do agree (well there's a source) that a source says Islamabad denies of providing military support ever. Now what are Pakistan's actual claims... this is the dispute here. There's no source in which Pakistan has stated military support for Taliban, or have you found one? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Section break

I think everyone will agree that "sided in order to defeat" does not equal "recognizing". I think you missed my previous point. The lead does not talk about "military support". It talks about Pakistan's ISI and military providing support. We solved that issue in a prior discussion with TP and DS in which we agreed to say "Pakistan's ISI and military" instead of "Pakistan" as the military establishment is in charge of Pakistan. And at that time Musharraf was Army Chief of Staff. JCAla (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And I'm not saying that it does (rather a possible understanding regardless of whether I assert it or not), it does not state about the military support either (which is my point) and is in another source unambiguously denied. I don't think the article says military is incharge of Pakistan (though it implies that in that time period military was incharge of Pakistan)... but I think you do get my point. At best possible explanation for your concept, we will still have a contradiction in the sources with one denying and then Musharaf's statement. Which one should then be the right statement? If we look at it impartially Musharaf does not state military support explicitly while the source I provided does deny it explicitly... see what I mean? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

1. The lede currently does not say "military support" but support provided by the military establishment.
2. Pakistan's military ruler Musharraf himself admitted to "siding" with the Taliban in order "to defeat" anti-Taliban forces.
3. In 1996, "The Pakistan government's then Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar reportedly justified Pakistan's crucial backing for the militia with the claim that "our boys" (Taliban) were protecting Pakistani "interests". Pakistan's diplomatic machinery especially its representative at the UN was instructed to persistently deny any Pakistani role in the militia's victories." (Pakistan and the emergence of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan)

=> The most high-ranking Pakistani officials have admitted to supporting "our boys" (the Taliban) in order "to defeat" others up until 9/11. Meanwhile what you keep quoting as denial has been described by reliable sources as an explicit but known (seen through) "official policy of denial" during that time.

JCAla (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

How true is that

Although publicly maintaining a policy of denial of any support for the Taliban, her government expanded its logistic and military assistance to the militia, as was subsequently confirmed by hundreds of Pakistani officers, troopers and volunteers who were captured by anti Taliban forces (2006)Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival pp224 I.B.Tauris

Darkness Shines (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sandy Gall (in "War Against the Taliban"): "The Taliban wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes without Pakistan."[25]
• Of general interest: "One (Pakistani) MP recently said to the head of the ISI, 'You could end this war in a month if you wanted to'."[26]

JCAla (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of interesting stuff in that book, shall have to buy it. This caught my eye, "If anyone rejects that the ISI backs or controls the Taliban, they have a mental problem" pp311 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

DS, you are back to the initial misconception, this debate is not about rejecting the support as a fact. It is about the stated point of view of the alleged party. Do not give any arguments about that again because that is not being discussed here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We already have the view of Pakistan in the article and in the lede, hell even in my proposed content above their denials are present. You are trying to give undue weight to want is essentially a fringe theory. How many times do you want us to write "Pakistan Denies"? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did you see me asking for repeated mentions of that in the lede? --lTopGunl (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, I get your point about the denial being controversial but even you agree here that it was at least the official denial... now without altering anything else, how do you suggest to put it in a way that the word "dropped" (which as I explained, miss represents the official position) should be replaced by something impartial? What about simply removing "dropped" so that we do not go into the controversial details in the lede. "Since 9/11 Pakistan has denied all allegations of support"? --lTopGunl (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That is already in the lede Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the group since 9/11 Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, dropped implies previous agreement which has contradicting claims just above, it will take us back to the debate above to decide the actual stated position by Pakistan before 9/11. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Again with the undue weight? OK how about this. Pakistan has a policy of denial regarding their support tho Taliban(ref) Since 9/11 Pakistan has continued with this policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Other than the fact that this will look sarcastic (which will be worse than the current text), it is also changing the whole structure (keep in mind the rest was brought to conclusion with much care, we don't want to change that). Removing 'dropped' seemed to be a better idea to me, but let's see what JCAla has to say. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(out)If we do that we need to change a few things around, text currently is Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today, but Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the group since 9/11 But you would prefer it to read as Since 9/11 Pakistan has denied all allegations of support We would need to remove the following to do this Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today Which I am OK with as it can go into the body. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I can agree to that since that will kill the above debate, but note that there are strong denials about the post 2001 support and there is already a larger consensus from WP:NPOVN that it can not be stated as a fact that Pakistan currently (read after 2001) supports Taliban - so should be added with attribution (which I guess it is) and with appropriate denials inline per that consensus. So I suggest adding this to the end of Pakistani military section in the body: "Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today^(citations) while Pakistan vigorously denies these claims.^{(BBC report denial citation)}" --lTopGunl (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you recall all that content you reverted out? That is already in there, look at the end of my proposed content in the RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not discussing all that content here. I just explicitly stated about this line I suggested as you pointed out. Let that content be discussed in the RFC where it belongs. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am proposing this as a concise and factually accurate compromise:

From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military provided vital support to the Taliban in their war against anti-Taliban forces while maintaining an official policy of denial. Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today, but Pakistan strongly denies this claim.

JCAla (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume your suggestion in good faith but we need to remember this. We can't simply state these as facts. Let me add in full what I mean and see if you agree:

From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military have been widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to Taliban. Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support Taliban today, but Pakistan strongly denies any support for the group.

This does not go in the pre 2001 debate only comes inline with the current accusation. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not again that discussion. That NPOV discussion was only with regards to post 9/11. For pre 9/11 we have Pakistan's president and interior minister admitting the support. JCAla (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any time frame limit set by the closer there. It would be wiki-lawyering to say so. But anyway, see if my suggestion fits in without discussing all that. It is attributed currently as well, so no harm done. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

On the NPOV we exclusively discussed the situation post 9/11. The closer is speaking in the present tense about current support. Your suggestion does not fit since it does not represent the sources.

1. Sources were provided that show Pakistan's president and interior minister admitting support to "our boys" in order "to defeat" anti-Taliban forces. So "widely alleged" when there is general agreement on that fact and it is explicitly stated as a matter of fact in all reliable sources is misplaced. There is not one reliable source saying: "Pakistan did not provide support to the Taliban before 9/11."
2. The second sentence should be "Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today, but Pakistan strongly denies this claim". Two times "support" is redundant.

JCAla (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this debate is not about the facts, I'll leave the discussion about NPOVN for the RFC. So your only objection to the current proposal is redundancy? Try this:

"From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military have been widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to Taliban. Many international officials have continued these allegations today, but Pakistan strongly denies any support for the group."

--lTopGunl (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, is this good or not? The below comment is wrong about it as this discussion is about Pakistani views which will still need to be corrected in the lede regardless of RFC. This one removes the mention to kill this debate. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, as their denials are only from after 9/11. The way you have written it makes it appear as if they have always done so. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is present tense; "denies". Cant be mistaken. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to forget the politicians who have already admitted support for the Taliban for the period before 9/11. These admissions make any denial from before then (though you have yet to provide one) of no use. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Look at it both ways, 1) I also provided references where there was denial. As such there are contradictions and my current suggestion will avoid this never ending discussion about which one is correct (let's not even discuss that as current suggestion was made to avoid this), 2) In any case, Pakistan doesn't say it dropped the support, it says "it does not support". We can not modify that statement either. This one simply by passes the debate. Tell me If there are any objections with the statement itself. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The Pakistani denials are only from after 9/11 so there is nothing wrong with saying they have dropped support since then. The academic sources I have used in the content which is about to go back in are quite explicit in saying this. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no source that says Pakistan's claim is to have dropped the support. All of them point to denials (there is a difference, Pakistan does not officially agree on supporting them before either). See WP:SYNTH. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf instantly dropped support for the Taliban and quietly allowed the United States to use its territory to prepare for the assault on the Taliban and al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan World Regional Geography pp303 Cengage. No source says this then? And as two Pakistani politicians have said they have supported them before your argument is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not again. How many times will I have to say this debate is about what Pakistan said and not what was actually happening? You've quoted it being stated as fact, not Pakistan stating it that way. And "Pakistani politicians is a weasel word, and certainly not an official statement. There's a direct reference I provided above which states "Islamabad denied". And here I am trying to by pass this debate while you are spiraling back into it. If we remove 'dropped' we wont need to be having this debate. You've not presented a source that says according to Pakistan (official statement) the support was dropped. About the previous support being acknowledged, there are contradicting statements about that too as explained. Let me make it simple, the current sentence is attributing incorrect opinion to Pakistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Who care's what Pakistan says? Given they have an official policy of denial then what they say carries no WP:WEIGHT. It is a fringe view, or are you of the opinion that the article of the Nazi Invasion of Poland should say they only acted in self defense as the Polish attacked first? Which was the German narrative I believe. Fringe views get only a mention, so the content can stay as it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And if a Pakistani newspaper can admit to the truth then so can you Much of the Kabul administration in turn detests Pakistan because of its confirmed past and alleged present links with the Taliban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs)

I don't care if they supported it them in real. And I have no trouble in accepting that. But have you even read my comment? If you don't care what Pakistan has to say, do not present their opinion incorrectly. Rather don't state that disputed opinion. Current denial is per weight. But if you don't care what they have to say, don't add the pre 2001 denial. "Dropped the support" is not what Pakistan states. That is WP:OR. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not OR as it is referenced. I gave you another a moment ago. I recommend you actually read WP:OR There are no original research here.Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are references for both Pakistani politicians acknowledging and denying the support, and I've added a reference for the official position which denies. Currently Pakistan denies any support for Taliban, there is no reference that says according to Pakistan, Pakistan dropped the support. This is synthesis of given sources which is original research. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I just gave you a source which says exactly what you are denying? Since 9/11 Pakistan has dropped all support for the Taliban, it is right there above you, you even responded to it. What he hell are you going on about? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You are making me doubt whether you actually do not get my point or are doing this on purpose. Your source says Pakistan supported Taliban in the past, not that it agreed it did. In the lede you are saying that Pakistan even agreed that it supported. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course Pakistan agreed to help them in the past. otherwise they would not have. You are making little to no sense here. It is a historic fact per the words of Pakistan's own politicians that they supported the Taliban in the past. All reputable scholarship says Pakistan helped the Taliban in the past Therefore the article will reflect the majority view of the worlds scholars, politicians, newspapers and so on. Now do you get it? What Pakistan says does not matter, it is irrelevant. It is a fringe view of the world and as such is given no weight. The world is not flat, the US did not conduct 9/11. The ISI and Pakistan helped the Taliban. I can not really be any clearer than this. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As there is now an obvious consensus in the RFC for inclusion of my proposal this talk of attribution is moot. TG has constantly said the whole attribution thing rested on the outcome of the RFC. So lets just write a factual, well researched historically accurate article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't agree with your conclusions of the RFC. If it was so obvious why would we be having an RFC, Don't waste time on discussion about discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Section break 2

You keep on swinging from Pakistan's views to real facts. Whether or not Pakistan supported Taliban is not my objection. The statement from Pakistan that "they claim to have dropped the support" is disputed by me. Whether what Pakistan says matters or not is also not of relevance here, because We are already talking about one of those things ie. what Pakistan says about it. Now you say that Pakistan's politicians accept that and there are positions on that from both side with the official position being on denial. It doesn't matter what the real facts were, you will be adding incorrect views from Pakistani government if you say "dropped" (which means they agree supporting them before). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obstructionist? Pakistan has already admitted to having helped before It does matter what the facts are. And this discussion is a waste of time as you quite simply refuse to get the point, you are being disruptive and I am getting fed up of it. And do not hat my comments ever againDarkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SHOUT. I can read your arguments without that... but they were not related to the dispute. Admitted, where? You did not give a reference for that. When I asked you for a reference you instead provided me a reference for whether or not Pakistan actually supported Taliban in the past. Musharaf's and "other politicians'" acknowledgements are well contradicted by the references I provided one of which is an official denial. You can not state Pakistan to admit such support without a reference that states Pakistan officially admitted such support. And the comments above about RFC were unrelated. All such need to get a hat. If you blame me of being disruptive because you can not (or don't want to) understand my argument or to begin with, the dispute, I will report you for incivility of which you are already on the edge. Feel free not to comment here if you don't want to, because there are other editors who will discuss this then. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

AAARGH! Listen carefully. It does not matter if the current president of Pakistan got on the TV and said "We have never supported the Taliban" As it would be an obvious lie. It does not matter if Pakistan says they have never supported them, because they have and have already admitted to it.That is all that matters. And were is this "official denial" you speak of? I have not seen a link to such. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying Pakistan admitted to it but you never give the citations which says Pakistan admits such support. Given that another uninvolved user has already told you in the RFC not to troll the debate, I don't believe you could have forgotten this [27] reference which I provided above with a quote along with this one [28]. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kindly do not infer I am trolling again, I am rapidly losing patience with you as it is. Neither of those two links are an official denial. And for the last time, It does not matter anymore if Pakistan says they have never aided the Taliban. Because their own people have said they have done so. Now drop the stick and give it up. Stop pushing a fringe POV and trying to rewrite history. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny how you say whatever they say does not matter (whenever provided with references) and yet attribute their opinion (incorrectly) and do not provide references for it. You are incapable of this discussion without personal attacks. I'll continue this with JCAla (or with any other editors). You can have the last word. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been saying all along that it does not matter. ASFANDIHAR WALI KHAN, Chief, People's National Party "Before 9/11, we were openly supporting the Taliban." "we wanted to safeguard our assets." [29] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• JCAla, good that you get the point, but "anymore" was having the same issues as dropped (understandably I hope)... I guess the current version is good. Wasn't this our previous consensus? I missed that you removed attribution... are we now going to change the previously decided version as well just to fix this one word? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Deadlocked as of 6 January: --lTopGunl (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Posted at WP:NPOVN#Pakistan's denial of Taliban support before 2001. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace

Why doesn't the lead mention Kandahar as the birthplace of the Taliban? This deserves a mention (maybe somewhere before the sentence about their current headquarters being in Quetta) Mar4d (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The birthplace of the Taliban were Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Kandahar was just the first major appearance of the Taliban as a military force. JCAla (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam was a movement that was behind the ideology. That is a completely different topic. I am talking about the birthplace of the Taliban movement (not the ideology) in the physical sense, which is Kandahar, as numerous reliable sources point out. Results on Google and Google Books indicate Kandahar as the birthplace and "bastion" of the Taliban, as well as the Taliban's spiritual and traditional homeland, heartland, stronghold, headquarters. One source describes Kandahar as Afghanistan's de facto capital during the Taliban regime.... which contained much of the movement's support base. [30] This city is more important to the Taliban than any other city. It's therefore odd that the lead makes mention of the Taliban regrouping in Quetta (a WP:RECENTISM) while ignoring the history which is associated with Kandahar. Mar4d (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the reliable source provided by DS says, in the beginning (when the Taliban made their first miltiary appearance in Kandahar) the Taliban numbered in the hundreds, were badly equipped and low on munitions. Within months however 15,000 Afghan Taliban students arrived from the madrassas in Pakistan. So, where did they come from? What was their movement? Kandahar -> madrassas or rather madrassas -> Kandahar? Of course Kandahar is important to the Taliban, there is no question about that, but Kandahar is not their spiritual birthplace just the place of their first military operation. Now, Quetta, of course, is their current headquarters and safe haven from where senior Taliban leaders launch their insurgency campaign undisturbed. JCAla (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Kandahar was a hub of the Taliban. It's where the Taliban were headquartered. As the source I pointed above says, it was the de facto capital city of Afghanistan under Taliban. Regarding it being a spiritual birthplace, there are enough reliable sources to support this [31]. Therefore, I will reiterate again that if the lead mentions Quetta, it should also mention Kandahar which has been a prominent Taliban hub. Mar4d (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If the lead mentions Kandahar it should also mention the madrassas as there are similarly reliable sources to support this. JCAla (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the lead already makes a mention of Taliban ideology (see the sentence Most Taliban leaders were influenced by Deobandi fundamentalism..), so there's really no point in adding repetition of their ideology/education again. Mar4d (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Kandahar is considered the "birthplace" of the Taliban due to it being the historical capital of the Pushtuns and were Mullah Omar came from. The fact that reinforcements came from Pakistan or any other country is beside the point. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So do you agree with me that a sentence on Kandahar needs to be put in the lead? Mar4d (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I really do not know, it probably ought to be mentioned, but the lede has again become quite bloated. I assume you just want a singe line? Say, Kandahar is considered the birthplace of the Taliban Sourced to Harvard Darkness Shines (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. Mar4d (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, [32] but I tink it looks silly. How about changing Taliban to group or organization? Taliban is used far to much really. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• It does indeed matter. The Taliban movement originates from the madrassas. And I would appreciate if the next time people would wait for this discussion to reach a conclusion. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The following and many more academic sources describe: "The Taliban trace their origins back to refugee camps run for Afghans in Pakistan by the Jamiat-e Ulama-i Islami, a Pakistani Islamist political party ... the JUI madrassas and relief network on the Pakistani side of the border remained, eventually giving birth to the Taliban in 1994." JCAla (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion was pretty much settled above. We don't have to add everything in lede, The city however deserves a mention. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• @JCAla: Again, you fail to understand my point. The argument is about mentioning Kandahar, a Taliban headquarter and a place which is the Taliban's homeland, in the lead which was correctly done by DS until you reverted. This is not about ideology. This has already been elaborated upon in the second paragraph which clearly states that the Taliban follow a Deobandi school of thought. The Taliban's homeland, headquarter and strategic stronghold is Kandahar, not Afghan refugee camps and madrassas. Hopefully, I have clarified this in clear terms now. I am not looking forward to edit wars. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The lede is too long for adding background story of every thing that gets a mention. The current mention of this is just enough per WP:WEIGHT. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

TG, do not claim a consensus were none exists. I already said I was unsure of this inclusion. I think if it is just going to lead to massive arguments then the lot belongs in the body. I am trying to rewrite this article so it is historically correct, it is not possible to do this with arguments over such minor details which can be explained in the body of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just to put forward what I said previously: Kandahar is the homeland and the historical headquarters of the Taliban. My question to you: What do you dispute in this? Mar4d (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What ever your doubts were, I see that you two were agreed upon it (obviously it was added by you). And my revert means that I agree with it. That is called consensus. Yes, you are trying to rewrite this article, but when there are objections you can't just skip to discuss even if it is a minor point. The topic is contentious, it will take time. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Man, the Taliban originate and were created in the madrassas but their first military action and Afghan headquarters (at least until 9/11) were Kandahar. Either both should be mentioned for weight or none in order to not make the lead too long. And you guys (TG and Mar4d) are again engaging in an edit war. JCAla (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason why either both should be mentioned or excluded together. Kandahar sure has more weight as it was the head quarters. The rest should be in body with due consensus. I made a single edit, it is not editwar. Infact you shouldn't have reverted the second time (that is editwar). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't revert a second time. Yes, Kandahar was the headquarters inside Afghanistan but not the origin or birthplace of the movement.

1. The Taliban seized Kandahar on 5 November 1994.
2. The Afghanistan wars By William Maley: "On 29 October 1994, a convoy of trucks, including a notorious ISI officer, Sultan Amir (known by the nom de guerre 'Colonel Imam'), and two figures who were later to become prominent Taliban leaders, entered Afghanistan. The convoy was held up by a group of commanders on 2 November. The very next day, a group of Taliban, well armed with weapons obtained from the Pasha arms depot on 12 October, miraculously materialized to free the convoy. They then moved on to Kandahar city, and spread outward from there. While key figures in the Taliban were Afghans ... it was ultimately not a manifestation of resurgent Afghan tradition, but rather an example of 'creeping invasion'. Creeping invasion occurs when a middle power uses force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, but covertly and through surrogates, denying all the while that it is doing any such thing ..."

Tell me what can we observe in that timeline of events? JCAla (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)