Jump to content

Talk:Taliban

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hydralon (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 3 June 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Disruptive editing

As this diff shows, there is no difference between the 26 January 2022 and 25 February 2022 versions, for reference the editor before the bot was Arnhem555. @Arnhem555: please stop disrupting this article by simply reverting to your preferred version, otherwise I will be asking for admin intervention. FDW777 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who the fuck says Iran is allied with taliban?

The Taliban. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] To my knowledge, the Taliban have always denied receiving any external military support, although (needless to say) this should not be taken at face value. (That said, Jo1971's sources appear to be solid.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Antonio Giustozzi writes the majority of his study is based on oral sources and in this case, the Taliban themselves.
Giustozzi, Antonio (2019). The Taliban at War, 2001–2018. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-19-009239-9.

In interviews, Taliban members, intelligence operatives, and diplomatic and military sources confirmed that support, or part thereof, also accrued in large quantities from the Arab Gulf countries and Iran for several years.

--Jo1971 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar issue with allegations of China's "support" for Taliban,
Sources are all non-peer reviewed news articles:-
1. DW.com expresses, quote: "US intelligence officials briefed President Donald Trump on alleged findings that China has offered money to non-state actors in Afghanistan to attack US troops, news site Axios and TV network CNN reported Wednesday." - original sources from Axios and CNN, a US-based news media outlet. Axios has not confirmed if the sources are verified. Equating to speculation and rumour, not fact.
2. ABC 7 News, a US-based news media outlet, quote: "The Trump administration is declassifying intelligence, so far unconfirmed, that indicates China offered bounties to non-state actors to attack American soldiers in Afghanistan, according to a senior administration official." Again speculation/rumour developed by an administration official without verification from a third-party member.
Both new outlets have not confirmed, since 2020, these claims are accurate or verified by a organisation that operates independently from a US narrative. E.G. European, Oceanic cross-verification.
Request: Omit entry of country 'China' from summary table subtitled 'Allies'.
1.0 Comment provided '(alleged by the US, but denied by China)' is inaccurate, sources do not match this note.
1.1 What manifests 'the US', is this the government? If so, is this the current government or the administration in office when the articles were published?
1.2 Has China officially denied involvement and/or support for Taliban? Bracketed note states China has 'clearly' denied this. If the sources were verified, an official press release from China would have stated this (or denied it).
A fair note to the editors of this change; please use peer-assessed, verified sources before publishing. This page raises doubts and creditability when adding speculative references as source material. ZhenWan (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"To my knowledge, the Taliban have always denied receiving any external military support, although (needless to say) this should not be taken at face value." TheTimesAreAChanging
but we should take everything at face value from UN and DW and each and every western source?
I stated it before and will just paste my comment;
This article with many others rely heavily on western sources/writers/academics/intellectuals. You will see this article in line with western narrative of how things were in Afghanistan. For example; on one hand, America with NATO had all the technological might and superiority, and had full control of the airspace of Afghanistan for almost 20 years. Yet, with all this technology, they could not detect a suspicious movement? how did anti-tank missiles and rockets were moved from one place to the other without Americans or NATO knowing? They could just release the satellite or drone footage to support their claim. As they claim, we lost because of Pakistan. What?? Pakistan was your ally in this war, you held several bases in Pakistan at one point. US embassy in Pakistan is one the largest US embassy in the world. Military officials and intelligence personnel reside there. Plus it has consulates in 3 different Pakistani cities. Still, they still could not stop Pakistan or produce any proof of Pakistan's support?
I left this article a long time ago. It's filled with propaganda by western writers.
Jawadjee7 (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

Who said that Iran and china are lies with taliban?with what kind of sources you are making the country so openly saying that Iran is Allie of taliban?this article is sooooooo biasedquicly delete these claims or bring some strong references for such a big claims.Simsala111 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can check out the references specified in the article or see for instance, these sources...
Giustozzi, Antonio (2019). The Taliban at War, 2001–2018. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-19-009239-9.

According to Taliban officials in Iran (tasked with keeping track of the money), the financial support provided by the Iranians over the years is as follows (excluding weapons and supplies):
* 2006: $30 million;
* 2007: $30 million;
* 2008: $40 million;
* 2009: $40 million;
* 2010: $60 million;
* 2011: $80 million;
* 2012: $160 million;
* 2013: $190 million.

pp. 153–154

By 2014–15 the Iranian government delivered 120mm mortars and a limited number of anti-tank missiles and rockets to loyal Taliban groups. During this time the Peshawar Shura bought a few 120mm mortars on the black markets of Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. After 2010 the Taliban obtained a considerable number of Iranian copies of the Soviet Dragunov precision rifle and smaller quantities of the Daraskov long range, 14.5mm heavy rifle. Increasingly, sharpshooters have been procuring modern weapons with advanced optical equipment, such as the AK-74, M16 and M4. The Iranians also delivered their long-range Shaher precision rifles.

Malkasian, Carter (2021). The American War in Afghanistan: A History. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 427. ISBN 978-0-19-755077-9.

Internationally, the Taliban were receiving unprecedented support. Iran had grown into a major patron, challenging Pakistan’s influence. Iranian financial assistance to the Taliban rose from minor levels during 2006–2011 to exceed $100 million per year after 2012 and roughly match Pakistan. Iran invited the Taliban to open an office in the western city of Mashad. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) quietly increased its military assistance to the Taliban, especially in Helmand and Farah. They provided night vision devices, sights, drones, and other sophisticated equipment to Mullah Manan in Helmand and taught his men how to use them.

...and here or here. --Jo1971 (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article with many others rely heavily on western sources/writers/academics/intellectuals. You will see this article in line with western narrative of how things were in Afghanistan. For example; on one hand, America with NATO had all the technological might and superiority, and had full control of the airspace of Afghanistan for almost 20 years. Yet, with all this technology, they could not detect a suspicious movement? how did anti-tank missiles and rockets were moved from one place to the other without Americans or NATO knowing? They could just release the satellite or drone footage to support their claim. As they claim, we lost because of Pakistan. What?? Pakistan was your ally in this war, you held several bases in Pakistan at one point. US embassy in Pakistan is one the largest US embassy in the world. Military officials and intelligence personnel reside there. Plus it has consulates in 3 different Pakistani cities. Still, they still could not stop Pakistan or produce any proof of Pakistan's support?
I left this article a long time ago. It's filled with propaganda by western writers. Jawadjee7 (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted information above is based on interviews with Taliban officials. As far as I know, the Taliban are no "Western sources/writers/academics/intellectuals". Jo1971 (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sure thing... "According to Taliban officials in Iran (tasked with keeping track of the money)" who? do they not have names? which city or area in Iran? did Iran said something about these "Taliban officials" who were allegedly "tasked with keeping track of the money" . This is some Hollywood type of thing going on here.
Allow me to shed some light on writer of book "The Taliban at War". Antonio Giustozzi is a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute. Royal United Services Institutes is a British security think tank which directly ties this institute to UK government/intelligence agencies/military personnel. Nothing suspicious! How many times did he went to Afghanistan to meet "Taliban officials"? or did he went to Iran to meet "Taliban Officials"? Was he sitting in his cosy apartment when speaking to these "Taliban Officials", in London?
"He can't reveal his sources" I hear you say... Which means, it didn't happen. Simple as that. Jawadjee7 (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban = sexism

Is the following equation in dispute?

Taliban = sexism

? If not, why was the insertion of "sexism" removed.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, they distort the Sharia, and base their laws on those distorted principles, so its not limited to sexism 108.49.190.94 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They don't distort it. They implement it as it is. EditMaker Me (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 education policy

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Regarding this rv, I don't think the reasons are sufficient. Your summary said,

It's misleading to say "corrected according to source" and to then introduce information not found in the original cited source, but rather taken from an entirely different source. Regardless, this revision leans too heavily on the Taliban's spin that girls's high schools will "imminently" reopen or that six months was simply not enough time to consider the dress code. If/when the schools do in fact reopen, we can update the article at that time.

Nowhere did I write or imply "imminently", whatever coming out of the Taliban I already attributed to Rayan, and the dress code issue had already existed in the original version before my edit.

Original: In March 2022, the Taliban abruptly reversed plans to allow girls to resume secondary school education (defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan). With the exception of the current cohort of university students, this decision leaves graduating from sixth grade as the highest level of educational attainment possible for Afghan women. Secondary schools for boys reopened on schedule. A statement from the ministry of education cited the lack of an acceptable school uniform for female high school students.
Mine: In March 2022, Ministry of Education spokesman Aziz Ahmad Rayan said that schools would open for boys and girls, on the condition that the latter would be separated from males and be taught by female teachers only where available. However, when schools re-opened, the girls were turned away, with Rayan citing lack of an acceptable design for female uniforms.

One problem with the original version was that it mentioned "reversed plans" without describing what plans there had been previously, if any. Also, "(defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan). With the exception of the current cohort of university students, this decision leaves graduating from sixth grade as the highest level of educational attainment possible for Afghan women" appears to be OR or at least uncited. So I added the previous plan and rm the questionable parts after reviewing the sources WashPo and Reuters, thus correcting the passage. CurryCity (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your analysis is incorrect. "One problem with the original version was that it mentioned 'reversed plans' without describing what plans there had been previously, if any." To the contrary, the original version clearly states "the Taliban abruptly reversed plans to allow girls to resume secondary school education (defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan)" [emphasis added], as you yourself quoted above. The rest of your objection seems to be rooted in a failure to consider the context of the preceding two paragraphs in the "2021-present education policy" sub-section. Notably, your version completely obscures the fact that girls have already resumed primary school education in many places throughout Afghanistan, and some young women have even resumed college education, notably in Kabul University (which is under the control of the Ministry of Higher Education rather than the Ministry of Education). It seems clear that there are divisions within the Taliban that have led to these shifting and at times contradictory proclamations on the subject of educating females, but your proposed revision simply replaces all of the relevant context with one particular rationale cited by a Ministry of Education spokesman. As a result, it might actually confuse readers into thinking that girls were turned away from primary school, even though WaPo repeatedly indicates that it is referring specifically to secondary or high school students: "Despite pledging to allow girls of all ages to attend classes when schools reopened this week, the Taliban's Education Ministry issued a last-minute reversal that banned girls beyond the sixth grade from returning. ... The Taliban banned girls from education beyond elementary school in most of the Afghan territory it controlled before taking over the entire country last year. ... Since taking control of Afghanistan, the group has issued vague statements when asked about the future of education for girls and women, especially beyond elementary school. Generally, Afghan students are 13 when they enter secondary school in the seventh grade. ... Noorullah Stanakzai, 45, of Logar province, had been informed that all his daughters could return to school Wednesday but that those in seventh grade and beyond would be required to wear a head-to-toe covering, gloves and black shoes. Despite wearing the new uniform, he said, the girls were sent home. ... Sixth is now the highest grade girls may attend. ... In a sixth-grade classroom at Ayesha Durkhanai girls' school in Kabul on Wednesday, nearly all the students raised their hands when asked if they had an older sister barred from attending classes." For these reasons, I cannot consider your edit to be an improvement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just add secondary in front of "schools" in my edit then. The original version didn't describe the plan which was for both boys and girls with conditions for the latter. A lot of the unsourced parts in the original should still be removed. Your undo was undue. CurryCity (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Reuters source is simply outdated, as it quotes the education ministry spokesman saying on March 17 that "The Taliban will allow girls around Afghanistan to return to class when high schools open next week," when we now know that the girls were in fact turned away on March 23. Leading with Reuters over the March 23 WaPo source thus seems like an odd editorial choice, especially when the spokesman admitted to WaPo that the final decision "is beyond the mandate of the Education Ministry" and will ultimately be decided by the Taliban's most senior leadership—i.e., that his reassurances are not binding.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why Reuters is about the plan which was later reversed. Of course the old plan has to precede in date the reversal. CurryCity (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to lead with a (non-binding, since retracted) statement from an admittedly low-level functionary. We can briefly mention it, of course, but we should begin the paragraph by describing what happened, rather than what some spokesman said.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about this then? In March 2022, the Taliban abruptly halted plans for girls to resume secondary school education. Aziz Ahmad Rayan, spokesman of the Ministry of Education, had previously said that girls could attend if they are separated from males and taught by only female teachers where available. When the schools re-opened, however, girls were turned away, with Rayan citing the lack of an acceptable design for female uniforms." CurryCity (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the gap between revisions has narrowed, I would still have to ask in what sense your proposal is superior to the current text: "In March 2022, the Taliban abruptly reversed plans to allow girls to resume secondary school education (defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan). With the exception of the current cohort of university students, 'Sixth is now the highest grade girls may attend,' according to The Washington Post. A statement from the ministry of education cited the lack of an acceptable school uniform for female high school students." To me, the existing version is slightly more informative and less dependent on the spokesman's already-dated assertions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is "(defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan). With the exception of the current cohort of university students" from WashPost or another source? It's also wordy and not necessary to tie everything back to university. You might not think the original plan is important, but other readers might want to know what it was and how that's consistent or inconsistent with the reason Rayan later gave for halting the plan. CurryCity (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As already demonstrated, the current version does mention "the original plan"; "secondary school education (defined as grade seven and up in Afghanistan)" is directly based on WaPo's "Generally, Afghan students are 13 when they enter secondary school in the seventh grade."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't WaPo already mention 6th being the highest? We don't know what comes next, so "halt" is better than "reverse". More concisely: In March 2022, the Taliban abruptly halted plans to allow girls to resume secondary school education even when separated from males. Apart from current university students, 'sixth is now the highest grade girls may attend' according to The Washington Post. The Afghan Ministry of Education cited the lack of an acceptable design for female student uniforms. CurryCity (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to the revision proposed above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose merging Kurdish Hezbollah into Taliban. I think the content in Kurdish Hezbollah can easily be explained in the context of Taliban, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Taliban. Also they use the same flag. Hydralon (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taliban&oldid=1091342607"