The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pakistani Taliban article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Pakistani Taliban is part of WikiProject Pashtun, a project to maintain and expand Pashtun-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.PashtunWikipedia:WikiProject PashtunTemplate:WikiProject PashtunPashtun articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Requested move 11 October 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pakistani Taliban → Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan – All five criteria under WP:TITLE should be referred to when choosing to name articles appropriately. WP:COMMONNAME notes that Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. "Pakistani Taliban" isn't really the name of any organisation, but is rather just informal shorthand for the group known as Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. More significantly, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan themselves don't refer to themselves as such, and neither do the vast majority of Pakistani sources including the Urdu press. If we look at the previous move request then you can see that the user used WP:GOOGLEHITS as an argument to change the name which is not good enough to warrant the name change, because going by the same argument, a search for "Pakistani Taliban" in Urdu (پاکستانی طالبان) returns 14,600 results whereas the name "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan" (تحریک طالبان پاکستان) returns a staggering 547,000 results in comparison. To imply that it is way off the mark would be an understatement! 103.244.173.68 (talk) – Blocked for block evasion – 19:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisted.P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there03:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Support per nominator. TTP is both official and common name, since lately some western media reports referred them as Pakistani Taliban, that doesn't warrant a name change on Wikipedia. Redirects are for that purpose. It should be changed back to its official and common name. USaamo(t@lk)20:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Tehreek-e-Taliban is not the group's common name by a long shot as mountain of evidence has increasingly made it manifest. They are characterized as Pakistani Taliban by scholars and journalists alike, and such characterization is in vogue not just amongst "western media", but even amongst English dailies in Pakistan (consider the tailored Google news results from Dawn, for a name.[1] vs [2]) MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Citing searches in Urdu language is irrelevant to the discussion as this is primarily English Wikipedia and we are primarily concerned with English sources. A reasonable English speaker would be searching in English anyway. Searching for Pakistani Taliban in English in Google News shows 269,000 results while Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has 14,4000 results. A cursory look at several search pages of both terms indicates that both terms are used in reliable sources, and interchangbly (i.e. "Org X, also known as Y", etc). Furthermore, Google Trends reveals that there is a significant amount of interest on "Pakistani Taliban" as the search term, over "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan". Unless there is another organisation that claims to be or being reliably reported as "Pakistani Taliban", I don't see how this term is not the common name of the organisation in English. – robertsky (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Taliban itself has operated inside Pakistan for much of its existence, and even when it didn't, it still has a large number of Pakistani militants. "Pakistani Taliban" can refer to Pakistanis in Taliban, which is different from this article's topic. Aside from that some other Taliban-like groups in Pakistan have been called "Pakistani Taliban" even though their command structure is separate from the TTP.VRtalk14:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official name argument is misguided as Wikipedia titles are based on commonly recognizable names that predominantly occur in reliable English-language sources, and that in this case would be Pakistani Taliban, as is the case at present. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I checked up on the data, and here are my conclusions:
"pakistani taliban" as a phrase has 4,91,000 results [3], compared to 73,600 results for "tehrik-i-taliban pakistan" taken as a phrase[4]. In this scenario, for a general google search, Pakistani Taliban is the much more common name, with a ratio higher than 6:1.
A criteria better preferred by editors, however, is google news - where "tehrik-i-taliban pakistan" as a phrase has 4,600 results [5], compaared to "pakistani taliban" which as a phrase has 28,900 results [6]. Here, Pakistani Taliban is again more common, achieving a ratio of over 6:1 as well.
Further, the arguments stated in favour of the move by several editors are considered invalid per Wikipedia policy - Atleast 3, and possibly 4 editors who voted here used the fact that it was an official name to support this move - This is not recognised under Wikipedia, as explained in WP:OFFICIAL. The argument by the filing editor wrongfully cites a policy meant for deletion discussions here, to discredit google search results, which are in fact quite often used to determine the common name. The arguments about Urdu search is moot since this is not the Urdu Wikipedia and will therefore rely on english sources. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to reproduce your results. For example, you say ""pakistani taliban" which as a phrase has 28,900 results[7]". But when I click on that link it gives 15,000, not 28,900. Further, the actual number of results is much lower. There are 10 results per page, but when I click on page 17 of the results it says "Your search - "pakistani taliban" - did not match any news results", meaning there are no more than 170 results. Try visiting "https://www.google.com/search?q=%22pakistani+taliban%22&tbm=nws&start=170" (notice the "start=170"). This is a known phenomenon that is talked about at WP:HITS: "In the case of Google (and other search engines such as Bing and Yahoo!), the hit count at the top of the page is unreliable and should usually not be reported." VRtalk15:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the name change. Google search results are NOT a determining factor in outfit's name popularity. Any search result having a mention of Pakistan and let's say Afghan Taliban or any other Taliban faction (which are separate from TTP) will also come in results of Pakistani Taliban. Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan may have lower search results but it comes with precise results and represents official and common name of the outfit. WP:PRECISIONMuneebll (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a mention of various breakaway and allied factions with TTP but the issue I raised with the current name is that Taliban when used internationally is understood to be Afghan Taliban but same when used in context of Pakistan may refer to the any of militants group operating in Pakistan adhering to Salafi-Deobandi ideology. Even as per layman understanding in the country, Taliban applies to all these militant groups. So having the suggested title will precisely refer to the intended outfit. Muneebll (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: A late suggestion to drop the "Pakistan" entirely in the suggested target just appeared. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Muneeb does not seem to have understood what my google search data suggests - When using quotations, searches are limited to exact phrases . Therefore, the results are not for articles with "Pakistan" and "taliban" in them - They are for articles with "Pakistani Taliban", rendering his objection moot. The data analysis is completely valid, and as the search data suggests, the title should not be changed.
Note for CapnJackSp and any others thinking that way... the closer is unlikely to be unaware of the closing instructions, nor of their duty to assess consensus independently of the views of involved editors such as our ourselves. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I in my vote above gave valid reasons in support of suggested move. Numerical data of Google search results is not determining factor here because it's not precise and also the most of the results mention the official title either in headlines, intro or body to identify the exact outfit being talked about so why not have that title instead on Wikipedia.
Secondly current title is vague and can refer to any of Salafi-Deobandi militant group operating in the country so for that too we need a precise title and the title in suggested move happens to be official, common and precise title of the outfit. WP:PRECISEMuneebll (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist comment. Almost closed this, and if I had, my decision would have been "no consensus". Per the policy and the closing instructions that would have meant returning this article to its long-term, stable title, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (since 2008), as proposed. That title was only changed in May of this year to the current name, so consensus for the current title is not in my opinion strong enough to warrant keeping it, but I could be wrong. Decided to relist for a not-unprecedented third time, and to pass this closure to another editor, preferably a trusted and experienced admin. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there03:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:COMMONNAME would have been a solid argument for a name, except in this case "Pakistani Taliban" is ambiguous. Our policy says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The term "Pakistani Taliban" doesn't always refer to "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" (TTP).
"Pakistani Taliban" can refer to Pakistani members of the Taliban. For example, this report by Human Rights Watch uses the term "Pakistani Taliban" fighters to refer to Pakistanis being recruited into the Taliban. Or this article in The New Yorker uses the term "non-Pakistani Taliban" to refer to non-Pakistani citizens inside the Taliban. Or, from International Journal of Middle East Studies[8], "Pakistani presence among the Taliban is crucial to the identity of the Taliban, Matinuddin does not tell us how many of the Taliban fighters are Pakistani Taliban".
"Pakistani Taliban" can also refer to various Taliban-like groups in Pakistan either individually or collectively.
Individually there are many groups that have been called "Pakistani Taliban". This journal article points out that "Harkat activists are known as the Pakistani Taliban" (referring to Harkat-ul-Mujahideen). This article in The Diplomat has a byline of "Why are the Pakistani Taliban are targeting these specific groups?" to refer to attacks by the Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (the article was published in 2016, at the time the organization was still separate from TTP).
You are showing us sources that predate the very formation of Tehreek-e-Taliban when it would appear that scholars trace it to late 2007. That is muddying the waters to obfuscate issue. Same scholars write that militant groups that coalesced to form TTP called themselves Pakistani Taliban even before they formed TTP. But more importantly, they have been continued to be called as such by literally every source that has written on the group. This is including the scholars that research and write on TTP. Then too you seemed to have cherrypicked words out of context. The Stanford Mapping Militants Project[9] is maintained by its undergrad and grad students. I would strongly discourage its use given its misrepresentation of sources and variance with scholarly sources. The CNN news article it cites actually titles its article as "Who are the Pakistani Taliban?". This is referring to the TTP in the wake of its infamous Peshawar attack. It writes, Pakistani Taliban has long taken credit for an extensive list of assaults on civilians and the military in the country’s largely-ungoverned tribal areas along the Afghan border – and further afield. The banned Islamist group, which has intimate links to the Afghan Taliban..But before that, the group, formally known as Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), took the global spotlight when. The CNN is explicitly calling the group Pakistani Taliban.I scoured the Taylor & Francis specifically to crystallize the huge difference in the two terms employed by scholars for the group. Here are the results. Using the query "Pakistani Taliban" fetched 267 results with all remarkably focused on the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan group. The scholarly coverage here is overwhelming so citing one or two or even five or six articles here would be doing injustice to the overwhelming coverage on "Pakistani Taliban" for this group. Using the query "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan" fetched 27 results with not one article focused on the group. I have made a better point below[10] that a group that is never out of news could not fetch this meagre results. It is abundantly clear that there is wholesale acceptance of Pakistani Talibani as designation for TTP among the scholarly community, as all scholars writing in the wake of TTP's formation have described it as Pakistani Taliban, using the word exclusively for such designation. Orientls (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for presenting the results, they actually again show that "Pakistani Taliban" and "Tehrik-i-Taliban" are not the same thing. Lets go through the results you presented as "267 results" and go through them one by one from the very top (so that this is not cherrypicking). The very first article says "the Pakistani Taliban is not a centralized and united movement, but a decentralized movement composed of an umbrella organization, the TTP, and various local militias which seek to coordinate their activities" (emphasis added). This source believes "Pakistani Taliban" includes groups other than TTP as well. The very second article uses the term "Pakistani Taliban" to include not just the TTP but also Pakistanis inside the Afghan Taliban: "the Pakistani Taliban nurturing period was from 1994 to October 2001: Pakistan began to have Taliban forces, but mainly in the form of Pakistanis joining the Afghan Taliban movement." The very third article doesn't even mention the TTP! It uses "Pakistani Taliban" to refer to Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi. Also, the sources I presented don't all predate 2007, for example, This article in The Diplomat was using "Pakistani Taliban" to refer to non-TTP groups in 2016.VRtalk21:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you used a different spelling for the Taylor & Francis search than the one proposed in the move request: you searched for "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan", whereas the more common spelling for the first word is "Tehrik" not "Tehreek". "Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan" gives 129 results[11], "Tehrik-e-Taliban" gives 164 results[12]. These are all slight variations of the same name (just as Al-Qaeda is also commonly written as Al-Qaida).VRtalk21:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your results do not yield anything new and show only a couple germane articles on the subject wholly focused on the Pakistani Taliban. That is how the Wikipedia treats the subject as well. So if anything an accompaniment to already profuse evidence. Wikipedia already characterizes the subject as the umbrella group which is commonly referred to by its current designation. This is entering the realm of content issue and extraneous for title discussion which is based on common name. Even in such instance, no scholar says "they are not the same thing" (the Qazi article is wholly focused on the Pakistani Taliban and dwelling on it as such, whereas Qian's Understanding the Phenomena of Pakistani Taliban states TTP is one among many name used for Talibani movement in Pakistan, which going by your logic, should make it "ambiguous" title as well) that is you misrepresenting in a manner incongruent with their accounts and their invariable common usage of Pakistani Taliban. While I appreciate contrarian takes, hanging on to it by being intransigent despite evidence to the contrary and making flimsy arguments to stonewall by refusing to even acknowledge the magnitude of common usage is increasingly manifesting the invincible ignorance fallacy. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to caution against using google search results to determine WP:COMMONNAME for a few reasons. First, see caveats at WP:GOOGLETEST (I explained above how a page that reported 15,000 hits had no more than 170 links, also see WP:HITS). Second, most sites on google aren't RS. Third, hits for "Pakistani Taliban" aren't necessarily referring to the topic of this article. In fact, they might not be referring to any topic at all. For example, "Pakistani-Taliban relations" 1,700 hits is used to refer to relations between Pakistan and the Taliban.VRtalk15:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note that the article lead currently reads Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (Urdu/Pashto: تحریکِ طالبان پاکستان, lit. 'Student Movement of Pakistan', abbr. TTP), commonly known as the Pakistani Taliban (پاکستانی طالبان) which seems out of process. According to the MOS it should match the current title, which is Pakistani Taliban until and unless this move proceeds. I haven't checked to see when this was done. Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The policy requisitions the use of commonly recognizable names for article titles as determined by usage in reliable English-language sources (the IP cite the "Urdu press" but they may not meet our standards for determining common usage), and a web based search overwhelmingly illustrates the magnitude of usage of the term "Pakistani Taliban" in reliable English-language sources for the conglomerate called the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (for instance [13]; this being a topic of academic interest and frequently making the news, the sources are largely news based or scholarly in nature and thus reliable). IP's reasoning for name change that "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan themselves don't refer to themselves as such" is thus misguided and emanates from a lack of appreciation of how titles are decided on Wikipedia. Also corroborating the results from web are more tailored results on Google News from news sources ([14] vs [15]). They clearly crystallize the disproportionate difference between the two search terms. A search on Google books likewise yields a laundry list of books that advert to the conglomerate as "Pakistani Taliban".[16] JSTOR search similarly returns over a thousand results for Pakistani Taliban, whereas barely over a hundred for TTP. These scholarly journals and books (e.g., [17][18][19][20][21]) all advert to the conglomerate as Pakistani Taliban in their titles, and their use as such is emphatic, unambiguous and incontrovertible. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources you provided actually show that "Pakistani Taliban" is not always synonymous for "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan".
This source you provided says "Tehri-i-Taliban Pakistan, the banned umbrella group of the Pakistani Taliban, offered peace negotiations..."
This source you provided says "several militant groups calling themselves the Pakistani Taliban began to carry out attacks within Pakistan. In late 2007, these groups coalesced into one entity, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, and claimed allegiance with the Taliban organization."
WP:COMMONNAME also tells you to provide reliable sources that unambiguously characterize the prevalent title as erroneous for the subject as a condition precedent for invoking the exception clause, something neither the original poster IP nor you suffice. Far from it, the vast majority of English sources (scholarly and news based) have been explicit in their diction in relation to the subject. You cannot really make up your own dictates out of your misconstructions of what policies set forth and erroneously claim an ambiguity. Why do you think the above peer-reviewed academic papers dwelling on the subject overwhelmingly use the Pakistani Taliban diction for not just their titles but ubiquitously all over their papers, if, as you fallaciously reason, their preferred diction is not "synonymous with" the conglomerate. The evidence of scholars embracing the current title is overwhelming and plentiful, and your resort to cherry picking a few sentences, when faced with it, is unhelpful and muddying the otherwise clean waters. Take for instance, Schricker, Ezra (1 January 2017). "The search for rebel interdependence: A study of the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban". Journal of Peace Research. 54 (1). Sage Publications: 16–30., from which you cherrypicked the coalescence of Pakistani Taliban into TTP. It traces the genesis of TTP in late 2007 as coming together of various factions "calling themselves the Pakistani Taliban", and pledging allegiance to the Afghan Taliban, from where it proceeds to make a distinction between the Afghan and the Pakistani Taliban (diction retained in lieu of TTP). Throughout her paper, Schricker's use of Pakistani Taliban to advert to the TTP is invariable and recurring. Schricker furnishes a table enumerating the insurgent attacks carried out by various insurgent groups in Pakistan between the years 2007—2013 on page 18. This was after the coming of age of TTP. Schricker writes that, As Table I shows, the Pakistani Taliban is responsible for the vast majority of insurgent violence in Pakistan. The Pak Institute for Peace Studies Database indicates that the Pakistani Taliban carried out 7,241 attacks in Pakistan from 2007 to 2013. Schricker continued to impute attacks to the Pakistani Taliban, notwithstanding a new designation becoming available. Take the first source you link to as well, a scholarly article by Arshad Ali, dwelling on the peace negotiations offered by the TTP in late 2012 just before the parliamentary elections in Pakistan. Ali titles his paper as "Peace Talks with the Pakistani Taliban: Challenges and Prospects", unquestionably using the designation Pakistani Taliban in lieu of TTP. That it is an umbrella group is a well-established fact as it encompasses various factions that despite their internal differences have continued to share the same parent organisation and are characterized as Pakistani Taliban. Wikipedia cannot title its pages according to the original research of the IP and yours or the views of Urdu press, its reliance on English sources is invariable. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on the sources at hand and please do not comment on me, thanks.
I did provide many examples here (with reliable sources) of how "Pakistani Taliban" is used in a variety of ways. The Shricker source you provided shows that "many factions" called themselves the Pakistani Taliban and the Ali source, while it did use "Pakistani Taliban" in the title, made it clear that it regards Pakistani Taliban as different from the TTP. Given that this article is about the TTP (and was even called TTP up until May 2022), it makes more sense to name it as such. Finally, I've also shown[22], that search engine results being presented here are not really reliable, for the very reasons that WP:SET cautions us against using them.VRtalk16:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus changed, of course. And trying to force an erroneous title just because it could stick around for months and years before it was changed in accordance with the policy is the last thing that would make sense or which the community would countenance. Your comment is simply a rehash at this point and in no way gainsays the irrefutable evidence of Pakistani Taliban being the dominant and recurring title in scholarly and news sources as adequately established above. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Saw this weeks ago and I am surprised this debate is still ongoing. I don't agree that web hits could alone prove notability for a title, but an above Gbook search showed plethora books that all extensively focus their content on the group as "Pakistani Taliban". In addition, the arguments that impugn them are not infallible or sound themselves, as it sounds implausible that a subject this discussed would get so meagre results under "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan". Quite clearly the sources refer them by the current title.Orientls (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it has been clearly demonstrated above, using Google hits as well as G-books hits, that the common name for this group is "Pakistani Taliban". It's also clearly the primary topic for that term, compared to the topic of other Taliban who hail from Pakistan or other groups operating there. Although the !vote here looks split, I think this is a "consensus against move" scenario because the policy arguments for the present title are a lot stronger than those for the alternative. — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic bit is a strawman as no one here is arguing that "Pakistani Taliban" is not the primary topic. Among even those who prefer the name "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" (including myself), there is agreement that Pakistani Taliban should still redirect here. This is analogous to how Heart attack redirects to Myocardial infarction and "heart attack" clearly has more google hits than "myocardial infarction", but ultimately "heart attack" is an ambiguous term - just like "Pakistani Taliban". This rational is explained at WP:COMMONNAME which tells us that in such situation a common name should not be used. Finally, the google results for "Pakistani Taliban" are ambiguous as I showed above.VRtalk22:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Tehreek-e-Taliban has been the stable, consensus-backed title of this page since 2008 - "Pakistani Taliban", on the other hand, is a recently changed contentious title with no strong consensus or argument for keeping it. Tehreek-e-Taliban is literally the organistaion's name and what it's most commonly referred to as. Furthermore, googling different variations of Taliban, which seems to be the main argument of those opposing this move, is not a remotely reliable method of determining the common name. Re12345 (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
Yeah, I'm sorry if this bursts your bubble, but here is what the Carnegie encapsulates on the subject:
Especially worrisome (for Pakistan) is the resurgence of the Deobandi Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan). This conglomerate of jihadi and sectarian groups, which seeks to overthrow the Pakistani state, has regrouped in their erstwhile strongholds of South and North Waziristan, which border Afghanistan’s insurgent-affected eastern provinces of Paktika and Paktia. The Pakistani Taliban, who are loosely allied with the Afghan Taliban, orchestrated a deadly countrywide terrorist campaign in Pakistan between 2007 and 2014. The leaders of the Pakistani Taliban escaped to Afghanistan after the Pakistani military launched a major offensive against them in 2014. The group since has aided the Afghan Taliban’s military operations against Afghan forces in Afghanistan. While the Pakistani generals might expect the Afghan Taliban to rein in their Pakistani counterparts, there is little evidence to suggest they are in a hurry to oblige. — Aqil Shah writing for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace August 13, 2021
As a matter of fact, none of the 'it's vague or ambiguous' argument has stood up to scrutiny of editors in the above discussions; the Tehreek group came into existence in late 2007 and it alone has been categorically characterized as the Pakistani Taliban by pundits, journalists and scholars alike, with no evidence to the contrary, making it decidedly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Even the occasional usage in the years preceding it were largely by the very militant groups that ultimately coalesced to form the Tehreek conglomerate. Scholarly characterizations have been categorical, and it's not just confined to one or two think tanks or research papers, but has been a recurring motif among a myriad of other publications and journals. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support/Oppose: The term "Pakistani Taliban" is more widely used than Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, however, the Tajikistani Taliban is referred to as "Jamaat Ansarullah", which is the Persian name for the group. However, since "Jamaat Ansarullah" is used more frequently than "Tajikistani Taliban", and that the former name is in Persian instead of English, Tehrik-i-Taliban could still be a possible candidate for the title of this article. In spite of this, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan is used slightly less frequently than Pakistani Taliban, so per WP:COMMONNAME, Pakistani Taliban should be the title. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with the redirect
Question to those proposing or supporting this move... what do you propose for the destination of Pakistani Taliban? If that term is ambiguous and the current article is not the Primary Topic (about which I am not convinced), should it be a DAB? Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If made into a dab page, here's a gentle reminder that all entries should begin with the page title, "Pakistani Taliban", either linked to a section or appropriate redirect, or with one blue link to an explanatory article that uses the phrase. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'r there16:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should have said, it would good to create it following the MOS while doing so but I didn't think it necessary. You have blatantly anticipated this RM result in the structure and content of this new DAB. I think that is unfortunate. Andrewa (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Can you tell me which MOS I violated? Alternatively, I can undo my changes and maybe you (or someone else) can recreate it. I really wasn't looking to offend anyone here.VRtalk20:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:LEADELEMENTS for a start. The current lead Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (Urdu/Pashto: تحریکِ طالبان پاکستان, lit. 'Student Movement of Pakistan', abbr. TTP), commonly known as the Pakistani Taliban contains a short description of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, not Pakistani Taliban, and thus anticipates both this move going ahead and consensus that the two topics are the same. As such it is both out of process and in violation of the MOS. Andrewa (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Per WP:NPOV, we are supposed to include all significant viewpoints in an article. Hence, we should add India as an alleged state supporter of TTP to the infobox, with a note stating that India has denied such allegations. Not only is this connection Pakistan's stated POV[1], but also substantiated by other sources such as Bharat Karnad[2], the UAE per Wikileaks[3] and Pakistani Taliban spokesperson Ehsanullah[4] (the veracity of his statment is confirmed by Karnad)[5]Solblaze (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to this RFC, not only are the choices in the original RFC a bit poorly worded, but the vast majority of the arguments of those opposing it also boil down to "Pakistan said it so we shouldn't include it" which blatantly violates the very principle of WP:NPOV.
I don't think our personal biases can override Wikipedia policy. Discarding Pakistan's POV on the issue and taking India's as gospel truth isn't right. Solblaze (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)