Talk:Taliban

Coalition Attack Section

This section is somewhat flawed. I will correct the footnote citation to what the author tried to cite to, but as far as I can tell the article does not support this paraphrasing. The paragraph adds to the article though, so I am hesistant to eliminate it altogether.

"The Washington Post stated in an editorial by John Lehman in 2006:

What made the Afghan campaign a landmark in the U.S. Military's history is that it was prosecuted by Special Operations forces from all the services, along with Navy and Air Force tactical power, operations by the Afghan Northern Alliance and the CIA were equally important and fully integrated. No large Army or Marine force was employed.[131]" ThomasHodgkissLilly (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant information in an already very long article about the Taliban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.205.30 (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban's treatment of women

Canadian soldiers should be changed to NATO troops because Canada is in no way the only force fighting in Afghanistan or sometimes seen in a negative light by the Afghan people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.247.6 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a disclaimer attached to anythccccccing from RAWA. They are not a neutral, non-biased humanitarian group. They are a political group with political leanings. This should be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.174.242 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taliban's version of Islam

While in power, the Taliban implemented the "strictest interpretation of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world,"[11]"

That's just sensationalist hogwash. The Taliban are Sunnis, and Deobandis at that, they implemented a very strictly enforced version of the Hanafi law (or fiqh) which is the most liberal in Islam (out of the four schools of law, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Shafi'i).

The strictest interpretation of Shariah law itself is instituted by Saudi-Arabia which is Salafi. Not just Salafi even, but Wahabi (an even more extreme sub-branch of Salafis). However, "reform" for the Saudis has taken the form of looser enforcement which does not change the fact that the law "on the books" so to speak, is much stricter in Saudi-Arabia than it was for the Taliban. Is taboo to mention because the Saudis are our allies?

Al-Qaeda are also Salafi, being mostly comprised of extremist Arabs and Saudis. So it's important to note that Al-Qaeda would sometimes institute its own brand of Shariah in Afghanistan, distinct from the Taliban, even up to the point of foreign policy. Al-Qaeda's influence on the Taliban is very similar to the situation in Lebanon with Hizbullah acting like a "state within a state", and the nightmare scenario for the West has been Hizbullah becoming powerful enough to derail Lebanon. It was the same case in Afghanistan, albeit the Taliban weren't too far off the mark to begin with. The Israel-Lebanon war of 2006 was very similar to the Afghanistan war and 9/11... the non-government state actors (Hizbullah, Al-Qaeda) attacked a foreign power and drew its host country (Lebanon, Afghanistan) into a war. The host country showed solidarity with the organization because of how deep it was embedded into the culture and populace, though it likely had little say or even knowledge of the original attack (Lebanon's government didn't know Hizbullah tried to conduct a cross-border raid, the Taliban and most of Al-Qaeda had no clue that 9/11 was even in the works). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.174.242 (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Taliban and A-Qaeda with Hezbollah is not only funny but ridiculous. Hezbollah is democratically elected by people and is a political party with large number of supporters!88.97.164.254 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

the taliban r said to be wahabi in the main article but infact they r deobandis and many of them graduated from the deobandi seminary jamiah huqqanyah in pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.219.176 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

al qeda and osama bin laden are definitely not salaafi. For example, osama bin laden decalerd publicly after 9/11 "we say fatiha for the souls of the hijackers" and saying a fatiha for a dead soul is a sufi concept. Just because osama bin laden came from saudi arabia, that doesn't instantly make him salaafi. In fact, salaafi islam is the state religion and osama bin laden is at war with the state of saudi arabia so therefore he is declaring salaafi islam to be his enemy. In salaafi islam, teh theme is pure islam, back to the origins of Islam. Osama bin laden lets anyone join al qeda, even if they are mushrikeen or such like, implying a very different policy to the salaafi who say that we must all follow one version of Islam. Finally I will make the point that if you go into any salaafi mosque (for example masjid as salaafya in birmingham; UK) and ask about jihad they will tell you there is no jihad to fight at the moment and they will belittle all of the "extremist" groups such as al qeda, taliban, al shabab etc. The taliban are wlel known deobando (sufi) muslims and it should be understand that sufism is in direct opposition to sufism. I suggest reading http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/ its a great book called the wahhabi myth and it will open peoples minds to who the salaafi are and who the terrorists are (two very different types of muslims)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.16 (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the previous user: "The taliban are wlel known deobando (sufi) muslims". Deobandis and sufis are not the same thing, although they are both Sunnis. In Pakistan, the majority of the population of Sindh and Pakistani Punjab were sufi, and came into conflict with the incoming refugee Muslims from northern India (mostly Deobandi) after Partition in 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.176.71 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the Taliban "Hanafis"? Or even "Deobandis"? I find these accusations akin to those who try and say that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was a Sufi. Yes, he once was, but if you read up, he clearly came to reject their position. Can the same be said of Taliban members who graduated from the Deobandi school? I think it is very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Buddhas of Bamiyan

Why do "the intentions of the destruction remain unclear"? It seems pretty clear why the statues were destroyed by reading the New York Times article referenced in the section. 124.171.164.160 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Opponents

The United Kingdom is not stated in the opponents list. This suprises me, as they are currently leading the fight against the Taliban in afghanistan. 14/12/08

Also, Canada has a large contingent of soldiers in country... Why are the U.S. and U.K the only NATO forces represented in the side bar?Mikeonatrike (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is also bias to make a statement "the UK is leading the fight against the taliban". I am currently serving OEF09 as a combat medic and I have seen the following forces- French, UK, Australian, Afghan Army, US, and a few others. I am US and I believe we are all contributing in this country. I must say however that I have been to BAF (Bagram Air Force Base), FOB Airborne, and COP Carwile in the wardak provence. In all my experience the US populates most of the small bases away from the bigger FOB's with niceities such as showers, hot chow, and communication to the soldier's home country. So in my experience the US does without more and is closer to the front lines of this conflict, not to say that is how it is everywhere but something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.91.217 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

um?

why is Pakistan listed as a Ally last time i check they were fighting them.

In response: Pakistan has had an extremely close nexus with Taliban thru JUI. And the last time I checked Pakistan was turning into Afghanistan. Hint Hint --> TALIBAN HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT (considering they are sunni islamists and finally Paskistan is regretting their close alliance with them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.136.178 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a school project on the Taliban and how they governed Afghanistan. I find no mention of their achievements on this page. This is a little disappointing and says something about the neutrality of the article.

What achievements? Can you post your school project here when you done it so that we see what achievements you are talking about? 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one achievement: (Taliban) declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.93.13.41 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Pashtuns

Can we add some of the information found in the following USA Today article about ethnic Pashtuns being ethnic cleansed by ethnic Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, into this article?

"CHESHMEH-YE SHIR, Afghanistan — From the road, this hamlet looks wrecked and deserted. Doors and windows have been ripped from the dried-mud dwellings. There are no sheep or other signs of life.

But as Mohammed Azim, 46, leads the way, heads peer out from around corners. Soon there's a crowd of men and a handful of women and children watching from a distance as Azim explains their caution.

These people, many of them his relatives, are in hiding. "No Pashtun can just journey out of his house," he says.

Human Rights Watch agrees. It says Pashtuns, the dominant ethnic group in most of Afghanistan — except in the north — are being beaten, raped and robbed here by armed gangs of ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. The human rights group, based in New York City, says it has no figure on the number of victims, but its investigators have collected anecdotal evidence that indicates dozens of Pashtuns have been killed in the assaults. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/13/pashtuns.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litrboxr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are many reports saying that Iran is providing weapons to Taliban so why is Iran placed as opponent? George |Bush, the White House and senior US Military personell all say that Iran is helping the Taliban. Someone needs to check into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litrboxr (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly! "Bush, the White House and senior US Military personell" are saying that Iran is helping Taliban. Someone have to check into this and try to veryfy the claim using more reliable sources. Until someone does, we can safely assume that to be a lie and stick with the opposite: that Iran is against Taliban (which is BTW rather obvious to anyone familiar with the subject). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.249.143 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Man you don't know how to search for something online? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Quds Force, the elite unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, provides "lethal support" to the Sunni-dominated Taliban for use against U.S. and NATO forces, according to information in the new U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran. How many more sources you want to see here?--119.30.71.83 (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Initally, when the war on terror started, the then moderate Iranian government actually supported NATO in ousting the Taliban. This is all well documented in the series "Bush's War", but here's a blurb supporting it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/slapface.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.91.79 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two good reasons to doubt those reports, Litrboxr. I will hand you the third: no trustworthy organisation has yet supported these accusations of Iran helping Taliban, and leave the others as an exercise for you. 82.95.146.33 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I didn't place the tag on the top of this article, but I would agree that the article is not neutral in tone. Claims of a Taleban resurgence are presented without challenge to their authenticity and without acknowledgement of the apparent decline in that resurgence in 2008. (The timeline itself has just one major incident in 2008, so either it needs a huge update, or the preceding section is wrong or out of date.) 96.237.243.124 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Taliban Vs Afghanistan

What is this crock of bs....The new puppet government in Afghanistan is intalled by invaders...how can it be thought of as legitimate government...you guys must have a heavy POV that is same as US government right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellibeing (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE as to why this is. Only a fringe would share your opinion of the current Afghanistan government being illegitimate. -- Atama^chat 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the free and fair elections, for both women and men, have given the current government legitimacy. Rather than goverment by force of arms and a power clique. Robauz (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Fr

"Free and fair" elections which had only US approved candidates. Spare me your propaganda. Do you think that if given the chance the afghans wouldn't vote for someone who would kick the yankees out of afghanistan. Why are there no candidates who demand that the USA will leave afghanistan? Do you really believe that among millions of afghans nobody wants the yankees to leave? The Taliban proposed to have a court in which the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, if proven guilty they would hand him over. The USA didn't accept and started the war, killing a million civilians. If the yankees felt they had enough proof why didn't they accept the offer. What proof did they really have that it was Osama? Osama denied it himself [1]

"Free and fair" election. You have got to be kidding.

[2]. Normally terrorists (sometimes even falsely) claim these attacks since it gives them prestige. Someone who has already declared war on the USA wouldn't deny this particular attack (9-11) if he was responsible. They still haven't found Osama by the way. Should the afghans suffer eternally for what foreigners (Al Qaeda) supposedly did? When will the occpuation stop and Afghans can have real democratic elections? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious stupidity you have just spited out...Invaders who invaded Afghanistan from far away land are fighting with Afghanistan....They have nothing in common. I guess gas pipeline is probably the only thing we can say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellibeing (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no oil in Afghanistan. This.machinery (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally get side tracked by that sort of dumb comment, but just incase anyone thought there really is no oil in Afghanistan, there is shitloads of both oil and gas (although obviously not Iraqi levels) plus Cheney always wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, but I don't wanna get into american foriegn policy. Just see San Francisco Chronicle, Asia Times, BBC or pretty much any good newspaper to be honest. Pidz (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Taliban deaths

Is there any reliable count of how many talibans have been killed by U.S. coalition forces since the war in Afghanistan began? The article lists some counts of civilian deaths, but I didn't see any mention of Taliban member deaths. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so, considering that Taliban usually collect their wounded, there's no real way of knowing other than a rough estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.200.223 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely Biased

The article seems to be extremely one-sided and anti-Taliban, seemingly painting the organisation as evil (or at very least misguided) at every oppotunity. A "Criticism of Ideology" section exists, which is of course fair...yet the closest thing I found to a "Defence of Ideology" section (which this article should have), is an "Explanation of Ideology", which basically merely states that the Taliban are idiots who don't know any better. This article needs to be neutral, we shouldn't be painting the Taliban in a negative light. --86.158.187.75 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the muslim faith the Koran preaches to never kill another muslim for he is your brother, and anyone else is an infidel. The Koran teaches muslims to talk to the infidels and try to preach about the muslim religion, not kill them. While on patrol i am close friends with my interpreter who is muslim (Pashtun) and he talks to me and teaches me of his ways. Apparently the muslim people do not like the taliban for they do not follow the Koran as it was meant, and mistreat them. I have worked on numerous Afghan Army personnel who were shot and even killed by taliban, while I was handing out meds and giving medical treatment to a village in the Wardak provence. If the taliban does not want to be labeled as ignorant and "evil" then they should not indulge in mindless bloodshed, especially on a mission in which free medical care (MEDCAP) is being given to the local nationals.

No no the bias is good, think about it, would you give the Nazis just as much positive light as negative? Talibans -are- idiots who can't do better. They get the light they deserve, because there's no really "good" side to their faith. 83.115.211.71 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles on the Nazis do no contain the same jingoistic bias as this article. Soldiers fighting on the opposite side are hardly neutral commentators. The whole "Criticism of Ideology" section should be removed. There should be maybe a paragraph about women's rights in the article. There should be more mention of the widespread atrocities by the warlords AKA "Northern Alliance" that led to the creation of the Taliban. 70.114.217.117 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly Biased

Might as well change the name of the article to "The Taliban according to the US government." The article is filled with opinion, false accusations, and flat out name calling. And please, there's no reason to call the Salafis "Wahabbis." The term is not only inaccurate, but also derogatory. All instances of "Wahabbi" must be changed to "Salafi." In addition, as the Taliban were very clearly influenced by the Deobandi school, claims of it being influenced by the Salafis are ludicrous, as the Deobandi stance towards Salafi ideology is thoroughly explained by Mufti Ebrahim Desai, a prominent Deobandi scholar, on his website, www.askimam.org. Please make this a real article, not a baseless set of lies against a government that was not only quite popular, but continues to increase in support to this day.Wasabi salafi koonkati (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you any idea at all what the Taliban do to their enemies?Prussian725 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Or to their own people (especially women ^{[3] [4] [5]})? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I supect he does, but please argue his point (that the article inacuratly reflects both the influences and influence) of the Taliban. He did not raise any issues about civil rights.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Wow. I'm going to be honest--did not read beyond the first few lines. I was looking for a basic definition to describe the current status of the Taliban...but as soon as I got to the word "terrorist movement", my eyes boogled and I went elsewhere for a less shallow depiction--after all, the Taliban WAS the legitimate government in its time. I was relieved when I nav'd to the discussion page and found that there are some people who realise that this site is meant to be a factfile, not a journal of opinion. I hope someone puts in an effort to update the page soon. Until then, I encourage people to seek out alternative sources of information on this subject. Night_w 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by Taliban WAS the legitimate government in its time? Where did they get their legitimacy from? Did people elect them? The fact that not a single civilised country ever recognised them is a good indication of how legitimate they were! Only their paymasters and partners in crime (i.e. Saudi, UAE and Pakistan) recognised the Taliban! 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

these kinds of comments show huge bias and either intentionally misleading people to further your own cause or gross ignorance. You attribute the talibans main funding to be the muslim countries, what about the fact that they were originally the mujahideen, funded by america to fight back russian forces. If america backed them in order to allow them to take over the country then america has ruled them to be legitimate (ironically also being the ones to overthrow them). And no, the ammount of other countries that recognise them as a legitimate government is irrelevant. If we wish to over throw a countries government, we cant simply declare them illegimate and then go wading in then guns blazing to "liberate" the people. If the world decideds to declare the american government to be illigitimate can we legitimately wage war on america? Also I aggree, the taliban were not a good government IN MY OPPINION but oppinions are welcome at wikipedia. They are sufi, not salaafi and this article is far too POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.16 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some technical problems with the article? It's all well and good making sweeping statements, but to change the article you must find technical points and list them. So to anyone considering these potential errors and viewpoints, list in point form what should be changed. DavidHuo (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much content in intro

Much of the info in the intro is also covered in the article in more detail. By selectively moving some info to the intro, it implicitly makes it more important than other info, and also necessarily deprives it of some context. I think deleting much of the repetitive info, it would address some of the POV concerns.Vontrotta (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased is right -- *for* the Taliban

"On September 21, 2001, the Taliban quite reasonably responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the September 11 attacks."

Unclear on the concept, people. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Whether the Taliban's response was "quite reasonable" is for the reader to decide. Editorializing isn't appropriate.

I hope an editor will get around to fixing such faults in this article. --Andersonedits (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I made a pass on some of the article, but there is always room for improvement.Vontrotta (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair comment - I put in this particular edit, and you're right; though what I was trying to get at was the fact no other government would have acted any differently by requesting evidence before extraditing someone. Any suggestions on how to better phrase this? Nuwewsco (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the important thing is the "fact", that is the response to the request for extradition. Whether or not it was "reasonable" is a subjective determination that every reader of the "encyclopedia" can make based on his or her knowledge of the circumstances, only a small sketch of which is included in the article. I think if you want to add something like this, it ought to be something along these lines: "various commentators have assessed the reasonableness of the Taliban government actions and have concluded...." with a cite to the article(s) that have a full discussion of the topic. In the absence of that, it is better to just stick with the facts.Vontrotta (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe if "quite reasonably" was removed, and an explanation of WHY was added it would be less biased and make more sense. Also, other than that paragraph, i think the whole article is very anti-taliban. It also might be useful to less informed readers why the taliban are fighting NATO? Junhalestone (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Taliban resurgence

Canadian soldiers should be changed to NATO troops because Canada is in no way the only force fighting in Afghanistan and Afghans' opinions of other nations troops have also changed. 72.242.247.6 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reducing this section to a very short summary and leaving all the details for the main article Taliban insurgency, which needs work to improve its cites.

Comments?Vontrotta (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening para grammar

"Committed fundamentalist insurgents, often described as "Taliban" in the media, originating, and currently based in the Frontier Tribal Areas of Pakistan, [3] are engaged in a protracted guerrilla war against the current government of Afghanistan, allied NATO forces participating in Operation Enduring Freedom, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF),[4] and an effort to expand their operations and influence in Pakistan."

The above sentence reads horrendously. It should, IMO, be broken in two. Or something.

I'll try to fix it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Taliban is misspelled in Arabic. The word ends in a fatHa tanween, not an alif noon.

It's not arabic its pashtun.

Pashtun has a great many loan words from Arabic, which came into the language with the introduction of Islam. Taliban is one of them, and the person who mentioned fatHa tanween is correct. It should be: طَلِباً

Taliban is from the word "Tali", meaning "Students", of which Taliban is the plural.

Neither of you are correct. The word is طالبان. It is comprised of the Arabic word طالب, meaning "student" with the Persian/Pashto plural suffix ان. The use of tanween would change this word to an adverb: "studently", which is, of course, not really a word at all. Jemiljan (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

None of you are correct! طالبان in Arabic means "two students" as the alef nun ending is the 'dual' suffix. Making edit as the current use of Arabic for plural students is incorrect. No idea why they would call themselves that though. Although I wouldn't put two students beyond defeating the Western...umm...colonialists. Mikesta178

Um, can someone else make the edit? I'm not very active and don't really understand the format used when it says "students". Just to confirm, "students" should be "two students." Mikesta178

The word Taliban has a Arabic origin, but we need to translate it in Pashtun context which is just a plural form of Talib, and means Students.

I think either leave llike I did or put origin arabic and meaning in pashtun is studentsBabak2000ir (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What has Taliban got to do with Pashtun Nationalism ?

The Taliban was created by Pakistan after the backdrop of the proxy war led by CIA in Pakistan against the Soviet influenced government later to become the Northern Alliance. The NA were backed by Iran and Russia to combat the fundamentalist doctrine installed by Pakistan which itself is now having to deal with albeit reluctantly according to US officials.

The infobox has Iran in the Opponents, isn't that suppose to be Pakistan instead? Pakistan has 80,000 of their soldiers fighting the Taliban on daily bases and yet Pakistan is no even mentioned in the infobox..."Pakistan's army is battling militants in at least three areas of the northwest. The most intense fighting has been in the Bajur tribal region, where the military claims to have killed 1,000 rebels for the loss of about 60 troops. [6] I don't see any reports about Iran fighting with Taliban, and the Taliban are not on the border with Iran, they are on the border with Pakistan. Somebody needs to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irozee (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I can assure you Iran is any-Taliban, though they may not be engaged in combat with them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Per this Iran cannot be considered opponent.--LloydKame (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But this says: Observing that Iran has long opposed the regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan on the grounds that it oppressed Shiite Muslim and other Persian-speaking minorities, it said Iran nearly launched a military attack against the Taliban in September 1998 after Taliban fighters captured and killed nine Iranian diplomats based in northern Afghanistan.

Sounds like the Taliban and Iran are opponents, alliances of convenience notwithstanding. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I's unessary to add Iran in the list, it's understood that Iran is anti-Taliban. The infobox is for opponents who are currently engaged in battles with Taliban fighters. India is more anti-Taliban than Iran but we don't need India listed in the infobox also.--LloydKame (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If the question on the heading is being posed, it was my understanding that the much of what would be the Taliban was educated in Pakistan. However the Pashtun element is the result of the Soviet-Afghan War, because the majority of those who fled to Pakistan were Pashtun. This resulted in a change in the entire ethnic dynamic of Afghanistan, in which Taijiks and Uzbeks were demanding greater representation in national affairs, and the Hazaras were pushing for regional autonomy. Some Taijiks and Uzbeks supported the Taliban I would guess out of necessity, however the Hazara were ruthlessly persecuted- oftentimes simply executed in the street. I would not dare speak for Pashtuns but the few that I know who came from Afghanistan or have been there tell me that many of them make fun of Hazaras, calling them "flat nose" etc. In other words, the Taliban did represent a predominantly Pashtun movement that was indeed supported heavily by ISI and Pakistani entrepreneurs who wanted an overland trade route to Central Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.151.246 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editsemiprotected}}

there is a section in this article labelled "life under the taliban" in which some of the behaviorally restrictive methods of enforcement by the group are listed. one section is trasnposed from a preior section in the article itself, so we, in effect, read "no clapping at sporting events or kite flying, or sports for women" twice in this article. i'm wondering if one of the two iterations can't be removed for the sake of redundency.

 Done I've consolidated the two lists. Cheers! --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the inclusion of the truth that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997 in December as reported by the BBC. They were guests on Unocal. When the Taliban refused what looked like a permission for a pipeline to Halliburton investments in the Caspian Sea, this rejection gave US big oil motive to seek a "new Pearl Harbor", ie 911, as pined for on the PNAC website in 2000. In other words, the Taliban going to Texas was a watershed moment that cannot be left out of any true understanding of the US relationship to these people. I am no fan of the Taliban, but I am no fan of US foreign policy right now and for good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgamall (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous uncited references to rape

There is not a single shred of evidence that the Taliban ever "raped" anyone for theft! That's just plain ridiculous. Please remove it.

Oh is it ? They did not rape anybody ?

Second, let's not abuse HRW by dropping their name to support false information. Their documentation of the Massacres of Hazaras does not cite a SINGLE rape. Please remove this as well.

We all know of the Taliban's shortcomings, errors and crimes. Yet, let us remain objective and factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.52 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The War Briefing

Perhaps this link may be included: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/

This documentary also discusses the reasons why the ISI helps the taliban (because they think the USA might still lose the war and the fear of Afghanistan becoming part of India, and why Paskistan has failed in the past vs the taliban (stationary, WW2 war tactics that are useless against single taliban; usually outfitted with sniper rifles and blending into the landscape)

and prevention methods currently in use and which are proving effective (small US bases/outposts being stationed at the smuggle routes in Waziristan)

Please include in article, Thanks, 81.246.154.35 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reagan armed Taliban?

{{editsemiprotected}} This article says the taliban org came about in 1994 but it also says that reagan armed them during the 80's,how is this possible, perhaps individuals belonging to other groups were armed by reagan and then joined the taliban but this still should not count

 Note: That edit was vandalism. Can you state where thepassage is? Thanks. Leujohn ^(talk) 13:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration delivered several hundred FIM-92 Stinger missiles to Afghan resistance groups, including the Taliban, to aid the defeat of the Soviets.[79] 220.253.86.202 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Somehow Reagan armed the Taliban 14 years before they were formed.

This have to stay in the articel, because mujaheedin, that was formed in february of 1979 and supported by Reagan and other US presidents, was splitted up in Tale and the Northern Alliance. The Taliban was the main part of the group. The NA didn't wanted to be as brutal as the mujaheedin was. --62.16.168.251 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out before the taliban did not exist back then.

Ahmad Shah Massoud

There are at least two variations of the spelling of his name in this article. It is possible to have a standardised spelling that is used consistently throughout?

Sharia in Pakistan

Can someone please edit the last paragraph in the intro? It makes it sound like the girls are banned from school because of Sharia law, which is not true. Not only that, but the two references given do not mention anything about girls being banned in the first place.--Logosod (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no update regarding the Pakistani military offensive in the Swat valley? This whole article needs to further elaborate on the relationships between Aghanistan and Pakistan.70.23.231.65 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban as terrorrists

I strongly object to the introductory sentence designating the Taliban as an Pashtun Islamic terrorist movement. This is especially problematic regarding the Taliban's formative stages in 1994 and 1995, besides clearly violating wikipedia policy not to describe groups as terrorrist. I would suggest to describe the Taliban as an Islamic fundamentalist movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikluus (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I have nothing but contempt for the group: this is not a neutral presentation. Oddly, for such a clear issue, though has little discussion on the talk page. That said, we might state in the lead that it is called a terrorist group by *place relevant entities here, including US, EU, UN, China, etc.*. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That could be considered to be an implicit statement declaring that the Taliban are terrorists. Indeed, given the tone of the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan concerning the Taliban - if one expects Wikipedia to be consistent across articles - then it would be unwise to even imply that the Taliban are terrorists: the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan (currently) clearly states that the US overthrew the Taliban *Government* due to their failure to hand over Bin Laden. It would be incredibly easy to spin th earticle in the opposite direction and portray the Taliban as a legitimate government, overthrown by an overzealous US, and struggling to regain control. Therefore I agree that the article should aim for neutrality and avoid inflammatory words such as 'terrorist' altogether. Bagofants (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As Taleban is on the Terrorist lists of almost every country, I think mentioning it is warranted. 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference with Roy, Olivier, Globalized Islam, Columbia University Press, 2004, p.239

They did not destroy the graves of pirs (holy men) and emphasized dreams as a means of revelation.[28]

Sufi Shrine 'blown up by Taleban'

Sufi Islam and the Taleban Suspected Taleban militants in north-west Pakistan have blown up the shrine of a 17th Century Sufi poet of the Pashtun language, police say

link title

taliban crimes

The Taliban is a big terror group (Named by West Media) and them crimes against humanity should be said ,like as what they do in Parachinar,Pakistan. Actually Taliban are the creation of the Dwarves and Hobbits—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.223.130 (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to add bullshit, make sure it makes sense Junhalestone (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun Islamic "Terrorist" movement

Why does the primary description include the qualification "terrorist" in it? I was only aware that the Taliban was an Afghani political/religious party. Can you please explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twainmane (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist organizations: Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) www.state.gov Taliban is not on the list. - Steve3849 ^talk 06:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

test

Insert non-formatted text here

CIA helped create Taliban?

The article states that there is "no evidence" that the USA helped create Pakistan. There are a number of statements and articles that suggest otherwise. For example, in a recent statement by Secretary of State, Clinton stated "...the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it ... the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union"

She then goes on a long discourse about how the US created Taliban and abandoned Pakistan to deal with the aftermath. The full article is here: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/12-us-created-taliban-and-abandoned-pakistan-clinton--bi-06

I can point to other articles as well if required, but I suggest that this be acknowledged in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasarp.mail (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Created, or helped train anyone who fought the soviet union, some who later formed the Taliban? Doesn't seem the same thing.ChillyMD (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Taliban was created in 1994, well after the Soviet-Afghan War was over. They were Afghan students attending religious schools in Pakistan. The ISI gave them weapons and sent them back to Afghanistan. Clinton has confused them with the Mujahideen, which fought the Soviets and later became the Northern Alliance. Kauffner (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, not quite a neutral article

The opening paragraph says the Taliban was overthrown by "invading US military crusaders". Is Al Qaeda editting this page?

Janithor (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, this is very far from neutral. Please, anyone with an account, remove the word "crusaders". 85.124.169.8 (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Qaeda, Taliban and Nanawatai

People seem not to be able to differentiate between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation which attacks military and civilian targets around the world. The Taliban was the dictatorial fundamentalist government of Afghanistan which didn't make such terrorist attacks although it was an opressive regime. The Taliban (was) supported (by) Al Qaeda but so did the USA. Al Qaeda (together with american support) had a big part in the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Soviet–Afghan War. Things later went bad between Al Qaeda and the USA. Al Qaeda supposedly was responsible for the 9-11 attack and the USA demanded from the Taliban that they delivered Osama to them.

If you know Pashtun culture (Pashtunwali) then you know that someone who is a guest can't be harmed or allowed to be harmed by others (Nanawatai code). Even if an enemy asks for Nanawatai you have to give them hospitality, food and protection [7] [8]. The Taliban proposed to have a court in which the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, if proven guilty they would hand him over. This way they were not breaking hospitality rules because a criminal forfeits his right of protection since Melmasti and Nanawatai work both ways. The guest also has an obligation to behave properly and do nothing to harm (the honor of) the hospitality giving party. The Taliban also covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan refused the offer.

The USA didn't accept either proposition and attacked afghanistan. I don't know why anyone who wants to catch Osama wouldn't accept these offers. Maybe the idea of getting hold of Osama through Islamic or pashtunwali law was not acceptable to them. It would have allowed the Taliban to save face. They would not have bowed to US threats but would have convicted Osama themselves. If the Taliban had just handed over Osama and bowed to US threats, there would have been no war against Afghainstan by the way. So it is not a question of holding the Taliban responsible for 9-11 and punishing the Taliban/Afghanistan. It is a question of showing dominance. Apparently showing USA dominance was more important than actually catching the perpetrators and saving a million innocent afghan civilian lives which would later die in the war. Even U.S. military casualties would have been prevented by avoiding the war. All these casualties greatly exceed the 2900 deaths of 9-11 and could have been prevented. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro has a section that reads 'its leaders were removed from power by NATO peacekeeping forces.' In the interests of neutrality shouldn't this read 'its leaders were removed from power by NATO forces.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.74.107 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. All of the intro sections need refining. I'm too busy at the moment to do it myself though. Ottre 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Taliban

Is it 100 years old or what?

from THE STORY OF THE MALAKAND FIELD FORCE by Winston S. Churchill (1897)

All are held in the grip of miserable superstition. The power of the ziarat, or sacred tomb, is wonderful. Sick children are carried on the backs of buffaloes, sometimes sixty or seventy miles, to be deposited in front of such a shrine, after which they are carried back—if they survive the journey—in the same way. It is painful even to think of what the wretched child suffers in being thus jolted over the cattle tracks. But the tribesmen consider the treatment much more efficacious than any infidel prescription. To go to a ziarat and put a stick in the ground is sufficient to ensure the fulfillment of a wish. To sit swinging a stone or coloured glass ball, suspended by a string from a tree, and tied there by some fakir, is a sure method of securing a fine male heir. To make a cow give good milk, a little should be plastered on some favorite stone near the tomb of a holy man. These are but a few instances; but they may suffice to reveal a state of mental development at which civilisation hardly knows whether to laugh or weep.

Their superstition exposes them to the rapacity and tyranny of a numerous priesthood—"Mullahs," "Sahibzadas," "Akhundzadas," "Fakirs,"—and a host of wandering Talib-ul-ilms, who correspond with the theological students in Turkey, and live free at the expense of the people. More than this, they enjoy a sort of "droit du seigneur," and no man's wife or daughter is safe from them. Of some of their manners and morals it is impossible to write. As Macaulay has said of Wycherley's plays, "they are protected against the critics as a skunk is protected against the hunters." They are "safe, because they are too filthy to handle, and too noisome even to approach."

Also see

OPINION: Moolah for the mullah —Nasir Abbas Mirza from the Daily Times

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\20\story_20-4-2009_pg3_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeofVA (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban's website

{{edit-semiprotected}}

Please add under External links:

* [http://www.alemarah.info/english/ Taliban's website (English)]

(source: [9]) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the controversial nature of this request, I am forced to decline it pending discussion. Intelligentsium^review 01:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find said discussion here. Intelligentsium^review 02:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll just put it here, then.

{{helpme}}

See above (and yes, this template is supposed to be used on article talk pages, per User:Hersfold). What should be done in this situation? Intelligentsium^review 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, idk, I would think this link would be OK per Wikipedia:EL#Official_links. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that per WP:ELOFFICIAL a link would be appropriate. However, can this be reliably confirmed as the official site, rather than something run by a fringe group claiming to speak for the whole? I am unable to find conclusive sources, not least because most news agencies citing the "Official Taliban Website" do not actually give a URL. DoktorMandrake 03:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If it can be verified as their official site, then it appears to be within the guidelines to include it, any controversy over the content notwithstanding. But verification may be difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• My gut instinct is to include the link. Nobody in the media has ever linked to the official al-Qaeda websites like Al-Ansar either. Ottre 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, let me again call attention to the RS posted above: Beam, Christopher (2009-10-06). "How Do I Get in Touch With a Terrorist? Call his cell". Slate.

"The Taliban usually post their messages and videos to their own Web site. (Check it out the latest press releases here.)"

-- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we've all read the article. Slate is not considered a RS on the Middle East. Ottre 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. It's owned by WaPo. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

{{edit-semiprotected}} The matter seems to be settled. Please add under External links:

* [http://www.alemarah.info/english/ Taliban's website (English)]

(source: [10]) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Due to Ottre's claim that this is not a reliable source, I don't think you can call this settled, just dropped. (Had you refuted his statement with "Puh-lease...", things might have been different.) I'll pass this to the RS noticeboard to confirm it is a valid RS for this info, then we can add it. Celestra (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then, how about Wired Magazine?[11] To quote, leaving out superfluous links:

With the addition of online video, the Taliban’s website now has a complete multimedia package of voice, video and text, marking a trend of increasing sophistication for the Afghan insurgent group’s propaganda efforts. Visitors to the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” website can now read through Taliban news updates in Arabic, English, Urdu, Pashto and Farsi, peruse official magazines like Al-Somood and listen to Radio Shariat, the Taliban’s old FM radio station now available to stream online.

While likewise not renowned for expertise on the Middle East (which I think is a silly requirement for sourcing this info, not reflected in WP:RS), Wired is renowned for their expertise on the Internet. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done No other sourcing is needed; I just wanted to confirm that Slate was a reliable source. Since there was so much discussion about it, I've added the source as a reference to allow the reader to verify the site as well. Celestra (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban's Relations With The U.S.A.

In late October,2009,U.S. President Barack Obama signed a bill,his signature authorized the bill's passage into law,the bill was the budget for the U.S. Department Of Defense for the fiscal year 2010. Part of the bill provided money for the Taliban,in the form of direct payments to the Taliban. News media reports at the time said the U.S. was paying the Taliban to lay down their arms and stop fighting,while other stories said that the U.S. would pay the Taliban to 'protect villages'. I'd like to put that on the main page,but because of Wikipedia's pro-Obama bias,a fact like that would last about five minutes before someone deleted it. The page about the Taliban should become a locked page,so nobody could delete the fact that Obama signed a bill that authorizes direct funding to the Taliban terrorists. Signed-Anthony Ratkov November 16,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.155.167 (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

I just looked at the main page,and I saw that the page already was locked,so it's impossible to edit the page!Sorry about that! Signed,-Anthony Ratkov November 16,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.155.167 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Remove NPOV break early in article, "Reflecting its persistent power to intimidate the populace". This quoted sentence is emotive and implies a political point of view. Taliban court system is like any other legal system: A system of laws. The statement suggests the writer must consider all law systems to be "persistent powers to intimidate" populaces. Or the writer of it suggests that he is applying it exclusively and choicely to the Taliban system of government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHuo (talk • contribs)

• Could you please say (verbatim) how you think that sentence should be written? Then re-apply the {{editsemiprotected}} tag. Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Taliban has implemented one of the "strictest interpretation[s] of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world", yet still occasionally updates its code of conduct.[14]" DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Potentially another separate issue with the line: Does "code of conduct" here mean, "reform"? If they are "reformist" or "progressive" (however slightly) they should be described how other legislatures are described when they make changes to law. DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some cases in which it is not possible not to be biased. Yes, it may be "NPOV" but simply put, the Taliban is evil, there is no other way to say or put it. Who or what else would blow up a school for children (girls)? Taliban blow up girls' school in Pakistan Bdelisle (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bdelisle: "simply put, the Taliban is evil, there is no other way to say or put it...Who or what else would blow up a school for children (girls)"

You put an object over lives? How about the children inside the school? One US-Nato strike KILLED 60 CHILDREN, including men and women, and all you care about is a school:

From the BBC: "There is convincing evidence that 60 children and 30 adults were killed in a US air strike in western Afghanistan"-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7582170.stm

By your own definition of evil, the US-Nato is at the extreme of 'evil', ie 'evil incarnate'

To others here: Bedelisle shows the need for these changes to be made across the article. DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

I'm going to decline this for the time being, since it seems that the issue is not clear-cut, unsupported by sources, and (to me eyes) driven by a point of view that appears to be political. Arguing merits of one side to a dispute over another is unhelpful and an edit change should only be supported by the clearest exposition of (a) the contention in the article which is sought to be changed; (b) the proposed new wording to remedy this and (c) a reliable source to support the change. I don't see that here. If you can put it in clearer terms below, please do so. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(a) Already done

(b) Already done

(c) I want to refer you to your own Talk page that quotes one, "Jimmy Wales". The original assertion I'm objecting to has no citation, it is an opinion. And a political one, as no other political systems are described in that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHuo (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed this by request, and take your word that the cited source, to which I do not have access, does not support the contention "Reflecting its persistent power to intimidate the populace...". The use of extraneous material to support such a contention without an explicit citation would be original research or a synthesis of that material, and I think little is lost by removing those words. Rodhullandemu 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Swat mines

The Swat mines part doesn't belong here. This article is about the Afghan Taliban, while the entire Swat issue belongs to the Pakistani Taliban article (if you would want it in the first place that is).87.84.248.99 (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Taliban is a bad word for a fanatic and wicked person

In the majority of the world, the name taliban became a bad word. If someone is a wicked, violent, fanatic and useless person, this person is called such as a taliban, even if this person isn't an Islamic.Agre22 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

I've never heard that before. "Nazi" is till used in most of the western world at least. Tommkin (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Some corrections requested please

This is a highly biased information that has been compiled and many facts seem to have been deliberately ignored. Its my appeal to the stakeholders of Wikipedia, including Mr. Jimmy Wales, to ensure that information quoted in Wikipedia remains credible. I dont want to, neither I am the authority to get into a discussion of who created "Taliban", but by reading this document reader feels that Pakistan is solely resposnible for Taliban. As per the statement given by Ms. Hilary Clinton, US secretary of States, she owes that US was atleast partially responsible for creating, supporting Taliban through Pakistan. I am enclosing the youtube link of her speech, and would request authorised users to please update/correct the information contain herein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2CE0fyz4ys

Here is what she says in the above link Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday said that the US was also partly responsible for the present mess as it virtually abandoned Pakistan after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

"There is a very strong argument, which is: It wasn't a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let's be careful what we sow, because we will harvest. So we then left Pakistan. We said, okay, fine, you deal with the Stingers that we've left all over your country. You deal with the mines that are along the border. And by the way, we don't want to have anything to do with you," Clinton said testifying before a Congressional committee.

After the downfall of the Soviet Union, Clinton said the US stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with the ISI.

"We can point fingers at the Pakistanis, which is -- you know, I did some yesterday, frankly. And it's merited, because we're wondering why they don't just get out there and deal with these people. But the problems we face now, to some extent, we have to take responsibility for having contributed to," she said.

Clinton said the US has a history of moving in and out of Pakistan. "I mean, let's remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago. We did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want to see them control Central Asia, and we went to work," she said.

"It was President (Ronald) Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said, you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let's go recruit these mujahidin. And great, let's get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. They lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union," Clinton said. And what is happening in Pakistan today is a result of that policy, she acknowledged, so the US should also take a part of the responsibility.

Hina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinashah101 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Iran -- all citations are same and false

I have been trying to find out what's what, way too much to learn quickly -- but I had to stop right at the beginning of this. Why on earth would Iran help their enemies the Taliban?

Iran helped the Hazara, opponents of the Taliban according to Rory Stewart, author The Places In Between someone much more conservative than I am but who seems to realize that Shiite Iran would have no reason to support the Taliban.

I'm sorry I can't give more specifics at the moment -- I"m sure someone can. See Juan Cole, http://www.juancole.com/ or "Dave's Middle East Study Group" which, thought out of date as Dave has had to put on hold temporarily, has useful references. Dave has read everything he can, on all sides, to see who we are bombing.

I agree with others here that this is not an article but a propaganda piece. I urge someone with knowledge to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.207.195 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting you: “Why on earth would Iran help their enemies the Taliban?” I don’t pretend to fully understand the prejudices and hatreds of people over there. But there is the old adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Iranian support for the Taliban is “limited” according to Robert Gates. Trying to put myself into the Iranian’s shoes for a moment and think strategically, I can imagine they would want to provide the Taliban with sufficient short-term material support to make America’s task in Afghanistan difficult without appreciably strengthening the Taliban’s long-term strategic influence on the country. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit for proper internal linking

{{editsemiprotected}} The first paragraph contains a red link caused by improper formatting. The source reads: [[Pakistani Punjabi people]]|Punjabis]] It should be: [[Punjabi people|Punjabis]] to produce a proper link. This produces the following: Punjabis Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.153.98 (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010

 Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 28° 7' 30" NET 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Was "taliban" a name chosen by the group themselves, being students of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, or attributed to them by others? Hexmaster (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This name was attributed to them by other people because they belonged to different madrassas in Kandahar. Kindly post such questions on WP:RD. Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam is a completely different organization. You are perhaps confusing them with Deoband school of Islam. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 09:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

I was very disappointed by this article and even more so by the discussion where many comments are poorly written and unsigned. Now I too may be culpable because I don't know where I should ask this question!

In the very first section, the article states, "...revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan,..." What does it mean by "during night"? Is it that when dusk falls, they move in with courts and attempt to settle disputes, etc, only to disperse again when daylight appears?

I was hoping for some enlightenment on this complicated topic - Wikipedia usually scores well for me - but I leave the page more confused than when I came. I am not trying to be critical, heaven knows I couldn't do anything even half as well, but I do think some objectivity would go down well here with less personal antipathy. Dawright12 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban "propaganda"

I've reverted a recently added section on "Taliban propaganda", as it was only supported by a single reference which was written by the UK's Ministry of Defence - which is currently at war with the Taliban. As the only reference is diametrically opposed to the Taliban by definition, they can hardly be counted on for being objective in this subject. (Ironically, this refernece could reasonably be regarded as anti-Taliban propaganda!) Nuwewsco (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dreadful to read

I have read a great many things in my time but generally avoid all things about war. Today I came here to break that tradition. I can say this is probably the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It has obviously undergone ridiculous amounts of North American editing that has turned it into an expressive and passionate account of "BLAH".

This is why I probably stayed away in the first place. These accounts are not reasonable, rather impossible to draw any decent facts from because the editors have tried to synthesise a variety of different views that add very little to the subject. Obviously this is such a sensitive area to North Americans that it is impossible for any independent bystander such as myself to make any sense out of. I thought coming here would perhaps be less biased but I guess that everyone is just so blind to it now that you don't see it. Moving elsewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.14.236 (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.193.130 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. It is curious that the "Emmergence" section of the article starts directly after the Soviet-Afghan war, ignoring the fact that it was the United States that in face trained and supplied the Taliban to combat the soviet invasion. This article is one of the most biased I have read on Wikipedia. Another aspect I find particularly disturbing is the addition of several links to torture/execution videos. This is the only article that I have come across that features such controversial and sensational information. I ask if the videos are indeed needed to have a clear view of the subject. This article just screams propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.211.198.39 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of death victims under islamic emirate

I think that we should have had the numbers of executions and other state-caused deaths (like torture, suicide and ideology(liberalist)-cause deaths, like hunger, not able to get health care, murder because of weapon law, as in all other capitalist states). I would imagine that the death toll is about 1,8 million, but I don't know anything about it. Want that people that know it shall write it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.168.251 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate? Are you referring to the Taliban or not? Since when did they constitute an Emirate?Jemiljan (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Taliban /Arabic

Dudes, Taliban isn't arabic because if it was it would be Dual thus Taliban would mean two Students. It's the Farsi Plural. Ok? Ich change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.241.133 (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "talib" comes from Arabic. In Persian the word for student is daneshjoo (دانشجو) and even if "talib" is being understood there, the root is somewhere else. Emesik (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Funds from opium

Regarding the edit I just made (In the Opium section), I just read the cited NYT article and I think that simply saying that it says, the Taliban get funding from opium, is telling only part of the truth. The article is about *all* funding sources including opium, and quotes both Richard Holbroke and Gen. McCrystal as saying other funding sources are more important than opium. It presents no others disputing that. Given (as the article also points out) popular perception is thatopium is their primary funding source, I think it important to not to leave these details out. 65.183.81.120 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Arabic/Persian

Since the word طالبان in Arabic means 'two students' as pointed out above, should the etymology in the introduction not be changed to something like 'from the Arabic طالب 'student' + the Persian plural suffix ان-' (reformatted according to house style, I guess)? Doesn't seem much more cumbersome to me, and at least it's correct, unlike the present definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.207.192 (talk)

A discussion needs to be had with regular or interested editors about the best form for this and then a specific edit request posted here. Thanks, Woody (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the new address for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan English website is http://www.shahamat-english.com/

http://www.shahamat-english.com/Geo8rge (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.182.136.46, 7 May 2011

There is the quote:

"We don't like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ... We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us"

I clicked footnote 25, and it lead me to a New York Times Article that says the exact opposite of this quote and does not even have the quote in it. In 2009 Pakistan and Afghanistan Taliban forces formed an alliance. They are allies.

67.182.136.46 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Are you sure you clicked on the right article? I found the exact quote on that New York Times article (here). Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I'm really not sure why this is even in here:

"John P. O'Neill was a counter-terrorism expert and the Assistant Director of the FBI until late 2001. He retired from the FBI and was offered the position of director of security at the World Trade Center (WTC). He took the job at the WTC two weeks before 9/11. On September 10, 2001, O'Neill told two of his friends, "We're due. And we're due for something big.... Some things have happened in Afghanistan. [referring to the assassination of Massoud] I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.... I sense a shift, and I think things are going to happen ... soon."[62] O'Neill died on September 11, 2001, when the South Tower collapsed.[62]"

What does this have to do with the article?Sedna1000 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

Edit request

I'm really not sure why this is even in here:

"John P. O'Neill was a counter-terrorism expert and the Assistant Director of the FBI until late 2001. He retired from the FBI and was offered the position of director of security at the World Trade Center (WTC). He took the job at the WTC two weeks before 9/11. On September 10, 2001, O'Neill told two of his friends, "We're due. And we're due for something big.... Some things have happened in Afghanistan. [referring to the assassination of Massoud] I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.... I sense a shift, and I think things are going to happen ... soon."[62] O'Neill died on September 11, 2001, when the South Tower collapsed.[62]"

What does this have to do with the article?Sedna1000 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

 Not done: It is in the history part, because the Taliban during that period harbored Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is said to be responsible for the assassination of the anti-Taliban leader Massoud (which experts in the U.S. such as John O'Neill then saw as a sign something was shifting in Afghanistan and something was going to happen in the U.S. also). That is part of joint Taliban-Al Qaeda history. JCAla (talk) 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Taliban Claims Responsibility for Attacks

CNN is reporting the Taliban is claiming responsibility for two suicide bombers attacking a paramilitary academy in the Pakistan, killing eighty and injuring over a hundred. The Taliban stated they did this in response to the killing of Bin Laden and this is just the first in a series of retaliation attacks. I'm at work and can't update the article here, I have found links (CNN, BBC, MSNBC)for those who have the time and ability. Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL FAIL

A PROTECTED PAGE AND YET SOMEONE UPDATED IT WITH GAY PORN. WHAT NONSENSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.101.36 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed lead that was way too long

As discussed above, the lead was way too long. I have been WP:BOLD and cut it back to a more reasonable length. There are probably things that have been deleted from the lead that could be reinserted latter in the article, and if so, please do so. But please try too keep the lead from again growing too long. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dp412, 6 August 2011

"The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[4] (ṭālibān, meaning "students" in Arabic)" Taliban means students in Pashto, not Arabic. It is the dual form in Arabic ("two students") but Arabic is not the relevant language when speaking of this group. The correct etymology is already explained in the article. The first sentence should be changed to match. Dp412 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Since the word is a loan word from Arabic, wouldn't it then also be Arabic for students as well making the first sentence technically correct? Since I am not a speaker of Arabic, I would need some clarification on that before agreeing that it needed to be changed. Topher385 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

'Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population' if refering to IED's is biased.

I feel the claim that the in the article that the 'Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population' is a gross simplification attributed to one party during an ongoing guerrilla war and should be reconsidered. If the statement means the use by the Taliban of IED's (as is implied) then the claim of 'terrorism' is POV as the counterpoint is that this is not terrorism at all but the use of an effective if ruthless guerrilla tactic intended against ISAF/NATO forces that does however often cause 'collateral' civilian casulties. The aim of the IED attacks is to create ongoing ISAF/NATO casulties and erode long-term political support of what are seen as foreign occupation forces, even if this is at the expense of civilian casulties, nothing more- dss2mtm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.46.176 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Taliban acid attacks on schoolgirls and terrorism against women who seek education
• Taliban attack on busy supermarket in Kabul killing a human rights activist and her four children and husband
• Taliban gunmen randomly execute 38 civilians at a Jalalabad bank
• Taliban kill medical students at a Kabul hospital

= TERRORISM against the civilian population

A guerilla war against military forces is something else.

The Taliban are responsible for 82 % of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. JCAla (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from AndrewMcN

Under "Ideology" -> "Criticisms" there's a para alleging bestiality. It should be removed unless it can be substantiated with a more reliable reference. The reference given is to a magazine article which does not itself cite sources, and which contains little discussion other than the indication that these recordings supposedly exist. There are a few youtube videos around of such things, many of which surface repeatedly in different years and supposed locations.

 Question: Where is it alleging this? I do not see it in that section. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I can't read. Removed now --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request September 22, 2011

Please insert in External links between Aljazeera and The Guardian (alphabetical order):

• Taliban Conflict collected news and commentary at BBC News

Thanks. 75.59.229.4 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Content removed & POV tag?

Were is the section for the POV tag? And as to the content being removed, if Pakistan refutes the claims that they have aided the Taliban then instead of removing the content you need to balance it with a rebuttal from a RS. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the previous version did not even attribute the allegation to the US gvt, and infact presented it as encyclopedic content, which is definitely POV. If you want to mention it then you need to use a sentence like "US gvt. alleges Pakistan of aiding..." etc and not the way it was. And in anycase adding it to infobox is completely biased. The POV tag is added because I only reverted the obvious instances, while the article tone still implies Pakistan's historic ties as being current one while it fails to credit that US had the same during the cold war. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall various agencies other than the US mention that Pakistian had aided the Taliban, It is hardly POV to state what a great many sources have said, you need to add a reliable source which says that the Pakistan government denies these allegations for balance, that is how it works. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Try Fundamentalism reborn?: Afghanistan and the Taliban By William Maley as a source for what you need. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have a problem with other a:gencies saying that. The article didn't attribute those facts to any, that's the problem including the article tone (without refutation) and the infobox inclusion. I'll edit accordingly. If you want to add the allegation on the Pakistan army, you have to add the refuation along with it. You can't just instate a POV and expect other editors to balance it for POV. Such content is to be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes I can, if you dispute that which is a widely reported fact then it is you who needs to find sources which refute this fact. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the POV tag is to alert editors that there is a discussion regarding a specific POV issue. It is not to be used to object to "article tone." If there are no further specific POV issues then the tag should be removed.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Article tone is a POV issue and being discussed here too. So the tag is completely valid untill those parts are rewritten. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are strong refutations from Pakistan: [12] [13] [14] [15]. You can find 100s of more I'm sure. You also need to review this article War in North-West Pakistan. Now I hope it's clear that you can't add that content without attribution and refutation as per WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think you understand, all those sources say the government denies the claims, this is hardly surprising. It is a widely reported fact that they do in fact offer support to the Taliban. The source I recently added is from the academic press and is an obvious high quality source for these matters. Do you have any sources other than government press releases which refute the claims? By all means add to the article that the Pakistan government denies these allegations, but it is widely accepted that they do, there is no neutrality issue here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, you have not attributed that the 'wide' allegations are by the US govt. Not attributing that compromises the article's neutrality. It will only be neutral to say that "the US (and if any other mention that too) govt. alleges Pakistan to be supporting taliban and Pakistan strongly denies it" and even with all this stated, the infobox inclusion is not justifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Again you are wrong, it is the mainstream view as evidenced by academic sources that they supported the Taliban, your only sources which refute this are press releases from the government. It is not "just a US govt" view at all as you keep saying, it is a widely accepted fact. Now please add a source to the article which says they refute the allegations and we can be done with this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you need to stop throwing the burden of correcting the issue on me. It is your responsibility to add the material in a neutral way since you are reinstating it as per WP:NPOV and WP:VOLUNTEER. Then, news articles are reliable sources. The 'academic' sources you have given are also based on POV of US officials. Your term 'widely accepted fact' is a WP:Weasel. Here is another reliable source which is not a press release from Pakistani govt. [16]. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(out)+(ec)I have not said your sources were not reliable, I said they were government press release. You may not say that the academic sources are based on US pov at all, if you disagree take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. It is not my responsibility to add balancing content, it is yours, you are the one saying the article is not neutral. I have presented sources from the academic press which shows it is mainstream thinking that they have supported the Taliban, it is for you to prove per WP:BURDEN that this is not the case. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue is not of reliability and I just gave you a contradiction from the mainstream, If you don't think its your responsibility to add a neutral POV when you add content, you need to read WP:NPOV. The WP:BURDEN on me is only to prove that the content is disputed, which I did. I just reviewed your added academic source, it does not seem to be so neutral itself while judging ISI. In the very next sentence after alleging ISI for taliban support, it says "On the basis of such stereotyping it is assumed...". I think that is enough to present an openly proclaimed prejudice by your source. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to review it again, it does not say that which you think it does. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have, [17] here you go. You are clearly adding non neutral content as per WP:NPOV. You should self revert or add attribution and refutation along with removal of infobox inclusion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not. I am not going to continue to argue this with you, if you feel the source is not reliable then please post on the reliable sources noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I just quoted you a phrase from the book you cited. Are you even reviewing your own citation? This is clearly a POV dispute and not an RSN dispute. I've given you contradicting news sources as well as mainstream evidence. Since there are contradictions this becomes a controversy and should be treated as one with neutral entries. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No you took a phrase from the book out of context, that phrase has nothing to do with what is being discussed, it is about the hill people of Pakistan, so no, you did not read it properly at all. There is no POV dispute at all, mainstream sources explicitly state that Pakistan security services aided the Taliban (as does another source I added) Your sources are mainstream yes, mainstream media. All your sources are doing is reiterating what the Pakistan government has said. Again, if you think the source does not support the edit take it to the RSN board. If you think it is not neutral to write that Pakistan has aided the Taliban go to the neutral point of view noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not out of the context, if you read the whole paragraph, it is a continuation (infact a judgement) of the said statement. While some of my sources are reiterating Pakistan refutation, the last source I gave is independently telling the same (if you reviewed it at all). You're really hard at hearing. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are reading it out of context, by the way, "say that the Pakistani intelligence agencies have long used threats, arrests and killings to control the Taliban and that they could be doing so again to maintain their influence over the insurgents." This is from your previous source, it clearly says the Pakistani intel agencies have controlled and helped the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, controlling someone and having influence over them is opposite of alliance. And did you miss the arrests? And a dedicated article written on 10 year war with their allies in Pakistan? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You can be allied with someone and still exert influence over them, please post to the noticeboards a I have suggested as this is obviously going no-were. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, edit on that page if you want to add comments here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات منابع معتبر

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Gabor and Ataturk

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This alleged liaison has been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been two days and still no feedback. As expected, my additions to Ataturk and Gabor's respective pages were reverted. This violates WP:NOTCENSORED, does it not? The reverting editors have argued against including the information because it is a claim not a fact. We're talking about a relationship from the early-to mid-'30s, long before tabloids and social media existed. Ataturk has been dead since 1938. So of course there aren't going to be receipts. Gabor's account is the only thing to go by, and many publications have long accepted it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It has now been 17 days and still none of you have joined the discussion. Please give input so this debate doesn't go dormant yet again. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Well over a month now. Community participation is strongly needed. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you link the page in the title of this section? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's both Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Zsa Zsa Gabor. Schazjmd (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) & Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)

There is a problem of neutrality in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis).

See: Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024

Since both Samasthas of AP (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) and EK Sunnis (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) have the same name, founder and the same history until the split in 1989, both should be presented equally, in their respective articles.

For that I humbly request you to undo this edit. Moreover both Samasthas should be named exactly the same except two letters of "AP" and "EK". What should I do to do that because there is already a request to rename (Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024)? In addition, my request to rename and move them to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) has been removed. If you would like to know more or have any doubt, let me know. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have informed Spworld2 about this discussion. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources that say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989

The following sources say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration, which means Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989 when the split happened.

• The Hindu says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centenary. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• onmanorama.com says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• The New Indian Express says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• The website of MediaOne says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• The Times of India says about the inauguration of 99th foundation day of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• Manorama News says about beginning of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• PressReader says about Kanthapuram claiming to be the original one, and about justifying with the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• Mathrubhumi says about the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• Madhyamam says about the promulgation of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• malabarnews.com says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
• ETV Bharat says about the declaration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus ETV Bharat like several others have accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) to celebrate the centennial.
• Kasargod Vartha says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.

So articles on respective Samasthas should be treated equally in terms of the time of formation, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989, everywhere including in the infobox. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:

• Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (Samastha) was formed in 1926[18] [[19][20][21].

• In 1986, under the leadership of Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar some ideological differences A new organization was formed by Separated from the Old Samastha [22]

• The Old Samastha remained the same. Those who Separated from the Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (old Samastha) call it EK Samastha

• But in Kerala, the Old Samastha established in 1926 is known as Samasta. In 1986, the Old Samastha Separated from and the new organization came to be known as A.P Samastha (Samastha (AP Faction)), other name like: Kanthapuram faction'

• Editor @ Neutralhappy, the information in Old Samastha is written in A.P Samastha (Samastha (AP Faction)) and the year it was formed, this is wrong writing, for which news links are used without many source.

This editor (@ Neutralhappy) gives importance to this page only, (Samastha (AP Faction)) writes the entire page as advertisement WP:PROMOTION, and people write their own for the editor (@ Neutralhappy) (WP:CONFLICT). seems like ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources that say about the split of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama in 1989

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, founded in 1926 was, according to several sources (1—The New Indian Express, 2—The Hindu, 3—Scroll.in, 4—onmanorama.com, 5—News18, 6—Deccan Chronicle, 7—Dool News [Wikipedia page], 8— Southlive, 9—Samakalika Malayalam [Wikipedia page]), split in 1989 into two organisations exactly with the same name the organisation had before the split. Looking at the term split linguistically, it means all the new ones formed after the split have a shared history, thus a common time of formation. Thus both Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) are to be treated in Wikipedia equally in terms of their name, their time of formation, the founder and the rest of the matter pior to the split.

Two Samasthas of EK and EK faction Sunnis claim theirs is the real Samastha. That means both do not agree the other one is real. There is a source which says the AP faction claims theirs is the real Samastha. Perod Abdurahman Saqafi, secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), says in a Malayalam YouTube video that the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction. Note that according to the AP faction, Samastha was not split but reorganised in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

We can see the English Wikipedia page for Samakalika Malayalam Varika here. Neutralhappy (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Spworld2 clearly appears to have WP:CONFLICT since Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Sunnis in wikivoice. That too without considering neutrality and due weight. Both Samasthas claim the real Samastha. But Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Samastha only in Wikivoice. Spworld2 also seems to have high level of hatred towards AP Sunnis. Spworld2 has added content in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) that is not present in the source Spworld2 cited for. Spworld2 appears to be ready get blocked or banned because of his WP:CONFLICT for an indefinite period. Even the source Spworld2 cited in the above comment/reply does not say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was founded in 1989. Spworld2 also added the year 1989 as the year of formation in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) adding a source that does not say about the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) but the split of Samastha in 1989. I have no official membership of any organisation. I do not even have closeness to any local leaders of any organisation. I have no close connection to the topic I am editing. I am not editing any part of Wikipedia because I am asked to, or I am offered to be paid for. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not a Sunni, but I know Sunni Islam. I don't support religions, But learning about religions,

I am not interested in any organization. You write about an organization first without copying from other organizations. AP Samastha was formed in 1986 No matter how many people claim that sea water is sweet, sea water is actually salty

Sponsored links, no matter how many links are not sourced AP Samastha ( Samastha (AP Faction) ) was founded in 1986 by Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar Spworld2 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we cannot add unsourced content. You have added unsourced content. You keep saying AP Samastha formed in 1989 without citing a source. The sources that you cited do not support your claim. You clearly have WP:CONFLICT. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Only people associated with EK Samastha claim EK Samastha is the real one. The same thing is seen in Spworld2. I have seen Mujahids say "Chelari Samastha" and Jamate-Islami says "Samastha (Kanthapuram faction)". Thus it seems non-Sunni Muslims in Kerala have accepted the right of both Samasthas to claim the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1989. Because of this edit by Spworld2, we can understand Spworld2 really belongs to those associated with EK Samastha or those who are paid to edit. Spworld2 also has created a page for the promotion of 100th anniversary of EK Samastha. Moreover, Spworld2, nominated the article on AP Samastha for deletion because of Soworld2's WP:CONFLICT of interest. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I note this wording "... the Samasta , had to face two splits in its history . The first split , that occurred in 1967 , did not do much harm to the Organization . But the split in 1989 divided the Samasta vertically into two , and placed it into a quandary . [...] For the 1989 split , A.P. Aboobacker Musaliar , an eloquent orator , organizer , shrewed leader , generally known as Kantapuram , gave the leadership . It is said that the split was purely on petty personal interest .3 The sudden growth of S.S.Y.S. , under the stewardship of Kantapuram frightened the parent body . Every attempt to bring the youth body under the control of the Samasta failed . Without the consent of the parent or- ganization , S.S.Y.S. held a mammoth Conference at Ernakulam in 1989 and this ultimately led to the ousting of those who cooperated with the controversial conference . In retaliation , those who were ousted formed a body with the same name and elected a President for their group which completed the split . Subsequently they founded theirown Ulama organisation and various sub organisations to streamline their activities. The aftermath of the split was that it triggered a series of violent clashes and civil and criminal litigation over the control of the religious proper- ties and institutions all over Malabar.33 For the new group the split was an ideological one . They stated that the split was nothing but the last device in their fight against the lenient attitude taken by the official wing of the Samasta towards the anti - Sunni organizations forgetting their responsibility of safeguarding the Sunnah.34 Whatever be the reasons for the split , the consequences of this ramifications and the damage it caused to the Muslim social fabric are deeper and wider than it seems outwardly." (Islam in Kerala: Groups and Movements in the 20th Century (pp. 141-142)). The choice here would be to either split the articles in three, with one article covering the history up to 1989 and in the two other recognize that both factions consider 1926 as the founding date. Or considering the AP Samastha as the splinter group (which this book seems to back) but acknowledge that the AP Samastha considers itself as the legit inheritor of the original Samastha. --Soman (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable comment by Soman.

As for the so-called split in 1967, this source says about the "resignation" and thus not a split according to this Malayalam Wikipedia article, while this source says clearly about walking out and the formation of a new organisation, which in turn means not a split in 1967 according to this The New Indian Express source. Note that the name of the author of the news article is not given; thus non-experts also could be the author having bias while also having less competency because of not conducting interviews of leaders of both Samasthas (who have the most authoritative knowledge about the incidents) or witnesses. M. Abdul Salam is not apparently a witness to the incidents. If M. Abdul Salam says the AP faction formed parallel ("their own") organisations, it is misleading because both the AP and EK factions apparently claim the legacy of the SYS formed before the Samastha's split of 1989, (claims by EK faction: 1; claims by AP faction: 1, 2), the organisation for the youth. Besides, SKSSF of the EK faction was founded, after the Samastha's split in 1989; while its AP faction counterpart, SSF, had been formed, well before the same split. SSF and SKSSF are for students. It is especially noteworthy since both these two types of organisations (for the youth and students) are apparently the most visible ones of both Samasthas, because some jubilees or anniversaries of these organisations—SYS (AP faction) [1], SYS (EK faction), SSF [1] and SKSSF [1]—are conducted. However, there could be any organisation, such as Samastha Kerala Sunni Vidhyabhyasa Board, formed by the AP faction directly as a result of the 1989 Samastha split. Hence what the author can only do legitimately is to present different opinions, which could be done by relying on witnesses. Furthermore, M. Abdul Salam's book seems to be too old (published in 1998), probably at a time when there was much more hatred and conflict between the AP and EK factions so that the EK faction would likely say the EK faction ousted the AP faction leaders from Samastha besides other things. In addition, it seems the author wrote the book based on EK faction's claims. In my opinion, the book is not reliable due to lack of neutrality, maybe because it is not (if it is so) presenting the views of witnesses from both sides.

A source of The Hindu does not say Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama is a Samastha. In addition, another source of The Hindu says about only two organisations known as Samastha:

A group of Sunni leaders led by Aboobacker Musliar had broken away from the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama following organisational disagreement in 1989 and given shape to a Samastha of their own. Since then, the State has had two Samasthas known after their leaders.

That means only two organisations are known as "Samastha". Above all, Najeeb Moulavi, a prominent leader of Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama, in this this Malayalam YouTube video at the 38:00 mark, says the president of Samastha left Samastha and Kerala Samsthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama was founded.

As a side note, this The New Indian Express source says:

He (Kanthapuram) said had they gone after the controversies over the Samastha in the last several years, the community would not have made any advancements in education.

That means the AP faction is not as strong as the EK faction in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The EK faction is so assertive in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted the centenary declaration conference in Bengaluru, which is outside Kerala, while the EK Samastha's name includes "Kerala" and the full name as per the EK Samastha's website means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation"; after the promulgation conference by the AP faction in Kasaragod. This difference in the attitude of the AP faction and the EK faction would make writers on the subject more biased towards EK faction's claims, since the writers become more exposed to the claims of the EK faction. The EK faction now says AP faction leaders left the Samastha, rather than saying the Samastha ousted the AP faction leaders.

As for the matter of the ousting, it is worth reading what this The New Indian Express report says:

... Thangal (Jifri Muthukoya Thangal) said those are the people who left the organisation and started parallel activities.

According to the AP faction, both the claims that the AP faction leaders were ousted and that the AP faction leaders left Samastha are false (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha); instead, the AP faction says 11 people, (including later leaders of the Samastha led by Kanthapuram), walked out of a Samastha meeting, not Samastha, disagreeing to give consent to a demand seeking to give E. K. Aboobacker Musliyar the unchecked authority in advance to alter the minutes in whatever way. Later, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha was reorganised, not split; and still, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction.

Remedy

In conclusion, I recommend both Samasthas be treated equally in terms of the name, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989; everywhere, including in the infobox. This is to keep neutrality, and to relieve both Samasthas of likely embarrassment, in case it turns out that a particular Samastha has been in the government records as the successor of the Samastha founded in 1926, all this while. The best option is to avoid stating, the disputed matter until the split in 1989, without the attribution. Neutralhappy (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Now Spworld2 says AP Samastha was founded in 1986, rather than 1989

See this edit by Spworld2. Spworld2 added 1986 without citing any source; the source seen against "1986" in the infobox does not support the claim that the AP Samastha was founded in 1986. So remove this unsourced year of formation—1986, which is also an original research. Neutralhappy (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Again Spworld2 changed thier position: now Spworld2 says AP Samastha was founded in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

World Professional Association for Transgender Health

I am currently in a dispute with another editor who reverted my addition of critical information about the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). This information was reported by reliable and well-respected sources such as The Economist and The New York Times, both of which are listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP.

Specifically, The Economist details how WPATH leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, both The Economist and The New York Times report that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/health/transgender-surgery-biden.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html, https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated). The editor who reverted my edits argues that the information from The Economist and The New York Times is WP:UNDUE and falls under WP:NOTNEWS , despite the fact that these issues have been widely discussed in other mainstream media, as demonstrated in our talk page discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health#Reversion_of_objective_edit).

The current article about WPATH reads more like a corporate page at the moment, rather than a neutral Wikipedia article, as it contains none of the relevant critical information about the organization, even though controversies involving WPATH have been reported by highly reliable sources. I am seeking consensus on the notability of the reporting by these cited news outlets, with the aim of determining whether this information should be included in the article. I would greatly appreciate it if other Wikipedia editors could review this issue and share their opinions. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Which source says that "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers

The New York Times:

Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors, according to newly unsealed court documents. Age minimums, officials feared, could fuel growing political opposition to such treatments. Email excerpts from members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recount how staff for Adm. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services and herself a transgender woman, urged them to drop the proposed limits from the group’s guidelines and apparently succeeded. [23]

The Economist:

Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. [24] Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT is saying "apparently succeeded", and Economist pieces should be presented with attribution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT piece is already included on the SOC8 article, as it dealt with the SOC recommendations specifically, which is why it belongs there, not on the WPATH article, as I already explained on the article talk page. - An earlier draft would have required several years of transgender identity before an adolescent could begin treatment. After criticism from transgender advocates, this provision was removed in the final release. Despite the criticism, transgender youths wishing to be treated are still required to undergo a "comprehensive diagnostic assessment".[18] from the SOC8 page. Raladic (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No reason an NYT article can't be cited in multiple wikipedia articles. I expect thousands already are. Hi! (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, those are two different articles - the cited on on the SOC8 section is from 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/magazine/gender-therapy.html

The one mentioned above is from 2024: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html Void if removed (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM states you probably shouldn't do a whole section straight up called criticism.

It could probably be part of a section called Research activities? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

also, seems like there is a discussion already about it on the Talk Page and that the objected material is included in Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People#Version_8. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Bluethricecreamman, I certainly don't mind such a title (Research activities). Certainly the criticism header was a bit on the nose, even if it's substantively apt. Although that was not cited as the sole reason for reversion.

This information isn't included in another article. In fact, it concerns WPATH directly as well as its activities. It is not about SOC, but rather how WPATH's activities were influenced by external parties, and how WPATH has interfered with Hopkins University reviews. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sean Waltz O'Connell- you did not properly notify me of this discussion as is highlighted in bold as a mandatory step at the top of this noticeboard. Please remember to do so next time, I just found this discussion by chance.

As for the content in question, I don't think there's much more to expand on as the other users here have already explained in addition to my explanation on the article talk page itself. As it stands, no other reliable media has picked up the allegation of the reverted content other than the Economist who levied it, which makes it first-hand news, so lasting notability has not been proven for an allegation, so it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't appear WP:DUE, especially not in WP:CRITS form. The New York times piece about an early draft potentially changing age requirements is included on the SOC8 article, as I have already explained, as it was about the SOC specifically, not WPATH. Raladic (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Raladic I notified you about the NPOV page in our talk before I posted here, however you are correct and I'll take care to tag appropriately in future - Thanks for the reminder.

The information from the NYT and The Economist are specifically about WPATH making recommendations under pressure from an official, and that concerns WPATH, not the SOC.

That information is not reflected in any article. The SOC article that you refer to cites another NYT article from 2022, and does not reflect the recent controversy reported by the NYT and the Economist that only came to light a month ago. As for the information about WPATH meddling with the John Hopkins reviews, reported by the Economist, it's been widely covered & discussed in the mainstream media. The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Guardian published op-eds discussing the controversy. While the op-eds cannot be used for statements of facts, they can be used for statements of opinions, and the fact that major news outlets have dedicated so much space to the discussion of the story reported by the Economist clearly illustrates that it garnered nationwide attention.

For example, an op-ed in The Washington Post directly cites the Economist article:

"Last week, The Economist reported that other documents unsealed in the Alabama case suggest something has gone wrong at WPATH itself, which reportedly commissioned evidence reviews from Johns Hopkins University, then tried to meddle with the result. Internal communications suggest that research should be 'thoroughly scrutinized to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.' Now, assuming this is true, I’m sure WPATH sincerely believed it was doing its best for gender-dysphoric kids. But such meddling makes it harder to find out whether the group is right about that." [25]

Similarly, an op-ed from The New York Times notes:

"The World Professional Association for Transgender Health... blocked publication of a Johns Hopkins systematic review it had commissioned that also found scant evidence in favor of the gender-affirming approach. Recently released emails show that WPATH leaders told researchers that their work should 'not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.'"

[26]

Another op-ed in The Guardian states:

"Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins University because the results undermined its preferred approach... WPATH was pressured by the Biden administration to remove minimum ages for treatment from its 2022 standards of care." [27]

Furthermore, The New York Sun also covered the story in its report:

"WPATH wielded a heavy hand after it in 2018 commissioned from evidence-based medicine experts at Johns Hopkins University a series of systematic literature reviews... After some of the Hopkins teams’ findings raised concerns among WPATH leadership that they might 'negatively affect the provision of transgender health care,' WPATH compromised the independence of the Hopkins researchers."

[28]

The above pieces show that the information shared by the Economist led to a substantial debate in the media, which firmly illustrates the notability of the topic and importance of its reflection in the article about the WPATH. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any of that supports a statement of fact in wiki-voice. It seems you're main point is that some mention is due in the WPATH article. Would you be amenable to an attributed version? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I believe an attributed version would be fine. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers What thoughts do you have on the best way to phrase an attributed version to the article, omitting the criticism header and so on? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

1) The new NYT article is still about the same thing, they very article you linked says The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies. - the guidelines it is talking about is the SOC8, so this is the very same topic that is in fact already covered at the SOC8 article. I do not know how to make this any more clear, so please listen.

2)The Hopkins story that is WP:ALLEGED by the Economist was not picked up by any other media. Op-eds are not "substantial debate in the media", they are opinion from individuals, some newspapers just allow those with little (or no) editorial oversight. It gets even more problematic when one of them is cited to a tracked anti-trans hate group (SEGM) as I had already explained. So at best, an attributed sentence of "An article in the Economist alleged influence on a study." or something along those lines. But again, it even that looks questionable to be WP:DUE at this moment in time to even say this under our WP:NOTNEWS policy. So I'd say we should wait to see if any other reliable media actually picks up, as Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, so we are not rushed to add one news piece. Our inclusion criteria on Wikipedia are based on policy, especially scrutinized so in WP:CTOP areas. Raladic (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The latest NYT article reports that SOC was developed under political pressure. That information was not available in 2022, and is not reflected in another article. That surely rebuts the assertion made in your previous message. I have listened very carefully to what you have said, with due regard, but this is not about the SOC, the controversy is about how that SOC was developed by WPATH. It is a different story that made its way to the media only now. The two stories are dissimilar in time line, and in specific scope. The Guardian does not cite SEGM, as I already mentioned in our talk page discussion. It makes no mention of that organization, and only links to a repost of the Economist article at SEGM website, probably because the original Economist article is paywalled.This is the SEGM link [https://segm.org/The-Economist-WPATH-Research-Trans-Medicine-Manipulated] As one can plainly see, it contains nothing but the full repost of the Economist article.

I believe we can report the NYT and the Economist stories with attribution to those news outlets, because those are very reputable and trusted sources known for fact checking and accuracy. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, the NYT story is ABOUT the standards of care, so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content, but it already seems sufficiently WP:SUMMARIZEd with what is there, even if that other source is from two years ago. It's inherently about the same core issue. A by-setence of "some of the draft guidelines may have been influenced by political pressure" or something along the lines maybe (which again, would still be fairly small given that they didn't appear to have made it out of the draft after the criticism that is already in the article into the final version of the SOC8).

As for the Economist - Guardian quote stop your WP:OR on "because they are paywalled" - the Guardian links to SEGM in the citation of it - Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins, that means, they cited SEGM, full-stop, anything else is irrelevant and is you own original thought. Note that Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV is strict, especially around criticism that doesn't seem to be widely repeated such as is the care here, other than with the Guardian linking it to an anti-trans hate group, then it makes the inclusion really hard to argue on being DUE at the moment. Please note Wikipedia is not here as a platform to right great wrongs. The fact that the Economist article itself used slur language, in the last paragraph they refer to a trans woman using a slurred term (see Trans_woman#Terminology for more context), is a whole separate question that we haven't even addressed on the motivation of the original article itself. Raladic (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point you are simply repeating your argument that the information from the latest NYT article is covered in another Wikipedia article, when it is clearly not. I do not see any mention of the pressure from the official in the article that you refer to. Also, as a a long time editor you must be well aware that WP:OR does not apply to the talk page discussion, but you keep bringing it up for some reason. Anyone can check the SEGM link and see what it is. It does not contain any information produced by SEGM itself, it is a simple repost. And lastly, there is a consensus to consider the Economist to be a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. It is a well respected source known for fact checking and accuracy. This is not a place to challenge that. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT did not say "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official", they said WPATH removed minimum age requirements which is something Rachel Levine (who, for the record, has absolutely no power over WPATH) made a recommendation in support of. They say James Cantor (who is as WP:FRINGE as it gets in the field of trans healthcare and not WP:DUE in the slightest) levied the charges of politics driving their decisions, and the president of WPATH denied them.

Moreover, the article actually says the American Academy of Pediatrics warned WPATH it would not endorse the SOC with age minimums because "the [AAP]’s policies did not recommend restrictions based on age for surgeries" (because there is no other field of medicine which sets age limits on surgeries deemed medically necessary). So this is not "Levine forced WPATH to remove age minimums", it's "highly reputable medical organizations and health directors argued such minimums were unscientific and WPATH discussed it internally and agreed".

The Economist is an opinion piece, only covered by other opinion pieces and unreliable sources, neither of which lend any evidence the allegations are due. The fact that they gave SEGM permission to repost it in full is concerning in itself. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The NYT report says:

"Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors"

The Economist:

"Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care"

We must report the information strictly in accordance with what the sources say. And they discuss pressure from an official. Whether Levine has power over WPATH is not up to us to decide. And the Economist is not an

opinion piece. It is not identified as such by the Economist, and for example an op-ed in the Washington Post says "Last week, The Economist reported", so that firmly indicates in writing that it is an actual report by the Economist. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP: The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline, with a few featured commentary pieces by pseudonymous bylines That link is to WP:RSOPINION. WRT the WAPO, "op-ed A cited op-ed B therefore op-ed B is not an op-ed" is not a policy based argument.

That leaves us with the NYT. A source saying "A recommended B do C; B later did C" is not one saying "B did C because of A". Especially because, as I noted, the AAP explicitly warned WPATH about age minimums, the NYT notes it was internally discussed, the president denied it, and the person who says that was a political decision and not a scientific one is WP:FRINGE.

WPATH has an FAQ on the SOC8[29]:

• Minimum ages for providing gender-affirming medical care were removed from the SOC-8 and replaced by strengthened criteria to help codify the framework that enables every TGD adolescent the opportunity to get their appropriate medical needs met at the appropriate time; these changes to the SOC-8 reflect the fact that one-size-fits-all health care models, especially transgender care, are not accurate or appropriate for every individual person.
• Prior to its September 2022 release, WPATH announced a public open comment period to the draft SOC-8 in December 2021 through January 2022. This comment period allowed input and feedback from professionals in the field from around the world who were concerned that the listing of ages would lead to further limitations to care by creating or reinforcing arbitrary boundaries to care and/or by ignoring possible contributing health factors including mental health, family support, or other individual health needs. After comments were reviewed and discussed by chapter authors and co-chairs, it was determined that the specific ages would be removed to ensure greater access to care for more people

WPATH had an open consultation. Levine was one of many who responded. Others responded. WPATH made a choice they agreed with. A WP:FRINGE activist didn't like that and screamed "politics!". WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. We can write somewhere "the SOC 8 dropped age requirements for surgery after a public consultation" - we don't have to put in "James Cantor complained about it" (WP:UNDUE per WP:FRINGE), "Levine encouraged them to do it" (per WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that the more important thing is "the AAP warned them they'd withdraw support without it"), or "Levine made them do it" (because that's only said in an op-ed), Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP, The Economist publishes articles exclusively in editorial voice, yet is a reliable source nonetheless. As such, The Economist cannot be discounted because of the manner of presentation of its material, as it would mean that we should not use any Economist article, and that would be against the established consensus. If you believe that the Economist articles are not acceptable for use in Wikipedia, you should challenge that at WP:RSP. But I checked the last RFC, and the closing statement clearly discourages any attempts to discount the Economist from use in this topic area, and there is a mention of WP:DUE there as well. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393#RfC: The Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#RfC:_The_Economist

As for the NYT, I have already quoted what it writes, please take the time to check. Otherwise, In short, it says that an official pressed WPATH to drop the age limit. The rest is your personal interpretation that we cannot use in the article. We must stick to what the sources write, and 2 highly reliable sources support this information. That makes it WP:DUE. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I will say it again - please listen. You have now been told by multiple experienced editors the specific policy based reasons for why something is DUE or UNDUE on a specific article and yet, you keep going off on unrelated tangents. The policies we cited are irrespective of reliability. The Economist story is undue on the WPATH article per WP:NOTNEWS.

And again, the age limit story from the NYT is ABOUT the SOC8, so it is undue on the WPATH article, so it belongs at the SOC article instead, where it already is and as I already said above - so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content - so please stop beating on with the same argument. Raladic (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Publishing under editorial voice doesn't imply an opinion piece, which is why The Economist was found to be generally reliable. And even if it was an opinion piece, it could still be cited with an appropriate qualifier, such as 'The Economist reported that...' Hi! (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No, because it would be commentary, not "reporting". Remsense ‥ 论 02:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, we could say 'The Economist said', but I don't think that it really matters when it's a statement of fact, not a statement of personal values. FWIW, perennial reliable source The Washington Post said "The Economist reported that..." in reference to the same article. Hi! (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention the thousands of times it's been cited with no qualifier at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22economist.com%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

I find it very hard to believe these thousands of articles are all in violation of the findings or spirit of the perennial sources list. Hi! (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, is your position that because all Economist pieces don't have real name byline, wikipedia should never use the phrase 'The Economist reported'? Because if so, there's a lot of work to be done - this phrasing is standard on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22the+economist+reported%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Hi! (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No, merely that reporting and editorial analysis are two different things, which can sometimes be contained in the same piece but should be distinguished. There's plenty of potentially misleading writing on Wikipedia, you don't need to tell me that. Remsense ‥ 论 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The article in The Economist primarily presents factual reporting, especially regarding the suppression of Johns Hopkins University reviews and the pressure exerted by a high-ranking health official on WPATH to remove minimum age requirements for treatment. These details are information, not commentary. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This just seems like POV pushing, particularly from the followup responses. One of the sources given is a blatant op-ed and the other is discussing a decision made that involved multiple groups and people and was done after another major scientific organization (the AAP) said they should do it. Silverseren^C 15:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Replying to OP: since this material would be about how WPATH carried out and interpreted medical research, this is a medical topic, and as such sources cited should follow the WP:MEDRS guideline. While mainstream journalism is a reliable source in some topic areas, community consensus is that medical topics require a higher level of expertise. Rather than cite opinion pieces published in The New York Times or The Economist (which are in any case subject to WP:NEWSOPED)), content should be based on material published by professional expert sources such as medical journals, standard textbooks, or national or international expert bodies. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input. However, I would like to clarify a few points. The New York Times articles in question are not opinion pieces. Additionally, WPATH is an organization, not a specific medical treatment or medicine, which means it does not fall strictly under the category of a medical topic as defined by WP.

  Furthermore, WP:MEDPOP

  states that 'the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article.' The information in question pertains to current affairs and historical context related to WPATH, and therefore, the sources cited are appropriate under these guidelines." Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS does not only apply to treatments, it applies to all biomedical information. And as you can clearly see on that page, information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information. Loki (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I see what you are considering, however it's a bit of a reach & not substantive. WP:BMI does not mention institutions or professional organizations among what constitutes biomedical information. In addition, WP:NOTBMI states that medical ethics are not biomedical information: Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event clearly do not constitute biomedical information. WPATH interfering with Hopkins University reports and making decisions under external pressure are exactly ethical issues. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As per advice, I have asked for clarity on The Economist on WP:RSN Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Per community consensus at WP:RSN, The Economist article is a reliable source, and not an opinion piece. The news reporting by the Economist is RS, and opinions need to be attributed. So The Economist cannot be rejected as WP:RSOPINION. The story about Levine's influence has been reported by a number of reliable sources, not just one. In addition to The Economist and The New York Times, it was also reported by The Hill and The Telegraph.

Along with op-eds from the mainstream media quoted above, this shows significant coverage, which invalidates WP:NOTNEWS applicability. Moreover, the US administration also reacted to the NYT report denying its involvement, so at the moment it appears to be Levine's personal initiative. In addition, the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services initiated an investigation and requested documents and information about health officials' interactions with WPATH based on the NYT reports. [30] So this is a growing and active controversy involving the WPATH that has received reaction from top political sources - including US administration and US congress inquiries and deliberations. As such, the enduring notability can not be a matter of contention. I believe all of the above warrants inclusion of this information in the article about the WPATH. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The responding OP-EDS to the initial story of the Economist are not "significant coverage" as has been stated to you multiple times at this point, so you are well past WP:IDHT. This means all the real lasting coverage that exists is the Economist, which is why WP:NOTNEWS does apply. Full stop.

And, again on the NYT age on the standard of care story belongs on the article it is about - the SOC8 where it already is covered from a 2022 article (so this 2024 article is just a re-reporting of the same) and as was also pointed out to you (repeatedly), you are welcome to add points there if they are relevant and have consensus for doing so and add new information there. Raladic (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This story about WPATH’s ethical issues has been covered by multiple reliable sources. It can’t be something that we ignore or refuse to acknowledge. However, I don’t see it being reported in any particular article--JonJ937 (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to chime in response to some of the arguments made in the thread: I don’t think this should be subject to WP:MEDRS because it is not about the medical information itself, it is about the guidelines development process.  Also WPATH allows members in non-healthcare professions such as law, sociology, and anthropology. The WPATH Guideline Steering Committee oversaw the development of SOC 8 which reported that the main differences in the methodology of the SOC-8 when compared with other versions of the SOC include the “involvement of an independent body from a reputable university to help develop the methodology and undertake independent systematic literature reviews where possible.”  This is the very topic of the Economist Article. I disagree that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS; as long as SOC-8 is the most recent SOC, and SOCs are central to WPATH, then information from a reliable source about WPATH interference in the systematic reviews for SOC-8 is important to include for a neutral article.  RfC: The Economist says “there is a consensus that The Economist is reliable for trans topics” so please listen. The information about Levine was reported by a number of sources listed as reliable at WP: RSP; these sources would likely not be writing about if it was SOP to make decisions after Delphi Consensus.  Plus the US administration reacted to it, and it is the subject of an investigation by a congressional committee, so we can’t dismiss it as WP:UNDUE. Overall, I think it's biased to not include both of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evathedutch (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I read through the arguments, and after stripping out the various personal interpretations, I agree that it's WP:DUE and I disagree that it has WP:NOTNEWS issues. Both topics (interference in Hopkins and interference by Levine) are germane to WPATH's mission and the main sources cited are very reliable. I don't have a strong opinion about where it's included, but it's most related to SOC-8, so it could fit well on the WPATH article near the discussion of SOC. Colaheed777 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Parental investment

Certain passages of parental investment should probably be looked at, particularly as it pertains to humans. I'm somewhat skeptical reading language like Women on the other hand are tuned into resources provided by potential mates, as their reproductive success is increased by ensuring their offspring will survive, and one way they do so is by getting resources for them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My general concern is that there are plenty of statements in this article that state in wikivoice that women act a certain way because evolution. I think it's important to be careful about generalizing groups of people like that and there's probably some WP:DUE issues there. I'm not an expert on human sexuality or anything so I was hoping some more eyes on this would be useful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to share your concern. The content as it stands seems overdependent on biological points of view and seems inattentive to academic scholarship from other fields (such as history, cultural anthropology, and gender studies), about how socialization and culture shape expectations of and behavior around parenting. Like, the article is basically saying stuff like 'women are biologically predisposed to X', and I'm not accustomed to thinking of sweeping claims of biological predisposition in human behavior as something that has a strong consensus in academia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What I think is needed is for the article to take a more zoomed out perspective, cite some textbooks about human sexuality that can tackle the topic from a really broad-scope so as to account for and attend to perspectives from multiple disciplines. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever posted a thread on this noticeboard so forgive me if I'm doing this all wrong, but is something supposed to happen? Are there specific wikiprojects I should contact to address this issue that I've identified? I'm not confident in correcting it myself but I also don't want this thread to be archived without anything happening. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect colour scheme for List of armed conflicts involving ___ against ___

I am opening an issue to resolve the problem that occured at List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia and List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany that is affected by the actions of @Setergh. The user has for some reason, (assuming WP:AGF WP:CLUELESS, has used reverted colour scheme to mark positive result as red, and negative as green.

  Russian, Soviet, Muscovite,
Ruthenian, or Kievan Rus' victory

  Polish or Polish–Lithuanian victory

  Another result*

The more typical symbology is based human perception of the result of the conflict or any other event.

   Victory

   Defeat

Examples of standard colour scheme:

• List of wars involving Lithuania
• List of wars involving Russia
• List of wars involving the United Kingdom
• List of wars involving Egypt

I have started a discussion at the Talk:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia#Colour scheme is not correct to raise a problem to the other participants, however, the user explains, that similar colour scheme is used elsewhere. The referenced article, namely List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany, have been created by the same user.

I have indicated further information, why it is nessary to used non-biased abd standardized colours schemes, by mentioning that used colours "frequently utilised by Wikipedia to mark positive vs negative, right vs wrong"

   Positive

   Negative

   Neutral

Check for instance

• Green#Symbolism and associations
• Wikipedia Manual of style

I assume, since the user edit wikipedia only since 14 July 2024, he/she/they might not know the typical symbology used in such lists. Such behaviour might be also considered as breaking the WP:NPOV, because it might be a manipulation of interpretation from positive / negative outcome to the opposite. Nbarchaeo (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

How is this a neutrality issue? Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello?

You've completed twisted the meaning of my words.

I do think changing the colour scheme is a good idea, and I never said I was against it, I just asked what to change it to.

And what do you mean Red means positive in this case? Red just means Polish victory in this case.

I know how the system works, though yes I did copy the colouring in another article from here.

I myself mentioned I made the other two pages and I did not use it as an argument for the colours not to be changed, I've literally stated that they should be changed, agreeing with you.

Your point is just strange though, you say you want the colours changed because Green means Victory and Red means Defeat, and then when I asked you what to change it to, you said you wanted it changed to the exact same thing??

I'm heavily confused. Setergh (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This issue seems only to involve clarity and consistency. Like Slatersteven, I don’t see how neutrality is involved. It doesn’t seem appropriate for this noticeboard. Perhaps the MOS is a more appropriate venue? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

One more thing, "The user has for some reason, (assuming WP:AGF WP:CLUELESS, has used reverted colour scheme to mark positive result as red, and negative as green.)

Is this just WP:BIAS? I don't get why you're instantly trying to report me for some kind of non-neutral point of view. I have agreed to coming to a compromise with you, and you think I'm for some reason breaking Wikipedia guidelines?

You've already gone to my personal talk page to mention this and to the site for WP:NPOV. Instead of trying to co-operate with me, you're deciding to just try and report me or something? Setergh (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason of placing this issue into Noticeboard is to get the second opinion only Nbarchaeo (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Slatersteven that it mainly concern WP:MOS. The lists of that type, however, have informative character, and they can be affected by personal opinion / point of view of the creator. Colour coding is basic way of informing. Taking the following, such lists have to follow the same colour style. My concern was raised, because the information provided in the list might be a subject of conflicting views of sides that are involved, which is visible in the Talk:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. The contributors mentioned Fake wars - for instance.

Taking the informal tone of responce of the user [31] I am more convinced towards WP:CLUELESS Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I was on my phone, not really having time to reply.

I told you that I'm glad to try and cooperate with you on changing the colour of both the List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia page along with my List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany.

Instead of accepting this, you've decided to try and now set up random arguments against me that I'm breaking some kind of guidelines, or that I'm clueless.

I am not clueless, and I have explained why my page shared such colours.

Please, try and discuss what colours we should change them to instead of explaining the same thing over and over again. Setergh (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest standard colours

   Victory

   Defeat

   Other outcome

Nbarchaeo (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that would only work for one country.

These pages are between two countries, meaning you need different colours to symbolise their victories.

You cannot go by the typical Green, Red, Blue in this case. Setergh (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The list is written from a perspective of one side against the other side. The above-mentioned scheme is valid Nbarchaeo (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that may be a misunderstanding due to the actual name of the article, although the main point of it is for Russo–Polish Wars.

Therefore, it is not written from the perspective of one side, but both sides. One against the other, and the other against the one. Setergh (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest the solution to this is to simply avoid red and green, and use other colors instead. For example, we could use Orange for Polish victories, and Cobalt blue for Russian victories. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I had a similar idea as well.

I think this would work pretty well, I suppose it'd be good to mention this on the talk page of the actual page though. Setergh (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

There are three lists of similar character, that have symbology, which I am suggesting

• List of wars between Russia and Sweden - Russia (1) is green
• List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Ukraine - Poland (1) is green
• List of conflicts between Romans and Persians - Romans (1) are green

The opposite:

• List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany - Germany (2) is green
• List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia - Russia (2) is green

Non standard

• List of wars between Poland and Sweden - Poland (1) green, Sweden (2) is yellow
• List of military engagements during the Israel–Hamas war - green is vectory of any of the sides
• List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent - Hindu grey (1), Muslim (2) is red

No colour

• List of conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan
• List of battles between England and Scotland
• List of Hundred Years' War battles
• List of American Indian Wars

I am suggesting to make them more standardized Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can decide to abolish "conflicts involving ___ against ___" articles? Usually the are of rather poor quality and by their nature a lot of the content in them would be duplicated. Alaexis_¿question? 11:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems a valid suggestion, as you say it's hard to see how this material is not also in "list of wars involving X" or "list of battles involving X" (in fact twice, as both combatants will be listed). Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly see a reason in abolishing them, although I do agree they tend to be rather poor quality.

I do think that it's quite useful to know the conflicts between two powers who have had many, and (usually) doesn't hurt anyone in any sort of way.

Personally, it's probably just better to improve the quality of them rather than straight up remove them. Setergh (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Although I may be biased considering I've made List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany which I've put a lot of effort into. Setergh (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This article indeed looks great. Mine was a (probably unnecessarily) provocative suggestion born from the despair I felt looking at long lists in which every skirmish between entities however distantly related to the modern nations is listed as part of a centuries-long conflict. Those articles had just enough sources to make it impossible to delete them but enough issues to make it a nightmare to try to sort them out. Again, sorry for the rant, this definitely doesn't apply to your article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That's alright, and thank you! I do agree though, the common articles that involve something such as a country against another due tend to be pretty low quality, so I understand your frustration. I try my hardest to possibly improve these kinds of articles although sometimes it's just a bit difficult, time-consuming or I just cannot think of a way to. Setergh (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering the number of people who are colour blind, especially red-green colourblind, I'd have thought it would be much better to use a pallette from Commons:Commons:Creating accessible illustrations. They would also avoid the baggage of red and green as representing danger or good. Compatibility comes way after usability. NadVolum (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting Commons:Commons:Creating accessible illustrations Nbarchaeo (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thank you. I'll definitely try and use this to replace some of the colours I've used before. Setergh (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dustborn

Could someone here please respond to this allegation and determine whether or not to include it? Trade (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As noted in this edit to the talk page, it does not look like the proposed sources for making that claim are reliable. Wikipedia cannot cover the allegation unless there is a reliable source to back it up. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Some users claiming that Israeli military victory in 1973 war, established by military historians and history texts, is not clear. See Yom Kippur War#cite note-448, Yom Kippur War#Military situation. The sources are extensive and not equivocal. I could use uninvolved eyes. Andre🚐 18:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a controversy regarding the result, looking through the page archives it was a simplified remnant of a more complex result. “Israeli military victory”, which is debated is a much more accurate descriptor “Israeli victory”, which is incorrect. The best solution I see here is to have a “see aftermath” section, kind of like the winter war which also has a controversial result The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

New RM at Gaza genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#New_name_for_RM IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• The RM has been closed. starship.paint (RUN) 00:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

The following discussion 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.

---

There is a policy violation in that it still remains unclear as to what caused Trumps wound so the article wording has to be shot at and NOT shot. To say shot is inaccurate, at this point in time. A neutral point of view, and accurate one, is shot at. There are NO reliable sources confirming what precisely caused the ear injury. The reference provided several times in the talk section from the FBI Director is not even clear, and it doesn't help that he is a Trump appointee. A consensus doesn't change the fact that we still do not know, and may never know, what caused the injury.

This has been discussed ad nauseum and more recently under Was he shot or was he shot at in the talk section of the article. It's a protected article so I'm not sure who the editor is. Oghma6 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggest you try the WP:FTN noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you would suggest that forum. It's possible he was shot so to say so is not a fringe theory just more probably politically motivated. Trump used it in an exaggerated manner in the recent debate. It is simply not known what actually struck him, so to say shot is not neutral, accurate or unbiased. To say he was shot is inaccurate, until definitive proof is provided, and against Wikipedia policy. Oghma6 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I suspect the good folks at FTN would tell you that your contention that Trump wasn't shot (but merely "shot at”) is fringe. Yes, there was some initial uncertainty as to whether he was shot or hit by shrapnel… but that has long since been clarified. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

My contention isn't that Trump wasn't shot, simply that we don't know either way. To say he was is not a neutral or accurate statement, despite what anybody says. As long as it's not known how he was injured then the most accurate statement is that he was shot at and injured. It's not a matter of consensus or opinion. Saying shot is a matter of opinion and is being used as propaganda. Despite what so many keep saying it has NOT been clarified. Oghma6 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an NYTimes article and NBC article attached to the claim The upper part of Trump's right ear was grazed by the first bullet fired by Crooks. Both are highly reliable.

It also seems folks have attempted to engage you at Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Was_he_shot_or_was_he_shot_at? and there has been plenty of discussion so far in archives. [32] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Attempted? One of them even admits that we may never know what injured him. That's the whole point. Currently we don't know for sure and even the FBI Director didn't clarify it so at this point in time WE DON'T KNOW! Since we don't know then to say shot is inaccurate, and it's not neutral. Period. Oghma6 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we DO know. Overwhelming consensus of reliable sources have clarified this. Drop the stick. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No. We DON'T know what injured Trumps ear. Consensus is meaningless and this has become an example of say it often enough and it becomes "truth", while not proven true. Can you provide a single reliable, authoritative resource as to the exact cause of the injury? The answer so far is NO! To date there is only one resource provided and their statement did NOT clarify the exact cause of the wound. That resource is also not reliable, which means it can't be said that Trump was shot. 2604:3D09:A079:E700:CC7F:3841:6C86:A1A9 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The NBC source quotes the FBI saying two weeks after the shooting that Trump was hit by a bullet or a fragment of a bullet. Up to that point, information had been unclear.

Unless this version is seriously questioned in reliable sources, we have to accept it as definitive for tehe information in the article.

I appreciate that some editors may find the injuries inconsistent with a direct hit. But any qualification of the official statement would be editor OR.

The reason this request does not belong at NPOVN is that no sources have been provided for alternative opinions. If such opinions have no existence in RS, thene there is no POV issue. The article is presenting the only POV in RS. TFD (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That is from the only source of authority so far and is the FBI Director and he doesn't make it clear, and could be seen as unreliable. "hit by a bullet or a fragment of a bullet". Being shot means hit by a bullet, not fragments. As with all the discussion that has gone on before it comes down to not knowing for sure whether a bullet hit him or fragments of a bullet or something else. Therefore to be accurate it should say shot at and not shot. Period. It's not rocket science here. It is posted here as part of the dispute resolution process. Oghma6 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that how we define "shot" in this context ultimately has to come down to how the sources do. Likewise, whether we trust the FBI Director, and how we treat things they say, should depend on how the sources treat them - certainly not everything they say is treated as unvarnished truth; if sources constantly attribute what they say, then we'd have to attribute it too; and if there are serious sources expressing doubt, then we'd have to include that doubt. But in order to make that argument, you'd need to either find the sources expressing doubt, or at least do a survey of the available sources to demonstrate that a significant number of them are treating it as just the FBI Director's opinion and not a fact. The New York Times, though, says But a detailed analysis of bullet trajectories, footage, photos and audio by The New York Times strongly suggests Mr. Trump was grazed by the first of eight bullets fired by the gunman, Thomas Crooks. That said, "strongly suggests" is still weaker wording than our article is using, so you could possibly push the argument that we should reflect the sources more closely by limiting it to something along those lines... but I wouldn't be surprised if more recent sources are more decisive in their wording. -Aquillion (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Going by the FBI Director it's still not clear. The NY Times study, however, seems a bit clearer and more reliable. That being said is grazed the same as shot, or should it still be shot at and grazed? Wikipedia defines gunshot wound as penetrating. It still really begs the question as to why the FBI Director, a Trump appointee, would be so vague and why they don't release the records about the wound. Oghma6 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Assuming you mean the consensus of the best available sources... ultimately, we have to follow what they say; we're an encyclopedia, so our role is to summarize the best available sources, not to perform our own WP:OR on the subject. See WP:NOTTRUTH for discussion of why. There are some options when you think the sources are wrong, but none that are likely to be helpful here. --Aquillion (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

A separate controversy section at Nijisanji

Hello, folks. A recent edit at Nijisanji placed a portion of material from the history section into a new controversy section. I undid this, as I thought the change made the article less neutral, citing WP:STRUCTURE. The controversy section was reintroduced in this edit, with part of the rationale posted on my talk page. Here is an excerpt of that:

Since the text describing Selen Tatsuki incident is longer than all the rest of 2023 and 2024 combined, breaking it out very much doesn't afford undue weight. [...] Nijisanji's actions did attract criticism and controversy [...] Also, hiding such a major and talked-about thing in an unformatted wall of text as if it was just another graduation of no note is not neutral, and could very well be used to whitewash and hide its importance.

I have excised some of the message, but you can view the entire text in the link above.

I am not well versed on Wikipedia's NPOV policies or how they should be applied in this instance, so I thought I'd ask for some input and a second opinion here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There's some discretion in how to organize the information in an article, but in my opinion creating a criticism section in this fashion is inappropriate and makes the undue emphasis problem even worse. This needs to be cleaned up so the whole situation is explained in one or two concise paragraphs in the history section. Highlighting controversies because they're controversies definitely violates neutral point of view. Pinging Mathrick, the user being quoted here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, a couple questions here:

• At which point, and by what criteria, does it become not "undue emphasis"? Plenty of articles have a controversy section, rightly so in my opinion; what separates them from those that shouldn't have it? If the company going into damage control mode and spending a good chunk of their communications on assuring everyone they're not villains isn't sufficient evidence of genuine controversy, then what is?
• Or are you saying that a controversy section always violates NPOV, in any article? In which case, I respectfully disagree, as does a lot of existing Wikipedia practice.
• You said it makes the "undue emphasis problem even worse" -- does that mean the article before my edit had an undue emphasis on Selen Tatsuki's termination already? If so, I must strongly disagree with that opinion.
• Would moving the Selen Tatsuki termination content back to the history section, but giving it a separate sub-section heading be an acceptable solution to you? I'd be fine with that. But if the idea is that it must not be highlighted in any way and be delegated to nothing more than a paragraph that doesn't stand out from its surroundings in any way, then again I strongly disagree. It's in the company's interest to make it be just a business event like any other, but it's very clear from both the community reaction and the content of what apparently transpired (such as the allegations that she was fired whilst recovering from a suicide attempt) that it wasn't. Treating it as business as usual is nothing more than taking the company's stance and helping them whitewash the whole thing, which certainly isn't neutral.

mathrick (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION provides some good reasoning to avoid using a giant "Criticism" section for articles too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Pariah state

There's a dispute at pariah state that needs the community to weigh in. Editors are going back and forth on whether to include a list of countries that are pariah states, and there's a map at the top of the article which is sourced to the article's list. Many of the sources used in the article are unreliable or opinion sources. Pinging the recent participants: Skitash, Vpab15, Spymaster Cosades, Zinderboff, as well as WikiMacaroons who brought this to my attention. Personally I'd be willing to rewrite this entirely similarly to how I did with Military dictatorship (which was originally dominated by a list like this), but right now there's some conflict that needs to be resolved. Also see Talk:Pariah state, where several discussions about the list have occurred. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It is astonishing when editors insist on including items on qualitative lists like these when there aren't RS using the term in question in black and white. Remsense ‥ 论 01:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Thebiguglyalien, the idea of a list of Pariah states on its own doesn't seem objectionable. However, a map at the top of the article implies the term is clearly defined and that an objective list of countries that fit into the category can be made, an idea which the article itself debunks. In reality, the term is vague and undefined. As an example, on this article, measuring diversity in a country is seen through the lens of a particular study. An inconclusive deletion discussion in 2012 pointed out that the article does not suggest diversity is something that can be definitively measured. I think the article could do well to list some pariah states based on some of the individual definitions that it illustrates, but not present it misleadingly as something that can be defined so easily. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 01:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume there are clear criteria: even so, a characterization based on those criteria that is not itself reflected in sources is still clearly improper synthesis, and therefore original research. Remsense ‥ 论 01:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Great point, I haven’t checked to see if the sources have specifically named pariah states based on their criteria. Would it be appropriate to have headings for countries that have been widely considered by UN nations/prominent political analysts to be pariah states, e.g, South Africa during Apartheid? WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 19:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

i mean having a section of states that have been argued to be pariah states is useful and i think the article has it, as long as we do wiki voice.

going back to original point,idk if doing an authoritative map is useful at all Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I usually do not think global maps are useful in cases like these; the presentation provides no advantages other than a reminder of where certain countries are, while having massive disadvantages like certain states being too small or ambiguous to easily identify without a lot of fiddling. To put a finer point on it, much of the time world maps seem to insinuate there's some value added, that they're implying some larger point about geopolitics vs. what data is being presented ("isn't it funny that all the X countries are Y" etc.), but this is almost always uncited and not staed, and almost never has real encyclopedic merit imo. Remsense ‥ 论 21:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Harresment

Will we have to PP this page too? Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussing whether Len Blavatnik is an oligarch or not

See Talk:Len Blavatnik#NPOV_problems_in_the_Intro_and_Sanctions_sections but been having discussion with @C at Access. We are trying to discuss how due it is to discuss if Len is oligarch... possibly could belong on WP:BLPN. In general, trying to figure out if there is WP:SYNTH when discussing this, and whether sanctions against him by zelensky would be related to ruso-ukraine war.

Of note, C has openly disclosed a COI as required.

Would like another opinion on this, especially as many media sources have indicated Blavatnik has personally gone to great lengths to avoid accusations of being connected to /being a russian oligarch. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Zionism

There are several robust discussions on this page about the balance and appropriate range of sources to use, and I think they could use wider input. Andre🚐 17:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the existing input is just fine, it's just you are not happy with the direction is all. And it's not an NPOV issue. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC) This board isn't a good place for an involved editor with an ad hominem. For those of us not familiar with the issue, do you have any substantive information to share? SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Do you? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC) You could just do what the OP asked and go look at the page, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sharjah Archaeology Museum

The Sharjah Archaeology Museum has interesting stuff in its collection, but the Wikipedia article is not great. I removed some promo, but not all. Polygnotus (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, edit on that page if you want to add comments here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC

Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban (and opponent of USA) while Pakistan and USA call each other allies (though strained). Further more, the article tone and some instances imply the same. On which side should ISI be listed as an ally (Taliban or USA) in infobox and how to go about making the article tone and mentioned allegations/refutations neutral? Refer to above transcluded discussion and the talk page discussion in the main section for more details pointed out by involved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Senior US officials called Pakistan an ally of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network (Taliban's most destructive element) a "veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency." TopGun forgot to mention that in the initial question.JCAla (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The ISI act as a state within a state, just because the government of Pakistan say they do not help the Afgan Taliban does not mean that the ISI do not. There have been quite a few sources which state that the ISI are allied to the Taliban and there are no neutrality issues that I can see with this being in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ISI by all means comes under the jurisdiction of government of Pakistan. The issue is whether Pakistan is an ally of USA or Taliban. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Come on, TopGun, don't start fooling yourself. The Pakistani army is running Pakistan not the civilian government, and the ISI officers are drawn from the army.JCAla (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets not go into that debate and first solve the issue at hand. And lets remain WP:CIVIL. I think the bot has not yet listed the RFC (here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law) , so we'll have to wait for some time. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I told you before, Pakistan and the US are allies regarding issues surrounding Pakistan's stability and the safety of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan and the US are no allies (anymore) regarding Afghanistan, because Pakistan is allied to the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan and the US changed its policy towards the Afghan Taliban in 2001, starting to fight them.JCAla (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that. We can read that from above since I transcluded the discussion so as not to flood this subsection with the same comments again. This will now continue as per RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How many sources need be presented before TopGun admits that the ISI are allied with the Taliban? We have MSM sources, we have academic sources and we have political ones. Enough is enough. I have removed the POV and the very pointy factual accuracy tag that he added. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)