Talk:Taliban/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

@Darkness Shines, JCAla, & TopGun

Saw this on FoxNews today: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/31/classified-us-report-says-taliban-ready-to-take-power-in-afghanistan-backed-by--v/r - TP 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad news for the Afghan's if this happens. This piece tends to jump out It also details the strong links between the Taliban and Pakistan -- especially its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency Shall have to add it to the content TG reverted out. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This will be WP:RECENTISM as well has a US claim (as the source says). So we'll have to wait for it and then add it in appropriate balance. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You do so enjoy quoting essays do you not? An essay is not policy. It does not matter whom claims it, what matters is if it is published in a WP:RS. I see no need to wait, as I said it can go into the section your remove when I put it back. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That essay is the argument I'm giving. There's no need to quote a separate policy on this when there is a proper consensus based argument present (yes the essay does have a consensus). But since you are so eager for a policy.. here's one for you WP:NOT#NEWS. Anyway, there's no consensus to 'add' back the content I reverted... infact I actually see one building up for my amendment of it. Don't think you can put it back. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, SMS has no idea what he is on about, he got everything wrong so his vote goes the way of the Dodo. Only one person supports what you wrote, most of which is uncited. I see three editors saying yes to my proposal, so I figure I can call a consensus. Also, read the policy's you link to. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You can leave the commentary on the closer instead of reasserting your claims. Don't think this content will be stable as of yet. Will have to wait to get related information. There's a reason why recent news is not right away added. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see there is still no love between you two. I wish we could all work together, this article has potential.--v/r - TP 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree... only if Darkness Shines could stop following my edits to every article I go to... but then again.. debate for another day. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom, it is not possible to write an accurate article when an editor engages in historical revisionism. You cannot tell me that hundreds of academic sources need by attributed because one Pakistani politico said "weren't me". Currently TG is arguing[1] that an Op-Ed is ok for statements of fact. Here he discounts scholarly analysis as insufficient for statements of fact. It is not possible to work with such a person. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@TP, NA groups have been warning about that for years. That is why the National Front of Afghanistan - renewal of Northern Alliance - was created, if you are interested to know. It's all the same fronts as early September 2001, only NATO and Karzai are still in between - until 2014 at least. No surprise on that front. @TopGun, we all know what's happening there. Why don't we just concentrate on presenting the facts as described in the majority of sources. Instead of denying all the time, why not admitting to the policy and explaining it from Pakistan's position. Is Pakistan so afraid that its own policy is actually not justifiable? JCAla (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets not claim "we all know" and expect every one to share the exact same point of view. And your last question seems to be forum talk since I cant speak on Pakistan's POV rather the sources do. I'm good with adding exactly what the sources say... but the issue is I get opposed when I even add (with attribution) that Pakistan denies some thing (and it is covered in the sources). Anyway... lets add it when there is appropriate and stable content available for this. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just to add on to the Fox News story above, here's another recent news clipping with Pakistani foreign minister calling NATO allegations 'an old wine in an even older bottle'. Mar4d (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

She is absolutely right since the policy exists for decades now. Doesn't make it less true, though. JCAla (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It no longer matters, because Pakistan denies Whats the point. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SHOUT? Whatever you are implying here... what is with not adding a sourced denial when all the allegations are mentioned? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace

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

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

The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam was a movement that was behind the ideology. That is a completely different topic. I am talking about the birthplace of the Taliban movement (not the ideology) in the physical sense, which is Kandahar, as numerous reliable sources point out. Results on Google and Google Books indicate Kandahar as the birthplace and "bastion" of the Taliban, as well as the Taliban's spiritual and traditional homeland, heartland, stronghold, headquarters. One source describes Kandahar as Afghanistan's de facto capital during the Taliban regime.... which contained much of the movement's support base. [2] This city is more important to the Taliban than any other city. It's therefore odd that the lead makes mention of the Taliban regrouping in Quetta (a WP:RECENTISM) while ignoring the history which is associated with Kandahar. Mar4d (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Kandahar was a hub of the Taliban. It's where the Taliban were headquartered. As the source I pointed above says, it was the de facto capital city of Afghanistan under Taliban. Regarding it being a spiritual birthplace, there are enough reliable sources to support this [3]. Therefore, I will reiterate again that if the lead mentions Quetta, it should also mention Kandahar which has been a prominent Taliban hub. Mar4d (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done, [4] but I tink it looks silly. How about changing Taliban to group or organization? Taliban is used far to much really. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified a portion of "NATO invasion, Taliban overthrow and insurgency"

I replaced this:

On September 21, the Taliban responded to the ultimatum, promising that if the U.S. could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would extradite him, stating that they had no evidence linking him to the September 11 attacks.

With this:

The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salem Zaeef, responded to the ultimatum by demanding "convincing evidence" that Bin Laden was involved in the attacks, stating "our position is that if America has evidence and proof, they should produce it." Additionally, the Taliban insisted that any trial of Bin Laden be held in an Afghan court. Zaeef also claimed that "4,000 Jews working in the Trade Center had prior knowledge of the suicide missions, and 'were absent on that day.'" This response was generally dismissed as a delaying tactic, rather than a sincere attempt to cooperate with the ultimatum.

Mister Tog (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.

---

Should the following content be added to the section Role of the Pakistani military?

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1994. The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth in the North West. Since the creation of the Taliban, the ISI and the Pakistani military have given financial, logistical and military support. At first the Taliban numbered in the hundreds and were badly equipped and low on munitions. Within months, however, 15,000 students arrived from the Madrassas in Pakistan. A Pakistani artillery attack on the border town of Spin Boldak allowed the Taliban to seize the town as well as the munitions dump in Pasha. The ISI also helped with the construction of terrorist training camps for both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. On August 1 1997 the Taliban launched an attack on Sheberghan the main military base of Abdul Rashid Dostum. Dostum has said the reason the attack was successful was due to 1500 Pakistani commandos taking part and that the Pakistani air force also gave support. In 1997, after the capture of Kabul by the Taliban, Pakistan gave $30 million in aid and a further $10 million for government wages. In 2000 British Intelligence reported that the ISI were taking an active role in several training camps. In 2001 Pakistan claimed to have ended their support for the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks. With the fall of Kabul to anti Taliban forces in November 2001, ISI forces worked with Taliban militias who were in full retreat. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf wrote in his memoirs that Richard Armitage, the former US deputy secretary of state, said Pakistan would be "bombed back to the stone-age" if it continued to support the Taliban, although Armitage has since denied using the "stone age" phrase. Pakistan has been accused of continuing to support the Taliban since 9/11, an allegation Pakistan denies.

Amended proposal by TopGun

The Taliban are largely claimed to be founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1994,^{[29][30][31][32][33][10][34][35]} which is said to have used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth in the North West^{[26][36][37][38]} and to counter Indian support for Northern Alliance and other Afghan militant groups.^{(See sources provided by SMS in the discussion)} Since the creation of the Taliban, the ISI and the Pakistani military have been accused of giving financial, logistical and military support.^[39][1][40] At first the Taliban numbered in the hundreds and were badly equipped and low on munitions. Within months, however, 15,000 students arrived from the Madrassas in Pakistan. A Pakistani artillery attack on the border town of Spin Boldak allowed the Taliban to seize the town as well as the munitions dump in Pasha.^{[41][42] (some context would do here - why attacked?)} The ISI is also accused^{(by who, which author/country or an umbrella name... west?)} of helping with the construction of terrorist training camps for both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.^[43][44][45] In 1997, after the capture of Kabul by the Taliban, Pakistan gave $30 million in aid and a further $10 million for government wages.^[46] In 2000 British Intelligence reported that the ISI were taking an active role in several training camps.^[45] Pakistan has vigorously denied to have given any support to Taliban both before^[5] and after 9/11^[13][14] as per the sources concluding the opposite as well.^[6] With the fall of Kabul to anti Taliban forces in November 2001, ISI forces^{(forces? a better term needed - agents?)} are claimed to have worked with Taliban militias who were in full retreat.^[47] Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf wrote in his memoirs that Richard Armitage, the former US deputy secretary of state, said Pakistan would be attacked too if it supported Taliban,^{[48][49][50][51]} referring to a controversial threat of Pakistan being "bombed back to the stone-age",^{(discuss further)} though Armitage denies using the "stone age" phrase.^[52] The allegation on Pakistan of Taliban support has continued since 9/11, which Pakistan categorically denies.^[53][54]

Issues I fixed here:

• Attribution.
• Used passive tone in some contentious phrases.
• Denial in some better weight including that of pre 9/11.
• A new strategic reason from SMS under discussion in below section.

--lTopGunl (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've not linked the references already linked before (and added the new one as a bare URL). I've not specifically added the reference by SMS under discussion below rather referred to it as I've not reviewed it. SMS is free to add it here. Any amends to the text should be made in a new subsection as that user's proposal so that we can have some comparison. Please keep the comments on this in the discussion section as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• "and to counter Indian support for Northern Alliance and other Afghan militant groups" Definitely no. Pakistani support to the Taliban predated Indian support to the United Front. See below answer to SMS. There are other issues, will come back to them later. JCAla (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• That looks much, much better not only in terms of WP:NPOV, but also in the sense of balance and neutrality. Editors are strongly advised to re-read and absorb the following after reading the above proposal:

  "Neither the opinion that the Taliban are supported by Pakistan nor that they are not is appropriate for Wikipedia to state as fact........Both sides are requested to review NPOV policy and our policy against using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote causes......... Both should be stated fairly and accurately with the best and most appropriate citations for them. Wikipedia is not a fact-finding commission or an arbitrer of external truth. Arguing over what the real-world facts are here is inappropriate........ We should, and need to move towards fairly and neutrally representing both notable positions."

  Source: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. Mar4d (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

References in here

Issues with original proposal

• No attribution of claims has been made.
  • Also, Pakistan's claims are regarded as "claims" while accusations as "facts".
• Denials are not present (Pakistan has denied the support both before and after 9/11),
• Aggressive tone of prose. Phrases like "bombed back to stone age" are usually inflammatory and need to be re-worded, not all quotes are included as they are - passive would do, I've given a suggestion previously for that in "Pakistani military interference" section.

--lTopGunl (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal

• Support As proposer, content is well sourced to academic publishing houses and is factual and accurate, as can be seen from the extensive quotes supplied. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support with comments I suppose I can support this, my only comment is that I would like to see the last sentence better referenced and maybe expanded a little. However, as the last sentence stands now I think it gives equal weight to the allegation and denial so I can support it.--v/r - TP 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Have added a reference from Sage. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose/Amend for NPOV: I've added some issues in a subsection and can be discussed here (I will strike them when fixed). The neutrality needs to be considered from all perspectives. The sources are there and that is why the objection is not on addition of content but on NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you take what Darkness Shines proposed above, add in your changes with references, and propose the alternative?--v/r - TP 19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Attribution is not needed for statements of fact. Please point out one at a time which claims you think are factually incorrect so we can deal with them. "Bombed back to the stone age" was widely reported on, it was a highly notable political gaffe and per due weight really needs to remain. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. My memory isn't great, but I remember those comments and they were very controversial.--v/r - TP 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just got free. I'll add an amend today. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the proposal. I've used some passive tone, attributions and fixed NPOV as far as it seemed reasonable. If any further amendments are needed or the current ones need to be fixed, comment here. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your amendments are a violation of policy in that they willfully misrepresent the sources, none of which make "claims". All sources used make statements of fact. Your addition is so far beyond accurate it is not worthy of discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have similar views for your proposal, I guess that is why we have this RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious fact that everything I have written is factual, accurate and from academic sources your "amendment" willfully cherry picks statements to support a POV. I have already said, if you used [7] this source I would add to it to accurately reflect the source. Unless you wish to see the words "Nothing could be further from the truth" appear behind that denial find another source. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concluding or even implying that Pakistan didn't support Taliban... I'm just citing the denial which is acknowledged by the source. Do you disagree that Pakistan even denied it? If that is the case you are clearly in conflict with a reliable source here. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you are. You are taking a single line to push a point of view, one which does not stand up to academic scrutiny. Your source clearly says the denials are a lie, per WP:UNDUE we should not even mention them as it is obviously a view held only by Pakistan. When the former president himself admitted that they aided the Taliban then it becomes a WP:FRINGE view IMO. Their denial of helping since 9/11 is in the content and the lede. that is more weight than the view deserves. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, it has been clearly clarified at a consensus that denials are to be mentioned and that consensus was not just for that specific time or lead. You might disagree but then we'll have neutral editors to view that. You are trying to conceal a fact here that Pakistan denied it. Whether or not that is correct is a separate matter not discussed here and is not to be discussed here as it has been clearly concluded before that wikipedia does not aim to discuss real world facts in a previous discussion. Let's see which ever proposal gets a consensus. I believe mine can do with more improvement while you are yet inflexible to yours. You've previously disregarded all my explanations and suggestions to this matter (while I have serious objections on yours) so there's no point in objecting again and again. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I support DS's text to be added in addition to the already existent content in that subsection which is important and reliably sourced. JCAla (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose till made neutral. The above content lacks neutrality because it didn't state:

1. Background of Pakistan's support to Taliban in pre 9/11 era: As India supported pre 1992 Afghanistan Government and Northern Alliance, Pakistan had to support Taliban to avoid being surrounded by India (strategic dominance). Source
2. Logical Point of view about Pakistan's support to Taliban in post 9/11 era: Pakistan lost more than 40,000 people (Including civilians, military & intelligence personnel) fighting against Taliban, then how can they support them. I am not saying to remove this accusation but as TopGun said you need to add Pakistan's response in detail and also some neutral opinions.

Apart from this I think India's support to Taliban should also be mentioned (even if it is accusation) as UAE security agencies mentioned to US authorities. --SMS ^Talk 04:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your points. However just a note, the UAE officials were specifically referring to the Pakistani Taliban when talking about India, not the Afghan Taliban which this article is about. Mar4d (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The pre-1992 period doesn't matter for the Taliban article, since the Taliban started in 1994 after the communist regime was already out of power. 1992 onwards is mentioned and the history of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar supported by Pakistan fighting the internationally recognized Islamic State of Afghanistan is well-recorded. India, which had backed the communist government toppled by the Islamic State, did not provide significant support to the anti-Taliban forces until the Taliban organized and led by Pakistan since 1994 tortured Indian-backed former communist president Mohammad Najibullah to death upon taking Kabul on September 27, 1996. Indian support then never reached anywhere near to Pakistan's direct military support. Of all the foreign powers involved ... Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts. India mainly provided humanitarian support and limited financial means (compared to those provided by Pakistan, Al Qaeda and the Saudis) and some military hardware.
2. Mar4d is right. You, SMS, are mistaking the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan for the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan does not fight the Afghan Taliban and the Afghan Taliban do not fight Pakistan. The TTP and Pakistan fight each other.

JCAla (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong in comprehending the UAE official's statement but why did Pakistan hand over Abdul Salam Zaeef (Taliban envoy to Pakistan), Abdul Ghani Baradar and many other important Taliban leaders to US? And do you know why TTP is fighting with Pakistan? (because Pakistan sided with US against Afghan Taliban) And let me correct you, India supported Invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet, again when the soviet left India supported Najib government (till 1992), then Rabbani government (till 1996) and afterwards Northern Alliance (till 2001) (Sources: India's relations with her neighbours By Ramesh Trivedi, [8]) And I don't know if supplying $70 million military aid, helicopters, military equipment (specially high-altitude warfare equipment worth $ 10 million), defense advisers(including Indian Army Officers), doctors, hospital at Farkhar on the Afghan–Tajik border and helicopter technicians is considered limited assistance. --SMS ^Talk 11:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about Indian support for the NA. None of that matters whatsoever to this article and has no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

All of it matters to the article. Not mentioning Indian involvement in Afghanistan is tantamount to ignoring the concept of strategic depth which itself was the reason why Pakistan had any links to Afghanistan's Taliban boys in the first place. Mar4d (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Their trying to gain strategic depth is already present in the content proposed. And again, Indian support for the NA has no place here, it belongs in the NA article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the argument put forward by Smsarmad. Pakistan's geostrategic policy of backing the Afghan Taliban in part involved India's activities in the region. This point is absolutely neccessary for background information. Mar4d (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This would be reasonable. Adding strategic information of why Pakistan would have (or did) support Pakistan (even though it denied) would be completely in context given that he presented a source as well. This should be added to Pakistani military section as it gives a context to the history. Whether India supported NA first or Pakistan (allegedly) supported Taliban first is a debate for after deciding how to add the former. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

From my research I garner Indian support for the NA was a direct response to Pakistani support for Islamic militants in the region, specifically during the Soviet occupation. Put simply Pakistan backed the wrong horse. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right India supported NA(from 1996 onwards) after Pakistan's support to Taliban (from 1992). Before NA, India supported Rabbani's government (1992-1996) which was toppled by Taliban's and Najib's government(1987-1992). So actually it was Pakistan who responded to India's support to Najib and Rabbani governments. And India also tried to woo the mujahideen or militant groups to counter Pakistan after Najib was removed but couldn't succeed. [9][10] --SMS ^Talk 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read your own source? It says:

"The Pakistani press had been alleging [Indian support].... Hikmatyar and the Pakistan government claimed [Indian support] .... but even Hikmatyar, after joining Rabbani’s government, went on to refute any Indian involvement [with the Rabbani government]. ... it is clear that India’s relative position in Afghanistan, in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Najibullah regime was weak ... The first formal acknowledgment of India’s involvement in Afghan affairs after the fall of President Najibullah came when the Taliban leadership accused India, Iran, and Russia of working together, in league with the deposed Rabbani regime, to oppose the Taliban’s move into the north."

So, what we have been saying. JCAla (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1) Mullah Omar's second in command, Abdul Ghani Baradar, was captured when he decided to hold talks with the Afghan Karzai government without consulting and without the approval of Pakistan's ISI. He was released, after he was in line with the ISI again. 2) We are not discussing pre-1992 in the Taliban article. You can take that to the Soviet war article, if it isn't already there. 3) India gave no significant support to the Islamic State which was bankrupt exactly because it hardly received any outside support. 4) Yes, India's support to the United Front post 1996 was limited when compared to Pakistan's support to the Taliban. The provision of military equipment by India to the United Front is limited compared to the 28,000 Pakistani nationals fighting alongside the Taliban providing direct combat support, Pakistan Air Force bombing targets and conducting Taliban troop rotations, Pakistani generals planning Taliban military offensives, etc. [11] Pakistan provided $40 million in 1997 alone (plus Saudi oil millions). In two years alone Pakistan provided more millions that India's total for the whole period. The provision of a hospital and doctors is humanitarian assistance. 5) Other than that, I have to agree with DS, that is not the topic of this article. JCAla (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The inclusion of the "stone age" remark is controversial and dubious because Armitage himself denies using those words and per this dude's own claims, he could not use threats of military action since he was unauthorised. Even Bush didn't have a clue about it until he read about it in a newspaper five years later when the thing came out [12] and reckons it was more of a "buy this book" type of comment from Musharraf [13]. I practically don't want a whole paragraph on this controversy taking up article space, so Darkness, you've got two options: Either remove that sentence. Or if the consensus is to keep it (looking at TP's opinion), add Armitage's denial and Bush's reaction inline with a citation (and try to keep it concise). Mar4d (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Have found a reasonable source in which he denies using the stone age phrase and have added it. Do we really need Bush's reaction? I will not use the Daily Fail as a source. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering that this (alleged) remark was made by Armitage on behalf of the Bush administration (as pointed out in the memoir), and Bush supposedly didn't know about it, then yes, adding Bush's surprised reaction is necessary to attribute the uncertainty and dispute over this quote's reliability. If you don't like the Daily Mail, find other citations. Besides, a White House spokesman dismissed this quote, calling it "a classic failure to communicate" and said that issuing bomb threats isn't part of US policy [14]. The points I just talked about out need to be mentioned if this quote is to be mentioned in the article. Mar4d (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (but support TopGun concept) - [From uninvolved editor; invited by RfC bot] The WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV guideline is applicable here. Since the topic of the Taliban, and Pakistan's role in particular, is fraught with partisanship and ambiguity, it is wisest to attribute all claims to their sources. I see there are several reputable sources that make the claim of P's support for T, but that sort of information cannot be ascertained with the same degree of certainty as, say, a baseball statistic. There is no harm in including attribution with the claim(s) in the paragraph ... indeed, it helps the reader by supplying context. Also, TopGun's version explicityly include's P's position ("adamently denies ..." etc) which is needed to conform with WP:NPOV. --Noleander (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposal does conform to WP:NPOV as you can see Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Given Pakistan's view are obviously a minority (borne out by no academic sources supporting their denials) then the denials currently in the proposal give more than enough weight to a minority view. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are simply stating everything as a fact, while this was previously closed on WP:NPOVN noticeboard that all views related to this dispute should be attributed and in balance with denials. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overview of RFC. So far four editors support my proposal. Two have objected. One person supports TG's unsourced and factually incorrect version. By numbers alone my proposal has a consensus. My proposal is also fully in line with WP:NPOV. Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. My proposal does. It is fully in accord with WP:UNDUE Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Given the only source which denies ISI and Pakistani support to the Taliban are actually Pakistani, and the sheer preponderance of sources which say otherwise then the Pakistani denials must be treated as a WP:FRINGE view. Especially as there have only been two or three sources given which actually have these denials. Due weight has been given to Pakistan's POV. More weight is assigned to WP:SCHOLARSHIP than other sources as Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. All the sources I have used are from academic publishers. As such from both the discussion in the RFC and from policy I believe there is a consensus for inclusion of the content I have proposed. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Donot give the WP:MPOV overview of the RFC because you are not a neutral/uninvolved editor. Your statements are incorrect. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You assume facts not in evidence. My statements are entirely accurate. You are of course welcome to point out were they are not. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You should let the closer give the overview. You've just added what your previous assertions were. This RFC itself suggests that your views are disputed. Pointing that all out here is just reiterating the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support the TopGun's proposal with all the attribution stripped. The inline attribution is generally a clutter unless some special cases. Given he amount of references, it is absolutely not needed. The fact/claim wordings of the original proposal should also be kept per WP:SPADE. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So you support the first proposal? As TG's proposal is just a copy & paste of that with all the attribution inserted, which you say needs to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As you could find out from my comment you replied to, I support the addition of information, but I dislike both versions of the paragraph. If I had to choose among these two with no possible change of wording, I would clearly prefer the original one though. Still I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to state my opinion in a bit wider range of options then either supporting one of the wordings or rejecting the general idea entirely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify we already have a larger consensus on specifically attributing content in this article: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. The original proposal seems to be a WP:POINT against that since the editor was a participant in that discussion. I hope you see the arguments given and the closer's summary as appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

While the closer's summary doesn't make sense to me at all: in the article about the murderer you want write that "prosecutor states that evidence suggest that John Doe raped killed 5-year old child; 123 witnesses claim that they saw it. According to John Doe he was on the moon at the time of murder". Why this approach doesn't work for evident murders but works for evident politics? Still, the summary doesn't even suggest inline attribution; and it is right in not doing so, as the inline attribution is merely a clutter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The closer actually does summarize this specifically talking about attribution, "Neither the opinion that the Taliban are supported by Pakistan nor that they are not is appropriate for Wikipedia to state as fact." and "Claims that Pakistan does not, including those by the Pakistani government, should equally be cited directly following the claims or statements." This is not evident politics rather a controversial matter with sources on both sides as discussed at WP:NPOVN. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you know the difference between citation and inline attribution? And the statement that Pakistan wasn't involved in Taliban creation is exactly as controversial as the statement that the Earth is flat: though some believe in this theory, its incorrectness is obvious. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are referring to the half phrase... "should equally be cited directly following the claims or statements". And this was taken to be in context with it: "Neither the opinion that the Taliban are supported by Pakistan nor that they are not is appropriate for Wikipedia to state as fact." Hope it is clear now. About your second comment, well our views are significantly different about that and will have to leave on consensus given that we have sources claiming from both sides. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any requirements about inline attribution here; the requirement on citation directly following the claim is fulfilled though. Regarding the "fact" part – as I wrote before, I see no sense in making special exception for this article. See Angolan Civil War and Soviet invasion of Poland about the topic done right (note that both Soviet Union and Russia deny the claims about military participation in the first case and claim that Polish powers invited them in the second). We normally discard the official positions of the countries when independent historians agree on something, and we specifically discard such positions in cases when countrie have no choice but officially deny the obvious facts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment "If anyone rejects that the ISI backs or controls the Taliban, they have a mental problem" pp311 War Against the Taliban: Why It All Went Wrong in Afghanistan Sandy Gall Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't think that trolling the other side of debate will help anyone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• On that NPOV we exclusively discussed the situation post 9/11. The closer is speaking in the present tense about current support. Sources were provided that show Pakistan's president and interior minister admitting support to "our boys" in order "to defeat" anti-Taliban forces before 9/11. Pakistan's support to the Taliban before 9/11 is stated as a matter of fact in all reliable sources. There is not one reliable source saying: "Pakistan did not provide support to the Taliban before 9/11." JCAla (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've requested admin closure as the RFC has expired. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can the content go in yet? The rfc ended days ago Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Belated additional response: Oppose unless attribution is added to the text. Nightw 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

wrong rfc Darkness Shines (talk) 22

31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed, but it appears the issue is the same. Nightw 22:36, 14 February 2012 (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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've given you this source before. Your denial about the source or even the dispute is getting irritating: "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite."[16]. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban." [17]. This is the official denial. Musharaf's autobiography is his own views. Again... don't make it about the actual support which has already been handled in previous discussions. This is about the denial of support that Pakistan made. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was the quote, right?

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

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

Section break

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

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

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

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

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

How true is that

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

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

• Sandy Gall (in "War Against the Taliban"): "The Taliban wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes without Pakistan."[18]
• Of general interest: "One (Pakistani) MP recently said to the head of the ISI, 'You could end this war in a month if you wanted to'."[19]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section break 2

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

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

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

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

You keep saying Pakistan admitted to it but you never give the citations which says Pakistan admits such support. Given that another uninvolved user has already told you in the RFC not to troll the debate, I don't believe you could have forgotten this [20] reference which I provided above with a quote along with this one [21]. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

{{deadlocked|1=6 January|2=--lTopGunl (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)}}

Posted at WP:NPOVN#Pakistan's denial of Taliban support before 2001. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)