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)

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 below transcluded discussion and the talk page discussion in the main section for more details pointed out by involved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC

A transclusion of the main section's discussion continued at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban is given in a subsection below. You might want to refer to that so that the discussion does not go into circles. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:52, 25 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)

Stop rushing to a conclusion. Things work by discussion here. And I am by the rules to call an RFC on this. If you don't want, don't participate. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop dragging things out, the ISI are allied with the Taliban, all sources say so and you are being disruptive. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking here without sources. Lets stay on topic. Stop trying to silence the dispute on your own accord. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm with The Last Angry Man here. We can't drag it out until unknown just because the input that came so far isn't liked by you. I'd say we wait two more days. If there is no change in the opinion of the majority of editors on this issue, then the tags need to be removed and the ISI stays in the infobox. And, one tag until then is enough. JCAla (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I am disputing the factual accuracy here, whether ISI's ally of one or the other is a fact being disputed while the rest of the issues are POV disputes. I hope you know the difference. You should self revert the tag. And read WP:DEADLINE & WP:VOLUNTEER. There is no deadline that I have to follow. RFC will continue, only after that can tags be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No you are disputing the factual accuracy of the MSM and the academic press, all of which say the ISI are allied with the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There. You said it that I'm disputing it (and I gave sources). Whether I'm right or not is not for one side to decide. The tag should be put back right away. The RFC is now listed. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

TopGun, three editors have stated that they disagree with you. WP:DEADLINE means that there is no deadline for wikipedia articles to be complete, it does not mean that one editor can forever put tags into an article even if a majority of editors agreed the tags are not justified. JCAla (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor above just said I was disputing whatever he thinks is WP:TRUTH. And no, you didn't read, read again, both the links I gave. This is about the article since it is its talkpage, and there's no deadline. And even if there 'was a consensus', consensus can change. Read WP:OWNERSHIP, you don't own this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources you gave say the II are allied with the Taliban, the only sources which deny this are Pakistani government press releases. You are not disputing the factual accuracy of this article, you are disputing the MSM and the academic press which clearly say the ISI are allied to the Taliban, you are free to take the sources to the reliable sources noticeboard if you think they are not accurate. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Being an ally of one party or another is a factual dispute. Read WP:COMMONSENSE. And no, the sources I gave support my claims and I've given enough arguments. It is ridiculous to deny the existence of the dispute itself after a discussion this long on the talk page and the NPOV notice board. I've already listed an RFC, so RSN is not needed. And FYI, tags and disputed edits are not made without a conclusion when RFCs are tagged. Having another discussion at full length to prove it to you that the dispute exists (while the dispute itself is unsovled) is craziness. The length and arguments of the discussion itself tells about the dispute's nature. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 25 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

Journal of Indo-European Studies

In order to avoid an edit war I am starting a topic here for this. The article for the Journal for Indo-European studies has throughout the years been given undue weight consistently to make it look like its a journal of poor standing when its not. The content places far too much focus on Roger Pearson, its founding publisher,and not enough on the journal's actual content in order to make it look 'racist' when it is not since it is clearly a linguistic journal. The article currently reads more like a mini bio on Pearson rather than anything to do with the actual content of the journal itself. More over, edits go unchecked on that article for over a month that remove info that makes the journal look reputable yet edits that take out all the mostly irrelevant bio info on Pearson and alleged negative aspects of the journal get scrutinized quickly and reverted. There is clear POV pushing and an anti-NPOV campaign going on here. Other editors have flagged it as being largely unbalanced and given undue weight. I am asking here for help in order to better remedy the situation as right now there is a stalemate and the way the article looks and reads right now is a mess. Geog1 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you list plainly the sources you have that you feel paint a balanced picture of the journal? Remsense ‥ 论 22:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The only source that has anything remotely balanced to say about the journal in that article is this:

Tucker, William H. (2002). Jazayery (ed.). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund.

Nearly everything else entered in that article is meant to make the journal basically look like neo-nazis literature which it is not. It is simply a linguistic journal that focuses on linguistic matters concerning the Indo-European language family. Hardly any of the content of the journal itself is presented or discussed in the article. Surely that is problematic in and of itself. The journal isn't about Roger Pearson yet the way the article is written would have you believe its all about Pearson and that the journal is racist which it can't possibly be since its a linguistic journal. Geog1 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you about what you have. If you could collate the bibliography from scratch, what would it cite? Remsense ‥ 论 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The only other texts I can think of that would maybe counter balance things are actual articles from the journal itself which shows its not racist:

https://www.jies.org/DOCS/jies_index/mainindex.html

I think the problem though is the content in the wiki article itself does not focus on what the journal actually has in it. Its all literature being used to paint it as racist. Geog1 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, this is pretty quickly revealing itself as the unavoidable core issue though, right? We don't write encyclopedia articles based predominantly on primary sources—and in this case, what the journal itself contains is a primary source for claims about the journal itself—but on secondary sources, and so we're going to be first and foremost balancing what independent, published, reliable sources have to say about it. This is a pretty basic restatement of our core policy on neutral point of view and our guideline on reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, I understand the issue here between primary and secondary sources. But I really don't think the secondary sources are necessarily reliable, Arvidson for instance has a political ideology that lends an inherent biased against what the journal is about. I suspect the same applies for probably other sources there as well. But it all seems at the end of the day unbalanced and against NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The context in which Arvidson's ideas presented here within the article (too many one sided views) coupled with how the ideology creates a biasing effect against the topic per the author's book is problematic. There are quite a few claims in the Arvidson book that shows he really just doesn't care for the study of Indo-European linguistics and mythology per his political stance which is bias. Question: are opinions derived from books written by authors with a strong right leaning political ideology allowed here on wikipedia and considered 'reliable sources'. Geog1 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally yes, unless the strong right-leaning political ideology gets into WP:FRINGE beliefs such as pro-eugenicism or other racist / supremacist opinions and assuming they're operating within an area of specialty and would not, otherwise, be considered unreliable regardless of their personal politics.

I'll be honest, when dealing with academic sources, I don't generally look up the ideological position of the author unless it's somehow actually relevant. And I don't believe it's at all relevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that is rather naive and not very reasonable that an author's background or ideology wouldn't be relevant and that due diligence shouldn't be given to an author's background when choosing sources that would write fairly or reasonably on a subject. I don't think a book Sean Hannity would write on socialism would be received well in a wiki article pertaining to said subject and would raise editorial ire fairly quickly. We are dealing with much the same situation here. Geog1 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sean Hannity is not an academic and does not write academic books. As such he's rather irrelevant to this discussion and the context of my response which was specific to the review of academic books and journals. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Academics do not represent completely neutral views. Certainly not Arvidsson. Just like Sean Hannity doesn't. Separating the two is not as useful as you think. Both entities are capable of publishing highly skewed views on any position. You're essentially discouraging due diligence here. I don't find that very academic and suspect in its own right. Geog1 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that a source must be neutral. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up the highly biased and skewed Arvidsson text as not within the many guidelines within Wikipedia's NPOV is fair game. You are trying to set your own perimiters here. Geog1 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved. Anyone familiar with Indo-European studies is aware that the Journal of Indo-European Studies is a major, respected, and influential peer-reviewed publication in the field. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. There really isn't anything wrong with the Journal itself, especially if you read it, but the sources presented have a peculiar bias against the journal. Geog1 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you're free to think there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm genuinely not sure what we're meant to do while writing an encyclopedia article about it? Are we supposed to adopt a totally novel process than when writing about anything else? (To the best of my ability, these aren't rhetorical questions.) Remsense ‥ 论 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

In short, we just need to build out the article more regarding its reception, especially with discussion from individuals who actually have a background and standing in historical linguistics. For example, a quick look at the editor-in-chief since 2020 reveals quotes that actually reflect how the journal is perceived in for example philology and historical linguistics (eg. "a long-standing journal with a stellar reputation and a global reach"). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There are opinions about the journal expressed in secondary sources that have questionable merit. Especially when you compare these opinions to what's actually in the journal. This is indeed very problematic and presents a rather unique problem here. I don't know the best way to remedy this either other than through continued dialogue. Perhaps maybe we can strike a harmonious balance. At the moment, something is very wrong here. Geog1 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately the article (as with all Wikipedia articles) needs to be based on what reliable secondary sources say about the journal. What editors think of the journal is of no import, and what editors of the journal say about it is of limited use. The solution is to find additional secondary sources that discuss the journal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I see some edits made over at the JIES article but to me it seems making a whole subsection about Pearson does more to draw away what the journal is about. The journal is not Pearson. Contributors and editors like Mallory, Polome, Adams, and Kristiansen made the journal by and large what it is today. Not Pearson. We still have some ways to go here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog1 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the solution is to simply build out the rest of the article and then return to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The secondary sources in the article clearly indicate your opinion - that the presence of a known white-supremacist as a founder of the journal is irrelevant to the reputation of the journal - is not universal among academics. I concur with bloodofox. If you're concerned about how the journal is depicted then you find sources that support it being described as not an armature of Mankind Quarterly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The limited secondary sources that are highly biased in the wiki as it stands does in no way represent a universal opinion among academics in and of themselves. The journal is simply not being represented fairly based on the texts available. Pearson's involvement is vastly over stated and the idea that its an extension of himself somehow is completely unfounded. Geog1 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok this is getting repetitive. I'm sorry you haven't got the response here you hoped for. But the advice to improve the article by finding additional academic sources is good advice and would serve you better than suggesting we should never treat the criticism of a journal with a white supremacist founder as due because said criticism came from a Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Again you're discouraging due diligence and whether or not a source can be viewed as reliable or not. If you would just read the journal yourself you would see its not at all what Arvidsson is trying to paint it as. Geog1 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but do your own research isn't appropriate in this case. Arvidsson is reliable because he's an academic writing about the topic that is at the literal core of his academic domain. He is, flatly put, a WP:BESTSOURCE for criticism of Indo-European studies. As such it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude him. However that does not mean that Wikipedia should treat his position as privileged in some way. If other WP:BESTSOURCES disagree with him then they would be due inclusion too. This is why you've been told to find other sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Ardvisson as a 'best choice' in this is simply your opinion. You're a socialist after all, so apparently he seems reasonable to you. Many others would not feel the same way you do. Sorry if you do no understand that. But feel free to continue the 'repetive' conversation here. At the end of the day all I see is due diligence being discouraged and a lack of NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And now we have reached the point in the conversation when I ask you to read WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. My tone was the same as yours. For all intended purposes that would mean you should read that yourself. If you would like to end this conversation cordially, now would be fine. We simply don't agree. Geog1 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You're a socialist after all... is, in context, a personal attack as you're suggesting my own, openly stated, politics makes me incapable of recognizing whether an academic is operating within his specialty - which he did his doctoral thesis on - and are trying to dismiss my advice accordingly. I would kindly ask you to strike that comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I said politely that we should end this conversation as its turning out to be very, very unproductive. We don't agree on anything apparently and I don't take very well to people discouraging due diligence and setting their own standards on how wiki guidelines should be viewed. Please, stop. Geog1 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• I mean, if that's what sources say about it, then that's what sources say about it. The sources we're citing there are largely academics with at least some degree of expertise in Indo-European studies, race science or far-right movements. Also, we're really only devoting a few sentences to the matter, which are roughly balanced in terms of focus - two for scholars who criticize it; one noting the existence of the boycott, and two from Tucker and Mallory defending the journal (and the defenses are given slightly more text!) Having them exactly balance out like that isn't necessary of course, but it makes it harder to argue that they're being given undue weight - aside from the fact that the page says almost nothing else about the journal at all, which is solved by finding other sources covering other aspects. (I will say that I did a quick search right now and found only a few passing mentions, all of which were about the race science connection to one degree or another. That really does seem to be the only aspect of the journal that has received meaningful external coverage. See eg. [18]: Although Duranton-Crabol (1988: 148), fifteen years ago, pointed with alarm to his involvement, [Bruce] Lincoln appears to be the first US-based Indo-European specialist to openly comment on the worrisome background of Roger Pearson, the publisher of the prestigious Journal of Indo-European Studies since its founding in 1973. Notable mostly because it's a secondary source describing such concerns, which lends additional weight to at least mentioning them.) ...also, they point out that Bruce Lincoln, who we cite in the article, is actually an Indo-European specialist; we might want to look at what we're citing him for and see if there are more details there. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• @Geog1: You must notify other editors involved in a discussion (i.e. me) when you post it to this noticeboard. There is a big red notice instructing you to this at the top of the page. – Joe (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• I don't really get what we can do here. "Neutral" specifically is a technical term meaning in proportion to what the independent, reliable secondary sources have said on the topic, and the limits of editorial discretion do not extend to excluding the what seems to be the views expressed by the majority of those sources, as indicated by the participants here. If the sources say that the earth is flat, then we can only report that that is what the sources say. Wikipedia does not have the resources to conduct original research, and it would be disallowed by policy even if we were able to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Just one other thing I have to bring up here. I noticed the Tucker quote had the text about Pearson's involvement regarding published material in JIES flagged as dubious for a while. I don't know by who. Eventually it was removed because someone (not sure who) did research noting Pearson had published 3 articles in the journal. That would seem to be original research. When we look at the Berlet and Lyons quote being used in the article, they claim the Journal is 'racialist' and 'ayranist' but it is a linguistic journal not 'racialist' or whatever. This can be seen by just reading a few entries from the journal which can easily be found online just like the Berlet and Lyons quote was easily pulled for online yet we see that characterization of the journal persist. This appears to present some inconsistency on how editing policy is being used.

I see the comment by Aquillion mentions how if 'reliable' sources report the earth is flat, then according to wikipedia policy, its fair game to put into an article and discuss. While I understand this is a policy, I'm not entirely sure if its serving us well here. This could open the door of Pandora's box for all sorts of misinformation to be presented in wiki articles.

Finally, I took a look at the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society article. I see an entire section with no sources entitled 'discussion papers' which essentially relates to the journal's content. No one for some reason seems bothered that its not sourced but I have doubts that a similar section in the JIES article would go without scrutiny if we were to say flesh out what the content of the journal is actually like. Again, it would appear inconsistencies are presented here regarding wikipedia policy being applied to two different journals.

I don't know what can be done here, but like I said before in the JIES talk page, I'd welcome more information that could help balance out the article a little more. However, I also feel this is a situation where wikipedia policy is failing a particular article and I doubt this is the only one. In the future, it may be useful to revisit wikipedia policy and see if changes could be made to help prevent or better remedy situations like this.

Best,

Geog1 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Geog1Thank you for bringing up these important points. It's clear that there's a need for careful scrutiny and consistent application of Wikipedia's policies to ensure accuracy and neutrality in our articles.

Regarding the Tucker quote and Pearson's involvement, it's essential to rely on verifiable sources and avoid original research. If a reliable source supports the claim that Pearson published in JIES, then it can be included. However, if the source is questionable, it should be approached with caution.

The characterization of the JIES as "racialist" and "Aryanist" is a serious allegation. It's crucial to base such claims on solid evidence from reliable sources. Simply reading a few articles may not be sufficient to make such a sweeping judgment. If there are specific examples of racist or discriminatory content in the journal, they should be cited and discussed in a neutral manner.

The Aquillion comment about the "flat Earth" scenario highlights a potential limitation of Wikipedia's policies. While it's important to be open to diverse viewpoints, it's equally important to maintain a high standard of quality and accuracy. In cases where there is a clear consensus among reliable sources, it's important to prioritize that consensus over fringe theories.

The issue of unsourced content in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society is a valid concern. However, it's important to consider the context and purpose of such sections. If these sections are intended to stimulate discussion and debate, rather than present definitive facts, then they may not require strict adherence to sourcing guidelines. Tattipedia (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Everything being discussed is appropriately sourced to highly reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Also please have the respect for other people not to reply with a textwall of obvious chatbot glurge. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

notability concerns

• Gonna skip all the conversation above and ask an honest question... can we just delete it? [19] states it has an h-index of 10, and [20] states an impact factor of 0.2. It doesn't seem like it would survive WP:NJOURNAL. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Did AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Indo-European_Studies Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  The result was speedy keep.XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:BRICS

It is a dispute in about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS#cite_note-:2-173

Nobody seem willing to verify my citation therefore I lost this edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BRICS Dark Flow (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you give more details and a link to the discussion at the talk page? Right now it's not clear what the dispute was about. Also, you might want to review WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume good faith. Alaexis_¿question? 20:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Alaexis , yeah I can https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BRICS#Much_more_efficient_than_SWIFT .

I didn't get notified of your reply, please use the @user citation it would make it easier to keep up with the conversation. Dark Flow (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

( @Walter you are welcome to join ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Flow (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory Claims on HTS Governance and Human Rights Violations

The article on Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Syrian paramilitary organisation that has been designated a terrorist organisation by a variety of countries, contains contradictory information about the governance of HTS in occupied territories.

The Governance section claims HTS has generally not interfered in womens' lives, has been tolerant towards religious minorities, and has been lenient towards civilians. These statements are based primarily on a chapter written by Dareen Khalifa in the book The Rule is for None but Allah, published by Oxford University Press. Khalifa’s work relies heavily on interviews with HTS leaders. For many claims about HTS' tolerance, the source she gives is "author interview, Jolani [the leader of HTS]", "author interview, HTS commander" or similar.

However, as an anonymous user pointed out, the section Human rights violations and war crimes (which for transparency I authored) contradicts this, citing multiple lengthy reports by the UN, EU, US, and human rights organisations, which document enforced dress codes, repression of women, executions for "crimes" such as blasphemy, forced disappearances of political opponents and activists, persecution of minorities, torture, among others. The governance section makes no mention of these reports, or that much of the current information in this sections relies on interviews with HTS leadership.

The primary dispute appears to be that the users @Whoopsawa and @Shadowwarrior8 consider Khalifa's chapter a reliable (or authoritative, given that her claims about HTS tolerance are stated as fact) source, because even though many of her claims are based on interviews with HTS leadership, the chapter is in a book published by Oxford University Press. The user @Shadowwarrior8 is also of the opinion that the reports by the US government are "propaganda", although the user has not addressed the reports by other institutions that come to similar conclusions as the US reports.

I am the other party to this dispute, and am of the opinion that the variety of reports by multiple - in my view credible - international organisations and human rights groups (and yes, the US too) should at least bear enough significance to warrant a re-writing of the Governance section, making it clear that much of the information regarding HTS' tolerance is based on HTS' self-portrayal in interviews and that there exist multiple credible reports that document a rather draconian and repressive governance policy employed by HTS. For example the European Union Agency for Asylum concludes that HTS has interfered "in every aspect of civilian life" and notes that women have been whipped or even executed for violating religious dress codes (p. 88).

The discussion on the talk page can be found here. Neither @Whoopsawa, @Shadowwarrior8 or I have engaged in edit warring, but the way this discussion is going appears to be an endless back-and-forth, so it would be nice to get outside opinions.

Sarrotrkux (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Have I successfully removed the promotional content from this article?

The owner of emailSanta.com made WP:COI and WP:YESPROMO edits at his own article yesterday. I tried to remove the "fluff" and restore the WP:NPOV. Has the WP:NPOV been restored, or is it still too promotional? Félix An (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, looks better now Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits to “Game Science”

Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. As the first subsection deals with a POV edit and the disputed edits create a POV more favorable to Game Science, I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't actually a neutrality problem. You've been arguing against things like attribution of quotes and secondary sources. Heck you tried to argue with me that attribution automatically casts doubt on the attributed statement. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As I’ve said, the first subsection is about a neutrality issue. I am contesting that change because it violates NPOV, which explicitly mentions and forbids casting doubt through attribution. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Attribution is not automatically casting doubt - it's good practice dealing with quotes or opinions to attribute them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not according to NPOV for RSes that state factual information, as I’ve quoted the policy to show in the discussion on the article’s talk page. I encourage you (and anyone else) to reply there for the added context of the quote. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a newspaper. It doesn't hurt the article to says "according to SCMP" and your resistance to that is perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Look, I and a policy supported by community consensus agree that adding in-text attribution when we already have inline citations unnecessarily casts doubt. If you disagree with the policy, try and get consensus to change it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think your policy interpretation is weak. And, generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Specifically your policy citation is to WP:SKYBLUE and this is not a "the sky is blue" situation here but is, rather, a newspaper reporting on an acquisition where the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how "the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment" makes the fact that an acquisition happened doubtable and require in-text attribution. (Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to cite an essay on inline citation, which is about the , not "according to...". My reply here assumes you were contesting whether the claim Hero Games acquired a 19% stake in Game Science through its wholly-owned subsidiary Tianjin Hero Financial Holding Technology in 2017, but sold the stake in 2022 falls under Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources.)

generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't.

You may as well tell that to everyone who cites a policy to remove text it explicitly forbids. Anyways, I'll be moving this to the article talk page soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu You do not have permission to refactor my comments please restore this discussion to its prior state. Simonm223 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, if you say so. I'll transclude it there then. It's much better to centralize discussion in one place. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that South Morning Post reported on the relation between Hero Games and Game Science. It is also clear that Hero Games stated that they couldn't comment on the relation when asked directly about it. Using wikivoice is inappropiate, and an attribution is needed. Secondly, don't act like you have a consensus by proxy for your unilateral stance though a (misrepresentation of a) policy. --Cold Season (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I am replying on the article's talk page to centralize discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You brought the discussion to the noticeboard. This is borderline disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It is very common to notify and invite noticeboards to comment elsewhere. I invited participants of these noticeboards to comment on Talk:Game Science. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

@C at Access: Circulating on relevant noticeboards... essentially if contentious oligarch label should be mentioned in intro Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

NextEra Energy

Hi editors, I'm Matt and I work for NextEra Energy. I currently have two edit requests (first one linked here that I think are directly applicable to this noticeboard. Content added some time ago by a now-banned user (Surge of Reason), which was largely copied from the Florida Power & Light article, creates some neutrality issues, particularly as relates to WP:STRUCTURE. The above linked request is to move content in a section titled "Environmental issues" about a power plant that was never built – and therefore can't be an issue – to the History section, in line with WP:NOCRIT.

The second request is a bit meatier and involves removing some content that is pulled directly from a source without attribution and/or uses poor sourcing for negative information that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, and moving what remains to the History section, again to improve WP:STRUCTURE in line with NOCRIT. I would appreciate any feedback or help you can offer.  Because of my COI I have avoided making these changes myself and I'd like to have this page be reflective of our overall desire to have the page be neutral and factual. ~~~~ NextEraMatt (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In any case, as an editor I genuinely appreciate these requests being made in a responsible and transparent manner. Remsense ‥ 论 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Unwarranted promotional and COI tags on film articles

Hi, I need help with some tags that have been added to two articles please:

• It's Coming (film)
• Draft:The Misguided

I'm getting pretty tired of the constant unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing (which got removed after review), then COI tags without evidence, and now suddenly it's "promotional content" - but nobody's actually pointed out what's promotional or what constitutes a conflict of interest. Here's the situation:

1. Everything in these articles comes from proper independent sources like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat 2. Yes, some reviews are positive, but that's what the reliable sources reported 3. My only contact with the filmmaker was to check facts like dates and get source materials 4. I have no other connection to these films or anyone involved 5. The latest tags were just slapped on without any discussion, continuing this pattern of baseless accusations

The articles stick to Wikipedia's neutral point of view rules. If something sounds promotional, tell me what it is and I'll fix it. I'm happy to add any negative reviews too if someone can find them in reliable sources.

You can see the whole frustrating history here:

• Wikipedia:Help desk#Help with New Page Patrol Review and Paid Editing Tag Removal for "It's Coming"
• Wikipedia:Help desk#Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided"

Can we get a fair review based on what's actually in the articles, not just assumptions and accusations? I am requesting that these unwarranted promotional content and COI tags be removed from the articles. Much appreciated!

Stan1900 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've just discovered that the entire Reception section, which contained properly sourced reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and multiple independent critics, has been removed without discussion. This further demonstrates the issue with these arbitrary content removals. The deleted section was entirely based on reliable sources and followed Wikipedia guidelines. I have preserved the content and sources and request review of both the tags and this content removal. Stan1900 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is Talk:It's_Coming_(film)#Promotional_tag here. You should know, you posted in the section. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie, yes, I'm aware of that discussion. The wholesale removal of a properly sourced Reception section warrants broader review. This isn't just about a tag anymore - it's about the removal of verified content from reliable sources without justification. Stan1900 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't "removed without discussion" as you just stated, then, was it? You've had an account since 2017, and in that time 100% of your editing has been about the films of Shannon Alexander, and often quite promotional in nature. If you don't want people to think you have a COI, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, and strongly consider finding a way to improve the encyclopedia that is entirely unrelated to Alexander. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie,

1. The Reception section was actually just removed without proper discussion. A few quick comments declaring content "promotional" without specific examples doesn't constitute real consensus.

2. Your statement about my editing history is wrong. My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. My recent focus on documenting these films stems from noticing a gap in coverage of internationally-recognized work - I've said countless times.

3. There's nothing "promotional" about including properly sourced reviews from reliable publications. If positive reviews exist in reliable sources, documenting them isn't promotion - it's proper encyclopedic coverage.

The focus should be on specific content concerns, not repeated unfounded attacks and assumptions about editor's motivations. Stan1900 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Katherine Langford's article, where you wanted to correct information about a project she'd recently been in. Who made that film, I wonder? diff. Dishonesty is not going to help - every time you post something like this these 'attacks and assumptions' you mention appear to become better supported. MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This is just blatant forum shopping of a grievance previously discussed at the Helpdesk and now at COIN [21].

Also, why does the user continue to lie that their edits to Katherine Langford were completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander?

Here is one of the edits [22]: Langford will appear in her first feature film, The Misguided, an independent comedic drama by Shannon Alexander. In actual fact, all of the user's edits to that article relate to Langford being in a film by Shannon Alexander.

Pants on fire, my friend, pants on fire... Axad12 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And Stan...

The reason the tags are in place and the reasons that the removals of material have occurred is that pretty much everyone who has commented in the various threads you've started disagrees fundamentally with what appears to be your transparent promotional agenda.

For reference, normal editors do not (a) create promotional articles, (b) open multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC, (c) talk about when the articles will start to appear on Google searches, and (d) open multiple threads trying to strongarm other users into removing COI/PAID tags.

That pattern of behaviour is how conflict of interest users operate, usually ones who have been paid to produce articles to order. Axad12 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie, your implication about my editing history misses the point. Like many editors, I followed connected topics that revealed gaps in coverage. Following a subject area and documenting it with reliable sources isn't wrong - it's how Wikipedia grows.

More concerning is the removal of an entire Reception section containing properly sourced reviews from established publications. The content was based on reliable sources including Rotten Tomatoes and Film Threat. If specific statements appeared promotional, they should have been identified and discussed, not wholesale removed.

This pattern of removing sourced content while making assumptions about contributors' motivations vioaltes Wikipedia's principles. Stan1900 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed in the relevant place [23] and the consensus was for removal. Another user has since added back the Rotten Tomatoes part of the Reception section, by which we can reasonably assume that they agree with the rest of the removal.

As I have stated to you before, the WP:ONUS is on the editor wishing to include material, not on those wishing to remove it. There is clearly no consensus in favour of inclusion, so arguing for inclusion in 3 completely separate threads (this thread, this one [24] and this one [25]) is pointless.

In any event, it is obviously contrary to Wikipedia policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews, whether they are good or bad, so your line of argument is a very bad one in any case. Removal was thus entirely non-controversial. Axad12 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12, your interpretation of both consensus and policy continues to be problematic:

1. The "consensus" you reference was a single editor agreeing with you, while ignoring multiple objections. The fact that another editor has since restored part of the Reception section actually demonstrates that there isn't consensus for wholesale removal.

2. Your interpretation of WP:ONUS is incorrect in this context. The content was already established with proper reliable sources. The burden shifts to those seeking removal to demonstrate why properly sourced content should be deleted.

3. Your claim "it is obviously contrary to Wikipedia policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews" is simply false. Film articles regularly contain substantial reception sections when supported by reliable sources - see WP:FILMPLOT and WP:FILMSOURCE. The removed content was based entirely on independent, reliable sources providing critical analysis.

4. Regarding multiple discussion venues - each serves a distinct purpose and was used appropriately. Characterizing proper use of Wikipedia's established channels as "pointless" misrepresents how Wikipedia works.

The core issue remains: properly sourced content was removed without valid policy-based justification or genuine consensus. Stan1900 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The core content issues remain:

The removed material was based on reliable sources and followed standard article formatting. No concrete policy violations were identified.

Removals occurred without consensus, and often without any substantive talk page discussion.

Vague claims of "promotional" tone have been asserted without pointing to specific passages or policies.

AI detection results are being misused to discredit good faith, policy-compliant contributions.

If there are proper neutrality or sourcing concerns with the removed content, please identify the exact issues so they can be addressed collaboratively. But so far, the removals appear to be based more on unfounded personal suspicions than objective policy issues.

Wiki articles rightly include reception sections with mainstream press reviews. That's not inherently 'promotional' it's documenting verifiable real-world coverage. Removing properly cited review content is detrimental to readers and sets a terrible precedent.

I remain committed to working with anyone who has constructive, policy-based feedback on improving these articles further. But edit-warring removals and personal attacks need to stop in favor of substantive, collaborative discussion. We deserves better.

Let's get back to focusing on content and policies, not personal battles. I'm happy to discuss any neutrality problems if you identify concrete examples. But so far I've yet to see a compelling rationale for these removals of policy-compliant material. Stan1900 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The only important issue here is that, despite you starting multiple different threads in various different arenas, no one else agrees with you.

Therefore the tags remain and the removals remain.

You just have to accept that you are in the minority and move on. Continuing to argue is simply disruptive. Axad12 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12, your characterization of "no one else agrees" is both incorrect and misses the point. Several editors, including DMacks, have confirmed proper licensing and sourcing, and @Aafi has confirmed the images are restored after permissions verification. The issue isn't about counting votes - it's about following policy.

The systematic removal of:

1. Properly licensed images (with verified VRT permissions)

2. Well-sourced content from reliable publications

3. Standard film article sections matching Wikipedia's format

...cannot be justified by simply claiming "you're in the minority." Wikipedia is not a vote-counting exercise - it's about following established policies for content inclusion. The continued removal of policy-compliant content while dismissing legitimate concerns is what's being noted and actually disruptive here. Stan1900 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no interest in the image issue. I am talking about the tags and the removal of the Reception section.

The consensus is again you and you are consistently arguing contrary to policy, so the distinction you draw above is rather pointless. You have also been demonstrated to be a liar. Axad12 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12,

I strongly object to your repeated accusations of dishonesty. If you believe I have misrepresented anything, I ask that you provide clear evidence rather than resorting to personal attacks. Wikipedia is built on good faith and such language is both unproductive and contrary this platform.

Regarding the tags and the Reception section, I have consistently argued my case based on policy, including WP:NPOV and WP:V. I have sought to include well-sourced and neutrally presented content.

Consensus is not determined by the number of voices in a discussion but by the strength of the arguments grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I remain focused to working within those frameworks. Stan1900 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I provided evidence of your dishonesty upthread here [26]. The evidence is so clear that I will happily once again call you a liar. Axad12 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, you consistently seem to believe that consensus is whatever you believe is correct, disregarding the opinions of every other user you encounter. Axad12 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Regarding transparency and process:

- Paid editing tags were initially added but subsequently removed through proper channels after review

- Wiki images were challenged but verified and reinstated through official processes

- All content is based on reliable, independent sources

- I served as an authorized representative specifically for image licensing/copyright verification, which was done transparently through proper Wikipedia channels

2. Regarding consensus, let's look at the actual outcomes:

- Multiple administrators have reviewed and approved image reinstatements

- Paid editing tags were removed after proper review

- Content has been verified through reliable sources

- I've made requested changes when specific issues were identified

3. This pattern shows I'm following Wikipedia's processes correctly. While I'm eager to expand my contributions to other topics and articles, I'm consistently forced to defend properly sourced and verified content instead of moving forward with new contributions.

I’ve repeatedly suggested we focus on addressing specific content concerns through collaboration, but this has been met with nothing but resistance, preventing any meaningful progress. Stan1900 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked [27] following a thread at ANI [28]. Axad12 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting

Posting to relevant noticeboards: Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre weight on disordered eating in Grazing (human eating pattern)

Grazing (human eating pattern) is already a very specific article that might be worth merging into something more general, but Wikipedia is not paper so I guess there is no reason to not have an article on grazing. Still:

• Almost all the sources cite Conceição's work on disordered eating, and grazing's role in it.
• The article does not really describe grazing except for it being a risk factor in disordered eating, according to this one person.
• The article does contain information like the languages that Conceição's grazing questionnaire has been translated into.

I think if you exclude undue weight and Conceição-promotion then there are about 2 sentences worth of notable info which can be merged into another article. YAQUBROLI 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Randa Kassis and connected pages

In the light of the recent fall of the Assad regime in Syria, I have been trying to update a bit the articles about the Syrian opposition. There, I noticed that a lot of importance was given to Mrs Randa Kassis, which made me suspect that this could be a case of WP:UNDUE. Please note that this version presented her as the "leader" of the Syrian opposition, as a "leading figure of the Syrian opposition" and a "Leading secular female figure", all in the biographical infobox. A lot of content in the Randa Kassis page seems to rely on primary sources. After a simple research I could find that Mrs Kassis is controversial among the opposition due to her alleged ties to Russia. 1, 2, 3. Other people within the opposition have presented her and her groups as Russian-backed operatives. This may or may not be true, but it has to be mentioned in the article.

Also, several pages have been created about the groups created or chaired by Mrs Kassis, namely the Movement of the Pluralistic Society, the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians and the Astana Platform (the latter of which should be rewritten).

While the Astana Platform is notable enough to warrant a page, I have my doubts about the first two, so I proposed to first merge the Movement of the Pluralistic Society page into the Randa Kassis article.

As a result, an IP accused me here of being "obsessed by Randa Kassis", and commented that what I did was "revolting" and amounted to "an harassment or sectarian political activism aimed at erasing or muzzling anyone who does not have his opinions". There were also accusations of malicious libel, presumably also against me.

Several references mentioning Kassis' suspected role as a pro-Russian operative were removed. The merger request was also unilaterally removed (I just put it back). Please note this comment (I guess that "the admin" is supposed to be me, even though I am no admin). This comment, this one and this one also appear to be about me.

Apart from the personal attacks against me, I think that the pages about Randa Kassis and her initiatives need to be monitored and rewritten in order to ensure their neutrality and avoid WP:UNDUE as well as WP:PROMO and WP:Advocacy.

I have also added back these parts, which had been removed as it seems normal to mention the controversies within the opposition.

However, I will now abstain from editing the page about Randa Kassis as long as it has not been reviewed by third parties. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m from Egypt, and Randa Kassis is well known to many of us for her courage. Since 2007, she has spoken openly about social, political, and religious taboos and has appeared on numerous Arab media outlets. She was one of the first to champion secularism.

You can observe that the secular coalition she created and presided over, alongside other opponents in 2011, preceded the formation of the Syrian National Council (SNC). After her expulsion from both the SNC and the secular coalition due to her warnings about Islamists, she ceased presiding over the secular coalition, and its fate remains unknown.

She was the only member of the opposition to adopt a pragmatic approach, going on to establish the Astana Platform in 2015 and the Constitutional Committee in 2017. Both initiatives were later recognised by the UN, Russia, Turkey, and Iran. 102.188.124.44 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind mentioning this, as long as it is duly sourced and does not make the page look like a promotional piece. What we must also mention, however, is that Randa Kassis' ties to Russia have been controversial and widely reported by the media. Psychloppos (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV tag to the Randa Kassis page as it still looks heavily promotional. Psychloppos (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the edits on Carolina Amesty

I disagree with the edits made to the Carolina Amesty article. I have noticed that a user is adding information with a negative bias against Carolina Amesty instead of maintaining an objective and neutral approach. For my part, I added and removed information based on the official report. However, the Orlando Sentinel, a source that has maintained a critical stance towards Amesty and published a series of negative articles, has been used as a reference. To avoid conflicts, I will not undo any further edits, as I believe this is the appropriate space to resolve disputes between users. I prefer to wait for an impartial third party to review and determine the best version of the article. It is important to be cautious with sensationalist sources. If the information were accurate, it would be appropriate to include it, but this is not the case. I recommend reading the official report to ensure a more objective approach. Bilonio (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You are edit warring to add flowery language to the article and someone reverted you. Take it to the article talk page and stop complaining here. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:F53D:BE32:B541:C2C1 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocking of studies indicating possible negative health effects of erythritol

Asking for help here to avoid an edit war. As can be seen on the Erythritol talk page and edit history, one editor is arguing that several cohort and experimental studies possibly linking the substance to cardiovascular risk should not be mentioned. The editor previously asked for more studies to emerge before mentioning this possible side effect. These studies have in the meanwhile emerged (producing indicative but mixed results - a fact that should be transparently communicated to readers) but have not changed the editor's position. Even more oddly, the editor now instead enforces the new criteria that until the FDA warns against the substance these studies should not be mentioned in the safety section. This strikes me as very US centric and odd.Psychwilly2 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of neutrality, it is an issue of sourcing. Nothing has been presented that meets WP:MEDRS. And your summary of the other editor's argument is incorrect - they are drawing your attention to WP:MEDASSES, specifically the first paragraph. The FDA is an example, not a requirement. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

OP is pushing primary sources for medical claims; WP:MEDRS would be needed. Nothing to see here. Bon courage (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:BubbleBabis

Hi everyone, I'm not quite sure if this is the appropriate noticeboard to discuss this, but I would like to note my concerns about the edits of a particular user by the name of User:BubbleBabis. This editor has had a continuous and longstanding inability to add content in a neutral point of view with regard to articles concerning Israel and Iran. I believe that their edits have had an overall detrimental value to this wonderful website, its editors, and its readers. They have created multiple hoaxes, have added content with unreliable sources, have repeatedly added copyrighted content and the synthesis of published material, have frequently added off-topic information to articles, and possibly has trouble with their interpretation of the English language. I have previously voiced my concerns about their edits on Talk:Qasem Soleimani#Hoax and Talk:Mohammad Reza Zahedi#A hoax?. Other than what is mentioned on the aforementioned talk pages, many more edits display their publications of original research, problems with citing sources, and especially their inability to mention the authors of the sources they use to contribute with. They are often prone to the interpretation of opinions by one individual, or events mentioned by one person or reported by one think tank as indisputable facts. Their most recent edit, a large addition to the article for Ali Khameni, demonstrates this. In the edit, one source used by BubbleBabis is a blog written by Jonathan Schanzer, who was the director of policy for the conservative Jewish Policy Center think tank which is connected to the Republican Jewish Coalition, that was published by the U.S. opinion magazine The Weekly Standard. BubbleBabis uses this to say many things not mentioned by the blog. They use the source to say that "in 1991, evidence of increasing economic and military links between Sudan and Iran was revealed", this is not what the source says at all, it just mentions alleged events that took place in 1991 and does not mention anything about the reporting of the specific events in media or at what time they were reported to media. The words prior to the sentence are unsourced original research. The article does not mention sanctions or Iranian "isolation". Next BubbleBabis wrote that "In November 1993, Iran was reported to have financed Sudan's purchase of some 20 Chinese ground-attack aircraft.", however the article they cite does not mention this. In one paragraph they added in the edit about the Bosnian War, they improperly cite several books without giving proper attribution. I am highly suspect of the other paragraphs they added in the edit, especially the 2010 and 2020 sections, where they use bare url citations to paywalled articles I am at present unable to verify. They write as if they are constructing argumentative essays, which is not what Wikipedia is for, and are habitually unable to provide sources or proper attribution for their additions, or if they do provide sources, many times they are misrepresented, bare urls, or just entirely unhelpful. It is my hope and desire that this does not continue. Aneirinn (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

For concerns about any long pattern of behavior by a specific user, the right venue is WP:ANI. On WP:NPOVN we are primarily focused on content.

Also, before you post this to ANI, if you will, try to make this shorter, and add paragraph breaks and bullet points. Otherwise, people will end up skimming over your post, giving your post less attention than you may hope for. NicolausPrime (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy

I am kind of new here. I came across a reference to an organization called Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy while reading a news article - this one https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/us-colleges-world/2024/02/16/how-texas-ams-qatar-campus-suddenly-collapsed - and went and read the Wikipedia article about them to find out who they are, and the Wikipedia article seems like, I don't know, propaganda. Can more experienced people look at it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalmnine (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Basalmnine Any specific concerns? I think there is too much self-sourced material in it. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a look at the article and I think the issue is that no criticism of the org exists within the article which makes its often controversial claims about campus antisemitism seem more trustworthy than might be required by neutrality. My question to Balsamnine is whether they have any RSes for criticism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

but also the editor should be aware this article is affected by the Israel/Palestine edit restrictions and requires participation from EC editors. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If the article in question is Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, it seems pretty balanced. It's biases/advocacy and what it tries to do is well described, if you are on either side of the conflict you won't be thinking that the article is unfairly describing what it does, i.e. alleging antisemitism and terrorist links for all pro-Palestinianism in US higher education.

I added an edit to the lead just now describing its recent work on researching allegations of antisemitism on university campuses. as long as we don't go about in wikivoice, without attribution, describing pro-Palestine protests as inherently antisemitic (and I don't think that article does), we are probs fine. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess the biggest issue with the article is that some of the sourcing are the white papers produced by the institute itself. we really shouldn't be using material produced by the institute itself to attribute the research it does, though it also seems there are secondary sourcing quoting the research that is also cited. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Doug Weller talk 21:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Biased article

The 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence article is completely biased. More editors need to get involved and make it more neutral.-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

yeah, 45% of text[29] is from User:CosmLearner, who was blocked for sockpuppetting.

another 15% is from User:B'Desh-In_Outlook who is a sockpuppet of CosmLearner.

almost all the contributions are from sockpuppets actually, clicking most of the users by text-added indicates many were blocked for sockpuppeting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Operation Olive Branch and false consensus

There is a 3 user "consensus" on the article Operation Olive Branch being called an invasion instead of an operation. I have provided Google search results and prominence of news outlets/countries' reactions on the talk page. The word "operation" appears 122 times (except for the title "Operation Olive Branch") while invasion appears as 17 times (now 18) after the false consensus. @Bondegezou: and @Traumnovelle: have been ignoring my evidence regarding WP:UNDUE. @Applodion: also explained how this is not an invasion. The issue here is cherry picked sources calling this an invasion, while vast majority of the sources calls this an operation. Example for earlier google search results:

[1] "afrin offensive" (16,000 results)

[2] "operation olive branch" (72,200 results)

[3] "olive branch operation" (56,300 results)

[4] "afrin invasion" (2,990 results)

Wikipedia consensus formation considers all available, valid source material. For simple matters like titling and style questions, we directly depend on aggregate results (Google Ngrams that track string-usage frequency in books over time; Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books search results and the patterns they reveal in sources; etc.). The idea that they are to be ignored, or are second place to what just happens to be cited already in the article as of this timestamp, is not only unworkable but absurd. It bears no resemblance to how Wikipedia:Consensus is actually formed. per Wikipedia:Fallacy of selective sources.

TLDR: users imposing minority view despite of undue weight. Beshogur (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

... I mean, by any definition, isn't it an invasion? I'm not a fan of euphemisms like "cross-country 1.3 year operation".

also folks have pointed out that google search counts are useless, if a thousand blogs by random folks on internet say its an operation, but 10 reliable sources call it an invasion, we should go with rs. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What do the actual reliable sources say? Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care actually who calls it invasion or not, for example part of my comment on the talk page: European Parliament source contains 5x Operation Peace Spring (name of the operation, propaganda in this case), 12 times operation (except Operation Peace Spring, and title 1x), 1 time invasion.

I don't care about operation as well. "was an offensive" is possible (best NPOV imo). However this is definitely not an invasion. if a thousand blogs by random folks on internet say its an operation, but 10 reliable sources call it an invasion I have provided evidence for RS calling this operation however. The issue here is undue weight. More sources calling this an operation rather than an invasion. These are just example RS calling this an operation (nothing to do with prominence).

• European Parliament: Turkey's military operation in Syria and its impact on relations with the EU
• CNN: Turkish operation in Syria undercuts US gains in ISIS fight
• AJ: Turkey’s operation in Syria’s Afrin: The key players
• NYT: Turkey Begins Operation Against U.S.-Backed Kurdish Militias in Syria
• Reuters: Turkey's military operation against Kurdish YPG in Afrin

As I explained, this offensive had more Syrian troops than Turkish.

cross-country 1.3 year operation regarding this, the offensive took only 2 months (57 days according to Turkish ministry of defence), the insurgency phase doesn't have a date at all, someone just added a begin and end date. Imo should be removed, SDF insurgency in northern Syria already exist. Beshogur (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The amount of Syrian troops doesn't mean this can't be called an invasion. The Wars of the Roses uses the term invasion even though most if not all the troops were English.

Are you even reading your sources? The first one says: 'Though the decision of Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to invade the north-

east Syrian region governed by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD)...'

The second says: 'Turkey’s military incursion against Kurdish groups in Afrin, Syria...'

The New York Times says: 'Turkey has made several incursions into Syria.'

So half your sources support it being an invasion, that is hardly 'undue weight'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you even reading your sources? The first one says are you even reading my comment? Stop cherry picking one word. The first one used 12x more operation. This is simply lying in order to gain advantage. Beshogur (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Being referred to as an operation doesn't exclude it being an invasion. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is here not operation. I am open to change it to "an offensive", more neutral tone. And this is not an invasion. It's invasion according to a minority, which makes it undue weight. Beshogur (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

For reference Assad regime and Cyprus are the only countries calling this an invasion. France calls it, if it becomes an attempted invasion. Other countries? Nothing. Arab league and EU called this an intervention. Beshogur (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The EU parliament document refers to it as an invasion, countries might be wanting to avoid the term to maintain good relations with Turkey. We rely on reliable sources and not specifically government sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Because of one word from the pdf? That's straight up Wikipedia:Don't lie. Stop. Operation appears 12 times.

European Parliament source: Turkey’s military intervention in the Kurdish-controlled enclave of Afrin in Syria Beshogur (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't call me a liar. The source clearly refers to it as an invasion, it doesn't need to repeat the term invasion several times once it has already characterised it as such. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

2 times vs 12 times (except for "Operation Olive Branch")? You're ignoring this. All sources contains the title operation and you're cherry picking one word from the text below. Beshogur (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Literally the first page.

Title: Turkey's military operation in Syria and its impact on relations with the EU

SUMMARY

Operation Peace Spring', launched on 9 October 2019, is the third major Turkish military operation on Syrian territory since 2016, following the 'Euphrates Shield' (2016-2017) and 'Olive Branch' (2018) operations. Though the decision of Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to invade the northeast Syrian region governed by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), may have come as a surprise to some, it is in fact consistent with the rationale of a regime that counts the fight against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) – considered 'terrorist' not only by Turkey, but also by the United States and the EU – among its top security priorities.

And you pick one word, which means undue weight. That's misleading readers. Beshogur (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Just like what DanielRigal said the terms aren't mutually exclusive. An operation can be an invasion e.g. Operation Downfall. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Syrian troops invading Syrian soil. I'm done. How can I explain those aren't same things? Beshogur (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

By this logic, the Bay of Pigs invasion wasn't an invasion either. But both arguments would be OR so this really isn't a tangent worth indulging furthe. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: just a question, how come this can be described an invasion despite of minority views? Because few users agreed here doesn't mean it's the truth? Am I wrong? I have provided many evidence regarding this. Verifiability doesn't mean truth? Beshogur (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What the other editors are arguing is that this isn't actually a minority view, and that it's inaccurate to argue that "operation" and "invasion" are mutually exclusive. The best evidence against such an argument would be RS stating that it is not an invasion, or else a demonstrated, overwhelming majority of RS that avoid using the phrase "invasion". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting that the Google Scholar results arguments in a separate thread below are a valid argument in that direction, although the search terms surveyed are not quite comprehensive (there's a lot of other ways that the operation could be referred to other than "Afrin [noun]", and "Afrin invasion" is much less likely to be used than "Invasion of Afrin" [101 results], "Occupation of Afrin" [84 results] or "invaded Afrin" [54 results]). A lot of the same sources also come up across these various searches. My sense is that the raw results are close enough that a closer reading of RS text is needed (not all Scholar results are of equal quality). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT is a policy and we have articles like 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria. To be honest I'd suggest renaming the article to a more descriptive title, perhaps one with the word "invasion" as it would be much clearer to the reader.

Note that there are RS that use the term "invasion", for example The Kurds in a New Middle East by Gunes (2018), p. 77 and The Kurds in the Middle East by Gurses et al (p. 153). Alaexis_¿question? 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not denying people calling this an invasion, but I am saying this is undue weight. You should look how majority of news outlets / countries reacted, not some cherry picked sources. I'm trying to tell this all the time. I can also bring source calling this a liberation, etc. Do we even include it?

Comparing this to Israeli invasion is comparing pears and apples. It can be compared Turkish incursions into northern Iraq. These Syrian areas isn't even governed by the Turkish military. Beshogur (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, they can hardly be compared as the Turkish operation had a much greater scale.

Regarding the sources, they are books written by experts. These are higher-quality sources than media outlets. Alaexis_¿question? 21:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Operation" is a word that imparts very little information at all. It is a very broad term and it does not in any way imply that something is not an invasion. Many undisputed invasions have been known as "Operation (something)", as have a great many other things that were not invasions. When deciding whether to call this an invasion all that is required is for sufficient Reliable Sources to say that it is and insufficient Reliable Sources to say that it isn't. The ones who only say "operation" are not saying either way. Such abstentions should not be counted as endorsing either side of the question. DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Well I agree on the title being not NPOV, (it's already criticized in the article) but it was chosen for the common name since the sources referred that way, similar to Euphrates Shield, however the issue is the first sentence. It doesn't make sense since rest of the article is called operation almost everywhere. Beshogur (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If the operation was an invasion then it can be described as such, even in the first sentence. We should try to be as specific as possible where it matters but it doesn't matter if the word "operation" is used more frequently than "invasion" in the body, only if the description of it as an invasion is significantly denied or contested in Reliable Sources. DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please describe how this is an invasion exactly while Syrian troops are more than Turkish ones? That's I'm trying to tell since 0. Turkey isn't governing over the areas (yes keeping it's Syrian proxies). But the whole war is a proxy warfare. The area wasn't even controlled by the legitimate Syrian government back then. "was an offensive" is a good solution imo. I don't try to force operation here. Beshogur (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC?

Do we need an RFC to settle it? I think I saw @Selfstudier: actually coming down against calling it an invasion on the page talk, but otherwise, I can't quite tell if Beshogur is the only one advocating against the invasion terminology? Were there others? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Idk what it should be called, except that by title it is currently called an operation, why I suggested an RM to decide if that is appropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

i am confused. the rm would determine article title, while beshugoar is complaining about descriptions in the lede of this being described as an invasion? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

We’ve had lengthy discussion on this issue. There is a clear majority view. This is largely Beshogur alone being unhappy about that view. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

3 users? Clear majority view? With cherry picked sources that doesn't reflect the weight? Beshogur (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I put up an RM, should sort it out there rather than going around in circles here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but the proposed title had to be more descriptive imo. It's pretty vague. Beshogur (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's an RM, suggest something else. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

We had a lengthy discussion. People put forth various lines of evidence and of argument. We ended with 4 in favour (not 3) and just you, Beshogur, against. That’s how Wikipedia works. I don’t see any value in re-opening the discussion. I would suggest that there is plenty of other bits of Wikipedia that you could usefully contribute to rather than continuing this. Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Lengthy discussion with only argument of 5 sources, and ignoring the fact how prominent they were. You couldn't prove otherwise regarding news outlets, search numbers. This is just a false consensus. Wikipedia consensus formation considers all available, valid source material. For simple matters like titling and style questions, we directly depend on aggregate results (Google Ngrams that track string-usage frequency in books over time; Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books search results and the patterns they reveal in sources; etc.). The idea that they are to be ignored, or are second place to what just happens to be cited already in the article as of this timestamp, is not only unworkable but absurd. It bears no resemblance to how Wikipedia:Consensus is actually formed. Beshogur (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Last comment regarding this. Academic book argument:

• Afrin invasion 9
• Afrin offensive 71
• Afrin operation 205

Beshogur (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think these searches are a bit limited in their grammar. Additional search terms:

• Invasion of Afrin 101 results
• Occupation of Afrin 84 results
• "Afrin" "Turkish invasion" 310 results
• "Afrin" "Turkish operation" 191 results

My sense, prior to having done any further analysis on these sources, is that these search results are in the range where either term is plausible as a correct canonical term, and closer reading (which in practice would mean: the assembling of a working, high-quality bibliography for the article and analyzing how each of these sources refers to the topic) could provide basis for new and stronger arguments. These results, don't, however, suggest that "invasion" is an obviously remote minority among terms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean in mainstream media, it's mostly called operation or offensive (as well as countries' reactions), however the 2019 one (still the same type of operation) was sanctioned by many countries, had more reaction. Here it didn't happen, and internationally it had no consequenses. I wonder how does this fit in an invasion description? Since English is not my first tongue, am I just confused? Invasion and occupation isn't the same thing too right? Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems that enough time has passed that there are now many peer-reviewed sources, such that we can reduce our reliance on news media that serves only as the first draft of history. Ultimately, provided that the sources in question are reputable and peer-reviewed, their internal reasoning for choosing one term or another doesn't matter, we simply follow their lead.

Regarding invasion vs. occupation, I wasn't trying to imply that they were the same thing, apologies if it gave that impression. It simply seemed to be another relevant, similar, value-laden term to refer to the operation and its consequences, that evidently does have some purchase in the literature. It popped up in the previews when I was searching for the other terms I listed so it felt worthwhile to see how common it was itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirecting Afrin offensive (January–March 2018) to Operation Olive Branch

Relevant discussion, just notifying folks here. See Talk:Operation_Olive_Branch#Requested_move_31_December_2024, someone already attempted to blank out Afrin to do the redirect. Would like more eyes on this to confirm what right action is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: This redirect was removed by a blocked user (see talk page), also the content is 90% the same with an older revision of this article. It's basically the same offensive. Beshogur (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Changed it to "offensive". Beshogur (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Muslim grooming gangs" again

• Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Halifax child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manchester child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Newcastle sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Oxford child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peterborough sex abuse case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rochdale child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Telford child sexual exploitation scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aylesbury child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Banbury child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bristol child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Derby child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Huddersfield sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was previously a consensus to merge Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom a few months ago, which I carried out. About two weeks ago a user edited the article, which sought again to push the "Muslim/Asian grooming gang" narrative. It would be good for people to keep an eye on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" page to make sure it fairly covers the topic, since further disruption is likely given Elon Musk's recent involvement in the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There's been an uptick of IP/SPA activity trying to push the Asian grooming gang" narrative in several articles related to the individual grooming rings in recent days, like the Oxford child sex abuse ring, Huddersfield grooming gang, Derby child sex abuse ring and Halifax child sex abuse ring, seeming to correspond to a massive rise in views. Further vigilance is needed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Also looking at several articles of the individual child sexual abuse rings (e.g Oxford child sex abuse ring), they give lists of the names of the convicted. Is this a DUE/BLP issue? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah wtf that's def WP:BLPCRIME issue... honestly also WP:NOTDB issue too Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

they were convicted, so we can mention them. Arguably question is if its due to include names like this, or if it looks too much like WP:DB Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory about inclusion of anti-Chinese racism in lead

Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Should_we_mention_in_the_lead_the_"increased_anti-Chinese_racism." Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (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)

Archiving

Why the hell is topgun reverting the archiving dates which I set up? The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring you could have created this section on the first or second revert. And beware of the consequences of passing uncivil comments.

Read WP:DEADLINE. There is no deadline for editors to participate, In such case, assuming that an editor won't reply and archiving the discussion just after 5 days is not sensible. Your argument was that you want to archive all the other discussions (60 in number) on this talk page. The age I've set is 14 days (which too I think is less), and all those articles are other than that and will still be archived. What is your problem then? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are an idiot. Some of those section are a year old. I set up the auto archiving so they would get archived, your RFC would not have been touched as the last four sections do not get archived, I am now reporting you for your breach of 3R. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do, while I report you for misconduct. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reported your inane edit war to the edit war notice board feel free to explain your stupidity there. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)