This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Taliban insurgency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the article about the guerrilla war the Taliban are waging in southern Afghanistan, after the invasion. A short timeline is needed.-- TheFEARgod 11:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if the "outdated" tag is appropriate, as there is content updated as of June and July 2006. Nevertheless, this is an article that needs constant attention as the situation develops, and needs to have updates cleanly integrated into the text, not just added as new sections. I am surprised to see this article so short, considering how major a topic this is, and how widely reported this is. Take a look at half of the other articles in the War on Terrorism category (or many other articles related to subjects of the last 50 years or less) and you'll see that in the modern era, with the multitude of media outlets and advanced technologies, there is tons of material available to the average citizen (and therefore the average Wikipedia editor) to be added here. In particular, I second the call for a timeline or chronology. LordAmeth 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe Operation Medusa ought to be its own article; is is a major offensive involving thousands of troops, and has been ongoing for a week with no sign of stopping. Other operations such as Operation Anaconda have their own pages.
Should not the "Taliban insurgency" article focus on the activities of Taliban insurgents, rather than the people fighting against them?
Eleland 16:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
h-cz 14:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
we need here a short overview of Medusa. With a ||see: Operation Medusa|| header -- TheFEARgod 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the merge tags. Eleland 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Or change the 2001 war into 2001-2002 conflict only, and move everything since the return of the Taliban here. -- HanzoHattori 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the NATO and Canadian flags.
To have both the NATO and ISAF ensignas is redundant and confusing, as ISAF is " [...] a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan [...]". The ISAF consists mainly of NATO members, but NATO's role in ISAF is organisatory, not as a belligerent party per se.
I think no country in ISAF should have its flag in the box, they all work under an integrated command, and others countries have seen almost as much major action as the Canadians (particularly the Dutch). This only leads to "my country too"-ism.
The US stays because a major part of its forces are not under ISAF command. -- Victor falk 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd support renaming this to Afghan insurgency, since a large number of Afghans fighting are not related to the Taliban, other than through mass-media and politicians finding it easier to refer to them all as "Taliban". See Iraqi Insurgency for a similar name. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Why "insurgents" and not "freedom fighters"? Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. Danensis ( talk) 13:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the use of the terms "insurgent(s)" and "insurgency" is laden with bias. While the phrase "freedom fighters" would be favoured by some, the term "resistance fighters" would be both more neutral and more appropriate, making the historic connection with the resistance groups that operated throughout Europe during World War II. Dlgrant ( talk) 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) dlgrant
What I find hilarious is that all these disparate groups are commonly referred to as a single group by western military and media - "the Taliban". Considering that none of them have declared allegiance to the previous government of Afghanistan - the Taliban - or, in fact, even declared any desire to overthrow the "legitimate" government, means they are clearly not insurgents. QuantumG ( talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
"Resistance fighters" is neutral and keeps us at academic distance. Parrotistic ( talk) 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Considering how this all turned out, it would be appropriate to rename this to "The Afghan Civil War" or something along those lines, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has regained control of the capital after all. They always held some regions, so it's not like the IE ever really ended. -- The Gentle Sleep ( talk) 10:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The topic's locked atm. I found two websites holding info that could be used as citation for the car accident triggering riots in Kabul in 2006 in the "2006 Escalation" section. Can someone confirm and add them? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5437226 | http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2006/jun/01/us-troops-fired-at-mob-after-kabul-accident/ -- R04m3r ( talk) 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
its written that the Talaban army strength is 25000 soldiers then why are the casaulties 40000 ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.101.32 ( talk) 13:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Why does the picture claim it would show fighters which SURRENDERED to police forces? they still hold their firearms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.195.115 ( talk) 07:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
why is the article named "taliban insurgency", not "afghan resistance"? Why is there no article called Afghan resistance? typing this redirects to the "mujahideen" article which is terribly misleading to suggest that all Afghani people defending their homes from invaders are religious fanatics. There is an article called "French resistance", why is it not called "French communist insurgency" then so that it would be consistent with "taliban insurgency"? Articles like this are obviously edited by the US military and public authorities, wikipedia needs to take steps against this practice. I guess nobody would like to see the German government officials editing "French resistance" to "French communist insurgency", right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.57.137 ( talk) 13:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Jim Michael - the wiki article you linked to about the 2004 election even says that there was significant levels of voter fraud. It says that it wasn't uncommon for people to have 3 to 4 different photographic IDs and a western reporter said that he himself, was given two valid voting cards and if he added his photograph to it, he could have voted...and he's not a Afghan citizen. I don't have a dog in this fight, I am not pro Taliban or even anti-Taliban as it's their country and not mine, but it's not accurate to point to the the 2004 election or especially the even more fraud ridden 2009 election as evidence that the majority of Afghans do not support the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban... 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:50CC:4ABB:6BE6:7EBC ( talk)
The Taliban insurgency continued into 2012.
Timeline[edit] August: 27 August: Taliban insurgents in the Taliban-controlled southern Helmand area killed 17 civilians – fifteen men and two women[130] – who were attending a party. A government official said that the victims were beheaded for celebrating with music and mixgender dancing[131] in the Musa Qala district of Helmand, which ran contrary to the Taliban's extreme brand of Islam. Later, however, a provincial government official said that the 17 people killed were due to a fight between two Taliban commanders over two women (who were also killed). The civilians were either beheaded or had their throats cut, but some showed signs of gunshot wounds or beatings.[130] The attacks were condemned by Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who ordered an investigation into the attack,[131] the leader of the NATO coalition led by the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union. However, the Taliban has denied responsibility for the attack, saying that no Taliban members have ever killed civilians. The attack occurred on the same day when two United States troops were killed by an Afghan soldier.[132] 10 Afghan soldiers were killed by the Taliban, also in the Helmand province.[130]
Well this content is all bull shit no one prove this. As the Taliban were posting they said we will allow all journalists and everyone who wanna see the place can come and talk to local people. This was just a propaganda by the Afghan government. I wish you understand what i wrote here if you can prove this will be great or other wise please writhe something ells from that year you can find many facts that happened in that year. I will also look for those articles who were shared in some Afghan news sites about this matter.
Taliban is Sunni - Iran is Shia, Iran supported the Shias who are against the Taliban (Hasaras) /info/en/?search=Hazaras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.36.197 ( talk) 22:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Insurgency = rebelliousness. The presumption behind this chosen article title is, that in 2001-2002 the Taliban started to fight against the ‘ legitimate (Karzai) government of Afghanistan’. But that seems a biased, Western- and American-centred presumption, resulting in a biased article title.
It is clear that a Taliban government
was blown out of Afghanistan in 2001-2002 with force by the US and allies, and that US and allies in 2001, backed by the UN, installed a '
(legitimate) Afghan government'. And probably that 'government' is indeed even sometimes successful in some areas and on some aspects of what Westerners consider 'governing a country'. That leaves unimpeded that the Taliban have never acknowledged that (Western-/UN-constructed) 'reality' and that that so-called 'Afghan government' never really governed and controlled the whole country: thus it is still a fiction, wishfull dream, of (many in) the (Western) world. Obviously, the (biased) title 'Taliban insurgency' is based on that fiction.
From the Taliban's point of view, they are simply trying to take back ('their') Afghanistan from some (Western-backed puppet) regime. So, a neutral, factual title would be: 'Taliban's fight for [reconquest of] Afghanistan'.
Colleague Darkness Shines
here above, in 2012, contended that the article has this title because "that is what the majority of reliable sources call it". I challenge that, both in its factualness and in the apparent assumption that—even if many or all (Western) sources do call this Taliban fight 'insurgency'—we have no other choice than follow (biased, Western) news sources even in our article's titles. (The anonymous editor of 28 March 2012 exaggerated by saying that 'the US military is editing this page' but he was right as far as that the title seems chosen from a biased (US-centred) point of view.) --
Corriebertus (
talk) 16:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I fixed a malformed citation for China's appearance in the list of alleged supporters. Note that the reference is from a Forbes Opinion contributor, and that there is no indication that it appeared in the print version of the magazine. Consensus has found this source to be generally unreliable, and that references to it should be treated as opinion pieces or self-published sources. This contributor may or may not be an exception. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 07:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
With America recognising the Taliban and withdrawing troops, we can now mark this as a Taliban victory to the struggle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.10.131 ( talk) 14:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This would be incorrect. The United States never defined victory conditions as the "complete removal and destruction of the Taliban" The overthrow of the Taliban regime was largely done by the Northern Alliance (with American support), and was in response to their unwillingness to hand over Al Qaeda. The United States was mostly interested in dismantling and preventing a safe base for Al Qaeda. That objective was achieved very early on in the conflict.
This led to the creation of the Afghan Government (through Loya Jirga and Bonn Agreement of 2002), and a new mission through ISAF that was essentially a "Nation Building" or "Peacekeeping" style mission. Mainly interested in safeguarding the Afghan Government, building the ANDSF. This did involve combating the Taliban insurgency for it threatened the aspects of that mandate (highlight in UN Security Resolution 1386)
The combat mission for the USA ended in 2014, as it handed all security responsibilities over to the Afghan Government, and began "Resolute Support" which was an Advise, Train, Assist mission.
At this point in time the war is a Stalemate between the Taliban (who have without a doubt made gains in that Vacuum of Power left by ISAF/US). The Peace is an attempt to safeguard the original objectives, by finding a political stalemate. Many attempts have been made in the past to negotiate a settlement.
To define the war as "Won" or "Lost" would only be based upon a biased narrative. This is an ongoing conflict without resolution, where even the peace process may fail.
In regards to Vietnam, the United States largely withdrew due to public pressure, not from communist forces (the USA won most military engagements). Saigon only fell due to the Case Church Amendment (which prohibited US from returning), cutting of funds, and corruption... and this was 2 years after the last American forces left Vietnam <-- Objectives in that war were similar. More interested in safeguarding South Vietnam, than any "Total Defeat" of Communist forces. Likely Vietnam would be viewed as an American victory if the USA kept to its promises after the Paris Peace Accord None the less, what seemed successful in 1973 (though controversial to the American public), was undone by 1975 turning a victory, into a humiliating self made political disaster.
None the less your perspectives on the conflict are silly.
There is no winner in Afghanistan.
It may very well be that by the end of the war (or if a peace process is successful)
The Taliban, The Afghan Government, The USA will all view themselves as winners.
Or perhaps not? We shall see
It is ongoing.
Njofallofall ( talk) 06:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I added this on the "War in Afghanistan" talk page as well However, I thought it would be important to add here.. If anyone wanted to do something with this information.
There are of course no real estimates of Taliban losses. However, there are various sources that have compiled different numbers for different periods. None of them are truly cohesive though
The Watson Institute for example, undercounts Taliban losses. and I will provide reasons as to why that is the case...
take for example the 2016 Estimate https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/War%20in%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%20UPDATE_FINAL_corrected%20date.pdf
This gives a tally 42,100
if we also take the 2019 Estimate https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/Direct%20War%20Deaths%20COW%20Estimate%20November%2013%202019%20FINAL.pdf
You will notice that the tally of 42,100 is also used.
The Newest estimate (Which is used within both the Taliban Insurgency, and War in Afghanistan article) give the new estimate of 51,191
Which only incorporates 2 separate 4 month reporting periods for the Ministry of Defense as stated within the source https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/figures/2021/Human%20and%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Afghan%20War%2C%202001-2021.pdf "From July 1 through November 5, 2019, Afghan National Defense Forces reported killing 10,259 militants/insurgents/terrorists and reported killing 10,091 from 6 November to 13 April 2021"
This is a clear undercount, simply considering even from 2016-2019 there were no additions. Within the 2014 version, they admit that any estimates are likely undercounted, and no records are actually kept
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2015/War%20Related%20Casualties%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%202001-2014%20FIN.pdf
However, I would like to highlight that various sources do give Taliban losses for certain periods of time For example, the "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" specifically page 261 by Antonio Guistozzi gives yearly totals (according to Al Somud) from 2002-2016 (omitting 2013) Overall, we can see nearly 80,000 Taliban deaths during that reporting period.
On top of this, the Ministry of Defense has at times given yearly totals, or various seasonal estimates Take for example this article https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/officials-count-around-30000-war-dead-afghanistan-year Which states in the year 2016, there were 30,000 deaths in the Afghan War, 18,500 of them Taliban Also various reports from the MOD can be found here https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release or also the Twitter account (which tends to be updated more often) https://twitter.com/MoDAfghanistan We see that in this month (June) alone so far over 1,300 Taliban have been killed in ANDSF operations?
I think it would be interesting to incorporate these numbers because as I highlighted above.. the Watson study is very flawed (at least in regards to Taliban figures) However, I am unsure about how to do that They could very quickly increase the Taliban fatalities of the war well over 100,000
Njofallofall (
talk) 05:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear editor, for your kind information there is a vast majority of estimates and statements regarding any scenario of war. You should understand properly that wikipedia follow certain rules and regulations. Original research don't stand on wikipedia. Neither one own views. For more information visit wikipedia guidelines. I have studied Brown research paper very long ago. Nowhere it states that this research is incomplete. It states 42,100 in 2016 and then 42,100 again in 2019 is not wikipedia headache. Reliable content source matters only. If it's final result is 51000 in 2021. That's it. It doesn't need anything else because wikipedia is not a research page that you keep adding your own research due to a source research problem. Now your reference of MOD of afghan government claim doesn't stand here because its a party of opposite side. Taliban which is a previous government fighting for its revival again has also a page called Al emarah. There it also states that opposing government forces killed on daily basis in hundreds. But it's reference is not given on wikipedia because opposite party claims always exaggerate. At last, your statement "likely far higher" should be present in any source rather than your own personal research or you views. I hope you understood well how wikipedia works. Take this opportunity and learn wikipedia rules. I am removing it until you present any reliable source of figures. Thank you. Khalidwarrior ( talk) 04:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
To correct some assumptions being produced within you paragraph.
1. The Taliban were never the official government of Afghanistan, as declared by the UN. Instead that was the Northern Alliance/United Front on the basis of the 1992 Peshawar Accords. Therefore an incorrect assumption by you, none the irrelevant to this discussion.
2. Clearly Watson numbers are undercounted, and rarely updated. Taking the lack of changes from 2016 to 2019 shows that they never attempted to completely count the numbers Lets take for example "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" pg 261 by Antonio Guistozzi This estimated over 80,000 Taliban deaths within a roughly 10 year period, according to his sources from Al Somud. Antonio Guistozzi is one of the leading figures on the Taliban movement? Is this not a relevant source? Though this only covers 2002-2016 (with 2013 omitted). This can be found specifically within page 261 of the text which he sourced from Administrative contacts from the Shuras of Quetta, Miran Shah, and Peshawar Would this text not be applicable to update the numbers? https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/antonio-giustozzi <-- The book itself is accessible (within my region) from Google Books. https://books.google.it/books?id=CB6sDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA261&dq=taliban+kia+2001+2018&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqyeurh-3uAhWDz4UKHQcSBbIQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=taliban%20kia%202001%202018&f=false ^ perhaps accessible to you? I am unsure None the less, its page 261 of "Taliban at War:2001-2018"
He is one of the lead researchers within the field.
3. The Watson research actually cites MOD within the subsections of its 2021 report. Does this not give validation?
4. The Implications of each Militant fatality counting section shows that reports of losses were sparsely given. The NATO/US rarely ever kept track (outside of individual combats). This is repeated in each new report. This is an admission of incomplete records.
None the less, I realize my mistake that Wikipedia cares little for accuracy. Clearly the losses are underreported and clearly they were very rarely ever updated. None the less, clearly Wikipedia has no interest this reality. POV only matters if you fulfill a certain niche.
I have provided multiple sources for my argument as to why "Likely Higher" is a fair assessment Do with it what you will
Taliban losses likely numbered 100,000 to 200,000 As according to Antonio Guistozzi estimates from 2002-2016 (over 80,000) "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" pg 261 <--- This is the source provided for that number, and as highlighted above was based upon the various Shuras, and Al Somud. This is not just a random report, but a very old one that shows the undercounting of Watson There were Reports that showed around 6,000 Taliban killed in 2001 https://web.archive.org/web/20160303191840/http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2001/november/nov29qq2001.html Not to mention various reports such as this which supply 18,500 for 2016 alone https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/officials-count-around-30000-war-dead-afghanistan-year
These are the realities of the situation and a report that rarely ever updates Militant losses is not relevant source To be entirely honest with you, using the Antonio Guitozzi Source would be just as applicable (Considering he is a lead international lead researcher on the Taliban movement). Therefore would that source be an acceptable one alone? I also know that in previous iterations of this page there were multiple statistics applied ^ for example if you check the records of the page there were 2 sources (from 2015, and 2016) which compiled a 7,000 and 18,500 Taliban fatality number for that period of time? I had assumed due to this such a thing was perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standards.. Especially considering it was on the page for quite some time.
None the less, thank you for your time. I assumed such research projects of Kings London College, funded by the Economic and Social Sciences Research Council would be relevant My only interest here is accuracy
Njofallofall ( talk) 04:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your time
Njofallofall ( talk) 04:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Once again, ill highlight that I understand your issue here isn't the credibility of the number or research Or the methodology.. etc.. That is clearly beyond the limits of Wikipedia. Its simply the sourcing of the research by Wikipedia guidelines. So I understand my mistake in those regards Though, I will say it was largely built on what I had already seen on these pages (Where multiple sources compiled) ^ Specifically when the 67,000 to 72,000 Taliban fatalities number was used on the page.
That is my mistake for misunderstanding what is acceptable. ^ though ill also mention it appears only relevant as far as certain niches are fulfilled by what narrative the major editors want to apply. Wikipedia is clearly a battle zone for various beliefs (a simple cursory look at certain social movement articles is good enough of an example of that) So there is clearly bias, and certain territories (and likely toxic editors) carved out. I have seen plenty of pages that lack any real cohesion, and seem to be used as a way to force POV none the less that is outside the point of this discussion.
I do believe the Antonio Guistozzi research may still be applicable here by your standards. though the numbers supplied are given on a graph (Which can make it difficult to know the exact number for each reporting year). I will leave that to a more skilled editor on if they want to add that source.
However, I think I have made my point here. It is clear this is less about being accurate, and more about fulfilling guidelines (be it from Wikipedia, or from various editors).
None the less... Once again! Thank you very much for your time :) I do appreciate it.
Njofallofall ( talk) 05:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
First of all thanks for your sensible talk. I appreciate it too much. Now coming to the point I do accept that wikipedia have certain POV. I also have the same pain but it is beyond of our control. There are many pages which have certain pov and biaseness. It's totally true but it is also a fact that it is also very much unbiased as compared to many other sites. Because it is not run by any firm but people all over the world edit it. So every views collide with each other. Now coming to the point I clearly mentioned that wikipedia is not a place of original research. Please visit WP:OR page. It's also true it doesn't consider accuracy and nothing of truthfulness also. The basic thing in here is only reliable source. Because if it will then every person will calculating assuming and a big War Edit will happen. I hope you get it.
Nonetheless I must point what I want to say before 1. Definitely Taliban is not a un member but neither do palestine. But both governments are recognised by many other un member states. So it's legitimacy is not of any simple faction. I can give you more examples but I think you will understand what I want to say. 2.From what you have provided of Antonio book, on page 261 it's not written 80000 deaths. Rather it is a chart. From which it is hard to add. Because it is not in numbers particularly. But it does have a weightage. 3.The watson research does have MOD reference as same as Antonio have reference of Taliban fatalities from Quetta shura. If Taliban have no stand then why does it's reference is given. That's why I told you about war scenario and how it works on wikipedia. Not giving just a one side claimed casualties on opposing party. That's why one has to provide reliable research in which opposing party reference can be there. Maybe you get it. 4.It's not wikipedia headache. If Nato have not counted you cannot put your own statements like inaccuracy or other things.I understood your feeling but it's true wikipefia is not a place of accuracy. It's only about reliable reference. There are many false information on other pages. That's why we work together to eradicate it.
I failed to find about 2015 and 2016 statistics summation. So I didn't totally understood what's happened before. Nonetheless anything happened somewhere in any page is not a legitimacy proof. I have personally came across many pages where there are totally personal statements without any reference at all. So i removed it. So that doesn't mean one can add own statements on wikipedia because it's on other page or whatsoever.But let me tell you adding is totally done on wikipedia page if it's like on yearly basis with perfect numbers like 6000 in 2014,7500 in 2015 or 8000 in 2016.But it should be on any reliable reference page particularly. Then only it could be done the way you want.
At last don't please frustrated as it seemed from your answer. Rather take this opportunity to work together and make wikipedia a good place. Please reply some statements so I will know that you have read or understood properly. Thank you Khalidwarrior ( talk) 22:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
1. Yes, the Taliban were usually only recognized by a handful of states (Pakistan in particular). Same is applied to Palestine, which is recognized by a handful of Muslim states. This I understand. My point was that the International community as a whole (and the UN in particular) never recognized the Taliban regime. So yes, they are currently fighting and claiming to be a "Government in Exile" it isn't exactly accepted by most states.
Who knows what will happen with the war? Currently its an ongoing stalemate, and has been for many years between the Afghan Government and Taliban.
We may very well see a peaceful resolution, or we may see yet many more years of bloody conflict. At this point, it appears the endless stalemate and war will continue on indefinitely. We can all hope for peace though.
2. Yes, I do recognize it is a chart, and so my number of 80,000 is the best I can estimate by looking at it. None the less, I think it is an acceptable source. Though I am not particularly skilled on how to edit it (Hence the reason I never attempted to include it in my edits).
3. I understand your argument on MOD vs Taliban numbers. It is without a doubt true both the Taliban and the Afghan Government want to push a narrative of winning the war. Fatality numbers are clearly an aspect of this. None the less, my only interest was to update the numbers that were known.
4. Ultimately I think this was my misunderstanding.
I now understand that Wikipedia is not a place of accuracy, just of reliable sourcing.
5. The 2015/2016 numbers added 2 references of Taliban losses for each year (which were 7,000 for 2015 and 18,500 for 2016) <-- of which I know the 2016 estimate came from VOA news article about 30,000 Afghans dying that year. The 18,500 number was a MOD number for that year. It was listed as a source when Taliban losses were listed as "67,000 to 72,000" My assumption (and misunderstanding) was that such a process was normal and acceptable That was why I wanted to include Antonio Guistozzi's numbers in "Taliban at War:2001-2018" along with MOD reports for the past years. I had seen such things done before, and assumed it was a normal practice on Wikipedia.
Now I understand Wikipedia is less about accuracy of report, and more about cohesion of reliable sources Of course such a thing is nearly impossible when trying to give numbers for things like Insurgency losses. Especially when most governments and organizations never really attempted to report or record them.
None the less, I appreciate you taking your time to talk to me I think you have answered all of my questions. I have nothing really further to add here.
Thank you.
Njofallofall ( talk) 23:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Going through the edit sections of this map I have noticed that there has been a heavy reliance on a singular source for the updates? Specifically, an anonymous Twitter account by the name of "RisboLensky" Which seems to be quite a questionable source? (Especially given the accounts political takes on certain issues which seems to be the opposite of impartial).
The fact of territorial control is that it is a contested issue (and often confused as to what "Control" means). There are various sources that give different standards Some of them clearly being Pro-Taliban, and others clearly being Pro-Afghan Government. ^ both of which are sources upon themselves. Each claiming to control the majority of the country.
Various other outsider sources apply different standards, and have come to different conclusions. (Which clearly at times can be debatable to the methodology)
For example, https://www.longwarjournal.org/mapping-taliban-control-in-afghanistan Which applied would give a completely different map lays out a methodology (though a questionable one) that deals with issues
There are also other sources that compile claims such as
https://afghanistan.liveuamap.com/ which also highlights territorial control or various other sources that give completely different stats
https://feminist.org/our-work/afghan-women-and-girls/taliban-controls-3-of-afghanistan/ ^ older of course, and I dont mean for you to use it.. but an example of how "Control" can be used to develop narrative as opposed to reality.
The List is honestly quite endless... and I am curious why we should take this map seriously when it seems to rely heavily on an anonymous twitter account? which absolutely discounts MOD reports https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release and seems to have a great deal of personal bias on certain issues JUST A few examples from the past couple of days......... proving it lacks impartiality and clearly has a lean on this issue.
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397834662492479490
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397901353268228096
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397816361850748929
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397463526810210306
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397459159650557954
These are just from the last couple of days, and random ones I could find These are not the comments of an impartial source. RisboLensky has a clear Taliban leaning, and is far more likely to report their claims. While ignoring other claims, and highlighting their own political views ^ this is what I have noticed while going through the claims, though I could be wrong.
So I ask Why are the majority of updates on this page of a singular anonymous twitter account?
This account is used as a source well over 700 times, since October 2018 which in that period saw only slightly above 1,000 separate edits. It makes up the vast majority of claims??????
While all other sources (which give completely different accounts) are completely ignored? Why is this? TRULY Why is an anonymous twitter account with 7,000 subscribers and a self claimed "Marshal and all inclusive, comprehensive and verified troll. Polytheist magician" the very basis of this map???
I find it very silly. Njofallofall ( talk) 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to address some issues here, I'll be going over my own assessment at first, from what I know, he isn't a biased peculiar source to the taliban, he aspects major news from them as predominant to the current times in Afghanistan, hence why he focuses more on Taliban gains then governmental, especially since reported governmental progress has been quite poor, I also would like to address while using 1 twitter account for a source is debateable, the person in this twitter account is a well reliable source from what I know, as he is an active stern liner of knowledge from the current predominating frontlines and it is proven to be right later on, "While all other sources (which give completely different accounts) are completely ignored? Why is this? TRULY Why is an anonymous twitter account with 7,000 subscribers and a self claimed "Marshal and all inclusive, comprehensive and verified troll. Polytheist magician" the very basis of this map???", this is merely a profile, regardless, he is a trustable source from what I know.
But I do agree more context to evidence needs to be added for frontal gains, overall I think the map is alright for now, hence why I reverted FOARP's removal of the map, since it still seems to be predominantly accurate as shown through multiple other sources, othersidingly, I suggest for future edits to include more evidence and elements on new advances for key Governmental/Taliban gains and volitions. "RisboLensky has a clear Taliban leaning, and is far more likely to report their claims. While ignoring other claims,"
While of course, I regarded this earlier of how he mainly focuses on taliban gains and elements for advances, rather then the current poor effort from the government, the MOD seems to be a reliable source but it only marks Taliban casualties for their prolific advances they have made in multiple regions, including kandahar, which if you have payed attention too as well also marks the recent taliban attacks plunged into the region, so the map is still pre-accurate to most of its extent, hence why I suggest we keep it, but from now on add more source and contextual evidence, I am not gaslighting Robo whatsoever, but please just add more.
Also, I would like to report that the Taliban have been confirmed to atleast own a majority 50%+ of the country.Or perhaps the SIGAR reports (which will return in June)
https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2021-04-30qr-section2-security.pdf <-- as you can see it will return to reporting territorial control the last territorial control report was this one
https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2018-10-30qr.pdf None the less it will be returning, and will likely provide a different answer IF I supplied the SIGAR map of June 2021, will that then be added and updated to this map?????
Once again, there are many different sources that give wildly different estimates. From the LWJ, to SIGAR, to various other sources. Mark Milley for example reported to Congress (in a recent Budget hearing) that the Taliban controlled 81 Districts Other sources claim the Taliban captured more than 100 Districts in the past 2 months (including Risbolensky). even claims of the Taliban controlling "more than 50%" are from a 1,000 person survey committed by Tolonews (not exactly the best way to dictate territorial control). Just in the same way a BBC article in 2017 reported "70% of Afghanistan under threat from the Taliban" but the article itself stated that only 4% of Districts were controlled by the Taliban, the others were divided by how often they were attacked. Regardless as you admit, This twitter feed highlights largely only Taliban gains, while ignoring ANDSF counters (which can be seen through other Twitter feeds like Col Rahman Rahmani, Fawad Aman, Jason Criss Howk. RIV Monitoring, ThePeaceWatch etc etc). There is no real consensus on the subject. Either way, its beside the point... and not the main issue here The issue is that the main source for this map is a twitter feed. It is not a reliable source, and should be removed. Njofallofall ( talk) 22:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you FOARP
Though my original goal was to question the validity of this source, and offer alternatives.
Along with highlighting the heavy reliance on it to create the map, that likely pushed narratives.
The fact is that those issues are quite irrelevant
Simply stated
An anonymous Twitter feed is not a reliable source.
For that reason alone, it should be removed.
Njofallofall (
talk) 22:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Marcus, can you not see the problem with using the literal Taliban as a source for a map? Remember that the sourcing should be independent of the subject matter - if the source is the Taliban, then it clearly isn’t independent, is it? FOARP ( talk) 18:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@FOARP. Precisely. This is why I wanted to bring attention to the map. 1. Not only is this a heavily contested topic (with various other POVs which I have highlighted above), but the reliance on a singular anonymous twitter thread is questionable. My last check on the Edit page shows that 331 of the past 500 edits included this specific twitter account. 2. This Twitter account in question, as admitted by Marcus is also not impartial, and more or less services the Taliban POV. This is why I wanted to bring attention to what I considered clear bias on the thread in my original post. So we can not claim this as an independent or neutral source. 3. Considering its an anonymous account (for we can't know who operates it) How can we verify it as a reliable source? 4. The structure of the map suggests a lot of personal research, through the sources being used. Does this not create a conflict with the map in question? Therefore, it can not be considered valid. Even if this singular twitter account is not the only source (and there are some others used), It suggests various sources are being mixed to create the map in question... As I understood it (from previous conversations with other Wikipedia editors) personal research was not valid, and mixing various sources to come to a conclusion went against Wikipedia standards?? In Conclusion, it cannot be verified, or considered neutral. There has been a heavy reliance on this singular twitter thread. The entire structure of the map is questionable. That being said, I understand it can be fun to make maps like these. However, I am not certain its appropriate for a Wikipedia article. From my understanding, this breaks several Wikipedia guidelines. It simply should not be used on these pages, or removed entirely. Once again FOARP, I would like to say Thank You for taking the time to handle this issue.. Njofallofall ( talk) 20:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey so, Noorullah here, recently the edit for removing the map was undo " Undid revision 1031019973 by FOARP (talk) There is no reason for deletion. Twitter accounts can be used as a source. Political bias is not an argument for deletion.", and he is correct and there are multiple reasons on why it shouldn't be removed to.
ALSO, a recent wikipedia administrator by the name of Muboshgu dropped by and he didn't seem to mind the source of it being a twitter account, so I stand my point on it not being removed, it is a accurate and standarded map that is to be used for now and I see no reason not to persist in attaking it away just because it is sourced by a twitter account that is anonymous, he is a trusted source and even as the person who reverted it said, political bias is not an argument for deletion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC on whether this file:
should (Support) or should not (Oppose) be used on this page to show the present extent of Taliban control in Afghanistan.
FOARP (
talk) 11:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to everyone in the previous RSN and talk-page discussions of this map, the map-creator, and the recent map-editors: @ MarcusTraianus, Njofallofall, Eggishorn, MPants at work, Alaexis, Thryduulf, Slatersteven, Borysk5, Noorullah21, and Ali Zifan:
Courtesy note: I have pinged the Afghanistan and Military history Wikiprojects as well as the Miscellaneous village pump to further advertise this RFC FOARP ( talk) 09:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I support, the map is accurate and as other sources stated, it is fine for a twitter account to be used as a source, if you are to complain for it we can garner more evidence/sources for it in the future, but I say to keep the map. Many works like this have used twitter sources like the syrian civil war as stated by another user above, and are accurate. Noorullah21
So you could take the fight there ( Module talk:Taliban insurgency detailed map). If you make Template:Taliban insurgency detailed map correct, then the svg file in question will become correct automatically. Tradedia talk 04:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
"Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit"on that page - if reliable mainstream media sources can only produce approximate maps then we should not be engaging in WP:OR to produce our own. FOARP ( talk) 18:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The maps might seem good and detailed but they are unreliable, they pretend to a level of accuracy that is probably unachievable without engaging in original research/ WP:SYNTH. This is the reason why more reliable sources use only show district-level control, since village-level control in a guerrilla/semi-guerrilla conflict is meaningless given the rapidly-shifting ownership. Probably the commanders themselves don't necessarily know the ownership of every village today.
"if you claim his tweets about territorial changes are merely translated Taliban announcements, this is something you have to prove... the claim he is unreliable should be proven as well"- Sorry, but I think you've got this exactly the wrong way around: it is for anyone wanting to include material to show that it is reliably sourced. We have very straight-forward policies telling us not to use self-published sources for controversial claims (i.e., anonymous Twitter accounts for information about who is winning a war).
IvanSidorenkoSG ( talk) 05:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Once again, I would like to say thank you to all for taking time considering this issue. Njofallofall ( talk) 18:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern: Wikipedia editors may wish to review this interview here with the former President of Afghanistan ( Hamid Karzai) made in 2020 and incorporate excerpts from it into this article, especially concerning his views on the civil war that raged between his liberal government (and its constituents) and the ultra-conservative Taliban party and its followers. Another good video-documentary of the current, unfolding crisis is this video here. This next video is very, very interesting ( here) and gives an insight into the Afghani society. Of course, and this one here, too, is important, as well as this one here. Davidbena ( talk) 01:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Codenamewolf: You are engaging in a lame edit war. Taliban insurgency#Pakistan confirmed that both independent reliable sources and the prominent Pakistani politicians agree that Pakistan supported Talibanis in this conflict. You need to stop edit warring over infobox. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Taliban insurgency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the article about the guerrilla war the Taliban are waging in southern Afghanistan, after the invasion. A short timeline is needed.-- TheFEARgod 11:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if the "outdated" tag is appropriate, as there is content updated as of June and July 2006. Nevertheless, this is an article that needs constant attention as the situation develops, and needs to have updates cleanly integrated into the text, not just added as new sections. I am surprised to see this article so short, considering how major a topic this is, and how widely reported this is. Take a look at half of the other articles in the War on Terrorism category (or many other articles related to subjects of the last 50 years or less) and you'll see that in the modern era, with the multitude of media outlets and advanced technologies, there is tons of material available to the average citizen (and therefore the average Wikipedia editor) to be added here. In particular, I second the call for a timeline or chronology. LordAmeth 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe Operation Medusa ought to be its own article; is is a major offensive involving thousands of troops, and has been ongoing for a week with no sign of stopping. Other operations such as Operation Anaconda have their own pages.
Should not the "Taliban insurgency" article focus on the activities of Taliban insurgents, rather than the people fighting against them?
Eleland 16:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
h-cz 14:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
we need here a short overview of Medusa. With a ||see: Operation Medusa|| header -- TheFEARgod 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the merge tags. Eleland 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Or change the 2001 war into 2001-2002 conflict only, and move everything since the return of the Taliban here. -- HanzoHattori 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the NATO and Canadian flags.
To have both the NATO and ISAF ensignas is redundant and confusing, as ISAF is " [...] a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan [...]". The ISAF consists mainly of NATO members, but NATO's role in ISAF is organisatory, not as a belligerent party per se.
I think no country in ISAF should have its flag in the box, they all work under an integrated command, and others countries have seen almost as much major action as the Canadians (particularly the Dutch). This only leads to "my country too"-ism.
The US stays because a major part of its forces are not under ISAF command. -- Victor falk 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd support renaming this to Afghan insurgency, since a large number of Afghans fighting are not related to the Taliban, other than through mass-media and politicians finding it easier to refer to them all as "Taliban". See Iraqi Insurgency for a similar name. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Why "insurgents" and not "freedom fighters"? Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. Danensis ( talk) 13:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the use of the terms "insurgent(s)" and "insurgency" is laden with bias. While the phrase "freedom fighters" would be favoured by some, the term "resistance fighters" would be both more neutral and more appropriate, making the historic connection with the resistance groups that operated throughout Europe during World War II. Dlgrant ( talk) 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) dlgrant
What I find hilarious is that all these disparate groups are commonly referred to as a single group by western military and media - "the Taliban". Considering that none of them have declared allegiance to the previous government of Afghanistan - the Taliban - or, in fact, even declared any desire to overthrow the "legitimate" government, means they are clearly not insurgents. QuantumG ( talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
"Resistance fighters" is neutral and keeps us at academic distance. Parrotistic ( talk) 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Considering how this all turned out, it would be appropriate to rename this to "The Afghan Civil War" or something along those lines, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has regained control of the capital after all. They always held some regions, so it's not like the IE ever really ended. -- The Gentle Sleep ( talk) 10:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The topic's locked atm. I found two websites holding info that could be used as citation for the car accident triggering riots in Kabul in 2006 in the "2006 Escalation" section. Can someone confirm and add them? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5437226 | http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2006/jun/01/us-troops-fired-at-mob-after-kabul-accident/ -- R04m3r ( talk) 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
its written that the Talaban army strength is 25000 soldiers then why are the casaulties 40000 ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.101.32 ( talk) 13:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Why does the picture claim it would show fighters which SURRENDERED to police forces? they still hold their firearms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.195.115 ( talk) 07:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
why is the article named "taliban insurgency", not "afghan resistance"? Why is there no article called Afghan resistance? typing this redirects to the "mujahideen" article which is terribly misleading to suggest that all Afghani people defending their homes from invaders are religious fanatics. There is an article called "French resistance", why is it not called "French communist insurgency" then so that it would be consistent with "taliban insurgency"? Articles like this are obviously edited by the US military and public authorities, wikipedia needs to take steps against this practice. I guess nobody would like to see the German government officials editing "French resistance" to "French communist insurgency", right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.57.137 ( talk) 13:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Jim Michael - the wiki article you linked to about the 2004 election even says that there was significant levels of voter fraud. It says that it wasn't uncommon for people to have 3 to 4 different photographic IDs and a western reporter said that he himself, was given two valid voting cards and if he added his photograph to it, he could have voted...and he's not a Afghan citizen. I don't have a dog in this fight, I am not pro Taliban or even anti-Taliban as it's their country and not mine, but it's not accurate to point to the the 2004 election or especially the even more fraud ridden 2009 election as evidence that the majority of Afghans do not support the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban... 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:50CC:4ABB:6BE6:7EBC ( talk)
The Taliban insurgency continued into 2012.
Timeline[edit] August: 27 August: Taliban insurgents in the Taliban-controlled southern Helmand area killed 17 civilians – fifteen men and two women[130] – who were attending a party. A government official said that the victims were beheaded for celebrating with music and mixgender dancing[131] in the Musa Qala district of Helmand, which ran contrary to the Taliban's extreme brand of Islam. Later, however, a provincial government official said that the 17 people killed were due to a fight between two Taliban commanders over two women (who were also killed). The civilians were either beheaded or had their throats cut, but some showed signs of gunshot wounds or beatings.[130] The attacks were condemned by Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who ordered an investigation into the attack,[131] the leader of the NATO coalition led by the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union. However, the Taliban has denied responsibility for the attack, saying that no Taliban members have ever killed civilians. The attack occurred on the same day when two United States troops were killed by an Afghan soldier.[132] 10 Afghan soldiers were killed by the Taliban, also in the Helmand province.[130]
Well this content is all bull shit no one prove this. As the Taliban were posting they said we will allow all journalists and everyone who wanna see the place can come and talk to local people. This was just a propaganda by the Afghan government. I wish you understand what i wrote here if you can prove this will be great or other wise please writhe something ells from that year you can find many facts that happened in that year. I will also look for those articles who were shared in some Afghan news sites about this matter.
Taliban is Sunni - Iran is Shia, Iran supported the Shias who are against the Taliban (Hasaras) /info/en/?search=Hazaras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.36.197 ( talk) 22:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Insurgency = rebelliousness. The presumption behind this chosen article title is, that in 2001-2002 the Taliban started to fight against the ‘ legitimate (Karzai) government of Afghanistan’. But that seems a biased, Western- and American-centred presumption, resulting in a biased article title.
It is clear that a Taliban government
was blown out of Afghanistan in 2001-2002 with force by the US and allies, and that US and allies in 2001, backed by the UN, installed a '
(legitimate) Afghan government'. And probably that 'government' is indeed even sometimes successful in some areas and on some aspects of what Westerners consider 'governing a country'. That leaves unimpeded that the Taliban have never acknowledged that (Western-/UN-constructed) 'reality' and that that so-called 'Afghan government' never really governed and controlled the whole country: thus it is still a fiction, wishfull dream, of (many in) the (Western) world. Obviously, the (biased) title 'Taliban insurgency' is based on that fiction.
From the Taliban's point of view, they are simply trying to take back ('their') Afghanistan from some (Western-backed puppet) regime. So, a neutral, factual title would be: 'Taliban's fight for [reconquest of] Afghanistan'.
Colleague Darkness Shines
here above, in 2012, contended that the article has this title because "that is what the majority of reliable sources call it". I challenge that, both in its factualness and in the apparent assumption that—even if many or all (Western) sources do call this Taliban fight 'insurgency'—we have no other choice than follow (biased, Western) news sources even in our article's titles. (The anonymous editor of 28 March 2012 exaggerated by saying that 'the US military is editing this page' but he was right as far as that the title seems chosen from a biased (US-centred) point of view.) --
Corriebertus (
talk) 16:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I fixed a malformed citation for China's appearance in the list of alleged supporters. Note that the reference is from a Forbes Opinion contributor, and that there is no indication that it appeared in the print version of the magazine. Consensus has found this source to be generally unreliable, and that references to it should be treated as opinion pieces or self-published sources. This contributor may or may not be an exception. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 07:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
With America recognising the Taliban and withdrawing troops, we can now mark this as a Taliban victory to the struggle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.10.131 ( talk) 14:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This would be incorrect. The United States never defined victory conditions as the "complete removal and destruction of the Taliban" The overthrow of the Taliban regime was largely done by the Northern Alliance (with American support), and was in response to their unwillingness to hand over Al Qaeda. The United States was mostly interested in dismantling and preventing a safe base for Al Qaeda. That objective was achieved very early on in the conflict.
This led to the creation of the Afghan Government (through Loya Jirga and Bonn Agreement of 2002), and a new mission through ISAF that was essentially a "Nation Building" or "Peacekeeping" style mission. Mainly interested in safeguarding the Afghan Government, building the ANDSF. This did involve combating the Taliban insurgency for it threatened the aspects of that mandate (highlight in UN Security Resolution 1386)
The combat mission for the USA ended in 2014, as it handed all security responsibilities over to the Afghan Government, and began "Resolute Support" which was an Advise, Train, Assist mission.
At this point in time the war is a Stalemate between the Taliban (who have without a doubt made gains in that Vacuum of Power left by ISAF/US). The Peace is an attempt to safeguard the original objectives, by finding a political stalemate. Many attempts have been made in the past to negotiate a settlement.
To define the war as "Won" or "Lost" would only be based upon a biased narrative. This is an ongoing conflict without resolution, where even the peace process may fail.
In regards to Vietnam, the United States largely withdrew due to public pressure, not from communist forces (the USA won most military engagements). Saigon only fell due to the Case Church Amendment (which prohibited US from returning), cutting of funds, and corruption... and this was 2 years after the last American forces left Vietnam <-- Objectives in that war were similar. More interested in safeguarding South Vietnam, than any "Total Defeat" of Communist forces. Likely Vietnam would be viewed as an American victory if the USA kept to its promises after the Paris Peace Accord None the less, what seemed successful in 1973 (though controversial to the American public), was undone by 1975 turning a victory, into a humiliating self made political disaster.
None the less your perspectives on the conflict are silly.
There is no winner in Afghanistan.
It may very well be that by the end of the war (or if a peace process is successful)
The Taliban, The Afghan Government, The USA will all view themselves as winners.
Or perhaps not? We shall see
It is ongoing.
Njofallofall ( talk) 06:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I added this on the "War in Afghanistan" talk page as well However, I thought it would be important to add here.. If anyone wanted to do something with this information.
There are of course no real estimates of Taliban losses. However, there are various sources that have compiled different numbers for different periods. None of them are truly cohesive though
The Watson Institute for example, undercounts Taliban losses. and I will provide reasons as to why that is the case...
take for example the 2016 Estimate https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/War%20in%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%20UPDATE_FINAL_corrected%20date.pdf
This gives a tally 42,100
if we also take the 2019 Estimate https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/Direct%20War%20Deaths%20COW%20Estimate%20November%2013%202019%20FINAL.pdf
You will notice that the tally of 42,100 is also used.
The Newest estimate (Which is used within both the Taliban Insurgency, and War in Afghanistan article) give the new estimate of 51,191
Which only incorporates 2 separate 4 month reporting periods for the Ministry of Defense as stated within the source https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/figures/2021/Human%20and%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Afghan%20War%2C%202001-2021.pdf "From July 1 through November 5, 2019, Afghan National Defense Forces reported killing 10,259 militants/insurgents/terrorists and reported killing 10,091 from 6 November to 13 April 2021"
This is a clear undercount, simply considering even from 2016-2019 there were no additions. Within the 2014 version, they admit that any estimates are likely undercounted, and no records are actually kept
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2015/War%20Related%20Casualties%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%202001-2014%20FIN.pdf
However, I would like to highlight that various sources do give Taliban losses for certain periods of time For example, the "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" specifically page 261 by Antonio Guistozzi gives yearly totals (according to Al Somud) from 2002-2016 (omitting 2013) Overall, we can see nearly 80,000 Taliban deaths during that reporting period.
On top of this, the Ministry of Defense has at times given yearly totals, or various seasonal estimates Take for example this article https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/officials-count-around-30000-war-dead-afghanistan-year Which states in the year 2016, there were 30,000 deaths in the Afghan War, 18,500 of them Taliban Also various reports from the MOD can be found here https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release or also the Twitter account (which tends to be updated more often) https://twitter.com/MoDAfghanistan We see that in this month (June) alone so far over 1,300 Taliban have been killed in ANDSF operations?
I think it would be interesting to incorporate these numbers because as I highlighted above.. the Watson study is very flawed (at least in regards to Taliban figures) However, I am unsure about how to do that They could very quickly increase the Taliban fatalities of the war well over 100,000
Njofallofall (
talk) 05:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear editor, for your kind information there is a vast majority of estimates and statements regarding any scenario of war. You should understand properly that wikipedia follow certain rules and regulations. Original research don't stand on wikipedia. Neither one own views. For more information visit wikipedia guidelines. I have studied Brown research paper very long ago. Nowhere it states that this research is incomplete. It states 42,100 in 2016 and then 42,100 again in 2019 is not wikipedia headache. Reliable content source matters only. If it's final result is 51000 in 2021. That's it. It doesn't need anything else because wikipedia is not a research page that you keep adding your own research due to a source research problem. Now your reference of MOD of afghan government claim doesn't stand here because its a party of opposite side. Taliban which is a previous government fighting for its revival again has also a page called Al emarah. There it also states that opposing government forces killed on daily basis in hundreds. But it's reference is not given on wikipedia because opposite party claims always exaggerate. At last, your statement "likely far higher" should be present in any source rather than your own personal research or you views. I hope you understood well how wikipedia works. Take this opportunity and learn wikipedia rules. I am removing it until you present any reliable source of figures. Thank you. Khalidwarrior ( talk) 04:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
To correct some assumptions being produced within you paragraph.
1. The Taliban were never the official government of Afghanistan, as declared by the UN. Instead that was the Northern Alliance/United Front on the basis of the 1992 Peshawar Accords. Therefore an incorrect assumption by you, none the irrelevant to this discussion.
2. Clearly Watson numbers are undercounted, and rarely updated. Taking the lack of changes from 2016 to 2019 shows that they never attempted to completely count the numbers Lets take for example "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" pg 261 by Antonio Guistozzi This estimated over 80,000 Taliban deaths within a roughly 10 year period, according to his sources from Al Somud. Antonio Guistozzi is one of the leading figures on the Taliban movement? Is this not a relevant source? Though this only covers 2002-2016 (with 2013 omitted). This can be found specifically within page 261 of the text which he sourced from Administrative contacts from the Shuras of Quetta, Miran Shah, and Peshawar Would this text not be applicable to update the numbers? https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/antonio-giustozzi <-- The book itself is accessible (within my region) from Google Books. https://books.google.it/books?id=CB6sDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA261&dq=taliban+kia+2001+2018&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqyeurh-3uAhWDz4UKHQcSBbIQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=taliban%20kia%202001%202018&f=false ^ perhaps accessible to you? I am unsure None the less, its page 261 of "Taliban at War:2001-2018"
He is one of the lead researchers within the field.
3. The Watson research actually cites MOD within the subsections of its 2021 report. Does this not give validation?
4. The Implications of each Militant fatality counting section shows that reports of losses were sparsely given. The NATO/US rarely ever kept track (outside of individual combats). This is repeated in each new report. This is an admission of incomplete records.
None the less, I realize my mistake that Wikipedia cares little for accuracy. Clearly the losses are underreported and clearly they were very rarely ever updated. None the less, clearly Wikipedia has no interest this reality. POV only matters if you fulfill a certain niche.
I have provided multiple sources for my argument as to why "Likely Higher" is a fair assessment Do with it what you will
Taliban losses likely numbered 100,000 to 200,000 As according to Antonio Guistozzi estimates from 2002-2016 (over 80,000) "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" pg 261 <--- This is the source provided for that number, and as highlighted above was based upon the various Shuras, and Al Somud. This is not just a random report, but a very old one that shows the undercounting of Watson There were Reports that showed around 6,000 Taliban killed in 2001 https://web.archive.org/web/20160303191840/http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2001/november/nov29qq2001.html Not to mention various reports such as this which supply 18,500 for 2016 alone https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/officials-count-around-30000-war-dead-afghanistan-year
These are the realities of the situation and a report that rarely ever updates Militant losses is not relevant source To be entirely honest with you, using the Antonio Guitozzi Source would be just as applicable (Considering he is a lead international lead researcher on the Taliban movement). Therefore would that source be an acceptable one alone? I also know that in previous iterations of this page there were multiple statistics applied ^ for example if you check the records of the page there were 2 sources (from 2015, and 2016) which compiled a 7,000 and 18,500 Taliban fatality number for that period of time? I had assumed due to this such a thing was perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standards.. Especially considering it was on the page for quite some time.
None the less, thank you for your time. I assumed such research projects of Kings London College, funded by the Economic and Social Sciences Research Council would be relevant My only interest here is accuracy
Njofallofall ( talk) 04:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your time
Njofallofall ( talk) 04:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Once again, ill highlight that I understand your issue here isn't the credibility of the number or research Or the methodology.. etc.. That is clearly beyond the limits of Wikipedia. Its simply the sourcing of the research by Wikipedia guidelines. So I understand my mistake in those regards Though, I will say it was largely built on what I had already seen on these pages (Where multiple sources compiled) ^ Specifically when the 67,000 to 72,000 Taliban fatalities number was used on the page.
That is my mistake for misunderstanding what is acceptable. ^ though ill also mention it appears only relevant as far as certain niches are fulfilled by what narrative the major editors want to apply. Wikipedia is clearly a battle zone for various beliefs (a simple cursory look at certain social movement articles is good enough of an example of that) So there is clearly bias, and certain territories (and likely toxic editors) carved out. I have seen plenty of pages that lack any real cohesion, and seem to be used as a way to force POV none the less that is outside the point of this discussion.
I do believe the Antonio Guistozzi research may still be applicable here by your standards. though the numbers supplied are given on a graph (Which can make it difficult to know the exact number for each reporting year). I will leave that to a more skilled editor on if they want to add that source.
However, I think I have made my point here. It is clear this is less about being accurate, and more about fulfilling guidelines (be it from Wikipedia, or from various editors).
None the less... Once again! Thank you very much for your time :) I do appreciate it.
Njofallofall ( talk) 05:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
First of all thanks for your sensible talk. I appreciate it too much. Now coming to the point I do accept that wikipedia have certain POV. I also have the same pain but it is beyond of our control. There are many pages which have certain pov and biaseness. It's totally true but it is also a fact that it is also very much unbiased as compared to many other sites. Because it is not run by any firm but people all over the world edit it. So every views collide with each other. Now coming to the point I clearly mentioned that wikipedia is not a place of original research. Please visit WP:OR page. It's also true it doesn't consider accuracy and nothing of truthfulness also. The basic thing in here is only reliable source. Because if it will then every person will calculating assuming and a big War Edit will happen. I hope you get it.
Nonetheless I must point what I want to say before 1. Definitely Taliban is not a un member but neither do palestine. But both governments are recognised by many other un member states. So it's legitimacy is not of any simple faction. I can give you more examples but I think you will understand what I want to say. 2.From what you have provided of Antonio book, on page 261 it's not written 80000 deaths. Rather it is a chart. From which it is hard to add. Because it is not in numbers particularly. But it does have a weightage. 3.The watson research does have MOD reference as same as Antonio have reference of Taliban fatalities from Quetta shura. If Taliban have no stand then why does it's reference is given. That's why I told you about war scenario and how it works on wikipedia. Not giving just a one side claimed casualties on opposing party. That's why one has to provide reliable research in which opposing party reference can be there. Maybe you get it. 4.It's not wikipedia headache. If Nato have not counted you cannot put your own statements like inaccuracy or other things.I understood your feeling but it's true wikipefia is not a place of accuracy. It's only about reliable reference. There are many false information on other pages. That's why we work together to eradicate it.
I failed to find about 2015 and 2016 statistics summation. So I didn't totally understood what's happened before. Nonetheless anything happened somewhere in any page is not a legitimacy proof. I have personally came across many pages where there are totally personal statements without any reference at all. So i removed it. So that doesn't mean one can add own statements on wikipedia because it's on other page or whatsoever.But let me tell you adding is totally done on wikipedia page if it's like on yearly basis with perfect numbers like 6000 in 2014,7500 in 2015 or 8000 in 2016.But it should be on any reliable reference page particularly. Then only it could be done the way you want.
At last don't please frustrated as it seemed from your answer. Rather take this opportunity to work together and make wikipedia a good place. Please reply some statements so I will know that you have read or understood properly. Thank you Khalidwarrior ( talk) 22:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
1. Yes, the Taliban were usually only recognized by a handful of states (Pakistan in particular). Same is applied to Palestine, which is recognized by a handful of Muslim states. This I understand. My point was that the International community as a whole (and the UN in particular) never recognized the Taliban regime. So yes, they are currently fighting and claiming to be a "Government in Exile" it isn't exactly accepted by most states.
Who knows what will happen with the war? Currently its an ongoing stalemate, and has been for many years between the Afghan Government and Taliban.
We may very well see a peaceful resolution, or we may see yet many more years of bloody conflict. At this point, it appears the endless stalemate and war will continue on indefinitely. We can all hope for peace though.
2. Yes, I do recognize it is a chart, and so my number of 80,000 is the best I can estimate by looking at it. None the less, I think it is an acceptable source. Though I am not particularly skilled on how to edit it (Hence the reason I never attempted to include it in my edits).
3. I understand your argument on MOD vs Taliban numbers. It is without a doubt true both the Taliban and the Afghan Government want to push a narrative of winning the war. Fatality numbers are clearly an aspect of this. None the less, my only interest was to update the numbers that were known.
4. Ultimately I think this was my misunderstanding.
I now understand that Wikipedia is not a place of accuracy, just of reliable sourcing.
5. The 2015/2016 numbers added 2 references of Taliban losses for each year (which were 7,000 for 2015 and 18,500 for 2016) <-- of which I know the 2016 estimate came from VOA news article about 30,000 Afghans dying that year. The 18,500 number was a MOD number for that year. It was listed as a source when Taliban losses were listed as "67,000 to 72,000" My assumption (and misunderstanding) was that such a process was normal and acceptable That was why I wanted to include Antonio Guistozzi's numbers in "Taliban at War:2001-2018" along with MOD reports for the past years. I had seen such things done before, and assumed it was a normal practice on Wikipedia.
Now I understand Wikipedia is less about accuracy of report, and more about cohesion of reliable sources Of course such a thing is nearly impossible when trying to give numbers for things like Insurgency losses. Especially when most governments and organizations never really attempted to report or record them.
None the less, I appreciate you taking your time to talk to me I think you have answered all of my questions. I have nothing really further to add here.
Thank you.
Njofallofall ( talk) 23:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Going through the edit sections of this map I have noticed that there has been a heavy reliance on a singular source for the updates? Specifically, an anonymous Twitter account by the name of "RisboLensky" Which seems to be quite a questionable source? (Especially given the accounts political takes on certain issues which seems to be the opposite of impartial).
The fact of territorial control is that it is a contested issue (and often confused as to what "Control" means). There are various sources that give different standards Some of them clearly being Pro-Taliban, and others clearly being Pro-Afghan Government. ^ both of which are sources upon themselves. Each claiming to control the majority of the country.
Various other outsider sources apply different standards, and have come to different conclusions. (Which clearly at times can be debatable to the methodology)
For example, https://www.longwarjournal.org/mapping-taliban-control-in-afghanistan Which applied would give a completely different map lays out a methodology (though a questionable one) that deals with issues
There are also other sources that compile claims such as
https://afghanistan.liveuamap.com/ which also highlights territorial control or various other sources that give completely different stats
https://feminist.org/our-work/afghan-women-and-girls/taliban-controls-3-of-afghanistan/ ^ older of course, and I dont mean for you to use it.. but an example of how "Control" can be used to develop narrative as opposed to reality.
The List is honestly quite endless... and I am curious why we should take this map seriously when it seems to rely heavily on an anonymous twitter account? which absolutely discounts MOD reports https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release and seems to have a great deal of personal bias on certain issues JUST A few examples from the past couple of days......... proving it lacks impartiality and clearly has a lean on this issue.
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397834662492479490
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397901353268228096
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397816361850748929
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397463526810210306
https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1397459159650557954
These are just from the last couple of days, and random ones I could find These are not the comments of an impartial source. RisboLensky has a clear Taliban leaning, and is far more likely to report their claims. While ignoring other claims, and highlighting their own political views ^ this is what I have noticed while going through the claims, though I could be wrong.
So I ask Why are the majority of updates on this page of a singular anonymous twitter account?
This account is used as a source well over 700 times, since October 2018 which in that period saw only slightly above 1,000 separate edits. It makes up the vast majority of claims??????
While all other sources (which give completely different accounts) are completely ignored? Why is this? TRULY Why is an anonymous twitter account with 7,000 subscribers and a self claimed "Marshal and all inclusive, comprehensive and verified troll. Polytheist magician" the very basis of this map???
I find it very silly. Njofallofall ( talk) 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to address some issues here, I'll be going over my own assessment at first, from what I know, he isn't a biased peculiar source to the taliban, he aspects major news from them as predominant to the current times in Afghanistan, hence why he focuses more on Taliban gains then governmental, especially since reported governmental progress has been quite poor, I also would like to address while using 1 twitter account for a source is debateable, the person in this twitter account is a well reliable source from what I know, as he is an active stern liner of knowledge from the current predominating frontlines and it is proven to be right later on, "While all other sources (which give completely different accounts) are completely ignored? Why is this? TRULY Why is an anonymous twitter account with 7,000 subscribers and a self claimed "Marshal and all inclusive, comprehensive and verified troll. Polytheist magician" the very basis of this map???", this is merely a profile, regardless, he is a trustable source from what I know.
But I do agree more context to evidence needs to be added for frontal gains, overall I think the map is alright for now, hence why I reverted FOARP's removal of the map, since it still seems to be predominantly accurate as shown through multiple other sources, othersidingly, I suggest for future edits to include more evidence and elements on new advances for key Governmental/Taliban gains and volitions. "RisboLensky has a clear Taliban leaning, and is far more likely to report their claims. While ignoring other claims,"
While of course, I regarded this earlier of how he mainly focuses on taliban gains and elements for advances, rather then the current poor effort from the government, the MOD seems to be a reliable source but it only marks Taliban casualties for their prolific advances they have made in multiple regions, including kandahar, which if you have payed attention too as well also marks the recent taliban attacks plunged into the region, so the map is still pre-accurate to most of its extent, hence why I suggest we keep it, but from now on add more source and contextual evidence, I am not gaslighting Robo whatsoever, but please just add more.
Also, I would like to report that the Taliban have been confirmed to atleast own a majority 50%+ of the country.Or perhaps the SIGAR reports (which will return in June)
https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2021-04-30qr-section2-security.pdf <-- as you can see it will return to reporting territorial control the last territorial control report was this one
https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2018-10-30qr.pdf None the less it will be returning, and will likely provide a different answer IF I supplied the SIGAR map of June 2021, will that then be added and updated to this map?????
Once again, there are many different sources that give wildly different estimates. From the LWJ, to SIGAR, to various other sources. Mark Milley for example reported to Congress (in a recent Budget hearing) that the Taliban controlled 81 Districts Other sources claim the Taliban captured more than 100 Districts in the past 2 months (including Risbolensky). even claims of the Taliban controlling "more than 50%" are from a 1,000 person survey committed by Tolonews (not exactly the best way to dictate territorial control). Just in the same way a BBC article in 2017 reported "70% of Afghanistan under threat from the Taliban" but the article itself stated that only 4% of Districts were controlled by the Taliban, the others were divided by how often they were attacked. Regardless as you admit, This twitter feed highlights largely only Taliban gains, while ignoring ANDSF counters (which can be seen through other Twitter feeds like Col Rahman Rahmani, Fawad Aman, Jason Criss Howk. RIV Monitoring, ThePeaceWatch etc etc). There is no real consensus on the subject. Either way, its beside the point... and not the main issue here The issue is that the main source for this map is a twitter feed. It is not a reliable source, and should be removed. Njofallofall ( talk) 22:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you FOARP
Though my original goal was to question the validity of this source, and offer alternatives.
Along with highlighting the heavy reliance on it to create the map, that likely pushed narratives.
The fact is that those issues are quite irrelevant
Simply stated
An anonymous Twitter feed is not a reliable source.
For that reason alone, it should be removed.
Njofallofall (
talk) 22:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Marcus, can you not see the problem with using the literal Taliban as a source for a map? Remember that the sourcing should be independent of the subject matter - if the source is the Taliban, then it clearly isn’t independent, is it? FOARP ( talk) 18:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@FOARP. Precisely. This is why I wanted to bring attention to the map. 1. Not only is this a heavily contested topic (with various other POVs which I have highlighted above), but the reliance on a singular anonymous twitter thread is questionable. My last check on the Edit page shows that 331 of the past 500 edits included this specific twitter account. 2. This Twitter account in question, as admitted by Marcus is also not impartial, and more or less services the Taliban POV. This is why I wanted to bring attention to what I considered clear bias on the thread in my original post. So we can not claim this as an independent or neutral source. 3. Considering its an anonymous account (for we can't know who operates it) How can we verify it as a reliable source? 4. The structure of the map suggests a lot of personal research, through the sources being used. Does this not create a conflict with the map in question? Therefore, it can not be considered valid. Even if this singular twitter account is not the only source (and there are some others used), It suggests various sources are being mixed to create the map in question... As I understood it (from previous conversations with other Wikipedia editors) personal research was not valid, and mixing various sources to come to a conclusion went against Wikipedia standards?? In Conclusion, it cannot be verified, or considered neutral. There has been a heavy reliance on this singular twitter thread. The entire structure of the map is questionable. That being said, I understand it can be fun to make maps like these. However, I am not certain its appropriate for a Wikipedia article. From my understanding, this breaks several Wikipedia guidelines. It simply should not be used on these pages, or removed entirely. Once again FOARP, I would like to say Thank You for taking the time to handle this issue.. Njofallofall ( talk) 20:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey so, Noorullah here, recently the edit for removing the map was undo " Undid revision 1031019973 by FOARP (talk) There is no reason for deletion. Twitter accounts can be used as a source. Political bias is not an argument for deletion.", and he is correct and there are multiple reasons on why it shouldn't be removed to.
ALSO, a recent wikipedia administrator by the name of Muboshgu dropped by and he didn't seem to mind the source of it being a twitter account, so I stand my point on it not being removed, it is a accurate and standarded map that is to be used for now and I see no reason not to persist in attaking it away just because it is sourced by a twitter account that is anonymous, he is a trusted source and even as the person who reverted it said, political bias is not an argument for deletion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC on whether this file:
should (Support) or should not (Oppose) be used on this page to show the present extent of Taliban control in Afghanistan.
FOARP (
talk) 11:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to everyone in the previous RSN and talk-page discussions of this map, the map-creator, and the recent map-editors: @ MarcusTraianus, Njofallofall, Eggishorn, MPants at work, Alaexis, Thryduulf, Slatersteven, Borysk5, Noorullah21, and Ali Zifan:
Courtesy note: I have pinged the Afghanistan and Military history Wikiprojects as well as the Miscellaneous village pump to further advertise this RFC FOARP ( talk) 09:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I support, the map is accurate and as other sources stated, it is fine for a twitter account to be used as a source, if you are to complain for it we can garner more evidence/sources for it in the future, but I say to keep the map. Many works like this have used twitter sources like the syrian civil war as stated by another user above, and are accurate. Noorullah21
So you could take the fight there ( Module talk:Taliban insurgency detailed map). If you make Template:Taliban insurgency detailed map correct, then the svg file in question will become correct automatically. Tradedia talk 04:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
"Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit"on that page - if reliable mainstream media sources can only produce approximate maps then we should not be engaging in WP:OR to produce our own. FOARP ( talk) 18:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The maps might seem good and detailed but they are unreliable, they pretend to a level of accuracy that is probably unachievable without engaging in original research/ WP:SYNTH. This is the reason why more reliable sources use only show district-level control, since village-level control in a guerrilla/semi-guerrilla conflict is meaningless given the rapidly-shifting ownership. Probably the commanders themselves don't necessarily know the ownership of every village today.
"if you claim his tweets about territorial changes are merely translated Taliban announcements, this is something you have to prove... the claim he is unreliable should be proven as well"- Sorry, but I think you've got this exactly the wrong way around: it is for anyone wanting to include material to show that it is reliably sourced. We have very straight-forward policies telling us not to use self-published sources for controversial claims (i.e., anonymous Twitter accounts for information about who is winning a war).
IvanSidorenkoSG ( talk) 05:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Once again, I would like to say thank you to all for taking time considering this issue. Njofallofall ( talk) 18:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern: Wikipedia editors may wish to review this interview here with the former President of Afghanistan ( Hamid Karzai) made in 2020 and incorporate excerpts from it into this article, especially concerning his views on the civil war that raged between his liberal government (and its constituents) and the ultra-conservative Taliban party and its followers. Another good video-documentary of the current, unfolding crisis is this video here. This next video is very, very interesting ( here) and gives an insight into the Afghani society. Of course, and this one here, too, is important, as well as this one here. Davidbena ( talk) 01:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Codenamewolf: You are engaging in a lame edit war. Taliban insurgency#Pakistan confirmed that both independent reliable sources and the prominent Pakistani politicians agree that Pakistan supported Talibanis in this conflict. You need to stop edit warring over infobox. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)