This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"There is a growing perception in Pakistan that the Tehrik i Taliban Pakistan are being sponsored by the CIA( http://www.daily.pk/politics/politicalnews/7296-general-kayani-must-not-blink-and-pakistans-taliban-are-cia.html)"
This section includes various militants that likely have ties to TTP, but the source cited does not make the connections. The section would be greatly improved by citations that explicitly point out a direct relationship.-- RDavi404 ( talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
This article doesnt state much of the group (no history, no details) The only thing is the few attacks, which can be merged as a section into the TET Pakistan article as a section. Lihaas ( talk) 11:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
"They are not directly affiliated with the Afghan Taliban, who receive support from Pakistani intelligence."
I see an issue with that statement and I think it should be modified or perhaps rephrased;
Mar4d (
talk) 07:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rdavi404, I think that might be a good idea. I have added some information but also moved the section to the history part since it is questionable if the Afghan Taliban fit under the term "allies". JCAla ( talk) 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The TTP, as you pointed out, declared allegiance to Mullah Omar in his war against the Islamic Republic and NATO in Afghanistan. BUT, the Afghan Taliban in return are NOT allied with the TTP in the TTP's fight against the Pakistani army. And, whatever they declare, they do not obey Mullah Omar regarding Pakistan. Actions speak louder than words. If you list the Afghan Taliban as allies on the TTP article, then an unknowing reader is going to assume that the Afghan Taliban are fighting alongside or at least supporting the TTP against the Pakistani army. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Afghan Taliban themselves stated:
"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." [1]
JCAla ( talk) 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that does not change a thing. The message of the above quote still remains the same. As I wrote above, the TTP, as you pointed out, declared allegiance to Mullah Omar in his war against the Islamic Republic and NATO in Afghanistan. BUT, the Afghan Taliban in return are NOT allied with the TTP in the TTP's fight against the Pakistani state and army - which has indeed been the prime and foremost focus of the TTP. It would be really misleading to add the Afghan Taliban as allies on the TTP article which discusses the TTP's goals. The Afghan Taliban simply are not fighting the Pakistani state and army. There are plenty of New York Times articles. One is entitled "Insurgents Share a Name, but Pursue Different Goals". An Afghan Taliban commader stated the following about the TTP's campaign:
“ | There will not be any support from us. [2] | ” |
It doesn't get any clearer than that. The New York Times article further states:
Also, consider the following from a Newsweek article:
JCAla ( talk) 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That is an interpretation and constitutes original research on your part.
Exactly. The Pakistani army controls the Afghan Taliban according to the article. Any Afghan Taliban leader not working according to Pakistani army interests is either killed or captured - again according to the article.
Very untrue. Two New York Times articles explicitly quote Afghan Taliban leaders as not supportive of the TTP. One stating: "We don’t like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ..." The other stating: "There will not be any support from us [for the TTP]." The Afghan Taliban do not want to "get into a fight with" the Pakistani army. The New York times article also says that the TTP are "causing a whole load of problems" and that the Afghan Taliban "commanders and groups on the ground in Afghanistan couldn’t care less what’s happening to their Pakistani brothers across the border". Whether true or not, that is what the New York Times (considered reliable) writes.
No, that's not my argument. The TTP's alleged allegiance to the Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar does not justify listing the Afghan Taliban as the TTP's allies when the Afghan Taliban do not actively support the TTP's main campaign in Pakistan and have publicly rejected any involvement with the TTP. Listing the Afghan Taliban as allies on the TTP article would make them allies in the TTP's campaign in Pakistan.
The TTP has two distinct goals: 1) engage the Pakistani army in combat and 2) officially replace the Pakistani army as the ruling power in specific areas. That were the very objectives the TTP was created for. These objectives could serve a variety of purposes - we do not know. So, we got to stick to what we know.
There are no known instances in which the main Afghan Taliban leaders Mullah Omar, Siraj Haqqani or Hezb-i Islami's Gulbuddin Hekmatyar have 1) engaged the Pakistani army in combat or 2) tried to contest the ruling power of the Pakistani army inside of Pakistan, not even inside of Afghanistan. There are no reports that the TTP have received fighters, weapons or financial support from the Afghan Taliban. Leading Afghan Taliban have publicly said, "There will not be any support from us." In fact, Mullah Omar, Haqqani and Hekmatyar are controlled by the Pakistani army. Consequently, considering the TTP's main focus on Pakistan not Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban should not be listed as an ally on the TTP article.
Now, if you could show me evidence that the Afghan Taliban are actively involved in the TTP's campaign inside Pakistan, then I would agree about them being listed as allies. But as long as reports show the Afghan Taliban being as heavily reliant on the Pakistani army that "the Pakistanis can round [them] up whenever they want" (to quote the Newsweek article), there is no reason to give the impression to the unknowing reader that the Afghan Taliban would dare challenging the Pakistani army on Pakistani territory. Afghan Taliban commanders like Mullah Baradar can't even negotiate independently from Pakistan with their own Afghan government. If they do so (like Baradar tried to do) they are arrested by the ISI in a matter of hours (see Baradar). JCAla ( talk) 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here is my attempt to reconcile both points of view. I have changed the title of the section "Supporters and allies" to "Relations with other militant groups." I would agree that since the groups debated are less than monolithic and since alliances are constantly shifting in this part of the world, "Supporters and allies" is probably too constrictive. Furthermore, I believe that the sentence "The Afghan Taliban have no direct affiliation with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and routinely deny any connection to the TTP" could accommodate both view points if it is modified to state "Although the TTP has claimed allegiance with the Afghan Taliban on several occasions, the two groups have no direct affiliation and the Afghan Taliban routinely deny any connection." (with references of course).-- RDavi404 ( talk) 20:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I challenge JCala's argument that the Taliban still recieve support from ISI/Pakistan Army. That fact is largely dubious and disputed. Wikipedia is not here to promote POV; American journals are hardly the authentic and primary source when it comes to showing a "balanaced" coverage. Anyone with some knowledge of the Afghan War would also know that the Government of Pakistan categorically denies providing support to the Afghan Taliban (whether you consider that claim as genuine is your own opinion and if propagated here, it charges into WP:OR territory). Before you come up with a new counter-argument, here's a read from The Long War Journal titled Afghan Taliban deny being supported by Pakistan; read the first and last sections in particular. For your own interest, this same source also states the following: "The Afghan Taliban teamed up with Pakistani Taliban factions and maintain safe havens and training camps in Pakistan to this day." Mar4d ( talk) 13:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Direct Pakistani support for the Taliban has been an open secret for years. The Pakistani government, through the ISI, helped found the Taliban and helped it gain power during the 1990s. Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government.
After the US ousted Mullah Omar from power in 2001 and 2002 ... The Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban's executive council, is named after the Pakistani city where it is based. The ISI, through the Haqqani Network, is known to have directed suicide operations against the Indian Embassy and other targets in Kabul. Several Pakistani military officers have been detained inside Afghanistan in connection with terrorist attacks on Afghan soil, while numerous Afghan Taliban commanders have admitted to receiving support from the Pakistani military over the past several years.
JCAla ( talk) 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. Read the second quote (from your source) provided above. It is about today. JCAla ( talk) 14 February 2011 (UTC)
First the issue needs to be discussed in the article, because it is a long issue. Then, we can see if we find a sentence that fits everyone for the lead. I ask you to move the bold content yourself, Mar4d, and add it to the article. JCAla ( talk) 14:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why was this section removed? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Shall we seek a peer review first? Cheers, JCAla ( talk) 15:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see already that we will have to check the references. JCAla ( talk) 08:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Are Mangal Bagh and Lashkar-e-Islam part of the TTP? If wouldn't surprise me if they are, but neither of the articles nor the refs seem to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavi404 ( talk • contribs) 19:40, August 25, 2012
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tehrik-e-Taliban Spokesman for Darra Adam Khel and Khyber Agency Mohammad Afridi
Theoccupiedkashmir ( talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) are funding Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) for terrorist activities in Pakistan [3]
The sole source for that article is a statement by the Pakistani government, hardly a neutral source, particularly given the widespread reporting elsewhere that the Pakistani government financially supports TTP. 153.31.113.20 ( talk) 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
>> Pakistan PM pushes for talks with Taliban >> Pakistan and the Taliban: To talk or fight? >> Pakistani politicians snub Taliban talks >> Pakistan-Taliban peace talks delayed >> Pakistani government and Taliban hold talks >> Pakistan Taliban sets tough terms for peace >> Pakistan halts talks with Taliban >> Pakistani Taliban announces month-long truce ( Lihaas ( talk) 07:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)).
Could the TPP flag be used on this article? This is the official TTP website with a screenshot: http://www.dawn.com/news/1098058 It's similar to the Afghan Taliban flag. StanTheMan87 ( talk) 11:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm accustomed to seeing the name of group spelled in English as "Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan" (with an "e" not followed by a hyphen), rather than "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" (with an "i" followed by a hyphen). The former is the spelling overwhelmingly used by U.S. Government agencies; for example, all references to the group on nctc.gov and fbi.gov use the E spelling, with one exception each, and on state.gov, the E spelling is preferred over the I spelling by a ratio of more than 10 to 1. In U.S. media, the E spelling is more common as well: for example, it's preferred on nytimes.com by a ratio of 9 to 1. Can anyone clarify why this article (except one footnote) uses the I spelling? Is that a British spelling, or perhaps the spelling used in English-language sources within Pakistan? (My initial checks of British media show that thetimes.co.uk and guardian.co.uk seem to use the E and I spellings with equal frequency, a puzzling oversight in their otherwise consistent editing.) For what it's worth, TTP's own official website launched in April 2014 spells their name "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan," but I'm reluctant to rely on that because it appears in English only once and whoever wrote it also misspelled "Offical" (sic). 153.31.113.20 ( talk) 17:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 17 external links on
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The article cited a Youtube video [2] which itself is not recommended. Moreover, the video claims that its video of Hagel giving a speech in Oklahoma's Cameron University however Hagel is shown against a black background and video appears to be doctored. This video was not reported by any verifiable source. However, even the content of so called speech says :
The speech is about Indian and Pakistani race for gaining strategic foothold and influence in Afghanistan.
On the other hand wiki article quoted the above 'source' and wrote that :
Removed. Collagium. You may speak. 02:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
An anonymous IP excised considerable material, offering an angry edit summary as their only explanation.
Only simple and non-controversial edits should be solely explained by an edit summary. Complicated or controversial edits require their explanations on the talk page, or occasionally, some other fora. Complicated or controversial edits trigger disagreement, and represent a huge temptation for those who disagree to offer their rebuttal in their edit summary, when they revert the edit.
The result is an instant edit war.
I reverted the edit and look forward to the contributor who made it returning here to offer a more detailed and less angry explanation. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Its absolute nonsense and makes no sense since both the Afghan & Pakistani Taliban are enemies of Afghanistan and see the current Afghan government as illegitimate. Why would the Afghan government support the TTP when both are against each other? Its obviously been inserted by a Pakistani user with a weak source. I don't want to touch it though since i might get an edit warning. Akmal94 ( talk) 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
They are not Pakistani Organization, actually this group is created by those people who are not from Pakistan, and they only want chaos and bloodshed in Pakistan, they even don't know any slightest basics about Islam or Quran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saman Reyasat ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The map used shows the boundaries of India and Pakistan in an incorrect fashion. The map needs to be removed or altered to show the areas of PAK and Gilgit baltistan as DISPUTED Dr. Blu MBBS ( talk) 08:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the second instance of <ref name="LWJ-17Aug2020"> to <ref name="LWJ-17Aug2020"/> without the "cite web". The ref is expanded twice, leading to an error message. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:94BE:73E1:CC01:3A46 ( talk) 13:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Where it will lead Khalil Hyder ( talk) 16:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Under the heading "INVOLVEMENT IN THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR" it is mentioned "Tahreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is anti-Pakistan and Afghan Taliban are struggling to end the foreign occupation of Afghanistan"; while we all now know Taliban has ended foreign occupation in Afghanistan similarly, TTP fled pakistan during the Operation Zarb-e-Azb. 2.50.54.209 ( talk) 12:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC) [1]
Why is this article extended-protected? There have not been much disruptive edits. There was just an edit war between 51412techno and Lightspecs. Even the Islamic State (ISIS) article is not extended-protected. Please change this to just protected.
This
edit request to
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the state allies of the TTP back to the infobox. They were in the article (and as you can see their inclusion was well sourced) until they were removed for some reason. Cipher21 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Pakistan's security agencies allege that TTP is financially assisted by foreign intelligence agencies such as RAW.However, the line is missing from the current profile. TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
[a]dd the state allies. The version you pointed to had India among them, whose supporting sources I dissected. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Latif spent much of his time since 2010 between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it is believed he was a conduit for funding to the TTP. It now appears some of that funding might have come from Afghanistan's intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security (NDS)....Yet, the president's spokesperson, Aimal Faizi, openly told reporters the NDS had been working with Latif 'for a long period of time.' Latif, Faizi said, 'was part of an NDS project like every other intelligence agency is doing.'
Should the state supporters of the Taliban be added back to the infobox? If so, in which format?
Cipher21 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
Afghan support (neutral): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Afghan & Indian support (per Taliban spokesperson Ehsanullah Ehsan): [6] Afghan & Indian support (per Taliban commander Latifullah Mehsud): [7] Indian support (neutral): [8] [9] Indian support (per UAE security officials, Wikileaks): [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipher21 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Indian support (allegations by Pakistan): [11] [12] [13]
|
Cipher21 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) IMO it's absolutely clear that it should be limited to Afghanistan Infoboxes are useful for slam-dunk facts that 90%+ agree on. They are a big problem for others because they consist of brief, categorical unqualified statements without all of the wording necessary to properly handle these. So, based on that, the answer regarding infoboxes is When doubt, leave it out Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 23:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
neutral sourceof Foreign Policy noted,
A Washington South Asia expert, among others, wrote to dispute the allegation made by a former U.S. intelligence official cited in the piece that India is aiding the Taliban, although he said such support may be going to other anti-Pakistan insurgent groups.Sec. Hagel did not anything about TTP and hence, is irrelevant. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
cite independent sources (preferably, scholars) who confirm India to have aided our subject- where are they?
References
This
edit request to
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
malakand and muweilah northern areas of pakistan Fl1cky1738 ( talk) 15:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Khestwol: I don't see Dawn listed at RSP, and our article on it describes it as a paper of record. Besides, they are just passing on the words of Zabihullah Mujahid, who is obviously qualified to give the IEA's official positions. He says in the interview:
"They are not, as an organisation, part of IEA and we don’t share the same objectives... The IEA stance is that we do not interfere in other countries’ affairs. We do not interfere in Pakistan’s affairs."
Including this information doesn't say anything about what's happening in practice, but it's clear they deny any cooperation. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) KevinNov3 ( talk) 12:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan → Pakistani Taliban – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and more WP:RECOGNIZABLE, especially for English-speakers. Supported by Google News search by a good margin, where "Pakistani Taliban" gets 33,800 results, but "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" gets only 6,130 results. Also supported by Google Books search, with more English books mentioning "Pakistani Taliban." And on Google search, "Pakistani Taliban" gets 520,000 results, but "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" gets only 86,400 results. And lastly, this Wikipedia article itself, mentions "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" only 16 times, but mentions "Pakistani Taliban" as much as 52 times. Khestwol ( talk) 12:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"There is a growing perception in Pakistan that the Tehrik i Taliban Pakistan are being sponsored by the CIA( http://www.daily.pk/politics/politicalnews/7296-general-kayani-must-not-blink-and-pakistans-taliban-are-cia.html)"
This section includes various militants that likely have ties to TTP, but the source cited does not make the connections. The section would be greatly improved by citations that explicitly point out a direct relationship.-- RDavi404 ( talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
This article doesnt state much of the group (no history, no details) The only thing is the few attacks, which can be merged as a section into the TET Pakistan article as a section. Lihaas ( talk) 11:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
"They are not directly affiliated with the Afghan Taliban, who receive support from Pakistani intelligence."
I see an issue with that statement and I think it should be modified or perhaps rephrased;
Mar4d (
talk) 07:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rdavi404, I think that might be a good idea. I have added some information but also moved the section to the history part since it is questionable if the Afghan Taliban fit under the term "allies". JCAla ( talk) 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The TTP, as you pointed out, declared allegiance to Mullah Omar in his war against the Islamic Republic and NATO in Afghanistan. BUT, the Afghan Taliban in return are NOT allied with the TTP in the TTP's fight against the Pakistani army. And, whatever they declare, they do not obey Mullah Omar regarding Pakistan. Actions speak louder than words. If you list the Afghan Taliban as allies on the TTP article, then an unknowing reader is going to assume that the Afghan Taliban are fighting alongside or at least supporting the TTP against the Pakistani army. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Afghan Taliban themselves stated:
"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." [1]
JCAla ( talk) 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that does not change a thing. The message of the above quote still remains the same. As I wrote above, the TTP, as you pointed out, declared allegiance to Mullah Omar in his war against the Islamic Republic and NATO in Afghanistan. BUT, the Afghan Taliban in return are NOT allied with the TTP in the TTP's fight against the Pakistani state and army - which has indeed been the prime and foremost focus of the TTP. It would be really misleading to add the Afghan Taliban as allies on the TTP article which discusses the TTP's goals. The Afghan Taliban simply are not fighting the Pakistani state and army. There are plenty of New York Times articles. One is entitled "Insurgents Share a Name, but Pursue Different Goals". An Afghan Taliban commader stated the following about the TTP's campaign:
“ | There will not be any support from us. [2] | ” |
It doesn't get any clearer than that. The New York Times article further states:
Also, consider the following from a Newsweek article:
JCAla ( talk) 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That is an interpretation and constitutes original research on your part.
Exactly. The Pakistani army controls the Afghan Taliban according to the article. Any Afghan Taliban leader not working according to Pakistani army interests is either killed or captured - again according to the article.
Very untrue. Two New York Times articles explicitly quote Afghan Taliban leaders as not supportive of the TTP. One stating: "We don’t like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ..." The other stating: "There will not be any support from us [for the TTP]." The Afghan Taliban do not want to "get into a fight with" the Pakistani army. The New York times article also says that the TTP are "causing a whole load of problems" and that the Afghan Taliban "commanders and groups on the ground in Afghanistan couldn’t care less what’s happening to their Pakistani brothers across the border". Whether true or not, that is what the New York Times (considered reliable) writes.
No, that's not my argument. The TTP's alleged allegiance to the Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar does not justify listing the Afghan Taliban as the TTP's allies when the Afghan Taliban do not actively support the TTP's main campaign in Pakistan and have publicly rejected any involvement with the TTP. Listing the Afghan Taliban as allies on the TTP article would make them allies in the TTP's campaign in Pakistan.
The TTP has two distinct goals: 1) engage the Pakistani army in combat and 2) officially replace the Pakistani army as the ruling power in specific areas. That were the very objectives the TTP was created for. These objectives could serve a variety of purposes - we do not know. So, we got to stick to what we know.
There are no known instances in which the main Afghan Taliban leaders Mullah Omar, Siraj Haqqani or Hezb-i Islami's Gulbuddin Hekmatyar have 1) engaged the Pakistani army in combat or 2) tried to contest the ruling power of the Pakistani army inside of Pakistan, not even inside of Afghanistan. There are no reports that the TTP have received fighters, weapons or financial support from the Afghan Taliban. Leading Afghan Taliban have publicly said, "There will not be any support from us." In fact, Mullah Omar, Haqqani and Hekmatyar are controlled by the Pakistani army. Consequently, considering the TTP's main focus on Pakistan not Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban should not be listed as an ally on the TTP article.
Now, if you could show me evidence that the Afghan Taliban are actively involved in the TTP's campaign inside Pakistan, then I would agree about them being listed as allies. But as long as reports show the Afghan Taliban being as heavily reliant on the Pakistani army that "the Pakistanis can round [them] up whenever they want" (to quote the Newsweek article), there is no reason to give the impression to the unknowing reader that the Afghan Taliban would dare challenging the Pakistani army on Pakistani territory. Afghan Taliban commanders like Mullah Baradar can't even negotiate independently from Pakistan with their own Afghan government. If they do so (like Baradar tried to do) they are arrested by the ISI in a matter of hours (see Baradar). JCAla ( talk) 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here is my attempt to reconcile both points of view. I have changed the title of the section "Supporters and allies" to "Relations with other militant groups." I would agree that since the groups debated are less than monolithic and since alliances are constantly shifting in this part of the world, "Supporters and allies" is probably too constrictive. Furthermore, I believe that the sentence "The Afghan Taliban have no direct affiliation with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and routinely deny any connection to the TTP" could accommodate both view points if it is modified to state "Although the TTP has claimed allegiance with the Afghan Taliban on several occasions, the two groups have no direct affiliation and the Afghan Taliban routinely deny any connection." (with references of course).-- RDavi404 ( talk) 20:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I challenge JCala's argument that the Taliban still recieve support from ISI/Pakistan Army. That fact is largely dubious and disputed. Wikipedia is not here to promote POV; American journals are hardly the authentic and primary source when it comes to showing a "balanaced" coverage. Anyone with some knowledge of the Afghan War would also know that the Government of Pakistan categorically denies providing support to the Afghan Taliban (whether you consider that claim as genuine is your own opinion and if propagated here, it charges into WP:OR territory). Before you come up with a new counter-argument, here's a read from The Long War Journal titled Afghan Taliban deny being supported by Pakistan; read the first and last sections in particular. For your own interest, this same source also states the following: "The Afghan Taliban teamed up with Pakistani Taliban factions and maintain safe havens and training camps in Pakistan to this day." Mar4d ( talk) 13:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Direct Pakistani support for the Taliban has been an open secret for years. The Pakistani government, through the ISI, helped found the Taliban and helped it gain power during the 1990s. Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government.
After the US ousted Mullah Omar from power in 2001 and 2002 ... The Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban's executive council, is named after the Pakistani city where it is based. The ISI, through the Haqqani Network, is known to have directed suicide operations against the Indian Embassy and other targets in Kabul. Several Pakistani military officers have been detained inside Afghanistan in connection with terrorist attacks on Afghan soil, while numerous Afghan Taliban commanders have admitted to receiving support from the Pakistani military over the past several years.
JCAla ( talk) 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. Read the second quote (from your source) provided above. It is about today. JCAla ( talk) 14 February 2011 (UTC)
First the issue needs to be discussed in the article, because it is a long issue. Then, we can see if we find a sentence that fits everyone for the lead. I ask you to move the bold content yourself, Mar4d, and add it to the article. JCAla ( talk) 14:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why was this section removed? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Shall we seek a peer review first? Cheers, JCAla ( talk) 15:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see already that we will have to check the references. JCAla ( talk) 08:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Are Mangal Bagh and Lashkar-e-Islam part of the TTP? If wouldn't surprise me if they are, but neither of the articles nor the refs seem to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavi404 ( talk • contribs) 19:40, August 25, 2012
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tehrik-e-Taliban Spokesman for Darra Adam Khel and Khyber Agency Mohammad Afridi
Theoccupiedkashmir ( talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) are funding Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) for terrorist activities in Pakistan [3]
The sole source for that article is a statement by the Pakistani government, hardly a neutral source, particularly given the widespread reporting elsewhere that the Pakistani government financially supports TTP. 153.31.113.20 ( talk) 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
>> Pakistan PM pushes for talks with Taliban >> Pakistan and the Taliban: To talk or fight? >> Pakistani politicians snub Taliban talks >> Pakistan-Taliban peace talks delayed >> Pakistani government and Taliban hold talks >> Pakistan Taliban sets tough terms for peace >> Pakistan halts talks with Taliban >> Pakistani Taliban announces month-long truce ( Lihaas ( talk) 07:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)).
Could the TPP flag be used on this article? This is the official TTP website with a screenshot: http://www.dawn.com/news/1098058 It's similar to the Afghan Taliban flag. StanTheMan87 ( talk) 11:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm accustomed to seeing the name of group spelled in English as "Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan" (with an "e" not followed by a hyphen), rather than "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" (with an "i" followed by a hyphen). The former is the spelling overwhelmingly used by U.S. Government agencies; for example, all references to the group on nctc.gov and fbi.gov use the E spelling, with one exception each, and on state.gov, the E spelling is preferred over the I spelling by a ratio of more than 10 to 1. In U.S. media, the E spelling is more common as well: for example, it's preferred on nytimes.com by a ratio of 9 to 1. Can anyone clarify why this article (except one footnote) uses the I spelling? Is that a British spelling, or perhaps the spelling used in English-language sources within Pakistan? (My initial checks of British media show that thetimes.co.uk and guardian.co.uk seem to use the E and I spellings with equal frequency, a puzzling oversight in their otherwise consistent editing.) For what it's worth, TTP's own official website launched in April 2014 spells their name "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan," but I'm reluctant to rely on that because it appears in English only once and whoever wrote it also misspelled "Offical" (sic). 153.31.113.20 ( talk) 17:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 17 external links on
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The article cited a Youtube video [2] which itself is not recommended. Moreover, the video claims that its video of Hagel giving a speech in Oklahoma's Cameron University however Hagel is shown against a black background and video appears to be doctored. This video was not reported by any verifiable source. However, even the content of so called speech says :
The speech is about Indian and Pakistani race for gaining strategic foothold and influence in Afghanistan.
On the other hand wiki article quoted the above 'source' and wrote that :
Removed. Collagium. You may speak. 02:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
An anonymous IP excised considerable material, offering an angry edit summary as their only explanation.
Only simple and non-controversial edits should be solely explained by an edit summary. Complicated or controversial edits require their explanations on the talk page, or occasionally, some other fora. Complicated or controversial edits trigger disagreement, and represent a huge temptation for those who disagree to offer their rebuttal in their edit summary, when they revert the edit.
The result is an instant edit war.
I reverted the edit and look forward to the contributor who made it returning here to offer a more detailed and less angry explanation. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Its absolute nonsense and makes no sense since both the Afghan & Pakistani Taliban are enemies of Afghanistan and see the current Afghan government as illegitimate. Why would the Afghan government support the TTP when both are against each other? Its obviously been inserted by a Pakistani user with a weak source. I don't want to touch it though since i might get an edit warning. Akmal94 ( talk) 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
They are not Pakistani Organization, actually this group is created by those people who are not from Pakistan, and they only want chaos and bloodshed in Pakistan, they even don't know any slightest basics about Islam or Quran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saman Reyasat ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The map used shows the boundaries of India and Pakistan in an incorrect fashion. The map needs to be removed or altered to show the areas of PAK and Gilgit baltistan as DISPUTED Dr. Blu MBBS ( talk) 08:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the second instance of <ref name="LWJ-17Aug2020"> to <ref name="LWJ-17Aug2020"/> without the "cite web". The ref is expanded twice, leading to an error message. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:94BE:73E1:CC01:3A46 ( talk) 13:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Where it will lead Khalil Hyder ( talk) 16:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Under the heading "INVOLVEMENT IN THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR" it is mentioned "Tahreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is anti-Pakistan and Afghan Taliban are struggling to end the foreign occupation of Afghanistan"; while we all now know Taliban has ended foreign occupation in Afghanistan similarly, TTP fled pakistan during the Operation Zarb-e-Azb. 2.50.54.209 ( talk) 12:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC) [1]
Why is this article extended-protected? There have not been much disruptive edits. There was just an edit war between 51412techno and Lightspecs. Even the Islamic State (ISIS) article is not extended-protected. Please change this to just protected.
This
edit request to
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the state allies of the TTP back to the infobox. They were in the article (and as you can see their inclusion was well sourced) until they were removed for some reason. Cipher21 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Pakistan's security agencies allege that TTP is financially assisted by foreign intelligence agencies such as RAW.However, the line is missing from the current profile. TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
[a]dd the state allies. The version you pointed to had India among them, whose supporting sources I dissected. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Latif spent much of his time since 2010 between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it is believed he was a conduit for funding to the TTP. It now appears some of that funding might have come from Afghanistan's intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security (NDS)....Yet, the president's spokesperson, Aimal Faizi, openly told reporters the NDS had been working with Latif 'for a long period of time.' Latif, Faizi said, 'was part of an NDS project like every other intelligence agency is doing.'
Should the state supporters of the Taliban be added back to the infobox? If so, in which format?
Cipher21 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
Afghan support (neutral): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Afghan & Indian support (per Taliban spokesperson Ehsanullah Ehsan): [6] Afghan & Indian support (per Taliban commander Latifullah Mehsud): [7] Indian support (neutral): [8] [9] Indian support (per UAE security officials, Wikileaks): [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipher21 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Indian support (allegations by Pakistan): [11] [12] [13]
|
Cipher21 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) IMO it's absolutely clear that it should be limited to Afghanistan Infoboxes are useful for slam-dunk facts that 90%+ agree on. They are a big problem for others because they consist of brief, categorical unqualified statements without all of the wording necessary to properly handle these. So, based on that, the answer regarding infoboxes is When doubt, leave it out Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 23:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
neutral sourceof Foreign Policy noted,
A Washington South Asia expert, among others, wrote to dispute the allegation made by a former U.S. intelligence official cited in the piece that India is aiding the Taliban, although he said such support may be going to other anti-Pakistan insurgent groups.Sec. Hagel did not anything about TTP and hence, is irrelevant. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
cite independent sources (preferably, scholars) who confirm India to have aided our subject- where are they?
References
This
edit request to
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
malakand and muweilah northern areas of pakistan Fl1cky1738 ( talk) 15:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Khestwol: I don't see Dawn listed at RSP, and our article on it describes it as a paper of record. Besides, they are just passing on the words of Zabihullah Mujahid, who is obviously qualified to give the IEA's official positions. He says in the interview:
"They are not, as an organisation, part of IEA and we don’t share the same objectives... The IEA stance is that we do not interfere in other countries’ affairs. We do not interfere in Pakistan’s affairs."
Including this information doesn't say anything about what's happening in practice, but it's clear they deny any cooperation. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) KevinNov3 ( talk) 12:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan → Pakistani Taliban – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and more WP:RECOGNIZABLE, especially for English-speakers. Supported by Google News search by a good margin, where "Pakistani Taliban" gets 33,800 results, but "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" gets only 6,130 results. Also supported by Google Books search, with more English books mentioning "Pakistani Taliban." And on Google search, "Pakistani Taliban" gets 520,000 results, but "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" gets only 86,400 results. And lastly, this Wikipedia article itself, mentions "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" only 16 times, but mentions "Pakistani Taliban" as much as 52 times. Khestwol ( talk) 12:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)