Talk:Taliban insurgency

Timeline

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)

WP:MilHist Assessment

I do not know if the "outdated" tag is appropriate, as there is content updated as of June and July 2006.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)

Medusa merge?

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)

Hmm. I think that might lead to a POV fork though. --Guinnog 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

h-cz 14:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think merging would help anything. Operation Medusa is a military operation led by NATO with plenty of events and media coverage and it ought to be separate topic. More, taliban insurgency article is presents the other position to report on the events and structure the information about happenings in long term time interval in afghanistan.

we need here a short overview of Medusa. With a ||see: Operation Medusa|| header --TheFEARgod 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

AgreedThat would solve this "merge issue", since Op. Medusa is a purely military operation, only partly associated with the insurgencyLan Di 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tags. Eleland 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge altogether

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)

why, we do have Iraqi insurgency also --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Combatant flags

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)

Rename

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)

be careful, there can be a disambiguation. Please provide sources for the claim --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Which claim? That many armed Afghan rebels aren't specifically related to the former ruling party? Easy enough...

• While the US and its allies use the term Taliban to describe all armed opposition, the actual armed resistance includes both former Taliban and other clan militias and warlords.
• [Just as in Afghanistan, where the term “Taliban” is being applied to any Afghan resisting US occupation
• The term "Taliban" is a generic reference to the insurgents who are a combination of Taliban fighters and foreign jihadi's
• Across the south, the term “Taliban” now encompasses a shifting array of tribes, groups, criminals, opportunists and people discontented with the government

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)

Insurgent is a neutral, commonly-used term. Freedom fighter & resistance fighter are strongly biased in their favour. The Taliban are trying to impose an oppressive regime. They carry out frequent attacks against various targets, including civilians. They're a designated terrorist group who don't even try to follow the law of war. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2021 (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)

Misc

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)

Taliban strength and casualties

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)

The strength is the current number of active members. Casualties killed is the total for the conflict, which can be higher than the number currently active. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Surrendered?

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)

Article name bias

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)

It is called an insurgency because that is what the majority of reliable sources call it. It has nothing to do with who edits the article, it is Wikipedia policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Taliban have never been a legitimate government. Hamid Karzai easily won the 2004 Afghan presidential election, so claiming the Taliban insurgency is a resistance movement of patriotic Afghans is far from reasonable. Also, what's patriotic about ambulance bombing? The French Resistance wasn't a communist movement, although a minority of its members were communists. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2021 (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)

None of this indicates that they were ever the legitimate government, however. Either way, as Darknes Shines said, we go with what the sources call it. — Czello 06:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Timeline 2012

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.

The content is supported by the Reliable Sources cited.50.111.32.130 (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Iran don't support the Taliban

Taliban is Sunni - Iran is Shia, Iran supported the Shias who are against the Taliban (Hasaras) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazaras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.36.197 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Iran definitely supported anti-Taliban factions back in the 90's. However there have been media reports [1], [2] that as of 2015 Iran has been providing a level of support to them. Iran does support other Sunni factions such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad Gazkthul (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Title biased

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)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research.--92.237.23.242 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference for China's (alleged) support

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)

Peace treaty

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)

No, I don't think so. The peace treaty is still tentative, and it depends on what unfolds in the future. BTW: All wars are started with a view to end them one day. Perhaps all sides come out as winners.Davidbena (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but the US's super tenuously defined victory conditions was the complete removal and destruction of the Taliban. It is now cutting a deal and running away with the Taliban still intact and retaking lost ground. That is a clear US defeat, much like Vietnam, and Taliban victory. The Taliban's victory conditions were defined as survive and get the Americans out, they've achieved that. It is an unequivocal Taliban victory. Maybe if the US and allies had done more to define what they'd consider a victory at the start, but their poor end of conflict definitions back then have led to what is essentially a defeat now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.10.131 (talk) 12:50, 3 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)

Taliban losses?

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 100,000Njofallofall (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)

How can we define the Afghanistan territorial control map as accurate or impartial?

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)

Agree that this map appears to be being updated based on a random anonymous Twitter feed and as such is not reliably sourced. Deleting it is the only solution at this point. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 28 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?????

None of the above matters: if the map is being sourced to random anonymous Twitter accounts, then it is not reliably sourced, and that really is all there is to this. It does not matter if it is "predominantly accurate" if the source is not actually a reliable one, particularly in the context of showing territory on the map as a whole. Similarly "Taliban have been confirmed to atleast own a majority 50%+ of the country" doesn't matter - the map is not just showing a percentage under Taliban control, but which parts of Afghanistan are under Taliban control, and if those parts are not reliably known to belong to one side or the other then we should not be saying that they belong to that side or the other on Wiki. There is a clear consensus here that the map is not reliably-sourced and I think you should respect that. FOARP (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

Agreed, a clear consensus for deletion based on WP:V. We should not have a map showing things that we cannot verify in reliable, independent sources. In reality, an editor-created map is always going to suffer from WP:OR problems anyway if it is assembled together from different sources that may not be in agreement. FOARP (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

He is not a source, he is just translating Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan tweets and news. The IEA spokeperson makes the same news and statements, which verifies statements in various Twitter accounts. Moreover, Twitter counts can't be anonimous, since... They are accounts. Wikipedia community made the same military maps of Syria, Karabakh and Iraq, with the same Twitter referencing. And it worked perfectly.

Don't delete that. It is verifiable, since there is a source. Seems like you have never worked with military maps on Wikipedia. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:10, 29 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.

See discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_an_anonymous_Twitter_account_that_translates_announcements_by_the_Taliban_as_a_source_for_a_live_situation_map_of_the_war_in_Afghanistan - clear consensus that this map is unreliably sourced and, no, there is no exception to WP:RS/WP:V just because it is a situation map created on commons. If it is being used here, then EN Wiki policy applies to it. "Bias" is not the issue here - it being an anonymous source that does not even attribute its statements is.

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. An anonymous Twitter account who we don't even know who they are, and who makes statements without even attributing them to the Taliban or even saying who in the Taliban originally said them, is clearly not verifiable. Reliable sources must also be independent of the subject matter - and the Taliban clearly are not independent of the subject matter of whether their own insurgency is succeeding or not. FOARP (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the Taliban insurgency situation map

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:

• Oppose - This map is apparently sourced to @RisboLensky, which is an anonymous Twitter feed that, according to MarcusTraianus, relays announcements made by the Afghan Taliban. Looking at this feed I see that it doesn't actually say where its information comes from. As already discussed at RSN means that the map contains information that is not verifiable because it is not from a reliable, independent source. Even if we knew for sure that these Twitter reports were coming from the Taliban (which we don't), the Taliban are clearly not independent of the topic of whether their insurgency is succeeding or not - at best it could only be quoted for what the Taliban are saying the situation is. Other maps e.g., this one and this one show very different situations in Afghanistan so its accuracy is doubtful. Finally this map appears to be WP:OR by the editors on commons who created it, apparently assembling it from news/Twitter reports of whatever location may have changed hands that day (I say apparently because they often give no source at all for their updates and just mark them "new map") - this is basically a WP:SYNTH as the map itself illustrates an unpublished idea (i.e., that the situation in Afghanistan is exactly as depicted in the map).
  

It is allowed on WikiCommons to create files containing pretty much anything you like, but on EN Wiki any information (even maps) must be verifiable in reliable, independent sources, and this map clearly isn't. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not going to repeat what I have already said, but I can give you another example: Syrian Civil War map. It is also based on twitter accounts and reports, yet it is completely fine. It's still one of the best and most complex works done by the Wikipedia community, with zero mistakes so far.

And another thing. That account not only talks about the losses or conquests of the Taliban, but also provides videos and photos. You can fake the situation at the front, but fake tens of videos and photos? It is necessary to hire a whole film studio to do that. But this is just ridiculous.

Classic media will never keep up with Twitter in the battlefield, where all-out digitalization provides us reports within seconds. I'm not even saying that the classical media just do not care about the state of a particular village. This must be understood and accepted. MarcusTraianus (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

1) How are these photos and videos verified?

2) Of course classic media (reliable sources) can't keep up with minute to minute Twitter reports. It seems like classic media should be able to track these tweets though. Are they tracked and reported by a reliable outlet that we could use as a source instead? It's not our job to verify Twitter posts; that is the job of full-time journalists, whom we can then use as sources after they've done the investigative legwork of confirming or denying this sort of social media reporting. — HTGS (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

3) Regarding the Syrian map: Was there a discussion and consensus made about that map? Because if not, then you can't just say "other stuff exists"; either they are parallels, and this discussion should have an impact on what we should do next with the Syrian map, or they aren't equivalent cases for whatever reason, and the Syrian case is irrelevant (or only partially relevant). — HTGS (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@HTGS: How will they be verified? How should such a process take place in general? Do you think every Taliban squad should have a CNN reporter running around? But this is unreal.

The fact of the matter is that journalists, in general, do not care about a combat situation. But we can monitor and correct the map of the current military situation. This is a huge amount of work with sources, I don't understand why some think that you can just provide link to the tweet and that's all.

No, Syrian Civil War map matters. Becase it's the same technique. The same process. And we must allow that Afghan map. Moreover, it must be shown right now, because now is the most crucial time of the 20-years old conflict. And you decided to delete that map on the most important time, leaving Wikipedia users without any situation awareness. MarcusTraianus (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

My answers would be 1) By someone reliable independent of the Taliban. 2) There is no rule that says we have to have a situation map. On Wikipedia if content can only be sourced to unreliable sources, then we just don't include it. 3) If the Syrian civil war map was similarly constructed, then it too shouldn't have been used. Arguments based on WP:WAX are circular and illogical. Especially there are other maps from more reliable sources that aren't constructed through WP:OR that can be looked at. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

We can argue about the reliability of the sources, but believing in independent sources in 2021 is ridiculous. There are NO independent sources. There are no independent sources even when we are walking about simple political issues, and you're trying to find independent sources about 40-years old conflict. You will not find. It is our task to make them independent by processing information in existing sources.

Okay. I agree to remove the map of Afghanistan, but then remove the maps of Syria, Libya and Iraq. Only then it will be a truly general rule. Unless, it's just pointless to delete one particular map. MarcusTraianus (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@MarcusTraianus, we have seen this sort of argument before: Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING. (There is nothing new under the sun.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of news, and not a tool to get a message out. We are absolutely not journalists. It is not our duty to report things we have heard on Twitter if those sources are not reliable, and this is the case whether we believe them or not.

Don’t panic. One day the truth of the situation will be reliably reported, and then Wikipedia will be full of relevant maps. Until then, you need to push this sort of content elsewhere, because an encyclopedia is not the place to report contentious and unclear content. The map will still exist on commons tomorrow, even if it isn’t on Wikipedia for the moment. — HTGS (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to back up what HTGS is saying here, it is almost impossible to delete user-created content from WikiCommons, so long as there are no Copyvios (and there aren't in this case). A few years back I tried to get a map of countries that recognised an independent Catalonia deleted from Commons (no country recognises an independent Catalonia so it's a pointless map). To do it I had to go to literally every single wiki it was on, argue with the editors on each of those wikis to get it deleted (the smaller ones - e.g., Basque Wiki - simply assumed I was a vandal because no-one edits those pages except long-term editors and vandals) and then finally when there were no Wikis using it, only then could it be deleted from Commons. TL;DR - don't worry, it being deleted from here does not mean it will be deleted from Commons. FOARP (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I will highlight some of the reasons I Oppose its use, and why it should be removed from these articles. 1. It is a heavily contested and largely controversial topic with various sources giving their own metrics (LWJ, SIGAR, FMF, Afghanlivemap, even Mark Milley recently stated to Congress in a Budget hearing that the Taliban controlled 81 Districts... etc etc). This means that there is no real consensus as to what is happening on the ground. 2. It has an heavy emphasis on Twitter accounts, which are often unverifiable. We can not truly know who operates these accounts, or why. 3. There has been a heavy emphasis on the use of a singular anonymous account "Risbolensky" Making up at least 338 of the past 500 edits. According to MarcusTraianus, this account translates IEA (Taliban) claims from their official website. This ultimately means that the Taliban themselves are a main source, and it is impossible to consider them "neutral" or "independent" of the issue at hand. Much of what the account describes tends to be hearsay, and we cannot be certain of its validity, regardless of pictures or videos being used from time to time. The MOD itself makes similar claims (Especially in regards to Taliban losses, as you can see here https://tolonews.com/afghanistan-173175 as an example). This is why a neutral source independent of the subject would be necessary. 4. The structure of the map itself suggests a lot of personal research. The map itself is created through the use of mixed sources. Though Risbolensky makes up the majority of edits, and most edits tend to be Twitter accounts. These have included 1TVNewsAF, Kh_ghazniwal, Tolonews, Umarjihadi2, WorldBreakingN9, Natsecjeff and many more just within the last week. IN CONCLUSION I would say this map should be removed from use within these articles. The map describes a largely contested issue. It uses unverifiable sources, and relies heavily on personal research and input. Though I am certain it is fun to create such a map, and try to depict a conflict. However, I do not believe such a map is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It seems to break many Wikipedia standards, and should not be used on these pages.Njofallofall (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The reality is, on the main reddit threads for these conflicts (like on the Syrian conflict, Ukraine etc) images like this are largely used and put together from various sources. Even if they aren't perfect, its largely what we have available. There's likely never going to be a perfect up to date map. But images like this are useful for the reader, and convey the general situation, and certainly more useful for the reader than nothing at all. Additionally, as noted, the Syrian Civil War map is currently being used and that doesn't seem to be an issue. Overall, even if its not up to date exactly, its probably close to as good as we can expect/have available. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not news, nor is it Reddit. (Excuse me a moment while I roll my eyes.) We have standards for inclusion here that are harder to meet than many other places on the internet because it is expected that we will only record to the Encyclopedia what we can verify through reliable sources. The omission of this map would be a detriment to the article, but only if the accuracy of the map is certain. We are far from certain of its accuracy.

The arguments for keeping it amount to WP:ADVOCACY and a hope that Wikipedia will fill in for a deficit in global war reporting. While proponents largely seem to be pushing the map in good faith, neither the alleged utility of this map, nor the urgency of the situation in the real world are enough reason to break from our need for reliable sources. — HTGS (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Weak Oppose From what I can see this map uses only one source from an unverified Twitter account. In most cases, this would be fine if the user was the Twitter for some news company/news company reporter but this person is completely unknown. I have no problem with having maps like this (in fact they are cool and I like them) but if they are using those kinds of sources I cannot agree with them. I've seen some people say that the account is pro-Taliban but I could not find anything showing that. In fact, he would seem neutral if it wasn't for the fact of him being unknown. Concerning the other maps that use "mostly" Twitter sources, I think they are fine. Syria and Iraq use more actual news sources than they do Twitter sources. Also, Syria has had a discussion on this here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and the outcome was keep. Wowzers122 (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not against maps like this per se. My issue with compiling them from news reports is that the news report is, if accurate, only evidence of who occupied a position on that day. It is very common from "rebels take village" to be much more widely covered than "government re-takes village", because the rebels in a particular conflict taking a city is seen as more news-worthy. In this case, some of the locations on the map literally haven't been in the news for four or more years and which side occupies them is an open question not really answered by a tweet from 2017 saying that the village was occupied by one side or the other. The end result is an WP:OR Frankenstein's monster cobbled together from different sources of differing validities and outlooks with very unclear sourcing (how do I know what the source for one city or another being in the hands of one side or another is?). FOARP (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support Comment. There is some usage of their tweets by other media such as India Today, Washington Examiner,ANNA News. I would consider changing my vote if major inaccuracies are found. Alaexis_¿question? 09:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  So we should be citing those sources (assuming they are themselves reliable), not an anonymous, self-labelled "troll" Twitter account. See WP:RSPTWITTER. This is not ambiguous. — HTGS (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  WP:USEBYOTHERS is a part of the WP:RS guideline. Whether the use is "widespread and consistent" is questionable, which is why I voted weak support rather than support. Alaexis_¿question? 10:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis - Example inaccuracy: the map shows Nawa district in Ghazni province as being entirely under Taliban control. Indeed it has shown Nawa district in Ghazni province as having been under complete Taliban control since April 2020. It is not clear at all what this is based on. A search of news sources shows Nawa in Ghazni province (note: not the same as Nawa in Helmand province) as being reportedly under apparent government control as late as late April 2021. Indeed, a Twitter account purporting to be a local radio station has fighting still taking place in the area as of yesterday. There's no doubt that the Taliban are advancing in Afghanistan at present, but we seem to be potentially just recycling stories of Taliban success that ultimately are sourced straight to the Taliban and which no-one has corroborated. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the longwarjournal map describes the district as a traditional stronghold of Taliban. Anyway, I've changed my post to Comment. Alaexis_¿question? 12:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support

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

• Comment The svg file in question is based on Template:Taliban insurgency detailed map as can be seen in the chart below:

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)

Taking this to Commons won't work because:

• Unreliable sourcing is not against the rules of Commons. You can literally create anything you like on Commons and, so long as it's used somewhere on any Wiki (like, even on some very low-traffic wiki like Basque Wiki) and doesn't include Copyvios, there's literally nothing you can do about the content of it. The place where it is against the rules is here, on EN Wiki, and so here's where the discussion needs to take place.
• The issue is not only with the sourcing (which is bad) but with the entire methodology, and is encapsulated in that diagram - it's simply updating the map based on a report of one side or the other capturing a place, but this means mixing reports from multiple sources across multiple years of varying validity to create something not said by any of them (i.e., overall territorial control across the country at a single point in time), which is WP:OR. In fact the entire methodology itself does not appear to be that used by a reliable source, but instead is one the editors invented themselves, which again is WP:OR. But something being a work of original research is not a problem on Commons, only here on EN Wiki is it a problem and so, again, here's where the discussion needs to take place. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, i was not suggesting we take this to Commons. I said to take it to the template (Template:Taliban insurgency detailed map), module (Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map) and associated talk page (Module talk:Taliban insurgency detailed map). All of these are on EN Wiki. So indeed the map should follow the rules of EN Wiki. This is made explicit in the "Rules for Editing the Map" that is at the top of the talk page (Module talk:Taliban insurgency detailed map). The svg file is just a screen capture of the template. So it will conform to the rules of EN Wiki automatically. Tradedia^talk 01:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same comment. Is the SVG file automated, or does someone have to update it manually? And why is the template itself not simply used on article pages, in place of the image? — HTGS (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone has to update it manually. Usually, the template itself is not used on article page because it is large in size and slows the downloading of the article page... Tradedia^talk 05:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Frankly going to the module page just sounds like a forum-shopping request which would end up either with no-one engaging (and engagement from the people re-adding the map has been pretty low up until this RFC opened TBF) or an attempt to over-ride core EN Wiki guidelines like WP:V through local consensus by e.g., saying "Anonymous Twitter accounts are an OK source". We've got more eyes on this issue here and a wider discussion here, and ultimately there's a discussion to be had as to whether we need this map at all. FOARP (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If I went over to the module and reverted every edit that attributes this particular Twitter account, would that be seen as controversial by the editors there? And, earnest question: would that render the map less useful to the point that it should be left out of this article anyway? — HTGS (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a very legitimate question. This is why I said take this discussion to the talk page of the module. The module is edited like any other EN Wikipedia article. It is edited based on a consensus by editors and subject to the rules of EN Wikipedia. So we should go to the template/module and tell directly the editors there that used RisboLensky : "Hey guys, we have strong reservations about the source you used, what do you have to say about this?" This RfC pinged editors of the svg file, however, it did not ping the editors of the module who used the RisboLensky source. These module editors should be part of this discussion. That is why i think this RFC should be at Module talk:Taliban insurgency detailed map and the question should be "Can the RisboLensky source be used to edit Taliban advances on the template or should these edits all be reverted?" Tradedia^talk 01:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Njofallofall already tried to raise this issue with the Module editors in this discussion - no-one responded. I have however pinged that page that this discussion is ongoing just in case any choose to contribute. Can I also point out that I strongly disagree with the statement "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)

And, because this is well out of my area of expertise, is the sole referencing method of the map made in the edit summary? — HTGS (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I honestly haven't been able to identify which source is being used to say which piece of territory is in whose hands. This makes the map a clear WP:V fail because you cannot verify the information in it yourself. Moreover for some locations the map was last updated a year+ ago (e.g., Nawa in Ghazni province) and should we really be saying that this is the present state of that location based on a report from a year+ ago? Supposedly I am supposed to be able to just look at the place-article for each location and see the sources there - but even this (bad) methodology is not being followed because the article for Nawa, Afghanistan says nothing about who is controlling it and the article for Nawa District says it is not controlled by the Taliban, even though the map shows it as under Taliban control. Additionally, the methodology used to construct the map is not one used by a reliable source but instead one that editors have decided themselves, which is clearly WP:OR.FOARP (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@FOARP: I've seen other maps like the Sryian civil war solve this problem by having an article like Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war where cities and towns are listed with their control and the sources saying so. The Central African Republic Civil War used to have the same solution before it was removed in their template page [3]. Of course, the much simpler way of fixing this issue is doing what the thing says and put the capture in the article's history or at least the infobox. Meidan Ekbis and Ouadda. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This all sounds like a good, or at least acceptable plan is in place, but nobody is following it. In my experience, at least with messy articles, someone has to just get in there and start pruning the rotten wood out, piece by piece, or just cut it back to the trunk and start growing it again. It should probably be (semi-)protected, and it needs at least one dedicated editor to watch and review each edit.

I notice that some editors are committed to the map, despite its questionable sourcing (@MarcusTraianus). But perhaps there could be two maps; one that is acceptable for use on (English) Wikipedia and one that uses less reliable sourcing freely. In that case, I would remove the notice on the module and template about reliable sourcing, but replace it with a caution to not use the map on English Wikipedia, then move it to another title, and start a new map, based on reliable sourcing, at the old title. — HTGS (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@HTGS: Theoretically, the best referencing method of the map is described in Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map/doc#"link=" parameter: linking towns to sources. So basically, when you click on the dot representing the town on the template map, it links you (takes you) to a place on Wikipedia where there is a reference (typically a town article or a battle article, etc.) However, doing the links can be a little tedious so in practice, many editors find it easier to just put the reference in the "Edit summary"  that can be found in the history of edits. The references will not be found at the page of the svg file on commons since the svg file is just a screen capture of the template. Tradedia^talk 01:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wowzers122: There is no need to have an article like "Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war". The right way to do it is like Meidan Ekbis and Ouadda along with a code linking them to the template town dot as described in Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map/doc#"link=" parameter: linking towns to sources. However, it is also ok to just put the reference in in the "Edit summary"  that can be found in the history of edits because it is easier for editors... Tradedia^talk 01:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You're proposing that we "fix" the map, but even if we "fix" the map (which at this point would probably require starting again right from the beginning, and going through every single news report of a location being captured by one side or another going back years?) we've still got the issue of this entire methodology being WP:OR - it's not sourced to any reliable source, and maps from more reliable sources (e.g., the Afghan Analysts Network map you see being used in e.g., the Guardian) do not use it.

Logically, it does not make sense to only use news reports of the capture of one village or another on a map all the way from the start of the war to show control of a country, as they may not record every change of control. This is particularly the case in a guerrilla/semi-guerrilla war where the control of a checkpoint or village may change rapidly and overall control of districts may be a more meaningful measure (it appears to be used by Afghan Analysts Network and similar more reliable sources). FOARP (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Since the situation is fluid and ever-changing, I would oppose the inclusion of such a map.Davidbena (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of the idea of a conflict map though, isn't it? To display the latest known frontlines. That's also the reason why the date of the latest update of the map is shown, so people know when this is from. And if there are minor developments that have been missed due to lack of reporting on it? Well, most articles on Wikipedia are somewhat incomplete, so this argument doesn't work either.--Ermanarich (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly WP:OR, unreliable and unverifiable. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Since majority of the information seems to be sourced from one unverifiable twitter account.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed change is from an unreliable source. Sea Ane (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Please see the strange case at Talk:2021_Taliban_offensive#Maps where the same map is used but the editor claims it to be sourced from LWJ (Long War Journal). TIA. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam - I've responded over there, but I'm not sure why they are saying this is sourced to LWJ: the map is clearly not sourced to LWJ (which only shows district-level control). Instead they still appear to be using dubious anonymous Twitter accounts as a source. FOARP (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support RisboLensky is a Afghan journalist who reposts information from local first-hand sources and compiles them in is Twitter account. He does the job of compiling first hand sources (that being both from pro-Afghan and pro-Taliban sources themselves) and posting them to his account. It's because of his ability to compile sources from mostly relatively unknown first hand sources that we use him as a primary source.

Alongside this, the Afghan MoD is relatively known for lying on accounts of recaptured districts, including tweets where he claimed the recapture of districts which have either never fallen to the Taliban or continue remaining under Taliban control. (which can be confirmed by first-hand local sources such as zalmay_afg, zoya, etc) I doubt he himself is pro-Taliban, concerning in the past he has detailed large scale ANA offensives in Ghazni and Jalalabad, which can be a reasonable explanation combared to supposed pro-Taliban leniencies he may have.

For everyone who is bringing up the opposition of the map, please consider us map editors who have to rely on this source due to its massive detail of information and accountability on aspects of compiling 1st hand sources into a reasonable timeframe. RisboLensky's political opinions have not affected his detailing of the map, and for the past few years we have been using him as a reliable source. If you doubt the reliability of his sourcing, his data can be backed up by other local Afghan journalists such as zalmay_afg, zoya_nafidi, bill roggio and natsecjeff who are also first-hand sources on information relating to the afghan war. Alongside this, I really have to stress the fact that none of us in the map editing area do not speak or understand Pashto, so English sources coming from these twitter accounts are a important medium for reliable info.

However, may come that using him as a source will be barred in the future, I have a handful of secondary sources which we can use, although they won't be as effective (in my own personal opinion) if not combined with RisboLensky's connections with local journalists. I also had a problem with the usage of RisboLensky as a source during late 2019, which fellow editor @User:Valewonca had assured me with. I believe his reply is in my user talk, if you wish to view it. BlookyNapsta (talk)

• Support I fully agree with BlookyNapsta, RisboLensky clearly is one of the more reliable and detailed sources for news regarding frontline developments. I have actually interacted with him on twitter, and he doesn't hold back his political opinions (though I'm still not really sure what his positions regarding the Taliban are), but that doesn't interfere with the accuracy of his reporting.--Ermanarich (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support First, as I indicated in my comment above, I think that removing the map picture from this article is the wrong approach. I believe the map picture can be made acceptable if the unacceptable sources are removed from the template map. Here I will refer to User:BlookyNapsta comment above : ”However, may come that using him as a source will be barred in the future, I have a handful of secondary sources which we can use”

Second, for the last 8 years, war map templates/modules have been created and updated on Wikipedia. They have gained wide acceptance and garnered praise. Our readers have come to expect the war articles to come with a map. Our war maps have been the best and most detailed maps online. Many of their editors are now veteran editors with a special expertise in finding and using sources. Maps are not the same thing as articles. I think that the sourcing standards should not be the same. I think we can trust our veteran map editors. With this respect, I would invoke a little WP:IAR.

By the way, I did not see any evidence that the source is biased in favor of the Taliban. The 5 tweets given by User:Njofallofall in the section above this one do not indicate political bias. Also, as someone indicated in a comment above, the source is used by media such as India Today, Washington Examiner, ANNA News. I don't think that the fact he is anonymous is such a big deal. If you are a war reporter in Afghanistan, you probably would rather stay anonymous. Jounalists are often targeted for assassination and imprisonment. Tradedia^talk 12:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support I'll add that a note to BlookyNapsta's post: when the Afghan MoD claims recapturing a district, it's typically only the DHQ and the Taliban controls literally everything else, example being Khwajah Umari in either 2019 or 2020 - plus another note to add is the detail RisboLensky makes in his posts. He details villages - "X village is under Taliban control while Y village is under gov't control in Z district", which is a stark contrast to the majority of Afghanistan war reporting which follows the very general format of "X district is under Taliban control after gov't withdrew" or "Y district of Z province was cleared of Taliban". In other words, he goes to the village level in Afghanistan, where most others go to the district level at most. And he's reported on gov't holding villages and districts that were previously marked under Taliban control on the map page. If we reverted the map to remove him as a source, we would lose like 75% of the detail on the map at minimum. TheMapLurker (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose use Fails WP:RS. The maps might seem good and detailed but they are unreliable. The above 3 votes are WP:ILIKEIT. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, they are the map-creators as far as I can see. I agree that 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.

TheMapLurker states that removing RisboLensky would mean removing 75% of the map, but this is a pretty strong argument against using the map as it shows that the map is overwhelmingly sourced to an anonymous twitter account that could be operated by literally anybody, the operator of which could change at any moment, that (we are told) is translating Taliban announcements.

Tradedia states that RisboLensky is not "biased", but bias is not the problem. Apparent lack of independence from the Taliban, alongside being unreliable, is the problem. The rest amounts to saying we should simply throw aside a very basic policy (WP:V) because they think this kind of map is popular. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello FOARP, So, I am a friend of BlookyNapta, and I have told them to make a detailed map of the Taliban insurgency as of recent to replace the one that you believe is inaccurately sourced, or isn't the best choice because the user is anonymous, so I hope this clears some things for now, and if Blooky does make a new map that of course is reliably sourced with just not 1 "inaccurate" or "biased" source as they claim, (although he really isnt.), then I hope it can be agreed upon. Noorullah21 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2021 (EST)

Hi Noorullah21, thank you for responding. I think it is really important to understand that bias is not a problem per se. Lack of independence of the subject is a big problem. It does not matter if they like or don't like the Taliban, the problem is their reports appear to be simply translations of Taliban announcements. We cannot simply relay Taliban announcements of what territory they control as the Taliban simply cannot be trusted to report that accurately.

Even if the lack of independence problem were not present, we still cannot use an anonymous Twitter account as the source for a map showing the supposed extent of Taliban control in Afghanistan. We simply have no idea from day to day who is actually operating it. If the source of the information is not identified (and come on now, you don't know who they are, or how many people have access to that account) then it is not possible to verify that information.

And even if the problems with RisboLensky are dealt with, we still have the problem of using reports from different sources over a period of years saying who may have controlled a place on a certain date to create a map showing control of Afghanistan today. This is clearly WP:OR resulting in a WP:SYNTH as the map itself contains an idea not published anywhere (that the extent of territory controlled by the Taliban today is as shown in the map). FOARP (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I've got to respond to FOARP and TrangaBellam here. First of all, if you claim his tweets about territorial changes are merely translated Taliban announcements, this is something you have to prove. Furthermore, the claim he is unreliable should be proven as well, for example by showing that a certain district reported as under Taliban control by RisboLensky was reported as not under Taliban control by other trusted sources. The reason why what you call "more reliable sources" are only showing district level is, because accumulating this information is literally a massive work that has only become possible because of the collaborative structure of Wikipedia. In fact, reliable sources like Der Spiegel have been copying frontline maps from Wikipedia without citation, changing the colour but having exactly the same shapes even in desert areas. Apart from that, Twitter accounts have been used for conflict maps for years now, these maps have been viewed by Millions of people and are factually the most accurate maps around, alongside other experts like Liveuamap, Syria_Map and Suriyak. I'm genuinely irritated by this crusade against these maps. It might be true that due to the nature of the conflict, these maps might show the incorrect version in one or two villages. Yet, this is outweighed by far by the fact that it is still among the most detailed sources and helpful for many reliable news organizations who don't have the capacity to create such a map themselves. There is literally nothing gained from hiding this kind of maps and would instead even damage the detail of insight into conflicts, which these maps have aided greatly during the last years. Also, frontline changes or continued news from an area always weed out incorrect information quite fastly.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ermanarich - "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).

We have no idea who RisboLensky is. At all. How can we say this is verifiable, let alone reliable? (it was MarcusTraianus who said that RisboLensky was translating Taliban announcements btw, but if he isn't this only highlights that we have no idea where his information is coming from).

I'm sure this map is a great map. It just isn't one we can use on EN Wikipedia because it's original research largely based on anonymous Twitter accounts. FOARP (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose use - Before we even consider any other argument presented here, we must be certain of the map's accuracy to include it in articles. On English Wikipedia, we cannot do this if most of its edits reference sources that are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards.

I will admit the RisboLensky account has been mischaracterized in this discussion.

It is not true that the RisboLensky account only posts translated Taliban announcements.

Therefore the characterization that this map is "partly sourced by the Taliban" is misleading.

My view of what exactly the RisboLensky account posts and what makes it valuable is as follows:

The account is an aggregator of war-related social media posts from Afghanistan, translated into English from local languages.

The original sources of the account's posts can be easily found by searching the name of the depicted location in the local language.

The RisboLensky account is not a genuine insider source but just a good researcher and compiler of information (quite the accomplishment in its own right).

The RisboLensky account has been translating (publicly available) info/social media posts consistently for years, from a conflict for which maps and reports are relatively harder to come by than others.

This is what has propelled the account to notability in the MENA Twitter network, and the reason why it is cited so often in this map.

To a group of map editors who admit they do not understand the local languages of Afghanistan, to have all these posts compiled in one place in English must be utterly invaluable.

I think it is now very appropriate to discuss the implications of this decision on the other very similar maps that appear throughout Wikipedia.

If this RfC results in a consensus on the removal of this map from the article, we should be consistent and do the same on the Syrian civil war article, and articles on other conflicts where similarly inadequately sourced maps are displayed.

I second the call made by @MarcusTraianus: to take similar action on the maps of Syria, Libya, and Iraq, as they have all been updated in the same manner, by anonymous Twitter accounts.

A majority of the edits made to the Syrian Civil War map over the years have only referenced tweets by anonymous Twitter accounts. These edits should also therefore be reverted per WP:V and WP:RS.

Under these guidelines, it will not be possible for any future map on Wikipedia to reach the levels of detail seen on earlier maps.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the advent of cell phones and social media has ushered in a new era in the field of conflict reportage. The Syrian Civil War is often considered the most well-documented war in all of world history.

But reliable sources simply do not report on small villages in Syria if they are not newsworthy. This is why to reach a particular level of detail on the Syrian map, unreliable sources were referenced.

In Afghanistan, no source considered reliable enough for Wikipedia is (to my knowledge) anywhere close to an alternative to the level of detail provided by RisboLensky's tweets.

@TheMapLurker: estimates that at least 75% of the detail of the current map would be gone overnight if all of the edits citing RisboLensky were to be reverted. I am unable to imagine what kind of map this would produce. At that point it may be better to simply shift to a district-level map.

The message is clear - those willing to see maps not entirely based on reliable sources should now look elsewhere. What they have become accustomed seeing here was never actually appropriate for Wikipedia this entire time.

Final note - I also find myself agreeing the WP:SYNTH accusation.

As the map portrays rural and uninhabited areas as Taliban-controlled by "default" even though they are almost certainly devoid of any military presence, I've always interpreted it as more of a map that depicts where the Afghan National Army is and is not; that is to say, the red areas are where the ANA is, and the white areas are where the ANA is not (rather than where the Taliban necessarily is.)

This calls into question the very purpose of the nature of this map in what is still a semi-guerilla conflict, especially in a country with so many sparsely populated or uninhabited areas (recall the controversy over depictions of "control" over the Syrian Desert).

IvanSidorenkoSG (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am unsure if this would be an acceptable map to use by Wikipedia guidelines (still new to its many rules). However, BBC released a District Level control map on the 12th of July. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57818221 It is of course slightly out of date at this moment. I also know that there are other District level maps (LWJ, Afghan Analysts. etc). LWJ in particular is often used by major media. However, the methodology of LWJ is admittedly open source which naturally has its drawbacks. No one has to use this map, but considering it appears that there is a consensus that the Wikipedia map should not be used.. I thought I would show an alternative? Though, In some ways, I think it might be better to just avoid using a map (because they are always bound to change, and are more influenced by narrative or questionable methodology)... None the less, I figured id contribute an alternative to this conversation. If anything, this alternative should show the complexity of the situation, and how concepts like "Control" can differ greatly from one source to another... And I absolutely agree with IvanSidorenkoSG. Often times these maps dictate nothing more than where the ANA is currently, and not so much where there is actual "Taliban Control"

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)

• Oppose use I agree with what the others are saying on the Oppose side.Thelostone41 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, per reasons highlighted by Njofallofall - Idealigic (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Former President Hamid Karzai's take on the Afghan civil war

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)

Pakistan

@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)

All independent sources confirm that the mainstream position held by Pakistani authorities is to deny it supports the Taliban. That cannot go from the infobox, every single country listed here has also denied so and is mentioned accordingly.

"Independent" sources i.e US media sources and Afghanistan govt sources are not exactly independent in this case as they are involved parties in this conflict. Most of the content in that section is supported by blog post material anyway. One politician mentioned here is Sheikh Rasheed who is just claiming that Taliban live in Pakistan/go to madarsas there etc, nothing on the insurgency. The other sources which report an apparent confirmation for the support of the Taliban by Musharraf also mention this is a "rare admission" and he doesn't exactly say that the govt supported the insurgency there. He just confirms there is "support from these areas" (i.e the federally administered tribal areas), not exactly an admission of govt support. Codenamewolf (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Rashid was talking about the Taliban insurgency. Your analysis is faulty. Where are your sources to discard the charge?

Read this article by Husain Haqqani. It is among many that comfortably establishes undisputed support that Pakistan provided to Talibanis. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Talking about the insurgency where? Show quotes.

And how is Hussain Haqqani representative of the position held by government of Pakistan? Codenamewolf (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Just found this Codenamewolf (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

And [4] Codenamewolf (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

See what is WP:RS. These sources published from Pakistan are not reliable for this topic. We need third party reliable sources.

It does not matter what the "position held by the government of Pakistan" when third party sources agree that Pakistan supported Talibanis. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable for reporting Sheikh Rasheed's statement? Then the Hindustan Times source used to report on the earlier Sheikh Rasheed Taliban statement isn't usable either. He shouldn't even be mentioned here by that logic. Codenamewolf (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"denied by Pakistan" doesn't need a third party source. It has widespread coverage in media so it should be used. And the US media sources are not third party, there is no third party here Codenamewolf (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No. Musharraf admitted that Pakistan provided support to Taliban thus your assertion that Pakistanis have wholly denied these proven allegations is not sensible. When third party sources agree that Pakistan provided support to Taliban then you need third party sources to counter the information. Government POV cannot be used against third party information. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

[5] You can find many such articles where he's denying these claims. Codenamewolf (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And 6 years later he admitted again that Pakistan supported Talibanis.[6] I have now removed "alleged, denied by Pakistan" since you have failed to provide any third party sources to dispel this finding. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It literally says there in the source that he didn't refer to Taliban by name, which makes it useless.

And "denied by Pakistan" is sourced to third party sources as well. What is your opinion about the those currently in the infobox (like Reuters etc)? On Wikipedia, we are supposed to represent all significant viewpoints published in reliable sources per WP:NPOV. Anyways, there is no consensus for anything. Codenamewolf (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)