Talk:2021 Taliban offensive/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

The President fled to Tajikistan not Afghanistan :) 77.97.181.44 (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Caption

Can you please help to give captions to the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.215.31 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Area

Any estimates about the %Area, effectively controlled by Taliban? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, only find Taliban saying they control 80% of Afghanistan. Do you consider worth mentioning in the article or battlebox? Mr.User200 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Check at the Reactions section.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2021

Want to fix a typo in the International sub-section of the Reactions section of the page. Bagels95 (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What is the typo? — HTGS (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Taliban capture" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Taliban capture. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 23#Taliban capture until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Claim that the ANA retreat from Kandahar was advised by US high command

The article said previously: "Overnight, Kandahar was captured by the Taliban: heavy clashing around the city led to the withdrawal of the ANA, possibly on the advice of US high command; thus increasing the number of provincial capitals controlled by the Taliban to thirteen" I could not find the claim that the retreat might have been advised by US high command in the cited references, so I removed that speculation.

--QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Update for Faryab province

Taliban source says that Faryab capital Maymana has been captured by Taliban.

27.104.210.6 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Maidan Shar and Khost

Shar has reportedly fallen and Khost is on the brink with the prison captured. Should be added, atleast the former

Taliban begins assault on Kabul

Sources says that Taliban has began all out attack on Kabul.27.104.210.6 (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021 (3)

Tiktikok (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pahunkat (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Parun of Nuristan fell to Taliban

27.104.210.6 (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Qala e Naw

Should we mention the fighting in Qala e Naw? The Taliban entered the city on Wednesday and freed 400 prisoners, but their forces were subsequently driven out by the government. Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting some article expansion help @

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal from Crime WikiProject

An anonymous user removed this article from the Crime WikiProject by deleting the banner, explaining "It's military history." However, Jim Michael (talk · contribs) originally added this project banner, so I am wondering about the validity of this claim. As I see it, this is a civil war, or an unlawful insurgency against a lawful government, so the article falls within the scope of the Crime WikiProject, but I want to check my logic is correct before I add the crime banner back. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - this offensive is by a designated terrorist group who don't even try to follow the law of war. It's a large-scale series of violent crimes. Jim Michael (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. I am currently assessing this article as of "Low" importance to the Crime WikiProject because, while in the scope of Crime, and while it provides examples of the instances of crime and terrorism, the article doesn't significantly extend the conceptual analysis of the subject to any significant degree. Other projects and articles do a better job at the latter, in any case. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I also oppose the inclusion of this article within the Crime WikiProject-- while I'm sure no one here supports the Taliban or their actions they are now the de jure government of Afghanistan and this article no longer fully falls under the scope of terrorism or by that extension crime. Eggventura (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of the Crime wikiproject on this page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Maps

On what basis were they drawn? Why were there two maps? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

FDD's Long War Journal is plotting on the basis of OSINT but I won't support using it due to a long list of gaffes. It is effectively a blog and two RSN threads provide necessary guidance. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: What makes you think FDD's Long War Journal is based on OSINT? AP and Al Jazeera are using its map in their articles and they are considered highly reputable. [1], [2] You are welcome not to support it. Viewsridge (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
What makes you think FDD's Long War Journal is based on OSINT? - The site notes Methodology: The primary data and research behind this assessment are based on open-source information, such as press reports and information provided by government agencies and the Taliban. This is a living and breathing map that LWJ frequently updates as verifiable research is conducted to support control changes.
Jon Gambrell writes,

Roggio, whose Long War Journal now operates in the Washington-based hawkish think tank [...] believes half of the country’s districts are now contested between the government and the Taliban, with over 120 fully government controlled and more than 70 fully held by the Taliban. But even he acknowledges those numbers represent his best guess.

Fawad Aman, a deputy spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, disputed Roggio’s figures as “not correct and far from reality.”

That map shall be attributed, at the very least and not in the infobox. Maybe use an overlay gif to denote the shifting fortunes? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: AP and Al Jazeera are using that map so it's reliable. Thank you for self reverting as not doing so would have violated 3RR. Viewsridge (talk)
You have said that once. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You claim that Al Jazeera had once featured his map as an infographic and hence, his maps are infobox-worthy. As of 14/15 July 2021, Al Jazeera reports that over a third of Afghanistan’s 421 districts are in Taliban control. As of 13 July, LWJ pegs the figure at 54.79%. If Al-Jazeera was "using" LWJ data, it would have used "over a half" or "about a half" instead. Most of mainstream media give a figure of ~1/3 rather than ~1/2.TrangaBellam (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @CentreLeftRight: Can you provide your opinion on using the LWJ map-data in infobox? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    Attribution should be the minimum until alternative map data is provided. CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with your bare minimum reqs. Even then, it is a tad weird to use niche sources conflicting mainstream media. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    @CentreLeftRight: Contrary to the assertion of Viewsridge, it seems that our map is not really sourced from LWJ but from an anonymous Twitter account. See this RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • We should not be using LWJ for this, they simply aren’t a reputable enough source and mapping is outside of their area of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back: Contrary to the assertion of Viewsridge, it seems that our map is not really sourced from LWJ but from an anonymous Twitter account. See this RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The same map which is discussed at this RfC is being used here but with a new claim of being sourced to LWJ. Can the participating editors — @FOARP, MarcusTraianus, HTGS, Njofallofall, Deathlibrarian, Wowzers122, Tradedia, Davidbena, Pincrete, and BristolTreeHouse: — opine? Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam:, Here, in this article, since it talks specifically about the 2021 Taliban offensive, I see no problem with using the map. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
It's exactly the same map being used to portray exactly the same thing and has exactly the same problems as at this RfC, where there is already a strong consensus that the map is unreliably-sourced synthesis and should not be used. This map is also clearly not sourced to the LWJ district-level control map as that only shows control at district level. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The wiki editor-created map is an WP:OR mess of unreliable/non-independent sources (many of which are anonymous Twitter accounts) collected over years and ultimately a WP:SYNTH since it portrays a conclusion ("this area is controlled by the Taliban today") that none of its sources actually states. It pretends to be more accurate that maps produced by reliable media outlets, but that accuracy is an illusion and probably impossible in a guerrilla/semi-guerrilla war. Do not use.
The Longwar Journal map at least has the benefit of use by reliable sources. I think possibly there are other more reliable maps but I have no objection to using this map per se. Portraying district control with a degree of fuzziness is probably a more honest portrayal of what is actually known about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, which I doubt even the military commanders know to the degree of precision the wiki editor-created map pretends to have. However, the map presently being used in the map is the user-created map and is not sourced to the Long War Journal as the LWJ does not pretend to show a map of exact positions but instead only control at district level (you can see from the edit-history that it is not based on the Long War journal map). FOARP (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Those maps are important and useful for readers. I recommend to use those maps in the article along with a description that those maps are may not 100% accurate.Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
We cannot just launder inaccurate information by saying "maybe this isn't true". FOARP (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Change startdate to April 14

We're picking a somewhat arbitrary date no matter what, it's not like this is the first time they've taken ground, but April 14th seems like the better fit. FDD, one of the best current sources, lists April 14th as the start date (as the offensive was planned in advance and timed to start with the confirmation from the Biden administration the pullout was going forward), with April 13 being used as the "Before Picture", so to speak.

While even they admit mid-May is when things really started to get out of control, I feel this is a more natural start date by tying it in to a proper event.

I have been looking for news articles at two search engines; Google 1 and DuckduckGo 2 and since 1st of January 2021 to 20 April 2021 and there is no mention of a offensive, most sources reported the offensive on 4 May 2021. So i think we should keep that date as the starting date. Even Iranian media begun reporting Taliban offensives since May 2021. Mr.User200 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

68.144.93.30 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)That's a good point, but it feels kinda iffy to base the start date on this on news coverage and not an actual event, especially since we all know media lag exists on subjects they weren't paying much attention to prior. April 14th as a date makes sense, it has an actual reason to go there (the confirmation they were waiting for) and the professionals, the site we've considered among the most reliable, are going with it. I'm standing my ground on this opinion for now

Even the map shows this as starting on April 14th. 68.144.93.30 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:7157:A0A1:434:A976 (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC) CNN too, uses 14 as the start date and 13 as the before date. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/asia/afghanistan-kandahar-taliban-threat-cmd-intl/index.html

Map labels do not signify the offensive's start. The CNN map is clear about that, stating clearly that mid-April showcases the territorial control by the time the United states withdrew, not the offensive's start. Applodion (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The 1 May start date is unsourced. Jim Michael (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have seen several major timelines on news stations today and yesterday still using April 14th as the start date, including CNN and the Ruggio image. May 1st relies on when the news started talking about it, not any on the ground facts or major events. April 14th actually makes sense.

Taliban "Supported by"

American and Afghani officials alleged that the Pakistani ISI is giving support to the Taliban as per Reuters[1]. This is obviously a sensitive subject but I think under Taliban supporters there should be a Pakistan (allegedly) tag as in the War in Afghanistan article.

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-urges-taliban-stay-engaged-afghan-peace-process-2021-04-19/

Nmurali02 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nmurali02: The source in question repeats the generally well-known information that the Pakistani ISI supports the Taliban. It does not state, however, that the ISI is supporting this offensive specifically. That is an important distinction, as the ISI has also not supported all Taliban operations in the past, but rather those perceived as benefitial to Pakistan. As long as no source claims that Pakistan is supporting the current offensive, I would not add it to the infobox. Applodion (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Map

@Berrely: What's wrong with the other map and what makes yours so much better? Wowzers122 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wowzers122 the legend is completely unreadable in the infobox, and even when you zoom in you can't see any text. The map I uploaded is an SVG, meaning it can be quickly updated (it is already more updated than the previous map), and it means that edits can easily be made. You can see the old map doesn't show that certain parts have been occupied, and it will become outdated quickly. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
P.S., if you don't like the style or colours, you can just change it. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry to say it’s not only poorly detailed, and loses the chronicling of the course of events the other meticulously presented, but it is also directly contradicted by the FDD and other think tanks’ updated maps along with mainstream media reports https://www.longwarjournal.org/mapping-taliban-control-in-afghanistan I agree, the detailed map with its timeline is far more descriptive, and seemingly in line with reliable sources. Freepsbane (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
This is literally from the BBC, which is marked as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. I very much doubt that it's "inaccurate". — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, the map you linked above is from yesterday, so it has become outdated. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, generally, and contradicted this time by RS think tanks and NYT reports regarding say regarding the fate of Nimruz, which that map without sources still lists as mostly government held. In this case, no reason to discard the specialized reliable source, which does give sources for its map over a risk board map which doesn’t explain where it sources what happened and when it updates.Freepsbane (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Berrely: I talked with the editor of the map Rr016 on commons last night regarding the svg file and they have uploaded it to a third party host as I've requested since its size was too large for Wikipedia. I was unable to edit it however as it lacked paths and objects. I've since messaged the user about this issue and I'm sure they'll respond once they see it. In the mean time perhaps you could update what I failed to. In the mean time however I don't see an urgency to change the map which is a day old. The proposed map also seems extremely lacking in detail and is more confusing than informative. https://www.mediafire.com/file/96jfpt3b0f6v3um/2021_Taliban_Offensive.svg/file Viewsridge (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, regarding the inaccuracy of the risk board map, the FDD and other sources like the NYT have reported locations like Nimruz are now under complete Taliban control, they can cite government sources https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/08/taliban-takes-full-control-of-nimruz-province-seizes-capital.php. If we went with the one map that contradicts them, we would have to contradict all media and think tank sources by claiming locations like Nimruz are under near total government control as the risk board map claims. I see no reason to propagate information that any reader could expose as misleading and damage our reputation.Freepsbane (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Please see above, where it's recommended that LWJ isn't used. I can't see a map on the NYT for the areas either? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The FDD you mean. If you believe Nimruz is under government control and would like to change the map to that, you need only provide sources. Unfortunately, the entire cited news of this article, does not seem to support that. And regardless, the consensus is solidly in favor of the detailed map, based off current sources. We can not be giving the public risk board maps, not only hard to read or grasp the significance of, but also inconsistent with what the news says. If you want to make changes, get a constellation of sources to support it, but let’s keep detail and readability over something resembling an oddly themed risk game.Freepsbane (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The legend is not completely unreadable inside of the infobox and even if it was we could always add color's meaning into the infobox. Also, when I zoom I can clearly see the text for date of capture. Wikipedia is not meant to be a news site. So what if it's outdated? It still provides better information than just a flat map that says which district belongs to whom. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Article location in the campaignbox

Why the article is in the "Kudnuz Province" section? Probably we should start a new one, because the Taliban offensive so far have attacked Nimroz, Kandahar, Herat, etc. So this is even larger than just Kunduz, and even it is not about Kunduz until yesterday's attacks. - Nuevousuario1011

@Nuevousuario1011: It is not in the Kunduz section. When you click on "show" next to Kunduz, you will see that it opens an entirely different, hidden section. This offensive is one of the non-aligned operations; it is not part of any provincial section. Applodion (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, thankyou for your answerNuevousuario1011 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021

Please add a date in the caption of the map - a description (like) ", situation on 25 July 2021" should go after "A map of Afghanistan showing the Taliban offensive". 176.62.32.5 (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The map already seems to have a caption with a date more current then what you have proposed. If I am misinterpreting, please open another request and ensure to propose the request in "please change X to Y". Cheers! Sirdog9002 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Taliban losses

Why are we presenting Afghan MOD press releases on Taliban losses without any context? I know they are probably the only source at the moment on this issue, but they are clearly exaggerated. Wouldn't it be better to add "Unknown" to the infobox for Taliban casualties? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:7990:FF34:6991:9A63 (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite support to show that the figures are exaggerated? While it may be true, we need to support the claim with a source to show that the Taliban losses are not accurate. 06:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Jurisdicta (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Farkhar District

According to the reputable wire service EFE, government forces from Takhar and Badakhshan Provinces have a sort of redoubt in Farkhar District. --JECE (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to include the link: [3]. --JECE (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The material has been added to the article in the August 11 paragraph. Danre98(talk^contribs) 02:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
It's still not depicted on the map, though. --JECE (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Before map

Hello. We got a map of the current situation, regularly updated, but we don't have a map of the situation just before the start of the offensive, so there's nothing to compare with. Is it possible to make one?--Aréat (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:7923:2A23:E989:248C (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)That can really only be done when we have a consensus on when this offensive started. Some people say April 14th, based on several live mapping sites and it being based on the Biden confirmation, and some say May 1st based on when news traffic picked up.

Now, several sites HAVE used before images, like CNN and that livemapping site, and they all used April 13th as the before date(meaning it started on the 14th). So this is yet more evidence we should switch the start date back to April 14th.

"Taliban offensive" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Taliban offensive. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 14#Taliban offensive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Mazar-i-Sharif on August 15?!

The article currently states that Mazar-i-Sharif "was" captured on August 15. This (currently) does not make much sense, since it is still August 14 in Afghanistan. The cited source also does not mention August 15. Perhaps there was an error. 176.62.32.5 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Nili and Mihtarlam + Maidan Shar

There is no source for these two cities. I actually don't doubt they are under Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan now (or at least close to it), but we need a source to back that in the article.StjepanHR (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like I can't even write a post without a province capital being liberated/captured (depending on your perspective). We now also need source for Maidan. Last info was that it is CLOSE to surrendering.StjepanHR (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
No reliable source claims "liberation".
By the time it is midnight here, I will be surprised to see anything but Kabul standing. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't find a source for those three cities either and removed those claims for now. QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
There is now source for Nili and Mihtar Lam, only the Maidan remains unsourced: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-taliban-f600d6faf28e9c2ccb454ad176987b19 StjepanHR (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I saw that too, but it seems the article has been updated again, with the part on Nili removed? QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The AP piece mentions the fall of Mihtarlam now: "Later, the insurgents took over Mihterlam, the capital of Laghman province, northeast of Kabul, without a fight, according to Zefon Safi, a lawmaker from the province." [4]. I don't see Nili mentioned, though. --JECE (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Never mind about Nili: "The Taliban also took control of Faryab province in the north and the central province of Daykundi, lawmakers from those areas said." --JECE (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

Change hundreds surrendered in the infobox to several thousands surrendered, including 5 army corps. 82.28.152.167 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

4 Equipment losses

Change Sine 2 July, US has conducted multiple airstrikes targeting military equipment captured by the insurgents. US airstrikes destroyed multiple D30 artillery pieces, multiple tanks, MRAPs and Humvees that the Taliban had captured from Afghan security forces.[42]

to Since 2 July, US has conducted multiple airstrikes targeting military equipment captured by the insurgents. US airstrikes destroyed multiple D30 artillery pieces, multiple tanks, MRAPs and Humvees that the Taliban had captured from Afghan security forces.[42] 2003:D7:3F19:DE00:701F:69C:D748:5DF8 (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and also made a slight other wording change in the sentence. Thanks for noticing this! QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021 (2)

5 of 7 Afghan Army Corps HEADQUARTERS have been lost, no the entire corps themselves. I believe it would make more sense as to add the word 'Headquarters' in front of 'lost', as this would make the statement more accurate. The headquarters buildings and surroundings have been lost, not the tens of thousands of ANA soldiers part of them.

My respect, thanks and gratitude to those editing. 58.179.159.195 (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Shadow4dark (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Bamyan

I removed the claim that Bamyan was captured by Taliban, as there was no source and I couldn't find one yet. It should be added in again as soon as we have a reliable source. QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about citing vernacular media but thought against it. Better to have confirmation from Western media. Same applies for Mahmud-i-Raqi. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Bamyan is sourced. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I feel vernacular media is fine, if only as a matter of course, and to avoid accusations of a Western bias. Even in Western topics, stuff in languages such as Spanish and French are used, if English-language articles about something are scarce. That's just my opinion, though. Image2012 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Hi,
I can't find mention for "In May, the Taliban captured 15 districts from the Afghan government", in the attached sources (#76, #77).
⁓⟬מקף (Hyphen)—🗣️|🧾⟭⁓ 10:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Mapping, now that everything has (kinda) cooled down

As this event is now history, and for history documentation only, I would like to discuss the possibility of perhaps moving as top image either a typical photography of the campaign or an eventual more detailed campaign map with army movements as typical in armed campaigns pages, and to use more generally the quite good maps by User:Rr016 on the article to detail the day by day advance of the Taliban armies (as for now the only other usage of this map in the page is the 25th July and the top image showing the present situations, which are both good as immediate maps but can't be used as the only generalizing maps of the conflict.)

If it is to say which one to showcase, I'd say the before pic (14 march), 2 July to resume the May-June situation, 5 August (instead of 25 July) as it is more significant as being the day before the reddition of Zaranj and the provincial capitals assault, 11 August (fall of Fayzabad, and a day before the fall of Ghazni, Herat, Qala e Naw and especially Kandahar which has its own article, which will probably stay in history as the point where the Taliban success became unavoidable), 14 and 15 August either with the fall of the last remnants of the Afghan army in the provincial capitals or with the siege of Kabul, and the final map closing the article when an official ceasefire will be signed. I think this would be interesting to debate. To avoid spamming, I'd also say that it would be probably for the best to use the 15 August map as front image for the "fall of Kabul" article.

In a footnote : I have difficulties to access datas regarding the last pockets of significant resistance on the map, so if anyone has anything significant about it it would probably be worth mentionning - especially with this Golbahar-Rukha pocket, if it has any links with Ahmed Shah Massoud's kin or former associates. I don't discuss the veracity of the map, mainly the lack of informations we give about afghan resistance after the fall of Kabul (maybe this will eventualy be moved into its own article though). Larrayal (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

End date of offensive

The infobox at the start of the article states that the offensive has already ended, but there are still several remaining pockets that could last a few more days even though Kabul has fallen. Shouldn’t the end date be when the last significant one of those falls, as the taliban will still be conducting offensive operations until then?--Garphield38 (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Sutyarashi (talk)

Does anyone disagree, and if so can they explain why? I’m worried that if it’s listed as already over when it’s not, people won’t bother to add information about the defeat of the last few pockets. --Garphield38 (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree. We should wait until 100% of Afghanistan is captured before saying the offensive is over. Super Ψ Dro 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The Taliban themselves have declared victory and the fighting over, with Kabul recognised by countless RS as the last significant fall. As a result of this 15 or 16 August (depending on the timezone) is the end date of the offensive. It's a bit ridiculous to suggest a tiny provincial capital in a single valley is of more significance than places like Mazar-i-Sharif, Kandahar, Laskah Gah, Jalalabad, and Kabul. Apache287 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It would be, but the "tiny provincial capital in a single valley" has an history of being a stronghold of moderate Afghan fighters under Ahmed Massoud and his kinsmen. If the Taliban wants to secure definitively their authority, they need to take it too. Although if this siege of Panjshir takes too long it may be considered outside the whole offensive, for now it's unrealistic to say it has ended. The eventual proclamation of the new emirate would be a way more satisfying end to this article though. I agree however that 100% is unlikely, the fall of Panjshir valley would be the end of the real offensive. Larrayal (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't matter about its history of resistance, the entire country is full of places that you could say that about. The Taliban have said they've stopped their offensive then unless you can show them continuing offensive operations in contradiction of that then the offensive is over (that's literally how they work). Unless you're outing yourself as the account of Abdul Ghani Baradar I think it's safe to say he and other leaders of the Taliban are more reliable than you on what the Taliban's thoughts are and they say the offensive is over. Apache287 (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't want it to not stay civil, so : can we at least wait that significant reliable medias have independently confirmed that either major fightings have ceased in the country, that military officials have started to disband their troops or that the last pockets of resistance have surrendered ? Believing whatever a Taliban spokeperson says is unreliable for the time being, outside of quotations purposes. Let it cool one day or two until we can say on which day exactly the formal war was ended. Nothing to gain to be too fast with this kind of matter, after all. Wait and see. Larrayal (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
See, that's the problem here, you're confusing the wider "War in Afghanistan" with the 2021 Taliban Offensive. I'm not saying both are over, merely that this offensive as a military campaign has finished in the own words of the people running that campaign. So in the same way as say that Operation Bagration was made up of different offensives or that Case Blue was the German Offensive of 1942 and wasn't the end of the War on the Eastern Front the period of fighting from May this year to 15/16 August was a distinct campaign by the Taliban that has now ended. There will probably be other aspects of the war itself that will happen in the aftermath of the offensive, mopping up of resistance areas for example, but the offensive as a specific set of operations undertaken by the Taliban is considered by them to have ended with the Fall of Kabul and given how it's their offensive we can only go by their statements on this. Apache287 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the offensive over?

Now that Kabul has fallen, is the offensive over or are there still provinces in which fighting continues?--Karma1998 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Panjshir province is still in pro-government control, Vice President Saleh and Ahmad Massoud are purportedly rallying forces there.[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9901029/Still-fighting-Afghan-vice-president-rally-anti-Taliban-forces-Panjshir.html

Map

Shouldn’t Charikar be under Taliban control on the map as of Aug 15?

It should and is well documented. Larrayal (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Afgani flag removed

As per live footage from Al Jazeera,a Taliban fighter has removed the Afgani Flag from the presidential palace probably a sign of a full takeover by raising the Taliban flag,is this sufficient to change the name of the article? --RazorTheDJ (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. Afghanistan as we knew it doesn't exist anymore. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
What would you propose it's changed to? — Czello 20:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I see the Taliban flag is now the new flag of The Islamic Emirate of Afganistan --RazorTheDJ (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
As long than a new, official flag isn't proclaimed the IEA flag should stay, maybe the Talibans will settle on another flag ? Larrayal (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think they'll just stick to the same IEA flag --RazorTheDJ (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Turkish troops in Kabul

Request to add this source ;https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkey-drops-kabul-airport-plans-will-assist-if-taliban-ask-sources-2021-08-16/

Turkey said it will pull its troops out of Afghanistan now after the Taliban have taken over. Akmal94 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Government of Afghanistan link change

Hi! I noticed that the link under "Government of Afghanistan" sends the reader to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan page rather to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan page. This would be confusing to the reader as it would mean that Taliban is attacking itself instead of the former Afghan government. I would like the link to send the reader to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.189.181 (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! BSMRD (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Add year to dates

Most dates in the article only mention a month and/or a day. It's evident right now that it means 2021, but for posterity (and since we do not know when this event will reach its conclusion), I think it would make sense to mention the year.

It would also make citing easier. FeatherAntennae (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Make 15 August end date of offensive

The combat has ended and the Taliban themselves have said the fighting is over (which would signal the end of their offensive). Remaining few areas under Islamic Republic control and the US forces still evacuating Kabul airport is simply the aftermath or a separate event to the offensive depending on what happens. Apache287 (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC) [1]

That's surely not the aftermath of a separate event. Will we consider it a separate offensive if the Taliban announce they took all of Afghanistan tomorrow? Of course not. Super Ψ Dro 09:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: That's WP:CRYSTAL though, you're making the assumption that there could be renewed fighting to stop the event being marked as over. Instead we have reliable sources that the fighting has both stopped and that the Taliban leadership have declared the offensive over. Ergo until that changes the provable state is that the offensive is over Apache287 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/afghanistan-poised-to-become-islamic-emirate-after-taliban-sweeps-to-power-12382946

Requested move 15 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Keep the current name. !Vote tally: 22 support, 34 oppose at the moment of closure; the quality of the arguments, in the closer's opinion, did not differ substantially. Therefore, no consensus during the discussion emerged to move the article. A more appropriate term than "takeover" might be considered, as several editors on both sides have noted, or even a new article created on post-Aug 15 Afghanistan, should such need arise. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Taliban offensive → 2021 Taliban takeover of Afghanistan – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Panam2014 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC) Hi

I think the article should be moved. It is not only an offensive but a takeover. --Panam2014 (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Support. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Not yet, we should wait. Shadow4dark (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
After Taliban controls entire country, then we can talk. 27.104.210.6 (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the others. In addition, "takeover" seems to be a less clear label than "offensive"; a "takeover" can also be a coup, a political or financial integration or just a democractic transition. Even if the Taliban conquer the country, I would thus still prefer "offensive". Applodion (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. I dont think so. We should wait. Furthermore, I think if/when this happens a separate page could be created. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Support. "Takeover" sounds more complete and befitting with what is happening. Lucafrehley (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It is a literal takeover and a redirect from '2021 Taliban Invasion of Afghanistan' should be made to it as well, The takeover is alomost complete. Those writing wait are wasting their time and vote Jibran1998 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Support. Consistent with the events as they have happened which will soon culminate with declaration (or rather re-declaration I guess) of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Apache287 (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "Suppose" The Taliban have indeed won the day, but I agree with Applodion that we need to find a better term than "takeover". We also don't need to put the year, the Taliban haven't really taken over the country before, since the Soviet failure Afghanistan had been in civil war until Bush's invasion. Halo FC (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that as soon as the central government falls and they declare the nation an Islamic Emirate then it's essentially a conquest. Jesterr35 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I concur with user Jesterr35. ZarathustraShah (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per others --2600:1700:22B0:34B0:E901:FC85:3491:EC1A (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is about an offensive that resulted in a takeover. It is not about the takeover. Zoozaz1 talk 19:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I too, concur with Jesterr35. The government has shifted to Taliban regardless. This is essentially a takeover. Auraian (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The Islamic Republican government has fallen, top officials are in exile, soldiers from the Afghan National Army have been defeated, surrendered or fled, Taliban soldiers control almost all of Afghan territory, and taliban statesmen will soon declare and rebuild the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. There is no better name than takeover.--Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all we have offensive for the clarity since it could’ve been a coup, or a full scale civil war, or an offensive apart of a civil war. Second of all, the name you want to use is unnecessary, there aren’t articles of the rebel takeover of Libya in 2011 but instead simply the First Libyan Civil War and there are no articles for the communist takeover of china but instead the Chinese Civil War. Once the offensive will finally end we put “Taliban victory, new government formed” in infobox ArabMan719 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Forgot to mention, most articles call it an offensive ArabMan719 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree however that 'takeover' should be replaced with something else.180app (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should wait until it's actually over. For now, we should focus on the moment that the Taliban declares the Emirate, so we can begin changes of the Taliban page itself. This is not where we should be focusing as far as the titles. Evanblockz (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is an article about a military offensive. Cf. the 1975 spring offensive, which led to the fall of Saigon. Khiikiat (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: What is currently underway is a takeover, all jargon to the contrary notwithstanding. That said, I also agree with 180app; “reconquest” would be a more accurate term than “takeover.” —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree completely with @Applodion's point about wording. I think the title should give the clearest information as possible and takeover is not really clear. While it seems somewhat clear that any "2021 Taliban takeover" would refer to the result of this offensive, the scope of such an article could be about the replacement in administrative functions, diplomatic relations in respect to Afghanistan, just the fall of Kabul (as the seat of government) or any other subset of the offensive (I feel). A. C. Santacruz (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)--
  • Oppose: I don't think the wording is quite right, and the military offensive itself can and should be distinguished from its ultimate end, the fall of Kabul and Afghanistan itself. In short: per A. C. Santacruz, above. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Zoozaz1, this article is about the military offensive that led to the Taliban's inevitable takeover of Afghanistan. Imperator Storm (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Clearly a takeover from the Americans. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "takeover" is not the right word. "Conquest" might be, but I am in no hurry to move the article from an adequate interim title. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support taking into account what has happened, the word "takeover" is more accurate. Salvabl (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The term "takeover" does not have clear military connotations, making it sound as if the Taliban won in a coup; nor does it describe a progressive military conquest. The existing title is fine. If there needs to be an article describing a "takeover", it is the handover of the Afghan government after the Fall of Kabul, not this article. NoNews! 02:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While clearly imminent, it's just silly to seriously argue an encyclopedia article should be updated to reflect events that have not actually happened yet simply on the basis we all agree that they are going too. If/When the Taliban do "take over" Afghanistan (as it does remain unclear if they'll control all vs 75-85% of Afghanistan in either the long term or by the end of this current offensive-whence another reason to keep the current title) I agree there will need to be appropriate changes but a separate article might be the better approach since as others have pointed out, the actual military operation remains independently relevant, how much so we don't know yet. OgamD218 (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This how the reliable sources have described this event. Therefore, calling it a takeover is fine in my opinion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Elsewhere on Wikipedia the phrase "Taliban Resurgence (2021)" is used. I might prefer that. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Offensive is more accurate term to describe this event. "Take over" is too vague.
  • Support User:DontWannaDoThis≠ 06:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. As per others I don't think "takeover" is a good enough word, but it's not clear what would be more accurate right now. I think the issue is that it might still be a little bit too early to change; we're in the middle of a transitionary period, which is why I think we should wait. With this in mind, 2021 Taliban offensive is satisfactory for now, but we should return to this debate when events change (and ideally go with what reliable sources call it). — Czello 07:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now too early, we don't know what will happen, and this is the current common name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per 180app and CurryTime7-24. 41.237.130.219 (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Per others, "takeover" is not a good enough word for a new title, "offensive" is still more accurate to the military operations. There may be room to make a new article about the Taliban's "takeover" at a later date, but there isn't yet enough information on that front to warrant changing this title. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. This article covers the moves the Taliban took to take over the country. If there is an article about the "takeover" (hopefully using a clearer wording) it should be a separate article, describing the shift in governmental power; not the military campaign that this article covers. — HTGS (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Too early to call. JBchrch talk 10:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Support. It's done, the Taliban are in effective power, they are about to assume governmental control over Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Biggus (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Takeover is too vague and the military offensive is independent of the takeover or political event. The takeover is a result of the offensive, not the offensive itself. This is too early; we can wait til a later date to select a better title when reliable sources have decided what to call it. — Danre98(talk^contribs) 13:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Applodion's reasoning of wording. Let's focus on the declaration of the Emirate rather than the title of this page for now, I think. Fernsong (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's literally an offensive, just call it that. It's accurate and concise. No need to use a clunky, less formal, less specific title. Calling it a "takeover" makes it more vague and is a downgrade, not an upgrade. What type of takeover? An economic takeover? A social-culture takeover? A political takeover? Was it a coup or a revolution? "takeover" is worse than "offensive". RopeTricks (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support it is an offensive leading to a takeover. also, support "of afghanistan". i think it is worth including that for clarity. Al83tito (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Current title works just fine. If it starts to be referred to by other names in the future we can start a new naming process, but let's cross that bridge when we get there. PolarManne (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. "Takeover" may in deed be a better and more accurate description than "offensive" at this point along in the process. However, agreed with @力: on the term "conquest" still being better yet. A Red Cherry (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Support. The "takeover" is the more precise term, it's not just an offensive but a complete takeover and transfer of power. Michael Scofield11 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose It is an offensive because it started as a regular Taliban spring offensive. Kavas (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The ANSDF collapsed, yes, but they did put up fights here and there. Moreso than, say, Denmark or Luxembourg in 1940, and they weren't called "takeovers" but "invasions". I think "offensive" works fine. Juxlos (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The article is about a military campaign; the name should be kept, in line with usage elsewhere, regardless of the success of the military campaign. SaturnFogg (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in theory but the word seems wrong. Something like "conquest" feels more accurate BlackholeWA (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is about a military offensive that will almost certainly result in a takeover. It is not about the takeover itself. This article will have its place regardless of the details of the outcome + as others say 'takeover' is vague, but describes what will happen soon/is happening as we speak. No urgency. Pincrete (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I do not contest the point that this offensive has almost certainly resulted in the Taliban seizing control of Afghanistan, As stated above, this article is about the military offensive, and not primarily about the collapse of Afganistan's former government and transition to Taliban rule. Mew4ever23 (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • OpposeHenryHex (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously, the dynamics have changed. The offensive, along with the US decision to withdraw all combatants from Afghanistan, have led to a complete Taliban takeover of the country. This does not, necessarily, reflect on any US weakness (as the US is still the strongest of all militaries). It's just that a decision had to be made whether to continue the war, without any prospects of changing the opinions of the majority of Afghans who view favorably the Taliban. The majority of Afghans obviously preferred a clerical government under the likes of the Taliban over a secular government under the former government, where many abuses have been linked to their government.Davidbena (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article covers the entire military campaign, not just the takeover that resulted from it. I don't see what is wrong with the current title. Compare 1975 spring offensive. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in the end, once the takeover is complete and the Taliban controls the entire country, we can change it. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a military offensive. Calling it the takeover would imply it was a peaceful transition. It wasn't, it was a violent military offensive. --PatriotMapperCDP (talk)
  • Oppose the word takeover, but support "conquest" or "reconquest" as suggested by others. Adda'r Yw (talk) 00:58, 18 August 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.

Error in the map

"Maidan Char" should be "Maidan Shar". Oqwert (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now Oqwert (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Exile of Ashraf Ghani

  • This Wikipedia page claims that Ashraf Ghani fled to Uzbekistan, however the Wikipedia page for Ashraf Ghani says that he fled to Tajikistan (under the section 'exile'). Are different sources contradicting each other? ZarathustraShah (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I removed Uzbekistan. A Twitter source [5] claims he has gone via Tajikistan to Oman, but we need better sourcing before claiming this in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
He was denied landing in Tajikistan. — Danre98(talk^contribs) 13:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The fog-of-war has lifted; Ghani is now in the United Arab Emirates. [6]. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Kandahar has fallen

Battle of Kandahar (2021) has already been created. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

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

The Taliban captured Kandahar, source: Taliban Take Kandahar, Herat in Major Afghanistan Offensive

Also, probably a separate article Battle/Fall/Siege/Capture of Kandahar could be made, like Capture of Zaranj and Battle of Lashkargah, which are also a part of this offensive. 176.62.32.5 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Will work on that. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been working on articles for the capturing/battles of major cities because the detail in this article is severely lacking. I was going to work on Kunduz tomorrow but I think I'll do Kandarhar/Herat, or help out people that have created those articles. Danre98(talk^contribs) 22:35, 12 August 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.

Intro: add root cause/explanation

Still not handled, needs your help. Yug (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Blur 1: Local factions and warlords with distant relation to the central government have often "cut their own deals" with the advancing Talibans.[1]

The lead is descriptive but lack depth and core explanation. A good deal of this offensive's conquest have been done via encirclement and negotiated local deals, standing upon a known ethno-geographic issue, weak and decentralized gov, a corrupt army (widespread ghost soldiers and far overstated military forces). Can those be stated in the lead ? And how ? The current article contains several cases of "surrendering without fights" areas, sources are available within the article. I gathered those sources as well :

The Guardian: “A big part of the problem [current debacle and town getting in Taliban control] is the fact that there is no kind of [central government] leadership that would give [central government-loyal] local warlords reasons for why they should resist the Taliban. So the more they see the Taliban victory is inevitable, the more the victory becomes inevitable, because they just cut their own deals with them.”

Washington Post / Stuff.co.nz "How Afghanistan's military collapsed: Illicit deals and mass desertions to the Taliban":

"The spectacular collapse of Afghanistan's military [...] began with a series of deals brokered in rural villages between the militant group and some of the Afghan government's lowest ranking officials. The deals [to local officiers], initially offered early last year, were often described by Afghan officials as cease-fires, but Taliban leaders were in fact offering money in exchange for government forces to hand over their weapons, according to an Afghan officer and US official. Over the next year and a half, the meetings advanced to the district level and then rapidly on to provincial capitals, culminating in a breathtaking series of negotiated surrenders by government forces, according to interviews with over a dozen Afghan officers, police, Special Operations troops and other soldiers.
During just the past week, more than a dozen provincial capitals have fallen to Taliban forces with little or no resistance. [...]
Some Afghan forces realised they would soon no longer be able to count on American air power and other crucial battlefield support and grew receptive to the Taliban's approaches.
"Some just wanted the money," [others] wanted to secure their place on the winning side,
[Taliban capitalized on] corrupt impulses of many Afghan officials and their tenuous loyalty to the country's central government."

There is more on elder mediated local deal, Special Force officer's deal and other in the article, you get the idea. Yug (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
On tribalism and decentralisation, the current article already contains :

"Many Afghans are more loyal towards their traditional ethnic, tribe and even family ties than are to the Afghan army, which the provincial Taliban commander used to negotiate surrender of many troops. Ali Yawar Adili, country director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, said that Afghan officials - including Ghani - never expected that US would be halting logistical and air support to the Afghan forces.[218]"

Introduction should reflect so. Yug (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Foxnews:

"The source said the rapid fall of provincial capitals had a "domino effect," with local leaders cutting deals with the advancing Taliban. Morale among Afghan security forces was said to be low since Biden announced plans for a permanent withdrawal last April." [Note: Foxnews is anti Biden administration and conveniently forgot the Trump admin-initiated Doha agreement]

NYTimes:

"The Taliban negotiated surrenders and seized roadways and weapons, handing them propaganda victories and freedom to move quickly to the next opportunity. The result was a lopsided fight between an adaptable and highly mobile insurgent juggernaut and a demoralized government force."

Jerusalem Post about Afghanistan gov being a patchwork of entities:

"The Afghan gov't overthrown by Taliban never existed - ex-soldier".

NYTimes:

"So why did the Afghan military collapse? The answer is threefold. First, former President Donald Trump’s February 2020 peace deal with the Taliban in Doha doomed us. It put an expiration date on American interest in the region. Second, we lost contractor logistics and maintenance support critical to our combat operations. Third, the corruption endemic in Mr. Ghani’s government that flowed to senior military leadership and long crippled our forces on the ground irreparably hobbled us."

Editing help requested: yes I already attempted to add it to the intro myself. The sourced statement got reverted, I'am exhausted, i cannot push alone and risk edit war. Need relay. All raw citations and sources are above. Can someone else push for a suitable wording in the lead ?] Yug (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. The statement is well sourced and belongs in the lead, helping to explain the rapid collapse of resistance and the strategy of the Taliban. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 13:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "US deserves big share of blame for Afghanistan military disaster". the Guardian. 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
 Done 2021 Taliban offensive's Introduction has been rewritten by User:Boud, following recommendations and call for review made above, in the recommended direction. Yug (talk) 🐲 19:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Why "final"?

 Done

The first sentence states: The 2021 Taliban offensive was the final major offensive by the Taliban and allied militant groups against the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its allies that began on 1 May 2021, coinciding with the withdrawal of most United States and allied troops from Afghanistan, resulting in the de facto takeover of the country and the reinstatement of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Why is the word "final" used? Who knows if it's the "final" time? Or do we mean "most recent"? Also, why the past tense "was"? Isn't this an ongoing / current event ... where the present tense "is" is more appropriate? Any insight? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove that words indeed Yug (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Real strength of the Afghan National Army

According to the Economist (which draws its source from the CNA think-tank), the Afghan Army's real troop strenght was around 96,000 soldiers, excluding police. [1] Perhaps this can be included in the article? 82.28.152.167 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See also Talk:2021_Taliban_offensive#Intro:_add_root_cause/explanation, still not properly processed as of now. Yug (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/08/21/from-saigon-to-kabul-what-americas-afghan-fiasco-means-for-the-world

Decisive victory

Note: User AfTaliban have been blocked due to its violation of Wikipedia's username guidelines. Yug (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It is definitely sad. But we must remain unbiased and label it as such. It is nothing short of decisive on their part. JasonMoore (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

JasonMoore, In that case, you should get this article renamed, "2021 Taliban takeover (or seizure) of Afghanistan"--AfTaliban (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't find the link to the discussion right now, but there's per MOS, there is an established consensus to not use qualifiers like "Decisive", "minor", "Pyrrhic", in the infobox precisely because it is so often a subjective assessment with no single clear correct answer after consulting RS. It was most recently challenged about a year ago in a discussion that ended without consensus, so we should still follow the guideline. Ergo, the infobox should just read "Taliban victory". signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I Roger (Jason) Moore's statement but without the words, "decisive", "pyrrhic" etc.--AfTaliban (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the appellation, WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX is pretty clear on this. BSMRD (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

Under the Taliban leaders and commanders it has Joe Biden listed. Please remove as this is obviously false information Mattchandler7734 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Joe Biden is listed under the commanders of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and United States. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 18:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Move to 2021 "summer offensive"?

So that it's in line with the 1975 spring offensive, this offensive was carried out through the summer. Additionally, many important media outlets both in the US and abroad have used the term "summer offensive" as shown below

--Weaveravel (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there another (major) offensive so we have to distinguish them appart ? Yug (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Please add this. Pakistan had a role in this according to the Washington Post

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Change X to Y - change the "no mention of Pakistan" to "Pakistan had a role in Taliban victory"
That doesn't really provide the information necessary to add it to the article. Nor is the prose acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
That source says, "Now, from former E.U. leaders to Afghans on social media, there are calls for tougher international action on Pakistan. “Without Pakistan’s intelligence and military establishment’s unstinting support for the Taliban, the group would be a nuisance rather than an effective fighting force,” wrote academic C. Christine Fair in Foreign Policy this week. “The United States has steadfastly refused to do the one thing it could have done long ago: targeted sanctions against those in Pakistan’s deep state who sponsor Islamist militants.”, so please paraphrase it and add it to the article.
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I've hardly edited Wikipedia articles. Let me try (I hope someone helps). Please change, The Taliban's rapid takeover[75][83] surprised many governments, including the United States,[84] United Kingdom,[85] Germany[86] and Russia.[87] to The Taliban's rapid takeover[75][83] surprised many governments, including the United States,[84] United Kingdom,[85] Germany[86] and Russia.[87]. It was possible because of unstinting help from Pakistan’s intelligence and military establishment. - this is the source (WaPo)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Change to what? Qwerfjkltalk 12:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Qwerfjkl and ScottishFinnishRadish I have explained that I want to add a sentence as I've put it above. Now please add it. I have typed it in English, not Latin or Greek! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5025:8F13:E1E5:5C7E:3E37:2E9C (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@Qwerfjkl: The user would like the It was possible... sentence added with the Washington Post reference. GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 15:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@Qwerfjkl, ScottishFinnishRadish, GoingBatty, Yug, and Melmann: so what is the consensus here? Are you people going to add that sentence? The Washington Post is a reliable source according to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:4d90:9497:4c15:4eb4:f36f:5685 (talk) 01:56, August 20, 2021 (UTC)
For starters, Washington Post article does not use words like these:
It was possible because of unstinting help from Pakistan’s intelligence and military establishment.
These are Christine Fair's words, not Washington Post. The article does not make any mention that suggest that the current takeover was possible because of Pakistan. Secondly, even Christine Fair only talks about Pakistan's overall support to the Taliban. She makes no mention of what the current role of Pakistan was during "this offensive". So adding such a sentence which is trying to imply that "the current taliban takeover was possible because of Pakistan" and not to mention in the lead paragraph, would be wrong especially when that is not the intention of the article itself. Wording is important, as such I don't think it should be added here. Instead it would be better to add it on other pages that talk about overall Pakistan's alleged support to the taliban in detail. AlphaTangoIndia (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information @AlphaTangoIndia: however, it is a known fact that Pakistan helped the Taliban, so I hope you can find reliable sources and add some similar sentence to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:4e18:92e9:8c46:eb0c:478d:f08b (talk) 23:48, August 20, 2021 (UTC)
I observed that you are a new editor, so you can make a semi-protected edit request like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:4e18:92e9:8c46:eb0c:478d:f08b (talk) 23:50, August 20, 2021 (UTC)
I am sure this can be used: Quoting only from that WaPo source, "The Taliban’s long-running insurgency and its rapid takeover of Afghanistan are inextricably linked to Pakistan. For the better part of half a century, Pakistan cultivated militant elements in Afghanistan as part of its own regional pursuit of “strategic depth.” The factions that coalesced into the Taliban maintained extensive logistical and tactical ties with Pakistani agencies, while many of their fighters came from a world of ethnic and tribal affiliations that spanned both sides of the rugged border." Please paraphrase and add it to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5305:3024:44eb:daa2:f7f4:c48 (talk) 01:33, August 22, 2021 (UTC)
IP users, please sign your messages with ~~~~ when sending messages so readers can easily see which messages are attributed to who. Now, because this is an ongoing discussion, it is not appropriate to set this request as not answered per the template: Remember to change the answered parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. Requesting that reviewers paraphrase and insert into the article is also not within the scope of edit requests (though this is currently under discussion elsewhere) - the burden is on the requester to explicitly declare exactly what they want inserted, and where. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@AlphaTangoIndia and Sirdog:, Please change the last sentence in the Lead from, "The Taliban's rapid takeover[75][83] surprised many governments, including the United States,[84] United Kingdom,[85] Germany[86] and Russia.[87] to The Taliban's rapid takeover[75][83] surprised many governments, including the United States,[84] United Kingdom,[85] Germany[86] and Russia.[87]. It was possible because of help from Pakistan." - this is the source (WaPo). If you don't add it, I will do so myself after 10 edits and 4 days (a neighbour who used to edit Wikipedia told me that it is allowed but he doesn't edit Wikipedia anymore).--AfTaliban (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I will not be doing so as I agree with AlphaTangoIndia's assessment of the addition and the source you have mentioned. I do not find it is a known fact that Pakistan helped the Taliban to be a sufficient argument for inclusion. While once you are autoconfirmed you may make the addition yourself understand that editors may revert you, and per WP:BURDEN, it will be the responsibility of the user wanting information added to argue it's inclusion. Continuing to re-add past that point without consensus may constitute edit warring. —Sirdog (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Sirdog, AlphaTangoIndia objected to the sentence by Christine Fair only, not the rest. In the part not attributed to her, the Washington Post which I am requesting you editors to use as a source, says, "The Taliban’s long-running insurgency and its rapid takeover of Afghanistan are inextricably linked to Pakistan. For the better part of half a century, Pakistan cultivated militant elements in Afghanistan as part of its own regional pursuit of “strategic depth.” The factions that coalesced into the Taliban maintained extensive logistical and tactical ties with Pakistani agencies, while many of their fighters came from a world of ethnic and tribal affiliations that spanned both sides of the rugged border." I am not here to argue with you. I am sure you can find a way to paraphrase and add what the Washington Post says without breaking the rules of Wikipedia (or let me know how to do it and I will do it after 4 days)!--AfTaliban (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, you're an admin, so can you comment on this thread also (the WaPo does say that)?--AfTaliban (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
AfTaliban, sorry, I had enough time to respond to a short argument below, but I don't have time to do this discussion justice. (Also see this essay, as your comment suggests a slightly mistaken idea of the role administrators play on Wikipedia signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
AfTaliban, I honestly can't find anything in the Washington Post article that supports the idea that "Pakistan had a role in this current offensive". Even the para that you are highlighting from the Washington Post article use words like "linked" or it talks about overall support to the Taliban. The para makes no mention of "what Pakistan's role was in this current offensive". Please try to understand that wording matters. Taliban's link with other countries has already been explained in great detail on Taliban page.

Besides I don't get why you want to add this here. I mean if you just visit the Taliban page, you can clearly see which countries are supporting the militant group. Since this seems like a contentious edit, how about waiting for more sources to come out that go more into detail? I mean there is still lot of information coming out and the page keeps on getting updated with it. Surely there would be more reliable sources that explain in detail what each country did during this current offensive. AlphaTangoIndia (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
AlphaTangoIndia, the Washington Post Is a reliable source and I am requesting you editors to use it as a source, which says, "The Taliban’s long-running insurgency and its rapid takeover of Afghanistan are inextricably linked to Pakistan. For the better part of half a century, Pakistan cultivated militant elements in Afghanistan as part of its own regional pursuit of “strategic depth.” The factions that coalesced into the Taliban maintained extensive logistical and tactical ties with Pakistani agencies, while many of their fighters came from a world of ethnic and tribal affiliations that spanned both sides of the rugged border." I am not here to argue with you. I am sure you can find a way to paraphrase and add what the Washington Post says without breaking the rules of Wikipedia (or let me know how to do it and I will do it after 4 days)!--AfTaliban (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can paraphrase and use what the Washington Post says, "rapid takeover of Afghanistan are inextricably linked to Pakistan"--AfTaliban (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Elemimele, Bilorv, these are Google search results which show that Pak helped them and these are Google search results which show that Pak helped them so as to get help in capturing Kashmir from India. Now is it a must to find a statement where Pak denies their involvement to add those here (because I could not find any reliable sources for the same)? Is it also necessary to type, "the New York Times" says this and the, "Washington Post" says that instead of using Wikipedia's voice?--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Reversions

Viewsridge, you have reverted my edits although I added them after getting advice from others, especially Elemimele, so please add it back.--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, I understand that there are dispute resolution methods available to editors, so please let me know what to do if Viewsridge is stubborn against what I am adding (I'm an editor at WikiIslam and I know about dispute resolution)?--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Your edit regards a highly controversial topic. It includes potentially partisan references that shouldn't be used in India-Pakistan disputes, and despite your edit summary there is no such consensus to add this material to the lede. The sections from The NY Times can be added to the article but probably not in the lede. Viewsridge (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add whatever of those 3 edits wherever you deem fit. The rest I will do after getting advice at the, "Tea House".--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This isn't my area of politics, so I can't really comment on the facts. In the Teahouse, I suggested a way to avoid conflict within Wikipedia, which I'd really recommend. If a normally-reliable (but in this case possibly biased) source has said something contentious that an editor wishes to include, but whose factual truth other editors doubt, one option is to include it in the form "According to the Washington Post...", or "The Washington Post has reported that...". In so doing, we (Wikipedia) give both sides of the story in a balanced way, but we do not endorse the truth of what the Washington Post (or similar source) actually says. We merely pass it on as what they said. It is up to our readers to decide what, on balance, they believe. And they can read our references if they want to know more. After all, if a major source that people read with trust reports something that isn't true, that's also noteworthy. In reporting it, we're giving a better picture of the overall situation, including who's saying what. But I'm staying out of the politics because I don't know enough about what is a very complicated situation.
As for dispute resolution, there's not much I can recommend. Normally when two editors disagree, a request for comment (RfC) is a reasonable option. But there's not much point in bringing more people in, if you're in a high-profile subject where probably lots of people are already reading. I'd urge you to try to sort out a reasonable piece of text here, rather than turn to things like the administrator's noticeboard, because (a) things turn into melodrama very quickly over there, and (b) they'll probably just say it's a content dispute and throw it back (unless someone starts to behave badly and edit-war). After a bold edit and a reversion, the correct next step is to discuss and potentially compromise, which often takes a bit of time, and a lot of flexibility! Elemimele (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Viewsridge, I hope you read what Elemimele typed above. He believes that it is fine to say, "According to the Washington Post...", so please add all those 3 sentences wherever you deem fit (all 3 sentences began with, "According")--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
AlphaTangoIndia, Yug, please comment. There are lots of sources now available for this information!--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Baamiyaan2: Please calm down. Users may not be available to respond to your questions within minutes and disputes may take a few days to be resolved. What I was referring by "potentially partisan reference" was not WaPo it's The Hindustan Times. There is also no need for you to emphasize other editors names as if they are superiors. Note that personal attacks such as "stubborn" are very unwelcome here. Viewsridge (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Viewsridge: I am not angry to, "calm down". I don't think, "stubborn" is an attack but if Wikipedia says so, I am sorry and apologize for the same (and please provide me a link to prove that Wikipedia considers the word as an "attack"). Now please add those 3 sentences wherever you deem fit. I checked and found that the Hindustan Times is considered a Reliable Source at Wikipedia.--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
These are Google search results which show that Pak helped them and these are Google search results which show that Pak helped them so as to get help in capturing Kashmir from India.--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm unsure and inclined to oppose including these. According to the NY Times "tribal leaders have said the Pakistani military waved a surge of new fighters across the border from sanctuaries inside Pakistan". This is a very bold statement that is very ambiguous and not backed by much evidence. WaPo boldly states that "The Taliban’s long-running insurgency and its rapid takeover of Afghanistan are inextricably linked to Pakistan." without adding more or building on that statement. I would like to get more users insight on these. In the meantime you can look for more references on the issue that would support the topic. Viewsridge (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Viewsridge: I have provided the Google search results above - there are so many reliable sources, so please add the 3 sentences back. Once the above sentences are added, I plan to add, "The agencies have come across JeM-linked social media posts about the outfit chief, Masood Azhar, exhorting the cadres to prepare for attacks in Jammu and Kashmir following the Afghanistan victory. “At the institutions controlled by the terror outfit, sermons given to the followers last week revolved around the same theme,” said a security agency official.
“Senior functionaries of the JeM and the Taliban have already held meetings. The JeM has been assured of all the support in carrying out its activities targeting India. The developments in Afghanistan will also embolden Pakistani forces, which facilitate infiltration of terrorists,” the official stated", using this as a source. Any objection?--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as I've said before Indian and Pakistani references should be avoided in their disputes. Viewsridge (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Viewsridge: Indian and Pakistani references can be used if they meet WP:RS--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Baamiyaan2: A link to a Google search is not a substitute for a reliable source. As you may or may not be aware, different people can get very different results from the exact same Google Search (see also WP:GOOGLE). Could you please state which exact sentences you want to add, and which specific sources you suggest? --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea, I want my edits here restored in a way that Wikipedia allows. Can you please do that?--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

 Done

The current lead is a raw description of events (= what happened: Taliban advanced and army collapsed), with no how (military pressure and chain negotiated surrenders) nor why (Afghanistan a multi-ethnic decentralized country split by topography, US-Taliban Doha agreement a military betrayal, corrupt political class and officers seizing soldiers salaries, ghost soldiers, low moral army, local deal with Talibans = collapse of the military).

The current lead is not enough and is inadequate. I did tried to expand in this direction using source but got reverted. Can someone help, we need to be at least 2 editors to move toward a deeper, more comprehensive lead. I collected sources in Talk:2021_Taliban_offensive#Intro:_add_root_cause/explanation, we just need to be two editors. Can some of you jump in an help ? cc: user:Boud Yug (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to these changes Yug, I reverted one of your edits because I found it incorrectly cited. You can add the said material to the lede. If you're wondering my opinion I think the lede should include that Afghan Gov's collapse was highly anticipated but its speed and shape (surrenders) were a major surprise. Viewsridge (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Yug don’t forget that lead follows body. There may be sections and citations in the body that you can use to briefly outline these main points in the lead. And if these points aren’t covered adequately in the body, it is always better to expand the body first (with new sections, if necessary), then outline these points in the lead. — HTGS (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Yug, Viewsridge, and HTGS:  Done Yug - I fully empathise with your desire to put critical points in the lead, but I think HTGS is right. Feel free to make further improvements on this version, in which I aimed to include the old material in the body of the article, reorganising it more thematically, adding four sources pointed to by Yug, plus another on the role of online social media, and putting a second-level header summary and updating the lead. Boud (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Boud, I reviewed your revamp and additions and it's impressive. If i understand well you read a bunch of the sources I collected and added them properly to this article. The article got a fairly better explanation of deep causes, and it's better organized. Thank a lot. Yug (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Boud, Yug, please add this edit also to the lead, just after the second last sentence of the lead, which reads, "The final acceleration of the Taliban's takeover[77][92] surprised many governments, including those of the United States,[93] the United Kingdom,[94] Germany,[95] and Russia"--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It should appears in another form, let see what we can think of. Yug (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Surachit (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 Taliban offensive → 2021 summer offensive – So that it's in line with the 1975 spring offensive, this offensive was carried out through the summer. Additionally, many important media outlets both in the US and abroad have used the term "summer offensive" as shown below

  • Support Syed Aashir (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Removes specificity, is fine as is Eggventura (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Google search of 2021 summer offensive gives no results in relation to Afghanistan or Taliban but shows NFL seasons where as the current name only gives results regarding Afghanistan. Viewsridge (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "summer offensive" is a very vague title and doesn't make it clear as to what it relates to. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as already said above, much too vague and not widespread enough to constitute a common name. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 10:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's very vague and, as already said by Viewsridge, it isn't a WP:COMMONNAME, and it isn't necessary to distinguish from any Autumn or Winter offensives (yet). Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not sure how this is an improvement. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, there's no need to make this align to 1975 spring offensive. — Czello 15:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Don't see the point with comparing this with 1975 offsensive. 124.197.85.76 (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose some reference to "Taliban" or "Afghanistan" is necessary for minimizing surprise; I am also fairly certain the common name includes at least one of those descriptors. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose--NØ 19:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Really doesn't seem to be an improvement. Makes the article title less specific, and harder to find. The current title works and does the job. Even if the Taliban launch a new "offensive" in 2021, the Panjshir conflict page will likely be where the new info needs to go. RopeTricks (talk) 20:04, 3 September 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.

Panjshir

Why exactly do we separate the Panjshir takeover from the rest of the takeover of the country? Seem like an arbitrary distinction. --Aréat (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Because every academic source and news outlet makes a distinction between the offensive up to the fall of Kabul, and the following resistance / insurgency by pro-republican groups. Applodion (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Help

An IP removed these sentences attributed to the Washington Post and NYT from the lead although it is in the body. Please explain why it cannot be in the lead. If it can be, please add it back.--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Baamiyaan2: I was about to agree with you and revert that edit... however on second thoughts, and looking at WP:MOSLEAD, it says 'The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.', so I would imagine what the IP was getting at was that newspaper quotes shouldn't really be in the lead. I'm going to leave the Help tag active for a second opinion, but I agree with the IP here - RichT|C|E-Mail 16:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I came here because of the help tag. In my opinion, this is a controversial topic and one which requires editors to be on their best behaviour. The help service isn't here to resolve these kinds of disputes. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

To do (long term)

This section is an overall review to improve this article toward higher class level. Feel free to directly edit this review.
  • Background section du develop:
    • Usually refers to both deep and immediate factors.
    • Topography and ethnology should be expanded.
    • Most items in analysis, which were known before the offensive, should be at least cited once.
    • Recent events (Doha, etc)
  • Analysis:
    • Contractors and US outsourcing war management to contractors have been cited as cause for corruption & careless spendings with contracting firms in both Iraq and Afghanistan looking for profits, not actual results. This issue should be researched and a sub-section created.

-- Reviewer1 14:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Please prune either one of the duplicate occurrences of this passage in the third paragraph of section § International and local reactions:

Pakistan's National Security Committee (NSC) reiterated that Pakistan wants an inclusive form of political settlement in Afghanistan which represents all Afghan ethnic groups. The committee also reaffirmed that Pakistan would continue to work with the international community and all Afghan stakeholders to facilitate an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan.

- 2A02:560:42A1:700:E0F4:4F0A:32FA:E8BB (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, DigitalChutney (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

In the potential threats sub-section, under the, "predictions" section, please add that Pakistan also faces an increased chance of religious extremism following this offensive using this as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.114.72 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I don't think that this should be added as proposed ("Pakistan also faces an increased chance of religious extremism"). This is an opinion, and should not be stated as a fact. Could you reword this? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021

This edit wrongly removed content which had references cited for each sentence, so please add it back (please check all the matter in red). The New York Times, Washington Post, The Indian Express etc. are reliable sources. 116.72.147.110 (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The diff you have linked performed a lot of modifications to the article. Could you perhaps quote exactly what content was removed and why you wish for it to be restored? It may also be worth contacting the relevant user pinging them, or going to their talk page.
Also, I've restored your signature - please do not remove it, as we need to know who is making comments for identification purposes. If you are removing it for privacy reasons, I'm afraid your IP address is permanently stored in the page's history, and so has already been publicized. —Sirdog (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
AlphaTangoIndia, I believe it was you who removed those sentences, so please read them again and add them back, especially the ones that cite NYT, Washington Post and Indian Express as references.-116.75.95.21 (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
AlphaTangoIndia, is not responding, probably because he/she is prejudiced, so someone else, please restore the same. These are the sentences I want to be re-inserted - The Washington Post claimed that the Taliban seizure was "inextricably linked to Pakistan".[1] According to the New York Times, "Afghan tribal leaders said that the Pakistani military waved a surge of new fighters across the border from sanctuaries inside Pakistan".[2] According to the Arab News, the United States claimed that Iran supported the Taliban's sudden rise to power by providing them with training in military doctrine and use of specialist equipment. and in another paragraph - Pakistan Intelligence Agency's (ISI) chief Faiz Hameed visited Kabul and met with Taliban leadership as well as other Afghan leaders including former prime minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The meeting was seen as an unconventional means of contact between the two countries in the absence of a government in Afghanistan.[3] The visit was purportedly to get berths for the Haqqanis in the new Government, demonstrating their, "clout" over the Taliban.[4] According to the Carnegie Endowment Center, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate shares an undeniable link with the Taliban, especially the Haqqani group.[5]
This, this and this can be used as additional citations for the second last sentence.
This source says, "However, the ISI is orchestrating power play in Kabul through the Haqqanis." and can be used after the last sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.173.90 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It can all be restored to the Background section itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.173.90 (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It is also possible they aren't responding because they are busy and/or, more likely, because it is the week of Christmas. There is no rush. I would request for you to not cast aspersions regarding the intent of editors, IP. I'm inclined to wait until at least after the 27th to take any action on this request, personally, both to see if they respond within that period and also to get the input of any other experienced editors reviewing this discussion. As we are waiting for input, I am setting the template as answered to close out the queue, but I shall add this page on my watchlist. —Sirdog (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to refactor my previous statement. The IP is requesting that source contented be restored. Upon review of the edit that caused it's reversion I agree that the content the IP is referring to specifically was indeed removed outside of the reasoning of the edit summary. Now, a good reason may very well exist, but until it's provided I'd say the content should return. Then if such reason exists it can be discussed here. However, the restoration of sourced content should not be stalled pending an explanation. Especially when the IP has gone out of their way to find even more sources. Thus, I shall be performing this request. My apologies to the IP user for my quick judgment and subsequent response.  Doing... —Sirdog (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done I have not added the sources provided nor added the additional sentence but strictly restored the content as it was prior. I'll let another editor more invested/knowledgable in this subject area evaluate the sources and sentence to determine merit for inclusion. —Sirdog (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Pakistan's hand in the Taliban's victory". Washington Post. Washington, D.C. 18 August 2021. Retrieved 27 August 2021.
  2. ^ "The Real Winner of the Afghan War? It's Not Who You Think". The New York Times. New York. 26 August 2021. Retrieved 27 August 2021.
  3. ^ Reporter, The Newspaper's Staff (2021-09-06). "ISI chief's visit to Kabul: Fawad sees 'unconventional contacts' imperative". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 2021-09-15.
  4. ^ "As Taliban factions bicker, ISI chief in Kabul to find berths for Haqqanis". Indian Express. Kabul. 5 September 2021. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
  5. ^ "Dealing With the Taliban - India's Strategy in Afghanistan | After U.S. Withdrawal" (PDF). Carnegie Endowment. India. June 2020. Retrieved 17 September 2021.
Thanks Sirdog and Merry Christmas!-2405:204:54A3:8DB6:46BD:8FE5:F0AB:231C (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox - occupied localities

For localities (province, city, village etc.) in Syria that are not under government control, the infobox lists the organised group that is occupying that locality. Does anybody have any objection to applying this rule to localities in Afghanistan that are currently occupied by the Taliban? ElderZamzam (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

In the, "International and local reactions" section, please add a link to this sentence, "According to the Carnegie Endowment Center, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate shares an undeniable link with the Taliban, especially the Haqqani group" like this: Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate shares an undeniable link with the Taliban, especially the Haqqani group.-115.96.182.221 (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I have done it here in another article already.-115.96.182.221 (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 Already done It's there since this edit --Hemanthah (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hemanthah, I am asking to add a link to the above text, not to add the sentences that Sirdog added already. I have done it here in another article already (please click on the link and read/see what I did there). I am requesting that someone do the same in this article.-27.7.4.167 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: It's a quote and WP:LINKSTYLE advises caution. ISI is already linked to earlier in the paragraph and additional link seems overkill. I see your change itself as going against both WP:LINKSTYLE and WP:OVERLINK. --Hemanthah (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2021

In the, "International and local reactions" section, in the 3rd paragraph, please change the name, "Gulbadin Hekmatyar" to, "Gulbuddin Hekmatyar" as the Wikipedia article on him is also named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.-27.7.4.167 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Hemanthah (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2022

Please add a sentence, preferably to the lead that Pakistan helped the Taliban to seize control of Afghanistan. This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and many more sources say that Pakistan supported the Taliban to do so. — 2409:4071:4E05:82A0:C6B3:A855:A44D:496D (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Listed in the infobox as support, The Washington Post claimed that the Taliban seizure was "inextricably linked to Pakistan".[310] According to the New York Times, "Afghan tribal leaders said that the Pakistani military waved a surge of new fighters across the border from sanctuaries inside Pakistan".[311] According to the Arab News, the United States claimed that Iran supported the Taliban's sudden rise to power by providing them with training in military doctrine and use of specialist equipment.[312] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish, then please add those sentences to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) article also. Thanks-2409:4071:4E04:5316:DE4A:4C05:48E8:D611 (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, Yug, Hemantha, it has been almost a week and ScottishFinnishRadish has not bothered to use any of the sources cited right at the beginning of this edit request, so, please add that Pakistan helped the Taliban seize control of Afghanistan to the lead of this article (using those sources) and also to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) article. Thanks-2409:4071:E87:8D87:65D5:FF08:A053:B17A (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
No, I agree with the reasoning provided in the previous request closure. One source for that sentence is more than enough. hemantha (brief) 16:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Hemantha, can you at least add that Pakistan helped the Taliban seize control of Afghanistan to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) article (using those sources mentioned at the beginning of this edit request or whatever has been used in this article) ?-2409:4071:E87:8D87:E2D1:ED35:5949:874E (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Stop pinging me. A much better way would be for you to either create an account or wait till Feb 24 when it'll be unprotected. hemantha (brief) 16:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
While Pakistani siding with Afghan is clear within the infobox and the article itself, with a dedicated section, it is not explicit in the lead. Pakistani involvement has deep significance on the why an how of this offensive and outcome. I don't have source for that, but it's obvious that Pakistan —a regional power— cannot feel comfortable with the world hegemonic war power in possession of Pakistan's neighbor country, which be military gravity would otherwise fall into Pakistan's sphere of influence.
@2409, while you are right in your intent, Wikipedia stays an artisanal place handcrafted by volunteers. This article is based on Western sources and contributors, with a corresponding excessive focus on American point of view and limited understanding on the real forces at play. We also need an editor with altogether sources, motivation, one or two hours and wiki experience in order to touch to such introduction without risking to open a new endless debate. The group of editors which had been passionate about improving this article have either moved on or is taking a rest away from such intense and dark event. These users don't meet the required conditions for a clean edit anymore. In such configuration, Wikipedia article improvement goes slow, yes.
As an anonymous IP, you did the best you can do on such high stake article : raise up that issue on the talk page.
Some editor sooner or later will review your comment, agree with it (as I do), and find an elegant way to add it to the lead.
As per the message above, I encourage you to create an account so we can keep a conversation with you, mentoring and support when needed. With the knownledge of the sources you have, you may want to improve the Pakistani involvement section on the long run. Give yourself time. Also, thank for your dedication to put light to this issue and Pakistan's responsibility. Yug (talk) 🐲 14:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Taliban_offensive/Archive_1&oldid=1199712331"