Talk:Pakistani Taliban
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pakistani Taliban article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | Pakistani Taliban received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | On 6 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan to Pakistani Taliban. The result of the discussion was moved. |
| On 11 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2025
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TTP leader fate is unknown. Pakistan claims that they assasinated him, where as few audio of his voice has been released claiming that he is safe. So it is not correct to mention that he has been assasinated. Rather a disputed text should be there Tech wikiboy (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Not done: Assuming you are referring to Noor Wali Mehsud, the infobox currently does not list him as having been killed. Day Creature (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2025
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Its written that its officially known as "fitna al khawrij", but this is not true. Fitna khawarij is a historic term. It's not an alias for pakistani taliban. Pakistan taliban is known as TTP or tehrik taliban Pakistan. Please correct Cosmickadet (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. While the group calls itself Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Fitna Al Khwarij is the name used for it by the Pakistani government. The lead paragraph mentions both names. Day Creature (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Re-addition of "allies" section
editHello @Gotitbro. You removed the entire "Allies section" of the infobox. The discussion you linked here in your edit summary to only mentions alleged "state sponsors" of the Pakistani Taliban, not non-state ones and yet you removed both state and non-state allies.
I agree that the re-addition of alleged state sponsors of the Pakistani Taliban should require a consensus to be re-added, but you removed non-state ones without taking a consensus first. KashanAbbas (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- Also, @Gotitbro, from what I read in the discussion you gave, the majority consensus was opposition to only the addition of India.
- 3 editors opposed India's inclusion entirely and had made few (if any) comments about Afghanistan
- 1 editor said to keep it limited to Afghanistan
- 1 editor wanted both (with alleged/denied in brackets)
- This makes the ratio of the removal of India to inclusion 4 to 1 (80%) with the one wanting to keep it to just "alleged, denied", but for Afghanistan it was 3 agreeing to keep it and 2 with no comment/no support for removal.
- From that, I find it difficult to understand why you removed Afghanistan. KashanAbbas (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- @KashanAbbas: The WP:RfC resulted in the consensus to remove alleged "state allies". You can restore the non-state actors if you want, I removed the parameter as a whole as it was being repeatedly targeted by socks and LTAs. The consensus includes Afghanistan and the RfC result was implemented as such (the failed RfC was initiated by a sock who wanted to include states in the param). And always be sure that WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE count. Gotitbro (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- So what I'm getting is:
- I can add non-state actors
- I need a consensus to add Afghanistan
- I can't add India (at least without a proper WP:CONSENSUS among editors as well as with a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE)
- Is this correct? I'm I getting this right? KashanAbbas (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro KashanAbbas (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretty much. You would need a clear consensus (e.g. another RfC) to proceed with anything to do with state actors here. Gotitbro (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro I think that (maybe later) I'll do one to get Afghanistan re-added. As for India, it can stay out of the infobox. KashanAbbas (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Pretty much. You would need a clear consensus (e.g. another RfC) to proceed with anything to do with state actors here. Gotitbro (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- So what I'm getting is:
- @KashanAbbas: The WP:RfC resulted in the consensus to remove alleged "state allies". You can restore the non-state actors if you want, I removed the parameter as a whole as it was being repeatedly targeted by socks and LTAs. The consensus includes Afghanistan and the RfC result was implemented as such (the failed RfC was initiated by a sock who wanted to include states in the param). And always be sure that WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE count. Gotitbro (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Subgroups
editAccording to this source, the TTP actually have unto 62 subgroups. ~2026-12054-82 (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Al Qaeda connection
editSome additional source regarding the al Qaeda connection which claims the TTP’s charter had been shaped and honed by Al Qaeda.
The TTP’s charter had been shaped and honed by Al Qaeda, which regarded it as an affiliate. Both Osama’s general manager, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, and Abu Yahya al-Libi, who now served as a religious adviser to Al Qaeda Central, had sent detailed suggestions on how the new movement should be run, pointing out flaws in its governing documents and making requests for more information so that new wording could be added. The TTP should “trust the rule of the Amir of the Believers Mullah Muhammad Omar Mujahid, and consider him as their emir.”[1]
See also: Osama Bin Laden’s Files: Al Qaeda provided feedback on Pakistani Taliban’s charter[2] --Jo1971 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Scott-Clark, Cathy; Levy, Adrian (2020). The Exile: The Stunning Inside Story of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Flight. Bloomsbury. pp. 298–299. ISBN 978-1-63557-601-6.
- ↑ Roggio, Bill (11 March 2016). "Osama Bin Laden's Files: Al Qaeda provided feedback on Pakistani Taliban's charter". FDD's Long War Journal. Retrieved 12 April 2026.