Jump to content

Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Propose merger

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I totally did not see this. But I completely oppose there being two separate articles. The conflict is ongoing, just as the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the transition to Operation New Dawn did not end the Iraq War, the end of NATO operations under ISAF did not end this war either. Therefore, the article War in Afghanistan (2015–present) should be merged into War in Afghanistan (2001–14), and the article return to its previous namespace of War in Afghanistan (2001–present).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose - Currently military operations (and all official US operations) ceased on December 28, 2014. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is considered to be part of a new conflict, with NATO forces aided Afghan forces only when needed. The recent change in this article's title also seems to indicate this. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a new conflict, non-Afghanistan forces are still fighting. It's like saying the Second Indochina War ended when the U.S. stopped being a direct ground combatant in August 1972. Instead it is recognized that the conflict continued until 1975, with the fall of Saigon and the end of the Republic of Vietnam.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I objected there, but my opinion was ignored. Instead someone boldly created a new article, which lead to the move request. There was no consensus to start a new article, just a group of editors who boldly took it upon themselves to create a new article. I understand the reasoning behind both, but did not support the reasoning. There are multiple reliable sources that question the "end of war" claim: NYT, NYT editorial, Slate, WSJ, RS, The Guardian editorial, Stars and Stripes. To say that the war is over is imposing a Obama Administration POV, as stated in the NYT:

But as the Obama administration is seeking to declare the long war in Afghanistan officially over, at least from an American standpoint,...

— Rosenberg, 29 January 2015
And as stated in the Tampa Bay Times:

Experts told us that it's important to remember that just because America's combat mission will end in Afghanistan doesn't mean that the conflict is over.

— politifact, 29 December 2014
See WP:WIP, just because I was ignored or not as active, doesn't mean that the discussion actually ended.
As for the idea of merging all the articles into the 1978-present article, I would argue that most reliable sources, while seeing a connection to the larger conflict, see a difference between the Soviet Afghanistan War, the Afghanistan Civil War (separated into two parts? pre-96, pre-October 2001) and the current conflict involving the United States lead NATO conflict in Afghanistan (the subject of this and the other article in question).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
That's actually the point. Its no longer the the United States lead NATO conflict in Afghanistan, now its the Afghan security forces lead. Nobody is saying the conflict has ended. Everyone agrees that the overall 1978-present Afghan civil war continues. But also most agree that this specific PHASE of the war has ended. And nobody ignored you, a majority consensus was simply established. EkoGraf (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If you listen to General Allen's speech via Youtube at the transfer ceremony from ISAF to Op Resolute Support, he literally says 'the war continues... [but the Afghan forces are stronger now]'. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
He was actually referring to the continuation of the long-running Afghan civil war that started in 1978. While the US president himself has says that the NATO-led phase of the conflict, with which this article deals with, has ended. EkoGraf (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you kindly clarify your source on this? I listened to the video and watched him speak, and what he said was 'the war continues..'; as far as I could tell, he did not specify either/or. You miss the point entirely: the war continues; Obama doesn't have the power to stop it, merely to change the amount of U.S. troops involved, who will still be fighting. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Listen, the problem here is you regard the War in Afghanistan that started in 2001 as a standalone war, but its not. Before the 2001-2014 war, you had the 1996-2001 war, before that the 1992-1996 war, before that the 1989-1992 war, and before that the 1979-1989 Soviet war. They are all called wars but in actuality they are simply phases of the one singular overall war, the Afghan civil war that has raged since 1978. They were simply continuations of one another. And this specific phase has ended. Even our lead sentence says The War in Afghanistan refers to the intervention by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and allied forces in the Afghan Civil War. That intervention ended when NATO stopped being the one leading the fight and gave the helm to the Afghans. With that this specific phase of the Afghan civil war ended and a new one began. We have another precedent like this with the Somali Civil War that has lasted since 1991 but it had different phases, with two of them that we call the War in Somalia 2006-2009 and the War in Somalia 2009-present. Check it out if you don't believe me. Nobody is saying the war has ended, it has simply moved on to a new phase. You have to understand that the 2001-14 war was simply a phase like the four before it and the new one that has started. P.S. Calling another editors arguments ridiculous isn't really in line with WP: Civil and WP: Good faith, but doesn't matter really. And the Obama source [2]. EkoGraf (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was uncalled for. My apologies. The reason I got a little annoyed was that you appear to be putting words in General Allen's mouth that he simply did not say. I'm interested you appear to know what my view on the matter is. No, of course the war effectively started in 1978. Under the Taliban there was some relative peace, but I'm not going to argue at our characterisations that say that the war did not pause during the 1990s. It's a reasonable argument. As regards Somalia you may be interested to look at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Middayexpress; I am relatively familiar with the situation there. Now, we don't break the Soviet war in Afghanistan down by different bits of unit withdrawals. There are going to be a significant number of U.S. Special Operations Forces clambering all over Afghanistan for the next year - involving many 'wedding party associated' risks - , and the statement that 'NATO gave the helm to the Afghans' misrepresents the very complex dynamics in Kabul. It would be more correct to say that the United States began reducing its involvement, and a large number of its allies finished theirs. When the last U.S. combat operative leaves the country (which may or may not take place in 2016), a definite new phase will begin. But not on December 28, 2014. I hope this clarifies why I disagree with you. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine, disagree, but like I said, this article/phase deals with the NATO intervention and with them taking the lead in the fighting against the Taliban and AQ. Their intervention and lead ended when they ended their combat operations, let the Afghans take the lead, 90-95% of NATO left and the small remaining NATO force taking the back seat on the conflict in a declared NON-COMBAT role. In any case, I think we can agree to disagree. :) EkoGraf (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No it does not. This phase deals with when the United States started fighting. NATO didn't take over ISAF until August 2003, and from 'nearly two years,' as it says in our article, ISAF was trying to be a peacekeeping force only in Kabul. ISAF was only formed in December 2001, as a British stabilisation force for Kabul. This has been a war caused by an attack against the United States, they have dominated the politics of the war, enlisted key allies to help them out, and they haven't left yet. I find your arguments about 'NATO' frankly very strange - since to make the facts consistent with your para above, we'd have to completely ignore Op Enduring Freedom from Oct 2001-Aug 2003!! Would you try to argue for 'War in Afghanistan (2001-03)' and 'War in Afghanistan (2003-14)'? Seems very strange. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Buckshot06 If you feel that this article is not about the NATO intervention than you should start a discussion on changing the lead paragraph of the article as well as the first sentence. But you should know, it wasn't just the United States who started the invasion. The United Kingdom, Australia and Canada also participated in the invasion from day 1. And btw, NATO invoked Charter 5 just 2 days before the war started. But like I said, doesn't matter, we see how the discussion develops with the others, but still the merge request is premature per WP policy. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, as Anotherclown says below, the decision may have premature and ill-based. That's why we have WP:IAR. Of course Australia, UK, etc got involved very quickly. But your mention of Australia makes crystal clear that this wasn't NATO. Article V involvement by NATO was limited to Operation Eagle Assist from Oct. 9, 2001 to May 16, 2002, and this was AWACS aircraft flying in U.S. airspace. I will say again: NATO as an alliance did not get involved in Afghanistan before August 2003. I have made an initial stab at rewriting the first sentence, comments/changes welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merger per proposal. Obviously an arbitrary hand over date from one mission to the next doesn't suddenly mean its a different conflict. The reality on the ground remains the same. Anotherclown (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing its a different conflict. To the contrary. Everyone agrees that its still all part of the same war. The 1978-present Afghan civil war. Majority consensus was simply established that the specific NATO-led phase of the war, with which this article deals with, has ended. EkoGraf (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. First, because over a dozen editors has just agreed this phase of the war (2001-14) has ended and that a new has begun (2015-present) based on reliable sources. All arguments are above. Second, ask any Wikipedia administrator and he will tell you that its Wikipedia policy that any new requests for a name change of an article or a revert to its old name only within a day after a consensus was reached is viewed as a bit disruptive and is generally disregarded. Proper Wikipedia procedure is to wait for at least a month or two before requesting a new rename discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please look at the proposed move above, it wasn't agreed as the above editor claims. Many of the support reasoning is because a new article was created (boldly I might add) with the name War in Afghanistan (2015–present), that this article should follow with it having an end date. The subject of both articles remain the same, the War in Afghanistan with NATO lead involvement; it just so happens that ISAF was replaced/reflagged as RS, as stated eloquently above by Buckshot06. And regarding this appeal to authority? I don't see a policy stating that this proposal is "disruptive and is generally disregarded". If there is one please provide a link to it.
The three articles would be like as follows if it was regarding World War II (using the logic that lead to the renaming of this article); there would be one article that is World War II (1939-1941), a second article following the entry of the United States named World War II (1941-1945) lasting until the surrender of the Empire of Japan, and a third article named World War II (1945-1947) due to the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 finally completing the war (which completely ignores the Treaty of San Francisco in favor for the U.S. presidential proclamation date of 1947).
See how that doesn't make sense. See how others oppose the bold creation of the second article, and the renaming that followed. I understand the reasoning that lead to the bold creation of the article being proposed to be merged to this article, but I didn't and don't agree with that reasoning.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast If you think it doesn't make sense than by your logic like Coltsfan said we should simply merge all of the previous articles into the 1978-present war. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Look, I get it. I too was tricked by the present American administration that an operation was ended, at one point. Operations were said to have ended in June 2014 in the Philippines, so edits were made to reflect this alleged end. Until I read further, that operations hadn't actually ended, just renamed; so U.S. involvement regarding the Philippines' insurgency(s) continues, and I had to change course myself, and edit accordingly. We're all fallible, we're all human.
The conflict is ongoing, NATO, lead by the United States, remains involved (including in combat), and life goes on. At some point in the future the conflict will end, and it will be an appropriate time to put a bookend to this subject. It just hasn't ended at the end of 2014. Sure, there is a new phase, but like with Operation New Dawn in Iraq, Operation Resolute Support doesn't mean it's a new conflict.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
EkoGraf wrote - "...because over a dozen editors has just agreed this phase of the war (2001-14) has ended..." Far be it for me to argue with such distinguished historians as 12 random people on the internet but how could we possibly fully know and understand the significance of such complex events so soon after they have occurred? Unfortunately we are now in the dangerous world of journalism where the unqualified Wikipedia editor doesn't just write about history based on how it has been covered in reliable sources, but instead reports on events as they occur without any understanding of them or their long-term effects. The current military situation in Afghanistan is a direct result of the events of 2001 and whilst the key players have reduced their forces and are focusing on different lines of operation, the war is clearly still ongoing. Yet having separate articles implies to our readers that this is a different conflict. Anyway I've no interest in continuing this argument so I'll just consign this to the long list of reasons why Wikipedia really was a bad idea. Will console myself by cracking open another can whilst I despair for humanity and commonsense (might be time to spend another afternoon reading Wikipediocracy I think...). I've no doubt you all have the best of motives and are trying to improve our coverage of the conflict but I don't think this is being done the right way at all. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with statement above by Anotherclown. That being said, I am no willing to walk away on this one, the arguments that lead to the bold creation, IMHO are weak, and deserve honest review.
What do the sources say? From what I have read, they do recognize a change in mission, but so do they recognize that the war is not over, as was originally edited, prior to some changes.
The arguments that this is a continuation of the 1978 war are understandable, however, most sources recognize the conflict/war after 2001 as a distinct from the period before U.S. lead NATO involvement. Also Buckshot06, does bring up very good points regarding the origins of the 2001-present conflict, and the nature of NATO involvement. Using the many phases logic, than there should be a 2001-2003 article, a 2003-2014 article, and a 2015-present article.
Using the different international combatants logic, one which I am leaning towards (a middle ground between all in one, or many many separate phase articles), the 1978-present conflict would have sub-articles of Soviet involvement, Northern Alliance-Taliban Civil War, U.S.-lead NATO involvement which takes us to the present time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast most sources recognize the conflict/war after 2001 as a distinct from the period before U.S. lead NATO involvement. Actually most sources regard it distinct in the way its a different period itself of the overall 1978 war. As for Buckshot06's comments I replied. And in regard to some of your earlier comments, not that Many people voted for the change because a new article was created as you assert. Actually it was just two. You say that per the sources the war is not over, however you fail to point out that the war was ongoing even before October 7, 2001, and that the source does not say its referring to the 2001 period specifically. In any case, any further discussion would be simply redundant. Let people cast their votes for the fourth time. But I will remind you again, per WP policy, this merge request is premature. PS That new article that you say was boldly created was made by an editor who previously was against the change but changed his mind. EkoGraf (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What policy? I keep seeing it being mentioned by the above editor, but it has not been produced.
Again, see WP:VOTE, it doesn't matter what we on Wikipedia say, it matters what reliable sources state, and what weight those reliable sources give. IMHO, the reliable sources do not see the conflict of the U.S. lead NATO involvement in Afghanistan as over, therefore we should not create two separate articles because of a flag change.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually it was just two. So there was no consensus for creating the article than, it was just a bold creation, which per WP:BRD could be challenged.
...you fail to point.... please see my other comments, I did not fail as stated above, but mentioned it at the beginning of my third paragraph above, see "The arguments that this is a continuation of the 1978 war are understandable, however, most sources recognize the conflict/war after 2001 as a distinct from the period before U.S. lead NATO involvement." Great way to talk past my comment, and not actually rebut my opinion. Also please see WP:AVOIDYOU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast You seem to have twisted my words because that is not what I said. What I said is 16 editors agreed that this 2001-14 phase of the overall 1978-present war be closed. Subsequently it was decided any new developments be transferred to the new article. Of those 16 who decided to close the 2001 article, two were previously against the renaming but changed their minds once the new article was created. That left only 4 editors in opposition to the renaming (including you). So that my friend is what's called a consensus. EkoGraf (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
If there was a misunderstanding of the above editors previous comment, it was unintentional, for which I apologize.
I am not the above editors friend, so please don't refer to me that way again, it's insulting and condescending, and uncalled for. Thus please see WP:CIVIL.
Again please see WP:VOTE. The arguments IMHO are not supported by the majority of reliable sources and IMHO gave to much credit to recently created sources leading to WP:RECENTISM, and as I stated above give a pro-present American Administration spin/POV/framing of the ongoing conflict, which can be seen as given that framing UNDUE weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast The sources you point to say the war is ongoing but they do not say THIS specific phase (2001-14 war) of the overall 1978-present war is ongoing. You again forget the 2001 war is a continuation of the previous 5 wars (phases) of an overall conflict. While the 16 editors have cited reliable sources pointing to this specific phase of the overall civil war to have ended. PS You again seem to have misunderstood me. I did not call you the above editors friend. When I called you friend, you may have seen it as insulting and condescending, but where I come from its generally regarded as a proper way/custom when talking to someone so you could show them a degree of respect and friendliness. In the future I will not call you that, but you thinking that I was trying to be uncivil towards you is in itself not in line with WP: Good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose but not strongly - We just had a discussion about renaming this article. There are many different phases of the Afghan Civil War and this phase is complete. Jackninja5 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Because a flag was changed? Because some nations no longer have forces involved in the mission? If this is the case, the Iraq War article really needs to be multiple different articles which start and end whenever a single nation contributes or ends its forces involvement in that conflict, using that reasoning.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Flag? No. It is not about the flags. If it was, there would be "War in Afghanistan (2001-02)". I meant it is a different mission. Jackninja5 (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose Clearly two very different periods of the Afghan civil war which has been going on since the 1970s. No need at all to merge the articles. Copulative (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not as different as the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and the Afghan Civil War prior to October 2001. NATO, lead by the U.S., is still heavily involved in Afghanistan, with new deployments occurring into Afghanistan, as I have referenced below. When NATO & the U.S. leave, that is definitively an end of the phase, but not a change in mission. Otherwise the Vietnam Conflict article would have ended in August 1972, not 1975.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose In terms of the structure and goals of the parties involved, the situation is substantially different post-US withdrawal. Mr. Anon515 22:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"post-US withdrawal."? No withdrawal has occurred, the force has been reduced but U.S. forces remain in Afghanistan, over 10k (ABC News, Fox News) in fact. This includes ongoing new deployments (examples: Army, Marine Corps). Therefore the reasoning is flawed. Just because ISAF was replaced by RS, doesn't mean that U.S. lead NATO involvement in the war/conflict in Afghanistan. The casing unfurling event in late December 2014, is no Fall of Saigon moment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, nobody is saying that the war is over. We are just saying that the war has entered in a new phase. Coltsfan (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
If this is the case, why is there not a "War in Afghanistan (2001-02)" article as suggested by Jackninja5?

Support The war is not over because NATO is still there, albeit attempting to turn over control of the war to the Afghani government. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

They are not attempting to turn over control to the Afghan government, they HAVE turned over control. Sources on this have already been provided. Afghan forces at the moment are 352,000 while NATO forces are just 13,000. That's a 27-1 ratio. And almost all of the 13,000 NATO soldiers are in a declared NON-COMBAT role. And like we said above, nobody is saying the war is over, just that this phase is over. EkoGraf (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This phase is much more accurately seen as a U.S.-involved rather than a NATO led phase, and should end when the U.S. troops are withdrawn, currently expected end of 2016. But see also http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/02/02/defense-nominee-would-consider-changing-afghan-drawdown-plan Buckshot06 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a matter of perspective and POV. The question here is what reliable sources say and most point to the overall NATO role. EkoGraf (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
What is being pushed by the above editor is also perspective and POV, thus WP:POTKETTLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't know stating what the sources say is POV-pushing. And reminding you...again...of WP: Good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
At least we agree that this is part of the same conflict/war. However, when a new phase occurs, the normal thing to do is not to create a new article. Instead the appropriate thing to do was to create a new section.
Since this is the same conflict/war (which we both agree from my understanding), of U.S. led NATO involvement (from the Western perspective) in Afghanistan, it makes sense that the 2001-present article was created, and not a section of the the meta 1978-present article, and separate from the Afghan Civil War article. However, due to the creation of the 2015-? article we have the same conflict separated into two separate articles. That is not helpful to the readers, and is entirely arbitrary (as stated by Martijn Hoekstra below, if I understand what is being written correctly).
This is why there is an article Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan that also falls within the scope of this article (prior to the vote-stacked proposed move changes), but this article remains, instead of it being a separate article, with this article's scope ending in 2012 as stated in the BBC (if we are to use them as defining the different phases of more recent Aghan conflict history).
Now, if this article meets WP:TOOBIG, and exceeds over 100K of readable prose, (which it does 261k of readable and non-readable prose (126k of readable prose alon)) than there'd be a case to separate content into a/multiple sub-article of this one, and leave a summary/summaries here. That's what should have happened, as the scope of this article prior to the change made with the vote-stacked proposed move, covered/covers the conflict in Afghanistan from 2001-present. Now we have to clean that up (preferably together).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Me and the others already stated it. The 2015-present events are part of the same war as the 2001-14 events. But the problem, per my understanding, is that you regard the 1979-89 events, 1989-92 events, 1992-96 events and 1996-2001 events as separate wars in comparison to events since 2001. Which they are not. When we say we regard it as all part of the same war we mean the 1978-present war. You say we have the same conflict separated into two separate articles. You are incorrect. We have the same conflict separated into six articles. The 1978 war never ended and all these events are simply phases of that one war. The 1978 one never ended and each of the ensuing conflict periods were continuations of one another with no break. EkoGraf (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The Soviet War in Afghanistan while falling within the scope of the 1978 continuing conflict meta article, is separate in most history books, from the current conflict/war (which is now due to the vote-stacked move and subsequent edits 2001-14 & 2015-present). See this reliable source, where there are three separate paragraphs for three separate conflicts, this source this one (Policy context page 279-285), and this source (page 32-36). Those sources treat the Soviet War in Afghanistan separate from the civil war that occurred and last until 1996, and the war that is the subject of this and the boldly created other article. Therefore, while all those conflicts fall within the meta article of 1978 to the present, each are distinct in reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The way you put it it sounds like the 1978 war was ether put on pause while the Soviet war developed or that it ran concurrent with. And that it went on pause again with the NATO intervention or is also running concurrently again. I would direct you to War in Afghanistan (1978–present) where everything is regarded as part of that same one war. EkoGraf (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Concurrent. Just as this article runs concurrent with the Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. This is similar to how the 2003 Invasion of Iraq ran concurrent to the Iraq War article.
Let me be clear, to use a phrase by a certain politician, it is not "The way you put it...", it is how the reliable sources have it. I have recently provided reliable sources external to Wikipedia to support my present stance. The above editor does not, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. Even Encyclopedia Britannica sees the U.S. led conflict/war as a distinct subject (and not ending in 2014).
The way it should be is that since most reliable sources, not recent sources specific to the transition to ISAF to RS, see the U.S. lead conflict as distinct, there should be (as this was) a 2001-present article, with sub-articles about different periods of this war as defined by reliable sources. Thus there would be a primary article (this one), and sub-articles (which would either include the 2015-present article which the above editor appears to support (or it would be merged into the article Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan)). Those possible sub-articles would be the 2001-2003 period, the 2003-2009 period, the February 2009-October 2011 period, the November 2011- April 2012 period, (which matches this Associated Press source) and the 2012 to present period (again, if we use the BBC reliable source which I had previously provided).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
If we go with the division of the conflict per Dr. Collins Understanding War in Afghanistan, then the sub-articles would be the U.S. led-invasion (2001), the rebuilding (2002-2009), and surge & post surge (2009-present).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference between a distinct subject and a distinct war. And they do not say 2001-14 is distinct from 1978-present. Distinct within 1978 yes, but from no. And the 2003 Iraq invasion didn't run concurrently with the Iraq war. It WAS the Iraq war. Its first part and opening salvo. EkoGraf (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. There are few natural boundries of when one phase in this conflict ends, and another begins. There are good reasons to consider the period from the NATO invasion to either the end of NATO combat operations or complete NATO withdrawal as a natural subject of a Wikipedia article. Right now, it's too soon to have the benefit of historians who with hindsight define the most logical period in the Afghan civil war to write a Wikipedia article about for us.

    For now, it seems that the period of NATO presence is still the natural period. Before we as Wikipedia make the editorial choice to treat the 2001-2014 period and the 2015-???? period as two logically distinct periods, we will have to wait whether the historians will write about the 2001-2014 period as a logical unity or that they will write about the entire NATO presence period as a logical period. Right now, it's just too soon to anticipate such a split, even if news sources do already label it as such (but not consistently). News sources spoke about a new phase in the conflict many other times during since 2001, and there is not much difference in the RS situation this time around. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. If only it was over.... Atsme☯Consult 01:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:This specific phase is. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Who are the combatants of this War in Afghanistan 1978 to present? Was there a continuous combatant? Or was there just a period of continuous conflict? War in Afghanistan 1978-present appears to be a meta article, about separate conflicts that have occurred within the same geographical region (Afghanistan) since the Soviet-Afghan War, recognized by multiple reliable sources as being distinct from each other, as my source presented above show.
No one is disputing that the conflicts had and are occurring, what is being disputed is if a conflict ended in 2014. Last I checked the flag change from ISAF to RS was not a Fall of Saigon bookend moment. As stated by Dd42, last I checked non-Afghan forces under NATO are still within Afghanistan. Last I checked there was no peace treaty or truce signed. Last I checked the Vietnam War didn't end when the U.S. transferred combat roles to the Republic of Vietnam. Thus the creation of a 2015-present article is arbitrary creation of Wikipedia editors, and not a distinct new conflict. As others have admitted it (the 2015-present article) is part of the same conflict that started in October 2001 (from the U.S. & Western perspective). A single conflict that began when the U.S. led coalition invaded Taliban Afghanistan, continued after the Taliban was ousted from power, continued after ISAF transferred command to NATO, continued after the surge began, continued after the surge ended, continued after the plan for withdrawal was announced, and continues after ISAF's colors were exchanged for RS's colors. A single conflict where two single unitary actors since October 2001, the United States & the Taliban, have continued to be involved in single conflict.
If the argument is that this is all part of a single war, than why are all these articles not sub-articles of the 1978-present article? Why is there a separate Soviet Afghan War non-sub-article? Why is there a separate Afghan Civil War non-sub-article? etc.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
why are all these articles not sub-articles of the 1978-present article? The sentence in the infobox of each of them (including this one) says Part of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present). Also, the main article on the overall 1978-present war links to all of these specific periods/phases in each subsection. And not to mention we got a campaignbox for the 1978-present war where we have each of these phases linked. EkoGraf (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN.
What sources show that there has been a clear continuous single war?
Sure, there have been a long string of conflict (if we include the 1996-2001 period of Taliban Afghanistan (due to the North Alliance)). That is similar to the fringe theory that the U.S. has never not been at war (especially since based on the fringe theory the U.S. has always been involved in the Indian Wars). But all part of a single war?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN
There are reliable sources that have been presented that dispute that opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that. I think from now on a simple oppose and support without any more excessive arguments and replies should be enough, considering we have been arguing, voting and re-voting the issue for a month and a half. EkoGraf (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No voting! There was a full consensus for changing the name and no consensus to merge the other article to this one. Please, no WP:GAMING. Coltsfan (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree in that regard too. I simply meant that if people continued with this line of action they shouldn't make any more excessive arguments. I was against this merge request from the start not just because I'm for the 2001-14 name but because it was also too early. A consensus was already reached and implemented a day before this merge request. It is common practice on Wikipedia to wait at least a month before a new request is made. We already voted three times. This is the fourth. So please, no fifth. And like you say Coltsfan, so far there seems to be no clear consensus on the merge proposal. EkoGraf (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Where is the policy that says that there is a time limit? I have asked for one before but none has yet to be produced.
See WP:WIP & WP:CCC. Just cause there was support at one point, and just because those opposed went on to edit elsewhere, doesn't mean that there was not still opposition to the creation of the 2015-present article, as can be clearly be seen above.
What appears to be clear is that there is no consensus one way or the other, and strong opposition from both sides.
Also please see WP:STRAWPOLL, a vote is not a replacement for a discussion. It can help guide a discussion, but does not replace one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast Where is the policy that says that there is a time limit? You just linked it yourself. WP:CCC. Quote - Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. EkoGraf (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Proves my point, there has been brought up "previously unconsidered arguments". Also can, is the operative word, not is, or must. Therefore, saying CCC is a reason not to have this discussion is misreading it IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The "previously unconsidered arguments" that you talk about are not really "previously unconsidered" since they are actually pretty much the same ones you made before the article was renamed. And if you think that making a merge request after three previous separate discussions reached a consensus (minus your continued objections) is not disruptive than I guess there's nothing more to say. EkoGraf (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Now, I don't know what to vote for. I was oppose but now I am not so sure. Both sides are pretty damn convincing. Also, I don't like the "strongly" support/oppose vote as really it doesn't make it any stronger than other votes. Jackninja5 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure how clear it is that a 2001-2016 period is an option, which would allow the new phase to begin after the withdrawal of all U.S. troops. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a fair compromise. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is redundant since its quite clear what the vote number is on this specific issue in this section with a quick examination. At the moment its 8 support vs 8 oppose. EkoGraf (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The strength of reliable sources provided above do not support the point of view that the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan has ended, especially given that new deployments continue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Grasping to see in what way its the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan when US forces number only 13,000 (almost all in a non-combat role) while the ones who are leading the fight are 300,000+ Afghan forces. And I guess its simply easy for you to ignore the dozens of other reliable sources pointing to the end of this specific phase of the long-running 1978 Afghan war and that its no longer the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan (for example like the president of the Unites States, or the president of Afghanistan himself; don't get stronger sources than that). P.S. One of your own sources [3] actually refers to the current events as the new U.S. mission in Afghanistan and acknowledges that the previous major Afghan war ended. EkoGraf (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
New mission, not a new war/conflict. Operation New Dawn still fell within the scope of Iraq War. Iraq War was not closed (a end time placed on it) when Operation New Dawn was created. This is what is being supported above. It is not what was done in the past, it shouldn't be done here. It would be like the World War II article ended when Germany surrendered, a new article was created as the only major Axis power left as a combatant was the Empire of Japan. This article shouldn't be treated differently than those articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Another way to look at it is this article's scope is about the "U.S. War in Afghanistan", as named by the Council on Foreign Relations. The name also used by the NBC, by the Washington Post, by Time and by the Rolling Stone. As such, the U.S. still has forces in Afghanistan, although the operation name changes, the U.S. War continues even if a different phase. Thus, my compromise which I had suggested, and per WP:ARTSIZE, what should be done is to transform this article to the primary article of the U.S. War in Afghanistan (involving the U.S. leading NATO and other allies), and create sub-articles of different periods of the war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been a week since the last legitimate argument was made, and it appears that the vote is still 8:8. Therefore, I'm closing the discussion as no consensus. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support merge I know I'm a bit late to this but I would support a merge. Its the same same war being fought by the same people, just two different phases of it. Juno (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, not late at all.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Straw Poll

This section aims to clarify numbers for and against the proposal. Please sign under the headings below whether you Support a merge of the 2015 article into the 2001-2014 article, or whether you oppose it. Please add any arguments or comments to the section above, not to this straw poll section.

Comment: Might I also add that some of the users who responded above will not be voting here, either because they will overlook the straw poll, or find it to be redundant. Either way, it's the votes in the discussion above that determines the final vote, not the straw poll. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This "straw poll" is a bit irrelevant because let's say that support for the merge wins by a single 'vote'. In that case, we'll change the name of the article back? It was necessary two different discussions in order to achieve consensus to change the name in the first place, but a simple majority of one would change everything? And if the merge is confirmed, who is to stop an editor from starting another discussion in order to return the name of the article to (2001–14)? This is a mess and definitely WP:GAME. Coltsfan (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. We already have a discussion going above; if we resort to using the straw poll for final counts, then it would basically be loopholing in the system. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Although I definitely have my own views on this, I'm still going to be signing in here because I feel that this is not the way this issue should be resolved. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The previous RM to split, is fully null and void. In light of this the two articles should be merged until we can build consensus to go in an appropriate direction. Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY where things happen through votes casting. The subsequent reasoning that is used, about it being 17 vs 6 is not relevant because I cannot count 23 votes in the previous RM. I count 6 votes and I am struggling to find the other 17. Regardless, it is the points which are made in the comments themselves which are taken into consideration. To add to this the previous RM exhibits what seems to be canvassing. Mbcap (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
17 is from all three discussions that took place over the last two months, just like the 6 opposing, and the move was not based only on votes but on reliable sources that were also provided. EkoGraf (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First question The editors which have been pinged in the RM, were they known to be in support of such a proposal and if so, why were they selectively pinged? If they were known to be in support beforehand, it would suggest canvassing.
  • Second question:How have you decided that those 6 who opposed were not in the right, who decided this?
  • Third question:You say that, "the move was not based only on votes but on reliable sources that were also provided." I cannot see mention of sources in the RM. Are you saying Number 57 went through all 23 editor's arguments regarding the name change before evaluating whether there was consensus on moving the page.
  • A previous comment states that consensus was already reached in the previous two discussions but an admin has asked a procedural casting of votes to make the move happen. It is clearly shown by other editors posts that is false; please see section "Propose merger" on this talk page. A good number of editors are not in agreement as can be seen. Mbcap (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Everything is in the above discussions. Just two of the specific sources that were provided were the US and Afghan presidents. EkoGraf (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
So what? What do historians & academics say? What do reliable sources say? Just cause two politicians say something doesn't make it a fact. It just makes it their opinion. That is a just a Argument from authority fallacy.
As I had shown above, there are non-Afghan forces still in combat. War over? phase over? Phase of a War that allegedly has been the same war since 1978, which I cannot find any reliable sources that say that it has been a single war? Wikipedia is not a reliable source; just cause an article exist doesn't make it real.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow up

So who wanted this proposal closed? There was slowly more new eyes on the discussion. Oh well. And actually based on what is written above there is more support for a merger than opposed. Results: Support: (10)
RightCowLeftCoast
Buckshot06
Anotherclown
PointsofNoReturn
Martijn Hoekstra
Atsme
Oscar-HaP
Dd42
Juno
Mbcap

Oppose: (7)
LightandDark2000
Coltsfan
EkoGraf
Copulative
Mr. Anon515
FutureTrillionaire
Dash9z

Not support or oppose: (1)
Jackninja5 diff

So I guess it makes sense that those opposed would want to close the discussion, as they believe it is in best interest to keep to separate articles, in opposition to the majority who don't. Would have been better if a non-involved editor closed the debate IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As the merger discussion has now closed, I will submit the previous canvassed RM for a move review when I get time. This is because, had the previous RM got the same amount of editor input, it would have also got no consensus and we would not be in this position of having two seperate pages for the same conflict. I should also point out that the previous RM without the canvassed votes, amounted to only 3 supports, hardly a figure on which to move this page considering the amount of editor input we have had for this merger proposal. Mbcap (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mbcap: There is an RfC above, is that sufficient?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mbcap:When do you think you have the time? I'd like to do this today or tomorrow; there is already talk of changing about a dozen of categories, which should best wait for the review. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
May I ask the thinking that lead to the opposition?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it is the content of the reasoning behind why an individual supports or does not support the move request that matters. However, the list above is just a summary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast I looked at the move reivew guidance which stated that I should speak to the closer first so I spoke to number57 which did not bear much fruit. The next step is a move review.
Martijn Hoekstra I am going to do it now. I will post a link to the move review when it is done. Mbcap (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is the move review[4]. Mbcap (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am truly sorry if I am rehashing things and I mean this as charitably as possible: on Wikipedia we tend to defer to the federal government. 99.9% of the time this is a good idea, I am pretty convinced that this is not one of those times. DC changed a flag and said that a war was over one minute and that a different war started a minute later. But it was the same men, the same enemy, its the same war and that's how its being covered. There should, of course, be an article about the name of this new Operation/phase of the war, but the real coverage of the continuing war should all be here. Juno (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody argued that the war ended. Just that this specific phase ended and that a new one began of the overall long-running war that started in 1978. Just like the previous five phases. EkoGraf (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN, prove that it is all one "overall long-running war".
IMHO, Consensus has changed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You are right, consensus can change and probably has. But to take any further action a consensus is needed on that next step, which at the moment there is not, and until than the status quo remains. EkoGraf (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Status quo based on Inappropriate canvassing? So violating guidelines is OK as long as the outcome agrees to what was sought?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We can argue this all we want but it is not going to change what the majority of people think, which is that it is one continuous war that started in 1978, I couldn't disagree more but it seems that people like me are in the minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.11.107 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


Three huge discussions and two consensus and still not enough. This open a really bad precedent. Coltsfan (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The move was reviewed by an uninvolved administrator and it was found to hold no such consensus. Mbcap (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Mbcap, the initial move was a bad move, due to inappropriate canvassing. Upon later review, with appropriate canvassing, it was shown that the initial move had no consensus to begin with, and thus a reversion to the original article name was appropriate.
There is an ongoing discussion on the "phase" of one war, or several related distinct wars which have been linked on this talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no "ongoing" discussion. There were three separated ones. After the discussion was finished someone came and said "I don't like the previus consensus, I want to change it." So imagine this, theres a discussion, the talks have ended but someone comes and said that they don't like it. Based on that, I can stall a discussion and/or drag it pretty much forever, discussion ad nauseam until everyone have grown tired of it and simply give up. This is WP:GAME at it's best and it's a shame that a so called "uninvolved administrator" is cool with it. Coltsfan (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The ongoing discussion I was referring to is Talk:War in Afghanistan (1978–present)#Requested move 21 February 2015.
May I suggest WP:DEADHORSE? Appropriate I think. Again, the reason why the move was invalidated was that the previous consensus was based on Fruit of the poisonous tree, due to inappropriate canvassing. This cannot be argued, as the editor who had done the inappropriate canvassing has admitted it, and has given a Mea culpa. Now there might not have been a consensus for the most recent move request, but the move review found that there was not a consensus to support the move that made this article (2001-2014) either. If an editor wants to make a move request again, they can. But expect myself and other editors to oppose it (U.S. still engaging in combat operations in Afghanistan, U.S. still awarding campaign medals for afghansitan (if it were really over they would do what they did with the Iraq Campaign Medal and stop issuing), and will be there into 2016).
While a few have advocated that the U.S. get out of the Great Game Part III, wishful thinking makes for poor article editing. It was premature to say that the war is over. Once the campaign medal closes, than lets talk again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Category title move.

Since we moved this title, should we do the same for the categories? Jackninja5 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, why not? After all, all related categories should have the same dating format. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, as there is still an ongoing discussion regarding this and related article(s).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Second the opposition here. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, since there is a discussion regarding this already, I think we should wait until that one ends before moving on to this one. Jackninja5 (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jackninja5: Hey, since this discussion is now officially over, can you please help move the corresponding categories (and subcategories) to the appropriate titles? I tried moving some of them, but I realized that I don't have enough time for this, and I lack the expertise to get this done in an efficient manner. Also, can you please correct the category links at the bottom of the corresponding articles (change the date tag in the title to (2001–present) if you can't find any)? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I contest and oppose the bold move. There is no consensus for it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I will move some but I have not got much time properly so I will only do ones with only a few pages. Jackninja5 (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000: I can help you with it, just let me know which ones you want to be moved. EkoGraf (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there are so many (from my point of view) I will list the general categories under which all of the rest are listed. The main ones are as follows:

That is pretty much it. Thanks for helping out! :) LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, will check it out. EkoGraf (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's a huge mess that will probably take some time to unravel. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The proper place for category moves is not just 'do it yourself' but WP:CfD, which is the discussion forum for categories. Please take this discussion there. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
And now all those bold changes will need to be reverted Buckshot06 can you please start a discussion at WP:CfD and link it here?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: can I please get some help starting a CfD for all the categories that were moved to [[Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)]]? It is hurting my head and they should be moved due to the result of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 February#War in Afghanistan (2001–14).
As I said before, the categories shouldn't have been moved in the first place, now I am getting a headache over this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I got it, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 21#Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–14).RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment and renewed commitment from 2008

Should this section be broken up to a new section, and that new section possibly merged/moved into War in Afghanistan (2015–present) and that article be renamed as appropriate to become a true sub-article rather than a WP:POVSPLIT as it is now? Perhaps it can be done from 2009 to present as an article that covers the surge, and post-surge period? This article still so large that it still meets WP:SIZERULE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Section of "U.S. invasion of Afghanistan"

After the split, the subarticle, United States invasion of Afghanistan, almost copies the section of this article. Is condensation needed for the section? --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It is in fact a sub-article due to WP:SIZERULE created by Buckshot06. As such a summary of the sub-article (which could be a copy of that article's lead (with references used)) can replace that entire section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment George Ho. If you check the edit history you will see that I have been trimming this main article. This is not finished. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bunching of text

The following unexplained edit by Coltsfan bunched up text. Now the text RS[1] (2014–present)[show] has "show" covering up part of "present".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, and even without having to unnecessarily enlarge the images. And why there is a 'reflist' in the middle of a template? Put it at the bottom of the article, as it should be. Coltsfan (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015

"The war in Afghanistan is the period in which the United States invaded the country after the September 11 attacks,[27] supported initially by close allies, and eventually by the wider North Atlantic Treaty Organization, beginning in 2003. The conflict is also known as the U.S. war in Afghanistan"

The W in the first War should be capitalized; as per the convention with War in XXX articles and the infobox and article name. 97.96.33.181 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Undone. Our convention is to reflect reliable sources, most of which don't treat "war in Afghanistan" as a proper name. (At least some of the other articles cited above are incorrectly formatted too.) The article title and infobox heading appear in sentence case, as is standard at the English Wikipedia. In the lead, that isn't applicable to the word "war", which doesn't begin the sentence. —David Levy 04:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Then why do other articles (one example being the War in Donbass) have the W in War capitalized in the lead? either have uniformity among War related articles or change them all to reflect the uncapitalized W. 97.96.33.181 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, as I noted above, at least some of the other articles contain incorrect capitalization. Addressing the issue is far from straightforward, however, as it requires consultation of reliable sources' styling ("war in X" or "War in X") and edits – along with possible moves – across numerous articles related to that particular war (whose uniformity takes precedence over that between one of those articles and one about a different war). —David Levy 07:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Gender and The Afghanistan War

Hey all,

As I'm looking over the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), I'm noticing that there isn't much conversation surrounding gender and the impact of the war on women. I feel like gender has largely been absent from the overall conversation/public discourse surrounding this political engagement, when there are significant impacts on women in Afghanistan as a result of the war. The following are some ideas, statistics, and suggested edits that elucidate this point:

War in Afghanistan (2001–present) Impact on Afghan society Civilian casualties Main article: Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–14) War casualty estimates vary. According to a UN report, violence in response to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009.[275] A UN report in June 2011 stated that 2,777 civilians were known to have been killed in 2010, (insurgents responsible for 75%).[276] A July 2011 UN report said "1,462 non-combatants died" in the first six months of 2011 (insurgents 80%).[277] In 2011 a record 3,021 civilians were killed, the fifth successive annual rise.[278]According to a UN report, in 2013 there were 2,959 civilian deaths with 74% being blamed on anti-government forces, 8% on Afghan security forces, 3% on ISAF forces, 10% to ground engagements between anti-Government forces and pro-Government forces and 5% of the deaths were unattributed.[279] 60% of Afghans have direct personal experience and most others report suffering a range of hardships. 96% have been affected either personally or from the wider consequences.[280] Many scholars and intellectuals have noted the U.S. government’s distortion of the number of civilian causalities with the inventions of terms such as “collateral damage” to hide the fact that an estimated 95% of deaths caused by contemporary warfare are women, children and the elderly. However, these statistics are largely unavailable to American audiences.

According to Nicholas Kristoff, improved healthcare resulting from the war has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, despite the fact that $45 million dollars in aid for women and children, as promised by the Bush Administration and approved by Congress, was retracted. Refugees The number of Afghan refugees during U.S. occupation and warfare has been as high as 6.2 million. Since 2001, more than 5.7 million former refugees have returned to Afghanistan,[3][282][283] but 2.2 million others remained refugees in 2013.[284] In January 2013 the UN estimated that 547,550 were internally displaced persons, a 25% increase over the 447,547 IDPs estimated for January 2012[283][284][285] Drug trade Main article: Opium production in Afghanistan From 1996–1999, the Taliban controlled 96% of Afghanistan's poppy fields and made opium its largest source of revenue. Taxes on opium exports became one of the mainstays of Taliban income. According to Rashid, "drug money funded the weapons, ammunition and fuel for the war." In The New York Times, the Finance Minister of the United Front, Wahidullah Sabawoon, declared the Taliban had no annual budget but that they "appeared to spend US$300 million a year, nearly all of it on war". He added that the Taliban had come to increasingly rely on three sources of money: "poppy, the Pakistanis and bin Laden".[286] By 2000 Afghanistan accounted for an estimated 75% of the world's opium supply and in 2000 produced an estimated 3276 tonnes from 82,171 hectares (203,050 acres).[287] Omar then banned opium cultivation and production dropped to an estimated 74 metric tonnes from 1,685 hectares (4,160 acres).[288] Some observers say the ban – which came in a bid for international recognition at the United Nations – was issued only to raise opium prices and increase profit from the sale of large existing stockpiles. 1999 had yielded a record crop and had been followed by a lower but still large 2000 harvest. The trafficking of accumulated stocks continued in 2000 and 2001. In 2002, the UN mentioned the "existence of significant stocks of opiated accumulated during previous years of bumper harvests". In September 2001 – before 11 September attacks against the U.S. – the Taliban allegedly authorized Afghan peasants to sow opium again.[286] Soon after the invasion opium production increased markedly.[289] By 2005, Afghanistan was producing 90% of the world's opium, most of which was processed into heroin and sold in Europe and Russia.[290] In 2009, the BBC reported that "UN findings say an opium market worth $65bn (£39bn) funds global terrorism, caters to 15 million addicts, and kills 100,000 people every year".[291] Public education As of 2013, 8.2 million Afghans attended school, including 3.2 million girls, up from 1.2 million in 2001, including fewer than 50,000 girls.[292][293]

Civilian Impacts: The War on Women As a direct result of the war, women and children have been adversely impacted in terms of escalating poverty, starvation, survival sex, prostitution, and instances of violence.

According to a study conducted by Unicef, 54% of children in refugee camps have witneesed seeing someone tortured.

Another study, conducted by RAWA, found that close to 90% of women in Afghanistan suffer from trauma-related psychological disorders resulting from violence generated by the war.

Sex trafficking, rapes, and other forms of sexual violence have come to be from the war. The International Federation of the Red Cross has found instances in which young women are being sold as brides for less than 100 kilograms of flour, due to increased poverty and destruction caused by the war.

The war has also contributed to the construction of isolated rape camps, in which women are repeatedly raped as a form of torture; forcefully impregnated; murdered; dismembered; mutilated; beaten; gang-raped; or disemboweled. Despite the Bush Administration’s commitment to The Afghan Women and Children Relief Act of 2001, that promised education and medical aid for women and children, the funding was cut by $34 million dollars.

Thousands of children have been orphaned as a result of the war, forced to survive on their own. Often, these children must forage for food, and they have been come to be known as “children of garbage.”


SOURCES:

  • As documented by Jennifer Rycenga, and Marguerite Waller, in their “Intro- duction.” In Frontline Feminisms: Women, War, and Resistance. Edited by Marguerite R. Waller and Jennifer Rycenga. (New York: Routledge, 2001), xviii.
  • Noy Thrupkaew, November 2002. “Money Where His Mouth Is.” The Ameri- can Prospect, September 23, 2002, 17. Moreover, Michele Landsberg ar- gues that Bush “withheld the $45 million that both houses of Congress had agreed to give the United Nations Population Fund” after pressure from the antichoice right-wing extremists in his party (The Toronto Star, January 26, 2002; http://torontostar). It is in this context that any credibility in the Bush government’s commitment to women and children’s is destroyed by this action.
  • The Afghan Women’s Mission; http://www.afghanwomensmission.org.
  • Rhonda Hammer (2003) Militarism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective, Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 25:3, 231-256
  • LA Times, July 7, 2002.
  • The Afghan Women’s Mission; http://www.afghanwomensmission.org.
  • Maya Jhani, “Women Fight Terror and War in South Asia and the Middle East.” News and Letters, March 2002, 1: 10
  • Zillah Eisenstein, Hatreds: Racialized and Sexualized Conflicts in the 21st Century. (New York: Routledge, 1996), 59.
  • Noy Thrupkaew, November 2002. “Money Where His Mouth Is.” The Ameri- can Prospect, September 23, 2002, 17.
  • Tahmeena Faryal, November 12, 2001. “RAWA Presentation,” UCLA, Los Angeles, CA., November 12, 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanssenslh93 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please look at editing Human rights in Afghanistan, a sub-article which might best be suited for the suggested sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2015 Afghanistan War should be 2001-2014

Dear sir or madam the information for this source is wrong the war in Afghanistan ended in 2014 and a new war started up in 2015 and here is the evidence for the information of source http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1686268/Afghanistan-War War in Afghanistan (2001– Please change present to 2014) Thestudent1461 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 04:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

Dear sir or madam the information for this source is wrong the war in Afghanistan ended in 2014 and a new war started up in 2015 and here is the evidence for the information of source http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1686268/Afghanistan-War War in Afghanistan (2001– Please change present to 2014) Thestudent1461 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Nope. There was a long request for comment about this a couple months back, regarding this, and the consensus was that the war was not over, and that the previous move was without consensus it claimed to have had.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Suspicion: all Afghanistan wars are only for opium and heroin production

There is the clear suspicion that all Afghanistan wars were only for opium production because when the "NATO" forces came in CIA took over the opium production from the Taliban and the production rose 10 times up. See: John Coleman: The Committee of 300 (German version: Komitee der 300, p.251)

Coleman also shows how the profits of drugs are in reality showing the example of valium with 3 $ costs per kg. for the production and with 20.000 $ to the seller and with 50.000 $ for the client (Coleman: same book, German version, p.249)

"Geopolicy" of Curzon and Mackinder?

So one can suppose why Afghanistan is on the list of the countries one "should have" according to anglo-saxon capitalist imperialism of "geopolicy" being created by Curzon and Mackinder etc. Drug money is washed in the banks of the autonomous City of London where drug money is stored since 200 years already (see Coleman cit., German version, p.250) and also in Switzerland drug money is stored in the big Swiss banks (this was the indication to me by Swiss juridical circles).

Queen of England

Additionally when "USA" are making war in Afghanistan this is not because of the order of the President but the order came for sure by the Queen of England who is the drug queen of the world being the boss of the Committee of 300 which comes from the council of 300 of the East India Company which was dealing with drugs and opium since 1608 and spread opium over the whole world with the Rockefeller and Rothschild families etc. At the end of the 19th century the council of 300 converted into the Committee of 300 then (see Coleman, passim).

Soldiers only protect CIA's opium production in Afghanistan

So the "US" soldiers and all soldiers of other countries are not in Afghanistan for "freedom" of the "US" or of the world but the soldiers are the clowns protecting the CIA drug production there making drug money for future wars I think. Considering IS which is promoted by "USA" since 2012 against any "freedom" in the world provoking more massacres and slavery and mass destruction it could be possible that I am right: Afghanistan war is only an opium production operation for making money for future wars of CIA. And for CIA it's not important if the world is in the hands of Muslim extremists or not because IS is taking all northern Africa already preparing the attack against Europe see: German Times: IS urging for Europe (original in German: Die Zeit: Der IS drängt nach Europa). It seems with all these facts that all Afghanistan war is a big opium FAKE in a much bigger context - against Russia which does not want to accept the Committee of 300 and it's dictators of Tavistock etc. ...

Michael Palomino, May 25, 2015 --213.196.193.135 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Committee of 300 is currently covered as a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you could provide sources to improve that article, rather than expressing theories on the Wars. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

God Save The Queen - she ain't no human being

But nor is she a drugs queen. For anyone wanting to get rid of Royals, this BS conspiracy theory is not helpful. At the risk of starting a new conspiracy theory, might not this Queen/drugs story be a way to undermine the anti-Royals? That said, might not the article mention reports (and films)that the CIA used drugs to fund their own private wars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.110.152 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Public opinion" in a totalitarian regime and the general neutrality of this article

According to the Democracy Index, Afghanistan is number 151 out of 167. I would not take any poll from any country which is that oppressed for truth. The article doesn't even mention anything about the nature of the corrupt Karzai regime, which is actually very similiar to the Taliban (discrimination of women, no political freedom, gay executions, fake trials, serious torture, no freedom of religion, Pashtun supremacy etc). The whole article is written from the point of view of the US imperialist warmongers. The section over here (about the war and women) should also be taken into consideration. We can't have based articles like this - this is just pro-war propaganda. Te og kaker (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So, no one is willing to address the issues of: discrimination against women, lack of political freedom, gay executions, fake trials, torture or the lack of freedom of religion? No one is interested in mentioning anything about the corrupt nature of the Karzai regime? And no one is willing to address the question of whether the article is pro-war propaganda - written in support of the US warmongers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.49.152 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

These issues would go into the article about the nation of Afghanistan and Human rights in Afghanistan, as they are not related to the War in Afghanistan. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you are unaware, but Hamid Karzai was replaced by Ashraf Ghani as President in 2014. You must mean the totalitarian Ghani regime? Gazkthul (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

time to rename the article?

Shouldn't this article be renamed War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) to reflect the second article, War in Afghanistan (2015–present)? We can't have two "to present" articles about the same conflict. Either change this article to 2001–2014 or delete the second 2015–present article. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed, the majority approved, but due to some 'technicality' the change was reverted. But the discussion is valid, I guess. Coltsfan (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the discussion. Do we need to an official move request? —МандичкаYO 😜 19:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed here and here. And to get more information about changing the name of an article, go here.Coltsfan (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Tons of pics of Coalition servicemen.

There are tons of Coalition soldiers pics and almost none of a taliban fighter ??Mr.User200 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can find some pictures of taliban fighters that would be great, I just assume it's harder to find them because they don't have staff photographers going around with them taking pictures during operations and then posting them online. - SantiLak (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I suspect it is mostly due to selection bias, but nearly every picture is taken by the Coalition and its supporters. All the pictures are of Coalition forces (including standard "soldier being nice to local kid" photos, the local fighter are totally faceless. So much as to verge on violating POV and UNDUE. Ashmoo (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it has to do with selection bias as much as it has to do with the fact that the taliban doesn't release photos into creative commons on a website every day or really any day, some of the photos on the article could be removed to make it more neutral if necessary but it's nowhere close to violating POV and UNDUE. - SantiLak (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
That is what I mean by selection bias; that it is much easier to get images distributed by the coalition forces. Ashmoo (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Close allies in 2001

The article reads "supported initially by close allies". Please include list or reference to list of allies. Only the UK is mentioned. Rochard (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Map of the conflict

Just wanted to bring attention to the maps detailing the various factions and current territorial status in other articles, and was wondering if any user is experienced in making these? I am referring to the maps on these articles:

I'd thought it would be worthwhile, as Afghanistan is a fairly important theater of military operations in the world, and with the Taliban taking more territory in the country,[1] that it should be represented like in the articles above. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


I also came here looking for the area of control map as more territory has fallen to the Taliban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CF:4500:F44B:39F5:E68C:4B4D:7163 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]

Images make this article non-NPOV

Should be removed. This is not a PR article. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I've changed my mind. Some of the images in the above collage are useful. Considering the first collage on the page is almost totally of soldiers, while the second has some more context as to what they are doing there. Their should be a new collage made mixing the two of them together. Balancing of course the coalition and Taliban fighters to give an idea of what the sides were in the conflict. However, as it stands it is to coalition-centric and too long an image for an opener. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

War for Uranium deposits and opium of Afghanistan

Isn't it just ironic how the US made a plan to invade Afghanistan for their own benefits by just making a dramatic scene? 9/11 was just a drama set up by the US so that they have a reason to invade Afghanistan just like the British annexed Sindh (province in later-made Pakistan) during British Raj in India by provoking the Amirs in order to restore their pride which they lost in Afghanistan.The Taliban government they say of is very polite and whom are bonded to their words and faith are just blasphemed by the US who made a cruel portrait out of them.But guess what? Taliban freedom fighters will never bend to their knees no matter how much you try and would never accept that Pro-American President.

I'll quote from Alexander the Great

"Pashtuns, a nation which will take nations to barely suppress them" and to his mother

"I am in the land of brave people who are up for anything to protect their culture,religion and families" 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.21.165 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2021)/Archive_11&oldid=1079713287"