Talk:Soviet–Afghan War/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Edit request on 4 July 2012
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just want to edit a mistake that was made when describing the result of the war because it says that the Afghan Civil War continued but in fact begun after the USSR withdrawal.
The Cap Man (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. Afghanistan's civil war started with the communist coup of 1978.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Indian Support of Afghanistan/Soviets
Greyshark09, follow BRD instead of editwarring and read the source. It supports the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- TG the source says India offered aid after the Soviet withdrawal. How is that supporting them during the Soviet war in Afghanistan? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The source says both that India offered "humanitarian" and "technical" support as well as generally supported. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, after the war had ended. Sp how does the source support having given aid during the war? Also the book reference has no page number, I have looked through the book but cannot see were it says India supported this war. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The source says both that India offered "humanitarian" and "technical" support as well as generally supported. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, most of the listed belligerents had nothing (or very little) to do with this war (even the US). The war was waged by the Afghan official government and Soviet troops upon Mujahedeen (including Shias), who were supported by Pakistan. Even though widely speculated about US support to the Mujahedeen, the weapon supply of the US was directed to Pakistan, which transferred the weapons to Mujahedeen rebels, and very few CIA personnel were actually on the ground (those who were in Afghanistan were with Pakistani troops, and not having any direct contact with the rebels). The rest of the countries are completely unrelated - speculations, unsourced info and humanitarian support after the end of the war do not count to be listed in the infobox.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- India's "support" was humanitarian offer of assistance after the end of the war; According to BBC, India backed the Soviet decision of 1979 invasion, though it seems to be nothing but a political declaration - unless someone can bring a proper source on Indian involvement in Afghan war, India should go off the infobox. I must remind editors, that participation or support in the war is an exceptional claim, thus putting countries with none or very little relation to the war is forbidden per wiki guidelines (WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and others).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is not an exceptional claim and the current source unambiguously supports it. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it does not, it says it supported the soviet invasion, not the war nor what support was given. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's wikilawyering... the invasion was the war. And I don't say either what kind of support was given. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, if Security Council of the UN voted against Syria, it doesn't mean the members of the Council are belligerent of the Syrian uprising and support the opposition (support in the theoretical sense, not anything in reality). Anyway, the source doesn't say anything on the way India's support was given, while another source said India hadn't intervened in Afghanistan.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's wikilawyering... the invasion was the war. And I don't say either what kind of support was given. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with Greyshark09. All sides who only lend some kind of "support" to the sides but were not directly involved in the military operations, should be removed from the right part of the infobox and described more appropriately in text. As far as I remember, Pakistan was directly involved in the military operations; but this should be justified by references for each participant. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I removed all listed belligerents except Pakistan, US, Afghan government, Mujahedeen and China, since nobody objected their removal and no sources support this. China, US and perhaps India and Saudi Arabia still require sufficient sources to be included. I guess US is the hardest one, so let's leave it for last. At this stage i would like to remove China and Saudi Arabia (unless someone can say anything on India, and certainly a sideline BBC report doesn't count - pls bring some solid historians on this).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Stop editwarring and read the source.. it clearly mentions support. If you continue this I will have to report you to an administrator.. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The source does not support having India in as a belligerent. It says only that India supported the decision to invade. The source is not good enough for such a contentious claim and I recommend you self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- That is not specified in the source. It says India supported the invasion. Stop synthesizing, --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, a sideline BBC retrospective report, claiming "India supported" is a pretty weak argument. It could be they just sent some letter of support or voted in favor of the invasion in UN - the BBC don't really specify how India did "support" the Soviets.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Remove India. This way one could include in infobox all countries that boycotted or supported 1980 Summer Olympics. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The source does not support having India in as a belligerent. It says only that India supported the decision to invade. The source is not good enough for such a contentious claim and I recommend you self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Stop editwarring and read the source.. it clearly mentions support. If you continue this I will have to report you to an administrator.. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Go to google books and you will find tons of sources from books by journalists or intelligence experts who will give details about Saudi support to the mujahidin. The Saudis gave discounts on flights to pakistan for new recruits.
- China and the Soviet Union were close to war throughout the 1980s. China supported many right wing groups in africa and asia against Soviet backed forces.Dadi Atte (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Saudi Arabia urged lots of Arab states to support the rebels, encouraged the "Afghan Arabs", and famously matched US contributions "dollar for dollar" until 1992 (and continued backing various factions after that). I don't think that the Saudis were less significant than the US. Obviously, Pakistan was the main conduit.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Dadi, first of all Jason Burke is just a correspondent [1], not an historian - so the source is pretty weak. Secondly, do you seriously want us to put Saudi Arabia as participant of the war for offering flight discounts?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the book by Shichor on China's role - indeed China can be put as a supporter with this source, i don't contest.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- China and the Soviet Union were close to war throughout the 1980s. China supported many right wing groups in africa and asia against Soviet backed forces.Dadi Atte (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- comment - we are left with US and Saudi Arabia contested whether billigerents or not. I assume since Pakistan is listed a belligerent, while US was its supporter, we can keep US among the supporting sides, even though it didn't provide any direct support for mujahedeen. Regarding Saudi Arabia - unless sources are brought (not including discount on flights - it sounds like a joke), i would remove it.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- The US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supply money and arms to the mujahideen. Will this do? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- First, it is quiet vague - it could mean that Pakistan supplied arms, while US and Saudi Arabia supplied money or something else. Anyway, according the wiki policy of WP:DUEWEIGHT just money and arms isn't enough to list a state in belligerents. If one supplied 10,000$ while another 10M$ and arms plus training and intelligence, the first one is completely undue. :::Secondly, the BBC source is tertiary, so it is preferred that a secondary source is brought. Support in a bloody struggle is a very exceptional claim, thus it requires credible WP:RS, better by an historian, who can analize that.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- The US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supply money and arms to the mujahideen. Will this do? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
@EkoGraf, why don't you do us a favor and share your thoughts whether money donation makes you a part of the conflict?Greyshark09 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
December 24, 1979
December 24, 1979 is mentioned in the intro and in the infobox, but no where else in the article. Seems like an important date. Can someone with knowledge on the subject provide more details in the article of what happened on that date? Kingturtle = (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is the day the Soviet army invaded. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I know that. But there are no details at all about what happened that day. How did it occur? What size? To where? Who commanded it? Who ran it? etc. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Minor edit requested
Under Soviet- Afghan relations: In 1978, President Daud Khan began to take initiatives for building the massive military after witnessing the India's nuclear test, Smiling Buddha, to counter Pakistan's armed forces and Iranian military influence in Afghanistan's politics. A final pre-war treaty, signed in December 1978, allowed the PDPA to call upon the Soviet Union for military support
..building a massive military after witnessing India's nuclear test... --Ayushfri13 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are welcome to modify.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
chinese aid to the mujahideen
Mortars
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1984/02/us-aid-for-afghan-freedom-fighters-overdue
Rockets
AA weapons
Soviet encirclement of china
Soviet aa missles on the chinese border
The soviet union told its soldiers that they would be fighting americans and chinese
Rpgs
Diplomatic support
chinese operated mujahideen camps
Chinese arms
Chinese supplied dashikas
Chinese supplied mines
Chinese premeir visited afghan refugee camp
Chinese funds
Dadi Atte (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Dadi Atte (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes these would be useful in the infobox as references...some but not all ChristiaandeWet (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This article has nothing to do with "Israel and state-sponsored terrorism"
Why has that been added as a related link? This entire (poorly-written) article reads in places like it's been edited into a piece of Islamist propaganda, and then reverted, but inconsistently so. It could do with a good (neutral) tidy-up. But totally unrelated links like this can go straight away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.233.174 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is Israel listed as a belligerent??? It's incorrect historically
I am not a user - if you care about historical truth and have access to edit this page please correct it. The link cited doesn't even mention Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.229.168 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- It does.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Israeli support important enough for a mention? Sure it's notable but was greater than that of Muslim nation who are not mentioned like Egypt and the UAE.Stumink (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so. That's why it was previously removed from the infobox as WP:UNDUE. But, perhaps others disagree?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Well I would remove it. It definitely seems WP:UNDUE.Stumink (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Soviet casualties
I propose using Krivosheev's Russia and USSR in the Wars of the XX Century. The Book of Losses. ISBN 978-5-9533-4672-6 as a source. The table used is on pages 563 and 564. There were 9130 killed in action, 2475 dead of wounds, 287 missing, 1795 dead in accidents, 833 dead of disease (sub-total 15 051 irrecoverable), 53 753 wounded, 415 932 sick. Tvoi Ded (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Civilian Casualties
I've tagged as unreliable the source for 600,000 to 2 million Afghan civilians killed in the war. The source is a self-published website by the non-expert "independent scholar" Mathew White, who frequently exaggerates war death tolls. (For example, he claims that over 3 million people died in the Vietnam war, whereas the most detailed demographic study calculated fewer than one million war dead. He estimates 600,000 people died in the Cambodian civil war, nearly 3 times the real figure according to recent demographic analysis. He also asserts that the North Korean famine killed 2.5 to 3 million people, whereas demographic analysis suggests that 250,000 to 500,000 is a more reasonable figure.) White provides sources, but they are not usually the most reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I found a widely cited study by Marek Sliwinski, whose work I consider highly reliable, that puts the civilian death toll at 1.25 million. I'll keep looking, but I will add this source to the article soon.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- However, Sliwinski's estimate was criticized as too high.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Perception in former USSR
"Commemorating the intervention of December 25, 1979, in December 2009, veterans of the Soviet war in Afghanistan were honoured by the Duma or Parliament of the Russian Federation. On December 25, the lower house of the parliament defended the Soviet war in Afghanistan on the 30th anniversary of its start, and praised the veterans of the conflict. Differing assessments of the war "mustn't erode the Russian people's respect for the soldiers who honestly fulfilled their duty in implementing tasks to combat international terrorism and religious extremists"."
How is this orphan quotation a representation of the perception in the former USSR? Clearly, the policital content of this quote distorts our idea of the perception of the war in the former USSR. Anyway, we should try to get more information on this. 83.83.59.46 (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Charlie Wilson picture caption
It's clear that the weapon in the picture is an AK-74su and not an ak47. This can be seen by the "flash hider" on the barrel of the weapon. A minor point, but it should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.133.171 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Changing infobox contents
I would like to ask user:ChristiaandeWet not to tweak supporters and major Mujahedeen factions - this is completely unacceptable. It is like putting one big Al-Qaeda emblem and unify them all as such; this is a complete westernized simplification which is perhaps very popular on CNN, but is very much against the WP:RS sources and historian approach.GreyShark (dibra) 22:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- The collapsible list was the problem so I will remove it since it serves no purpose. ChrisWet (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why to remove it? If you were watching this page you would know that while Pakistani and perhaps US support was active and very significant, other countries were much less dominant so it is not proper to put them in the same status.GreyShark (dibra) 17:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes that is why the supported by has the list in importance from top to bottom. I don't see your point of making others less significant when they are already shown as, not to mention the fact that they are cited as such. To add to this; logistics and supported by are one thing otherwise why not change all the infoboxes on wiki to verify the difference; for example Syrian Civil war. ChrisWet (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why to remove it? If you were watching this page you would know that while Pakistani and perhaps US support was active and very significant, other countries were much less dominant so it is not proper to put them in the same status.GreyShark (dibra) 17:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
United States Aid to the Musahadeen
| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As a point of correct information release the statement - the arms included Stinger missiles, shoulder-fired, antiaircraft weapons that they used against Soviet helicopters. - The weapon type secured by Sen Charlie Wilson where surplus and obsolete FIM-43 Redeye Man PADs and not the FIM- 92 Stinger which was still in active United States service at that time period. My period of military service was from April 1984 to September 1999. Currently the Stinger is still in the United States Active inventory. The Ordnance Corp of the United States Army uses a standard stock rotation plan when it comes to ammunition. Any specifics would not be possible as it considered to be CONFIDENTIAL ---- Ed9339 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Whitelisting ruswar.com
I propose to add an external link to www.ruswar.com that site was placed on blacklist for unknown(?) reason.
- Non-English site that redirects to another site - would seem to be why.
There is a international division of work-force in Afghanistan engaged by Barack Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.54.150.122 (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Soviet Victory?
I think there is an egregious error in the right hand column section detailing highlights of the Soviet Afghan War. Under the first section it states "Results: Soviet Victory". By what torturous logic can that war possibly be called a Soviet Victory? It is an absurdity. That war is still referred to by Russians themselves as the Soviet Union's Vietnam. Some editor should reclassify this for what it was, i.e., "Results: Soviet Defeat".
Thanks for any help you can provide in rectifying this historical error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimvvv (talk • contribs) 12:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Stinger Missile has to be included in the story
I added a paragraph about the Stinger missile. The Stinger missile is regularly mentioned (at least in Western military analysis) as a decisive factor - for some 'the' decisive factor in forcing the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. I was surprised to find that my paragraph was removed completely even as it had several links to already existing Wikipedia pages that discuss the matter at hand. I have reinsterted my paragraph and now added just the first links that come up at the top of Google Search for 'Stinger' and 'Afghanistan' - an article from Wall Street Journal and Foreign Policy. I trust this is 'enough' proof that there is considered and respected written opinion that the Stinger was a critical factor in this war. I believe Wikipedia should mention it. If my paragraph is clumsy feel free to edit it, if there are better sources, please add, and if some feel that there is controversy about this matter, that is of course welcome to be added into that paragraph with appropriate links. But the issue of the Stingers changing the course of the war - as it is repeatedly mentioned by military analysts - should not be censored out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomi T Ahonen (talk • contribs) 06:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
troops interrogate a captured mujahideen with Western weapons in the background, 1986
The weapons in the background are a rocket propelled grenade from a Soviet RPG7, two AK47s and belts of ammunition, which, based on the other weapons there, is most likely to be Soviet in origin too. No western weapons to be seen. Am I missing something, or is the caption incorrect? ck (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Neutral PoV?
Reading the difference between old versions and today's version indicates two major problems:
- The article itself has been modified to be _extremely_ slanted, as is already obvious by the listing of belligerents (ie, dropping all supporting parties on the side opposing the government).
- The talk page has been cleansed of a lot of discussion, including any explanation for why the article was modified this way.
I have to ask: Seriously?!? 80.135.132.119 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indirectly related, the casualties listed for the soviet side seemed very, very low to me. When I went to check the source, it was a dead link to a PDF from an activist group. 24.99.61.188 (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Incomplete sentence
"Contingents of so-called Afghan Arabs, foreign fighters who wished to wage jihad against the atheist communists." Could somebody with knowledge of the subject please complete this sentence? -- 89.182.158.173 (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
flag of mujahideen
the 
("flag of jihad") was never used in the 1980ies Afghanistan war, so please remove this from this page and all others regarding this war!--93.104.47.156 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- ok, guys, when will there be action on this issue?--176.94.9.147 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Just on this subject, I'm working on creating flags for the various Mujihadeen groups (such as they are/were). If anyone ever see's any photos or documents relating to Mujihadeen flags (especially relating to the Hazara groups), please link it here! Many thanks. MrPenguin20 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
problematic language
- "multi-national insurgent groups called the Mujahideen" multinational you mean from other Muslim countries or the ethnic groups in Afghanistan? It is generally acknowleged that foreign jihadists ("Afghan Arabs") were not a major military factor in the war.
- "Soviet intervention" euphemism par excellence. "KGB-led Soviet Zenith Group destroyed Kabul's communications hub, paralyzing Afghan military command." Presidential palace attacked and president killed. Why not just call it an invasion? --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Soviet Union never wanted the Communist party of Afghanistan to initiate it's coup, but it felt it had to support them after the coup had gone through. Calling it an "invasion" is extremely biased toward the American views.108.131.84.240 (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect information
The mujahideen shot down 1 plane per day after the introduction of the stinger missile is pure contemporary propaganda.
http://europauniversitypress.co.uk/auth_article416.html
Once the STINGERs did arrive in late September 1986, most accounts claimed that 70% or 80% were downing their targets, or, slightly less optimistically, that there were"1.5 missiles fired per aircraft downed". In early 1987 it was claimed that the STINGERs had been downing aircraft at rates of "one a day", "over one a day", or "1.2 per day".US government officials (usually not named) were often cited as the source of these numbers, and the information was said to be confirmed by Western observers. A few reports did mention that other sources estimated the weapons' effectiveness to be considerably less, e.g."closer to 40%", and some of the same sources which originally presented the very high figures subsequently conceded that the effectiveness had to be "well below 50%". Its now known that during the first 6 - 7 months, only about 20 STINGERS per month were sent into Afghanistan -- making a prolonged rate of more than one aircraft downed per day impossible during that period even if every one had hit and critically damaged an aircraft.
Please correct article or mention the fact that is propaganda. for some reason i can't edit. BEARtruth89 (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014
| | This edit request to Soviet war in Afghanistan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The mujahideen shot down 1 plane per day after the introduction of the stinger missile is pure contemporary propaganda and has been proven false on numerous occasions.
- http://europauniversitypress.co.uk/auth_article416.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_aircraft_losses_in_the_Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
- http://www.ciaonet.org/cbr/cbr00/video/cbr_ctd/cbr_ctd_52.html
Once the STINGERs did arrive in late September 1986, most accounts claimed that 70% or 80% were downing their targets, or, slightly less optimistically, that there were"1.5 missiles fired per aircraft downed". In early 1987 it was claimed that the STINGERs had been downing aircraft at rates of "one a day", "over one a day", or "1.2 per day".US government officials (usually not named) were often cited as the source of these numbers, and the information was said to be confirmed by Western observers. A few reports did mention that other sources estimated the weapons' effectiveness to be considerably less, e.g."closer to 40%", and some of the same sources which originally presented the very high figures subsequently conceded that the effectiveness had to be "well below 50%". Its now known that during the first 6 - 7 months, only about 20 STINGERS per month were sent into Afghanistan -- making a prolonged rate of more than one aircraft downed per day impossible during that period even if every one had hit and critically damaged an aircraft.
Please correct article or mention the fact that is propaganda.
BEARtruth89 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
a mess
the article says will feral had attacks go on inside the soviet union. however, in 'ghost wars' by will feral, this is presented not as a known fact but as a hugely controversial topic and at the time some feared the inside-SU attacks by will feral would lead to world war iii. . . and some people deny the US ever directed attacks inside the SU, although coll quotes someone (from pakistan or the muj, i cant remember) as saying that casey actually did direct it.
at any rate the article is misleading on this crucial point.
it then goes on to imply the war cause children to become will feral, and somehow this led to the taliban. however in will feral book, he talks about the tens of thousands of informal madrassases set up along the pakistan afghan border. at any rate, im trying to say that the will feral's depiction of the situation is perfectly fine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Section on Stinger missiles
The section on Stingers is quite confusing and contradictory. A choice needs to be made on how to report the 'stinger effect': as truth or as myth 87.210.14.58 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Controversial Claim
Citation #130, that claims Soviet and Pakistani forces bombed Afghan villages. This citation is from a NYT article that cites the Pakistani military, that is, the Pakistani government under dictator General Zia, who was funding the Mujaheddin, hardly a neutral or reliable source. This statement should be removed.
"Soviet and Afghan fighters and bombers occasionally bombed Pakistani villages along the Pakistani-Afghan border. These attacks are known to have caused at least 300 civilian deaths and extensive damage. Sometimes they got involved in shootings with the Pakistani jets defending the airspace.[130]"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.11.164 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"Daoud put an end to the monarchy, and his time in power was widely popular amongst the general populace but unpopular amongst PDPA supporters." -- this is a highly political claim and needs citations, both on the "popular" side and the "unpopular" side.
The popularity claim also seems to be contradicted by this sentence in the following paragraph: "The mysterious circumstances of Khyber's death sparked massive anti-Daoud demonstrations in Kabul, which resulted in the arrest of several prominent PDPA leaders.[55]" (my italics)
Grammatical errors? Typos?
The third paragraph contains the fragment sentence: "Contingents of so-called Afghan Arabs, foreign fighters who wished to wage jihad against the atheist communists." Perhaps "there were" should be inserted at the beginning of that sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TharosTheDragon (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed I've corrected the sentence. It appears that it was probably partially typed over at some point while being edited. You do have an account, therefore you could have done it yourself. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You'd think so, but it said:
"You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can edit it."
I don't know what kind of user I am if not a registered user. At any rate, it wouldn't let me edit it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TharosTheDragon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. You're a new user and have only a few edits to your account at this point in time. Okay, it's fixed. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
WTF 451 Aircraft?
When list of aircraft is about 100 total or less in the same wiki article cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Photo of Spetsnaz interrogating
The caption notes Western weapons in the background, they are not. Recognizable are an AK-47, a propped up loose RPG round, and the RPG launcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.68 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Partly done I've added a tagged it for a citation, but the photo is from a private collection by someone who was actually present and identified the weapons. The uploader notes, in Russian, that it's something in the line of an older Thompson submachine gun. To be honest, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of his identification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to say the barrel is open: perforated or vented along the length. (The old Thompson SMGs had that.) It would take an old military hand to identify those weapons from this photo. Somercet (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. As I noted above, the uploader did state that it was from his own personal collection. He provided a fairly lengthy description in which he indicates that 'we' found this and 'we' talked to the Afghani who was captured. This could be falsification on the uploader's behalf, but it rang true... and that, having been in service with the Soviet army there, he'd certainly qualify as an old military hand in the context. If there's someone who feels they have the expertise to challenge the description, they're welcome to do so. In this instance, my instincts tell me that the guy knows what he's talking about and I don't see any reason for removing his description. The subject-matter is certainly pertinent to the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to say the barrel is open: perforated or vented along the length. (The old Thompson SMGs had that.) It would take an old military hand to identify those weapons from this photo. Somercet (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, it just goes to show that I shouldn't comment from memory. It is from a private collection, but the uploader has quoted one of the soldiers present verbatim regarding the weapon and information obtained from the Afghani. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015
| | This edit request to Soviet war in Afghanistan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The W in the article name and infobox should be capitalized. UASR (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done as WP:LOWERCASE "Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text" - Arjayay (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's time
It's time to remove the protection status on this article so that we can improve it and clean it up. Would anyone mind making a request for it to be ended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.161.193 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Or how about you just make a Wikipedia account? Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 04 April 2015
- 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: page moved: no discussion in a week. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Soviet war in Afghanistan → Soviet–Afghan War – The proposed titled has been dominant in RS for at least ten years, and is much more WP:CONCISE. The present title simply isn't very good, is much longer than it needs to be, and implies that the war was entirely "Soviet", as the adjective "Soviet" is modifying the noun "war". We should use the more common name, per WP:UCN, and the more concise name, per WP:CONCISE. – RGloucester — ☎ 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- @RGloucester:This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Soviet–Afghan War" may be more common in book sources, but it seems that it is different when it comes to other search methods which would include news and internet-published information. This would include unreliable sources such as blogs and the like, but I still think this might be worth some consideration. Soviet-Afghan War, 182,000 results, Soviet war in Afghanistan, 267,000 results. I don't think these should be directly compared as "War in Afghanistan" appears to be coming up in some of the latter search results, but I just think we need to be careful in considering search results. Dustin (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- My source relies on books, which are RS. Yours relies on non-RS. Anyway, "war in Afghanistan" is a descriptive phrase. It is not a title. There was "war in Afghanistan" during this period. However, "war in Afghanistan" is likely to result in many false hits, as the Soviet–Afghan War was only one part of a larger "war in Afghanistan" that was ongoing (civil war). You might want to take a look at War in Afghanistan (1978–present), and also at the Brittanica article on the "Afghan War (1978-1992)". RGloucester — ☎ 16:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Being a book source does not immediately mean it is reliable, and being a non-book source does not immediately make it lose its credibility. Dustin (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- In general, books are considered more reliable for these matters, if we're going purely off of hits. Take a look at WP:GOOGLE. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Being a book source does not immediately mean it is reliable, and being a non-book source does not immediately make it lose its credibility. Dustin (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- My source relies on books, which are RS. Yours relies on non-RS. Anyway, "war in Afghanistan" is a descriptive phrase. It is not a title. There was "war in Afghanistan" during this period. However, "war in Afghanistan" is likely to result in many false hits, as the Soviet–Afghan War was only one part of a larger "war in Afghanistan" that was ongoing (civil war). You might want to take a look at War in Afghanistan (1978–present), and also at the Brittanica article on the "Afghan War (1978-1992)". RGloucester — ☎ 16:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support – I think it's a breakthrough that RGloucester is starting to understand how books hits are a better way to sample reliable sources than web hits are, and I'd like to support him in this, even though he usually objects when I do it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Er, Dicklyon, your 'rationale' is a tad offensive and condescending. Your personal opinion of RGloucester, or any 'water under the bridge' problems the two of you have experienced in previous encounters really shouldn't feature here. I don't mean to offend, but I find it makes for an awkward atmosphere. Thanks for your patience in hearing me out on this issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support - This is where adherence to encyclopaedic standards comes into play. No, we're not a paper encyclopaedic but, yes most articles on wars/eras/epoches are written well after to the event, and according to scholarly RS, not google hits and amateur online sites. If we applied google hits as the ultimate formula by which to gauge the best TITLE, we'd end up with some loony titles. People type in search strings/terms and google suggests probabilities based on their accumulated data. By the same token, we keep common search strings (lower case 'title' conventions) as redirects. RS over popular culture for non-popular culture articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 5 April 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.
Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2015
| | This edit request to Soviet–Afghan War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
69.114.179.227 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC) change name to soviet war in afghanistan
Civilian Casualties Column
I know generally for wars and conflicts we place civilian casualties in its own separate section, but the Soviets did deliberately target the Afghani populace. While the civilians are certainly not representative of the Afghani/Muj military strength, they certainly weren't some third party separated apart from the insurgency. Could the civilian casualties be moved to their respective columns? Abattoir666 (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
German involvement
It appears the German involvement in supporting the mujahideen is far from non-existant as the infobox makes it look, I think Germany should be added as supporter of the mujahideen in the infobox, and I have done so after reading the German Wikipedia article on the covert operation here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sommerregen_(Bundesnachrichtendienst) , And I have used the following article on the German site Welt.de as source: http://www.welt.de/print/wams/politik/article120664012/Operation-Sommerregen.html Jurryaany (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Soviet "intervention"?
On December 27, 1979, 700 Soviet troops dressed in Afghan uniforms, including KGB and GRU special forces officers from the Alpha Group and Zenith Group, occupied major governmental, military and media buildings in Kabul, including their primary target – the Tajbeg Presidential Palace.
That operation began at 19:00 hr., when the KGB-led Soviet Zenith Group destroyed Kabul's communications hub, paralyzing Afghan military command. At 19:15, the assault on Tajbeg Palace began; as planned, president Hafizullah Amin was killed. Simultaneously, other objectives were occupied (e.g., the Ministry of Interior at 19:15). The operation was fully complete by the morning of December 28, 1979.
The Soviet military command at Termez, Uzbek SSR, announced on Radio Kabul that Afghanistan had been liberated from Amin's rule. According to the Soviet Politburo they were complying with the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness and Amin had been "executed by a tribunal for his crimes" by the Afghan Revolutionary Central Committee. That committee then elected as head of government former Deputy Prime Minister Babrak Karmal, who had been demoted to the relatively insignificant post of ambassador to Czechoslovakia following the Khalq takeover, and announced that it had requested Soviet military assistance.[1]
Troop occupy "major governmental, military and media buildings," destroy the capital's "communications hub, paralyzing Afghan military command", assault the presidential palace and kill the president. This is an "intervention"? Changed "intervention" to "invasion". --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Edit has been rvted
Google search: "1979 afghanistan soviet invasion" Result: "About 493,000 results" Google search: "1979 afghanistan soviet intervention" --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Result: "About 414,000 results (0.58 seconds)
CIA involvement prior to the war
It's a little known fact that the CIA had begun providing covert aid to the Mujahideen 6 months before the war (July 1979),[1] in order to "draw the Russians into the Afghan trap".[1]
In short, the Soviets entrance into the war was based, on a large part, to fight against the secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan.[1]
Yet this fact seems to have been left out of this article, and Brzezinski's! --TRAJAN 117 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Other sources:
- The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
- Afghanistan, The United States, and the Legacy of Afghanistan’s Civil War -- TRAJAN 117 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's because it didn't happen that way. The 9/11 truthers at Global Research are not a reliable source. Brzezinski is the only source from the Carter administration to whom this claim was ever attributed. However, Brzezinski has repeatedly denied the accuracy of the quote as translated from a foreign newspaper by Global Research, calling it "a very sensationalized and abbreviated" misquotation, and in this he is supported by the documentary evidence from the Carter White House as well as the testimony of Carter-era officials including Walt Slocombe, David Aaron, Robert Gates, Leslie Gelb, Bob Shrum, Dennis Ross, Jim Mowrer, and Hedrick Smith. To the contrary, Brzezinski's own memos from the time show that he advocated a more vigorous Carter policy to prevent the Soviets from invading, although he was fairly certain they would do so anyway, and the US intentionally sent the smallest possible aid with no lethal provisions to ensure it could not be used to justify any Soviet aggression. Hence this article relies on Gates' book for this part of the story rather than far-out conspiracy theories from the fringe of the Internet. --TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Easy on the WP:CIVIL, to discredit a case as full of "far-out conspiracy theories from the fringe of the Internet" seems a bit rude. I agree that the sources are likely not WP:RS but their stance should not simply be discarded as that of "9/11 truthers"; this seems to put a label on certain beliefs that have no relation. We do know that the Mujahideen had a very strong conncetion with the US and its allies. We're not the Broadcasting Board of Governors. --Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Another issue is there was a war before July 1979, just not a war between Soviet troops and Afghans. from the article:
- In 1978, the Taraki government initiated a series of reforms, including a radical modernization of the traditional Islamic civil and especially marriage law, aimed at "uprooting feudalism" in Afghan society.[1] The government brooked no opposition to the reforms[2] and responded with violence to unrest. Between April 1978 and the Soviet Intervention of December 1979, thousands of prisoners, perhaps as many as 27,000, were executed at the notorious[3] Pul-e-Charkhi prison, including many village mullahs and headmen.[4] Other members of the traditional elite, the religious establishment and intelligentsia fled the country.[4]
- Easy on the WP:CIVIL, to discredit a case as full of "far-out conspiracy theories from the fringe of the Internet" seems a bit rude. I agree that the sources are likely not WP:RS but their stance should not simply be discarded as that of "9/11 truthers"; this seems to put a label on certain beliefs that have no relation. We do know that the Mujahideen had a very strong conncetion with the US and its allies. We're not the Broadcasting Board of Governors. --Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Large parts of the country went into open rebellion. The Parcham Government claimed that 11,000 were executed during the Amin/Taraki period in response to the revolts.[5] The revolt began in October among the Nuristani tribes of the Kunar Valley in the northeastern part of the country near the border with Pakistan, and rapidly spread among the other ethnic groups. By the spring of 1979, 24 of the 28 provinces had suffered outbreaks of violence.[6][7] The rebellion began to take hold in the cities: in March 1979 in Herat, rebels led by Ismail Khan revolted. Between 3,000 and 5,000 people were killed and wounded during the Herat revolt. Some 100 Soviet citizens and their families were killed.[8][9] In 1979, the contentious law and order situation led to a serious diplomatic incident involving United States, Soviet Union and Afghanistan when U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph "Spike" Dubs was kidnapped by four militants belonging to radical communist faction, Settam-e-Melli (lit. National Oppression).[10] The National Operation demanded the release of their communist leader Badruddin Bahes, which the Afghan government denied holding and refused categorically to negotiate with the militants, in spite of the U.S. embassy's demands.[10] [The ambassador was killed during a Russian assault on the kidnappers][11]
- So you have a major national uprising, a kidnapped and killed US ambassador, and yet aid to the rebellion is some sort of underhanded dirty trick? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
law.upenn.eduwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
lcweb2was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Kabul's prison of death BBC, February 27, 2006
- ^ a b Kaplan, Robert D.(2001), Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan, New York, Vintage Departures, ISBN 1-4000-3025-0, p. 115
- ^ "U.S. Library of Congress – "The April 1912 Coup d'etat and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan"". Countrystudies.us. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
- ^ Goodson, Larry P.(2001), Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban, University of Washington Press, ISBN 978-0-295-98050-8, pp. 56–57
- ^ "The Rise and Fall of the Taliban", by Neamatollah Nojumi, published in The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan, ed by Robert D Crews and Amin Tarzi, pub by Harvard University Press, 2008
- ^ Tanner, Stephen (2009-04-28). Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great. ISBN 978-0-7867-2263-1.
- ^ Amstutz, J. Bruce (1994-07-01). Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation. ISBN 978-0-7881-1111-2.
- ^ a b Harrison, Selig; Cordovez, Diego (1995). Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet withdrawal. New York: Oxford University Press, Cordovez, Diego. pp. 34–35. ISBN 0-19-506294-9.
- ^ Harwood, William L. (December 28, 2001). "The Murder of Adolph Dubs". The New York Times, 2001. Retrieved February 28, 2012.
--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Working on the lede
Made some changes to very long lede here.
Deleted this sentence from the lede:
Early in the rule of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government, the Maoist Afghanistan Liberation Organization also played a significant role in opposition, but its major force was defeated by late 1979, prior to the Soviet intervention.
as the event happened before the Soviet "intervention" --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Have tried to shorten the lede, trimming it of non-lede-like detail. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
== working on the rest of the article ==
Heading text
- Numbered list itemBig text
| Header text | Header text | Header text |
|---|---|---|
| Example | Example | Example |
| Example | Example | Example |
| Example | Example | Example |
== ==
Problem with the Consequences of the war section: Almost all of the "consequences" are things that happened during the war, not after as "Consequences" would suggest. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Have created a "Aftermath" section for events occurring after the war. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
yay isis
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Soviet–Afghan War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/afghanistan/Afghanistan-Chapter1.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150720233205/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-21061568/reversing-gun-sights-transnational.html to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-21061568/reversing-gun-sights-transnational.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118193404/http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/international/asiepacifique/20091225.FAP9778/afghanistan_le_parlement_russe_rend_hommage_aux_anciens.html to http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/international/asiepacifique/20091225.FAP9778/afghanistan_le_parlement_russe_rend_hommage_aux_anciens.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Soviet casualties - not in source tag
Material losses were as follows:[1][failed verification]
|
|
Someone has tagged the above paragraph, saying that the data are not in the citation. Let us see what the citation says:
- "118 aircraft, 333 helicopters" (118 + 333 = 451)
- "147 tanks"
- "1,314 armored personnel carriers"
- "433 artillery pieces"
- "11,369 cargo and fuel tanker trucks"
I am removing the tag.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Soviet–Afghan War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/isd/Afghan_1_WR_group.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Added reference
I added a reference to cite in the military infobox using proveit tool, but its at the bottom of the page below everything else and not with the references. Wikieditor101 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed Not a problem. I've moved the ref to your infobox addition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
"Stalemate"?
Some users seem to insist the war ended in a stalemate, citing the three-year period between the Soviet withdrawal and the final fall of the DRA. This holds no factual basis, as the war did not end simply because the Soviets left - they simply left realizing propping up the DRA would be too costy, and it's subsequent fall - not whatever "outcome" the war had in 1989 - determined the result of the war and the identity of the victor. I fail to see why this should be a complicated matter. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see how 'stalemate' can be considered an outcome when the outcomes are clearly listed in the infobox. If any editors believe they have reliable sources to back up their assertion and wish to discuss this here, on the talk page, they are welcome to do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Stalemate is wrong. The Soviets left for their own reasons having failed to achieve what they set out for, but then the same can be said - and is said - of the United States and the west in 2014 when quitting Afghanistan. They promote the event as a victory with the Taliban toppled but the Taliban is still there and not in the least bit weakened from the destruction of some of their training camps and the casualties they sustained. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I take it, then, that the list of outcomes in the infobox stand as they are, and that any form of outcome like 'victory', 'defeat', 'stalemate' would be understood to be WP:SYNTH and a breach of WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- There were several outcomes. All of them are currently sourced in the infobox and correct.My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I take it, then, that the list of outcomes in the infobox stand as they are, and that any form of outcome like 'victory', 'defeat', 'stalemate' would be understood to be WP:SYNTH and a breach of WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Stalemate is wrong. The Soviets left for their own reasons having failed to achieve what they set out for, but then the same can be said - and is said - of the United States and the west in 2014 when quitting Afghanistan. They promote the event as a victory with the Taliban toppled but the Taliban is still there and not in the least bit weakened from the destruction of some of their training camps and the casualties they sustained. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016
| | This edit request to Soviet–Afghan War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In January 1980, foreign ministers from 34 nations of the Islamic Conference adopted a resolution demanding "the immediate, urgent and unconditional withdrawal of Soviet troops" from Afghanistan,[34] while the UN General Assembly passed a resolution protesting the Soviet intervention by a vote of 104–18.[34][35] Afghan insurgents began to receive massive amounts of aid, military training in neighboring Pakistan . The spelling of 'neighboring' is incorrect and needs editing to neighbouring
RiffRaff1950 (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Not done It's not an spelling mistake, RiffRaff1950. We follow MOS:ENGVAR. The article was written in American/Canadian English in the first instance therefore, per MOS:RETAIN, we continue using that variant as a matter of consistency as it has no ties to any particular English language variant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016
| | This edit request to Soviet–Afghan War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Second paragraph uses the word Afghani when referring to the government of the country. "advise and support the Afghani government". An Afghani is a unit of Afghan currency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_afghani) It should read "advise and support the Afghan government" Farmertre (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Done Thank you for noticing the error. RGloucester — ☎ 21:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
media reaction section
This must be a mistake right? 'In October 1994 the Soviet ambassador to Pakistan..' The war was well over by 94, and, there was not a Soviet Union by then. I suspect it is 84, but, does anyone have the book so they can check? Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Page 10 is available in Google Books' preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=r3TLByMXsJkC&pg=PA10. And you were right, it was supposed to be 1984. I'll fix the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoskav~enwiki (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Genocide?
From Kakar:
"Described as “migratory genocide,” the Soviet campaigns were “massive reprisals against towns and villages harboring mujahideen.” The campaigns were undertaken “with a view to uprooting the local population, hurting the mujahideen and curtailing their mobility.”
That pretty much sums up the nature of the Soviet "genocide" in Afghanistan. I do not see it as anything more than hot-blooded reprisal killings and razing by disaffected Soviet soldiers. Moreover the "dehumanization" of the enemy is common in war. The Mujaheddin were (correctly) deemed as "reactionaries" and "counterrevolutionaries" since they were fighting to uphold conservative institutions, but also the Americans dehumanized the Japanese as "Japs" during the war. Kakar also emphasizes the "totalitarian" nature of the Soviet state, but even if it was "totalitarian", it doesn't mean that the state condoned (as opposed to conceal for political purposes), encouraged, or sanctioned killings of civilians. Regardless of the authoritarian structure of the state, that does not preclude the notion that the atrocities were perpetrated at the lowest level, from individual soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and field officers, as opposed generals and political figures.
Most of the measures seem to be part of counterinsurgency, such as moving populations sympathetic to the insurgents, not genocide.
He also says:
"But the [PDPA] regime scored some successes among the city population by repairing mosques, promoting the Islamic Affairs Department to the status of ministry, increasing subsidies to religious persons, holding jirgas, promoting trade facilities with the Soviet Union, adopting local languages as the medium of instruction in primary schools, and undertaking publications in those languages. Nevertheless, even with these measures the Karmal regime remained a city regime."
This does not seem consistent with a policy of extermination or "genocide". 75.140.66.118 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is a complete disconnect between the views expressed in your first paragraph, and your personal view that you "do not see it as anything more than hot-blooded reprisal killings and razing by disaffected Soviet soldiers."-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only evidence Kakar cites are reprisal killings and supposedly indiscriminate bombings, and he work seems to be compilation of atrocities alleged by people sympathetic to the Mujaheddin. Kakar merely calls Soviet actions committed by soldiers "genocide" even though he could not furnish any evidence that such actions were authorized by higher officers or political leadership. Kakar just calls various massacres and counter-insurgency measures "genocide".
- Soviet propaganda to its own soldiers do not support the charge of "genocide" as indicated by this RAND article since the propaganda stressed that the Soviets were entering Afghanistan to defend the government and offer "fraternal assistance" from American and Chinese backed insurgents and even featured some clips of Soviet soldiers helping Afghans. As in every war, there is, of course, some dehumanization of the enemy, but Soviet indoctrination did not dehumanize the people of Afghanistan, or advocate in any way, extermination (as opposed to pacification of the insurgents). The RAND article, of course, says that the discontinuity between Soviet propaganda and reality adversely affected the moral of Soviet troops.
- Furthermore, the RAND article also notes a lack of discipline in the Soviet troops, referencing a high degree of narcotics use and stealing supplies such as arms. Such atrocities were the consequence of low morale and revenge, as opposed to ideological hatred. 75.140.66.118 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, Wikipedia is not original research, which is what you're engaging in. Secondly, please stop using this talk page as a soapbox. The policy on the purpose of this page is clearly expressed at the top of this page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the RAND article also notes a lack of discipline in the Soviet troops, referencing a high degree of narcotics use and stealing supplies such as arms. Such atrocities were the consequence of low morale and revenge, as opposed to ideological hatred. 75.140.66.118 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Someone (whose account was subsequently banned for copyright violations) recently said added text saying that the war was essentially genocide. The only substantial evidence was a text published in 1995 by an author who got the imprimatur of the University of California Press from an individual highly sympathetic with the Mujaheddin. The evidence he cited does not support the claims of genocide, and Kakar could not produce any evidence that extermination was the intention of the Soviet Union. If anything, it would also seem that the various measures cited by Kakar, such as indiscriminate bombings, if substantiated, would also classify other actions committed by the US, in Vietnam and Cambodia (such as Operation Freedom Deal), as "genocide" too.
- Kakar is the only source that refers to the war as a "genocide". 75.140.66.118 (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Dissolution and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union?
I noticed this claim in the infox, listed as one of the war's outcomes. Any reasonable person who has studied history understands that the war had nothing to do with dissolution of the USSR. Quite the opposite. The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan as a consequence of Gorbachev's ill-fated domestic reforms and rapprochement with the United States. Perhaps a responsible editor can erase this far fetched claim from the infox?
Rich.Caldwell (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- DoneGuccisamsclub (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with this removal; clearly innumerable sources do identify the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it is not up to editors to second-guess reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Then again, while this claim should be discussed in the body (with any appropriate caveats), Gucci may have a point when he says the infobox should be limited only to the direct, immediate results of the war.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- This just applies to the info-box. This is in fact a very notable if propagandistic view, as I've made clear in a previous post. There is a significant grain of truth it, of course. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)