Open main menu

Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 13, 2010WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

TyposEdit

First paragraph, last sentence "andwas" appears as one word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.60.35.95 (talkcontribs) 21:44, 19 June 2013

Under Casualties and Losses on right hand side "but reports suggest a higher number compared to coalition forces" may read better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.91.1 (talkcontribs) 17:15, 20 March 2014

"2001: Overthrow of the Taliban" - boming should be bombing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.22.30 (talkcontribs) 22:28, 9 May 2014

Polls on Afghan support of American invasionEdit

The article cites two polls for claim that a "majority of Afghanistan's population supported the American invasion of their country" in the introduction.

I take issue with this one two grounds: First, the polls were conducted in retrospect, the WPO in 2005 and the acsor/Langer Research Associates/D3 Systems in 2014. I changed the sentence to "...Afghanistan's population retrospectively supported..." to clear up any confusion. Towns Hill reverted my edit arguing that the CNN article cited in the following sentence corroborates the first claim. However, this CNN news report on the liberation of Kabul on 13-14 November does not make claims about majorities of Afghans but only reports on anecdotal observations made by CNN journalists in Kabul. Furthermore, Kabul was liberated by Northern Alliance Forces along with 12 US special forces troops (ODA 555: see 5th Special Forces Group and US invasion of Afghanistan). Therefor, the CNN article only says that residents in Kabul were happy that Afghan Northern Alliance forces took the city after weeks of Coalition bombing and that these residents enjoyed freedoms that the Taliban had forbidden. The article makes no claim about support of an American invasion.

Second: Whether it is noteworthy to state that the polls were American (and whether the 2014 polls is even American). The 2005 poll is by an American organization — WorldPublicOpinion.org is part of the University of Maryland. The 2014 poll was conducted by Acsor, Langer Research Associates, and D3 Systems. While Acsor is based in Kabul, I don't think that it is wholly accurate to say that it is not an American organization; it was founded by D3 Systems, an American company, and it's Managing Director, Matthew Warshaw, is both an American and an employee of D3. Langer Research Associates is based in New York. To me this is an American poll, but I understand why other editors may view it differently. Can we come to a consensus about this?

I think that when citing polls it's important to declare any major possible conflicts of interest so that the reader can decide how credible they think the polls are. This especially as the statement is made in second sentence of the introduction.

Thoughts? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I think I might just add this to the reading repository here. I was reading this book (published by Lexington Books) in 2016. Scholars Amin Saikal and Kirill Nourzhanov are the main contributors to this work. On page 11 of the book it incorporates the following text: Although initially a majority of the Afghans seemed to be happy with the U.S.-led intervention...[1] Towns Hill
Exactly. This line of text Towns Hill added, a recent insertion from 2 January 2017, is unacceptable. Several editors have tried to revert or change it but all have been denied. As for this edit, not only does the edit cite US created, US sponsored and US affiliated sources (with the proof being here http://prntscr.com/dzogc7 (WPO website), http://acsor-surveys.com/who-we-are/our-clients/ (ASCOR website) and https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-warshaw-bb660221), and not only do both sources date from after the invasion amongst everything else the original poster said here, it's merely a provocative edit, and even if reliable sources could be found for the claim, which I highly doubt, its addition is entirely inappropriate for the second sentence, let alone the lead section, of the article for this major worldwide controversial war. SpikeballUnion (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The "nationality" of a source is completely irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Very wrong indeed. Consider the actual evidence I showed instead of glossing over it - "US Department of Defense" and "US Department of State" are listed as clients of the ASCOR Survey corporation. The US invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Given these facts, if a survey conducted on the Afghan populace, sponsored by the US, showed that Afghan people heavily disapproved of the US invasion of Afghanistan, the US Departments of Defense and of State would not have accepted the survey results, being the government of the country which carried out the invasion of Afghanistan. Not to mention, the WPO is sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace or USIP, a federal organisation which was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, whose board is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and which "provides analysis of, and is involved in, conflicts around the world". Just doing some research goes a long way. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the nationality is irrelevant. All that matters is whether Ascor or WPO are reliable or not. Who they're affiliated with or who their clients are doesn't matter. So how are these organizations products treated in the relevant literature or by other reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that the statement in the intro may also be misleading: the sources (if they are to be trusted) show only that a majority of Afghans supported the invasion after it happened, not that they were supportive of the idea beforehand. The Americans did not invade Afghanistan because the majority of Afghan people indicated that they wanted them to, but rather for reasons entirely independent of Afghan public opinion. The invasions was a response to 9/11 and aimed at removing a government which the US government saw as being a "state sponsor of terrorism." For this reason I believe that the polls have no place in the intro, at least not at the start of it, as they were not the reason the war happened but only a secondary justification "proven" after the fact. Remember, in 1997 senior Taliban officials visited the US for economic talks with a US company.[2] At that point economic cooperation still superseded any efforts to topple the Taliban including economic sanctions blocking such business deals. The polls were not part of the US narrative justifying military action, they didn't even exist at the time.
However, these polls do seem to be some of the most thorough regarding the invasion and I have been unable to find any polls that were not conducted by US organizations. It seems that initial Afghan support for the war did exist, or at least retrospective support for the initial invasion. I don't think its relevant to mention them in the intro, at least not in the first paragraph but they certainly have a place in the Domestic Reactions section. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. As I said I definitely disagree, regardless of the biased sources, that such a claim would be completely inappropriate for the second sentence of this article. Also note what details the original poster said about where the polls took place and under what conditions. Consider that the Northern Alliance, which the US worked with, was mostly ethnic non-Pashtun (Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara, etc.) against the generally Pashtun Taliban, so after the war when the post-Northern Alliance government had control over the vast majority of the country, the results of the populace would obviously be in support for the US, referring to the original post. If these polls decide to be kept somewhere else in the article, it's highly important that it's mentioned that they were conducted under these conditions. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Seeing that there has been no rebuttal on this point (that the statement should be removed from the into) I will make the edit in a few hours.
The sources also make no claim that the majority of Afghans supported the invasion in 2001-02, only that a majority said that they believed it "was a good thing." Note that the question did not ask if they supported the invasion, only if they think now that it was a good thing; a subtle, but all the same important distinction as it relates to the whole narrative of the invasion. The US did not invade because of Afghan public opinion and that public opinion only began to matter to the invaders afterwards (I don't think this is controversial and I know of no source that claims the war was a result of Afghan public opinion). BananaCarrot152 (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Support for your side, CNN is obvious warhawk propaganda outlet, zero legitimacy you know, they can't just say "afghans said that!" and it instantly turns true, i mean srsly who would actually support an invasion into their own country? it was a criminal act which created a criminal war, which american taxpayers gotta pay for.. like wtf? endless war and afghanistan corruption sucks everything in like some black hole and they ask for more money, read on 2015- present article that they just control some 52% country like seriously lets just leave em GroundlessAir (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added another source to the Domestic Reactions section, and removed the leading sentence on polling so that the section reflects the order in which the events took place. GroundlessAir if you have reliable sources regarding public opinion in Afghanistan on the war between 2001 and 2014, please list them here so that we can add them. I haven't read any reporting from the time that would add a different angle but perhaps you know some or secondary sources that discuss the public reactions and/or biased ("warhawk propaganda") reporting. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge War in Afghanistan (2015-present) into this article?Edit

Two articles for US/NATO involvement in Afghanistan do not make sense to me. Especially since it looks likely the US is getting ready to increase its troop level and authorities for combat operations. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-poised-to-expand-military-effort-against-taliban-in-afghanistan/2017/05/08/356c4930-33fa-11e7-b412-62beef8121f7_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_usafghan-0633pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory . Why not merge the two articles and setup the article for continued US/NATO involvement? Casprings (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe wait and see if the US sends more soldiers or starts dropping more bombs etc.? Seems to me that the "end" of the war was just rhetoric on the side of the US government and not a meaningful change. But I think without new soldiers etc. we would need proper consensus to consolidate the articles on that basis. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Support - this 2015-present phase isn't different from rest of the conflict which began since 2001, just because NATO troops handed over some flag and some bases and equipment to Afghan Army, does not make it entirely different conflict.GroundlessAir (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Support The two different articles make the topic harder for readers to comprehend the totality of the situation. In terms of peripheral articles, such as Journalists killed in Afghanistan, it makes no sense to have a 2014 end date when journalists like David Gilkey are killed after that reporting on essentially the same war/conflict. Readers shouldn't have to look through different articles or access information through separate categories. If we are going to present an end date, it should really mean something different and not a continuation. This arbitrary division makes no sense knowledgewise or in practice. Crtew (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Support/Neutral I propose we move this article to War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and include the last 3 years but keep the other article (War in Afghanistan (2015-present)) as a sub-phase of the war, just like Invasion of Afghanistan and Taliban insurgency. I think that if we just merge everything then this article would become too long and unwieldy (I don't oppose that option, just prefer the other). Any thoughts? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Support - same war, slightly different actors Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Support - same war, don't want to see people misled into thinking it really "ended" by having them separate. cargocontainer (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Support It is hard to argue that they should be separate at this point, although it does run the risk of becoming too long. KD 18:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdowns1453 (talkcontribs)

Requested move 14 June 2017Edit

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. Talk subpages have been moved as well, which took a bit of effort. I'll C2D the categories when I get back in an hour or two, and start merging the article content. That last part will need to be a collaborative effort. —Guanaco 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC) —Guanaco 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)



War in Afghanistan (2001–2014)War in Afghanistan (2001–present) – Per the rationale above, "the two different articles make the topic harder for readers to comprehend the totality of the situation. In terms of peripheral articles, such as Journalists killed in Afghanistan, it makes no sense to have a 2014 end date." This will require a merge of War in Afghanistan (2015–present) Casprings (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Support -- Per above. No sign that war has actually ended, or that actors have change. Also see new US govt policy: Trump gives pentagon authority over troop levels (Washington post). This will likely result in an re-expansion of the US war effort. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to close: The redirect at War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is move-protected so we need to wait for a sysop to G6-delete it. Once that's done I'll handle the initial cleanup and see about merging some of this text. —Guanaco 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I've deleted the page holding up the move. The rest of the stuff is far too much hassle for me so you're on your own. Basalisk inspect damageberate 15:17, 23 June 2017 (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.

sources in infoboxEdit

the infobox lacks any sources for the belligerent countries. could anyone add some? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talkcontribs) 11:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@BountyFlamor: It's generally not necessary to source everything in the lead section and infobox, if the information can be readily verified in the article text. (WP:INFOBOXREF) —Guanaco 12:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: But it isn't. Germany is listed in the invasion phase. but neither on this page, nor on the page "United States invasion of Afghnistan" is there any information on that at all. BountyFlamor (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll make sure it gets done. The infobox may need a major revamp with the move/merge. —Guanaco 02:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The source of footnote [1] is not worth the quote. The source and the section quoted do not correspond.
German special forces were in Afghanistan in Dec 2001; see Task Force K-Bar. I agree we need better sourcing. This article seems to be about as convoluted and confusing as the real conflict. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Also this book BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox does seem weird with pretty much no sources, there's some washington post source about american suspicions of Russia "supporting" the taliban, however I don't believe it is sufficient to add entire massive country into a list of belligerents labeling it a supporter of some armed islamist groups just because some general had some personal russophobic opinions! This is an outrage and totally against WP:NPOV! BlindNight (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure this is a WP:NPOV issue but I agree Russia should not be listed as their involvement is unproven and news reports acknowledge this.[1] Also Pakistan is not listed either (see Inter-Services Intelligence activities in Afghanistan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaCarrot152 (talkcontribs) 00:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2015–present) DeletedEdit

If the war is still ongoing then the War in Afghanistan (2015–present) should be deleted since Wikipedians would not consider 2014 the end date. Otherwise it's superfluous and unencyclopedic.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted because the consensus was that the phase that started in 2001 never ended — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2601:4a:403:3f70:6da1:a47c:3be7:7ee8 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

11K after ISAF?Edit

New sources seem to indicate the US number after the end of ISAF is 11K. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/world/asia/afghanistan-troop-totals.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Might update throughout the article.Casprings (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving categories to reflect recent page moveEdit

I just noticed that all of the subcategories for Category:War in Afghanistan (2001-present) still reflect this article's earlier (2001-2014) title. This should be changed, right? I'm not involved with military topics on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't be comfortable making any changes myself, but it seems confusing to have categories like Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) films and Category:Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) if the main parent category is going to be titled Category:War in Afghanistan (2001-present). Please ping me, as I'm not going to add this page to my watch list, but would like to know what others think. Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've opened a CfD for this here - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 20#War in Afghanistan --Jpcase (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

1000k more SoldieraEdit

Map of current military situationEdit

The map of the current military situation in Afghanistan is over a year old. I know that not that much has changed since then, but it would be nice if someone could upload a new one and make that reflected in the caption. I'd do it myself except I have no idea how. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I second this request, what is going on in the country? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Chronology of the war (2001-present)Edit

The state of the chronology of this war throughout Wikipedia articles is in a sorry, messy state. The information about the events of various years is organized in different ways, without an organic style. And it's frequently incomplete and in need of an update. For instance, we have List of military operations in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present) - stopping at 2010! Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is in a bit better state - it stops at 2013... If you are just interested in the history of coalition operations, on you can find Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006, Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2007 and Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008, no more and no less, beside the articles on the single attacks/ operations. The "Events and controversies" section of Template:Afghanistan War links to "XXXX in Afghanistan" for the years from 2007 to 2018, not before, while the Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is more systematic.

The History section on this page is the most organic narration of the events of the whole conflict, but it should be just a summary, and it's not adequately supported by more specifica articles.

(This talk page may not be the fittest place to talk about problems distributed among various articles, but it looks like there's no better page. Maybe this is one of the reasons for the dishomogeneity.) ---- 79.51.247.22 (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Update Summary BoxEdit

Not sure how to update the summary box, but I noticed it still has Malcom Turnbull instead of the new PM Scott Morrison in the leaders section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.150.0 (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I've made the fix. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't Edit On ThisEdit

This is an important topic for kids in school, and they need a reliable source. One that just doesn't let people edit whenever they want to.

With all due respect, the reliability of Wikipedia depends of its essence on allowing almost anyone to change almost anything subject to the Wikimedia rules of writing from a neutral point of view, citing credible sources, and treating others with respect.
I get a few emails a day notifying me of changes made to different Wikipedia articles. Most fix minor errors like converting "Dont" to "Don't". Others are more substantive. Some are vandalism. The obvious vandalism is reverted usually in seconds. More subtle "Point of View" editing sometimes gets accepted for a time but is usually reverted in reasonably short order.
"The 28 pages", declassified in 2016, document Saudi involvement in the preparations for 9-11 as early as 1999. This evidence was clearly available to the Bush administration before they invaded Afghanistan. There is other evidence that has been ignored or suppressed that could be added to this article to make it more balanced and comprehensive.
On the other hand, this article is already too long. The "size guideline" in Wikipedia:Article size recommends that articles over 100 kB be divided into smaller article. The "page statistics" on this article say it has 157 kB . This article already references 26 "main articles", if I counted correctly, and could probably be more useful if it were shortened by using more judicious summaries of those other main articles. I'm not going to do that myself, but I would encourage and support others who attempted to do so. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The "Size guideline" section of the Wikipedia article entitled, "Wikipedia:Article size" says 'Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of XTools (also accessible via Page History from Page Statistics link at the top) under "Prose" in the "General statistics" section; Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize.' When I first wrote the above, I copied "Page size: 381 kB", when I should have copied "Characters: 157 kB" (under "Prose:"). ::So the article is not as much as my initial analysis suggested above the "useful rule of thumb": "> 100 kB: Almost certainly should be divided". (NOTE: 157 kB is the same as 157,000 bytes or characters.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

American EnglishEdit

@Acemaster77: A flag above says "This article is written in American English". Some of your changes reverted on 2019-03-10T10:12:27‎ by user:Andy Dingley were to revert your changes from American to British English, consistent with this flag. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Acemaster77 and ENGVAR. If any of Acemaster's changes are consistent with particular articles re ENGVAR, I'm happy for them to stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Why would someone change American to British English in some places and British to American English in others, especially after being asked not to? Is this a Wikipedia:Sock puppetry trick to compile innocuous edits to become autoconfirmed, so s/he can make more questionable edits? DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: This is almost definitely edit farming. puggo (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A potential solution to the article's massive size?Edit

I've seen in a few other articles that when they begin to mention events that aren't as important to the entire article's narrative, they just simply throw a link to the main article and leave it without any body text, or only a few sentences. As it is, most every event in this article either has its own article or has the notability and the sources for an article.

This would, of course, only apply to the History section really, but could potentially apply to other areas.

I'm not sure if this is against the rules or not, but if not, it's probably the best chance this article has at shortening itself without massive reworking. puggo (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What you suggest is fully supported by the rules.
As of now (2019-03-19), "View history" > "Page statistics": Prose: Characters is 156,935. This compares to the guidelines in "Wikipedia:Article size" on "What to do" = "Almost certainly should be divided" when "Readable prose size" is "> 100 kB".
I just created a new article on History of War in Afghanistan (2001–present).
Next, I plan to replace the current History section with a table giving year or year range with the title of each subsection with a link to that subsection in the separate article on "History of War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" -- except for the past 2 years, say.
Even this new "History" article is long with Prose: Characters = 92,474. The "Wikipedia:Article size" article says that "> 60 kB", the article "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Done.
Current Prose Characters = 64,636. That's still "> 60 kB", which the guidelines say "Probably should be divided".
However, I'll leave this task for someone else.
I hope you like the result.
If not, Wikipedia:Be bold but not WP:RECKLESS. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I just deleted the {{very long|rps=133|date=November 2018}} flag. It's still long but not "very long";-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why did you keep 2018 and 2019's portion in the History section? puggo (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
2019 is not history: It's current. 2018 is borderline. In January next year, 2020, someone can then move 2018 to history and add it the table when they also create a new section for the new year ... maybe.
If we're really shockingly lucky, this war will actually be over by then, and a "2020" section won't be needed. However, I'll be shocked if that happens. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

@Puggo: Might you have other thoughts on how this article and the companion "History of War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" might be shrunk? If I had more time and energy for this (which I don't), I'd might look for two things:

  1. Any section with a link to another "Main article" like "War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Origins of Afghanistan's civil war" could be examined: If that section is more than one or two relatively short paragraphs, those paragraphs could be compared with the companion main article and shrunk to, e.g., one paragraph or two short paragraphs, making sure especially that any reference is included in the referenced "Main article" before considering deleting it.
  2. Any other particularly long section could potentially be converted into a new stand-alone article and the shrunk like I did with the "History" section.

Thanks for suggesting the reduction in the "History" section, and thanks for supporting me when I actually did it (without bothering to ask you first). DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think that if there's a main article for something, it deserves only a paragraph at most, and a sentence or two if it's a relatively unimportant topic.

I hope to work on this article further with people like you. :^) puggo (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: Is there anything in either article that should go in History of Afghanistan (1992–present)? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I don't know enough about this subject to decide that and don't see how I can create the time to do much more than I did with this. Thanks for your work on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"War in Afghanistan" vs. "U.S. War in Afghanistan"Edit

On 2019-04-30 user:68.148.100.112 changed the first few words of this article from:

The War in Afghanistan (or the U.S. War in Afghanistan)

to:

The U.S. War in Afghanistan (or the War in Afghanistan)

I'm reverting it as POV editing. I think the facts and the previous verbiage make the point in a way that is less likely to offend people who believe the standard US propaganda about this war. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Request editEdit

Boris Johnson is the British Prime Minister. PoliticalGamerBoy (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Include Taliban point of viewEdit

For this article to have an NPOV I believe it should include pictures of Taliban fighters and also some opinions from Taliban leaders. The pictures in the article seem to be chosen poorly for NPOV (Girl receives aid from USAID, for example) while the collage at the infobox only shows soldiers from one side, including a detailed account that includes names from individual soldiers, not even one of them a Taliban. The infobox picture announces "Taliban fighters in a cave", but apparently it was erased. I will include a couple of pictures of Taliban forces if there are no comments to this statement during next week.Ciroa (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No issue with adding more on the Taliban point of view, I think it's a good idea. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Update casualties and lossesEdit

I have seen the same casualties and losses since nearly 2 years, pls update Ryan Okhla (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to "War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" page.