Talk:War in Afghanistan (2015–present)

Active discussions

ExpansionEdit

I started it but there definitely is a lot of expansion needed, even though the war technically is only 20 days old as that is when Resolute Support began. @EkoGraf:, you closed the discussion on the other article, just pinging you so you know. - SantiLak (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

StatisticsEdit

I did expand and add some of the statistics, but by now, they are at least 1-2 months outdated. Can someone PLEASE update the stats? I don't have all the resources, and I'm sure that newer figures have been released by now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

MapEdit

Could there be a map similar to the one used for the yeas 2003-6, showing the territory currently controlled by the Taliban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.133.221 (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"NATO led the war"Edit

I'm going to give myself the liberty of going on a sort of a rant against this misconception, which has spread across both this and the 01-14 articles. It may also help clear up the headnote disagreement. It is thoroughly misleading to say NATO led the war in Afghanistan. Let's take this chronologically. On Oct 7, 2001, the U.S. started Enduring Freedom, and it has waged destructive war throughout Afghanistan from that point onward. Don't believe it is as of now? Check the description of the SOF task force which I've added to this article. About Dec 20, 2001, the UK established a security assistance force, sometimes described as peacekeepers at the time, for Kabul, which later gained UN approval under the term 'ISAF'. In Aug 2003 NATO took command of that security assistance force for Kabul. Around about 2004 Op Enduring Freedom (Combined Joint Task Force 180) established regional commands to better carry out COIN operations around Afghanistan.

In December 2003, NATO's North Atlantic Council authorised the Supreme Allied Commander, General James Jones, to initiate the expansion of ISAF by taking over command of the German-led PRT in Kunduz. The other eight PRTs operating in Afghanistan in 2003 remained under the command of Operation Enduring Freedom, the continuing U.S.‑led military operation in Afghanistan. On 31 December 2003, the military component of the Kunduz PRT was placed under ISAF command as a pilot project and first step in the expansion of the mission. Six months later, NATO announced that it would establish four other provincial reconstruction teams in the north of the country: in Mazar-i-Sharif, Meymana, Feyzabad and Baghlan. After the completion of Stage 1 the ISAF's area of operations then covered some 3,600 square kilometres in the north and the mission was able to influence security in nine Northern provinces of the country. This was Regional Command North, run by a nation (Germany) which was prohibited from taking part in offensive operations or firing on the enemy once it began to move (Auerswald and Saideman, 2014, 148).

Meanwhile, in the other three Regional Commands in the country, U.S. Enduring Freedom counter-terrorist operations continued unabated. The first point where you might be able to argue that NATO became involved in warlike operations was when the Stage 2 expansion took place into RC West, finishing on 31 May 2006. RC West was assigned to Italy, which had less caveats than Germany, but still, it was the second-quietest sector of the country - deliberately, because the U.S. wanted to retain control over their CT operations and transfer control slowly so as to avoid embarrassing setbacks for their allies. While the U.S. retained control in RC South and East, they also continued to operate in the "NATO" RC North and RC West conducting counter-terrorist operations.

The U.S. transferred RC South to the Canadians/British/Dutch on 31 July 2006, and retained control over RC East throughout, but placed RC East, under a U.S. commander, under ISAF on 5 October 2006. Fighting had by this point started significantly in RC South, and NATO can be argued to be at war. But this was all in the presence of ongoing U.S. CT operations. Five months later, a British four-star (Richards) turned over command of ISAF to a U.S. four-star, and the U.S. ran ISAF from 2007-12. ISAF was technically directed by NATO, but nobody really can be expected to believe that David Petraeus was taking his commands from NATO? Obama was talking directly to Petraeus often!!

So it's not a clear picture. But this is essentially a war to deny al-Qaeda a haven in Afghanistan, with counter-terrorism tactics, and COIN if necessary. And that war was launched by and always directed by the U.S.. NATO happened to get into the fight here and there, relatively. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It could be said that there have always been two distinct, but related operations, one that was counter-terrorism focused led by the U.S. since the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and continued on after the new government came into power in Kabul; the other one being a "peacekeeping"/stability operation under later UN approved NATO operations which began in Kubal and slowly grew to other parts of Afghanistan. Therefore, could be argued to be two separate articles entirely! On for OEF-A, and another of ISAF (aren't those both already in existence?). And OEF-A would transition to Operation Freedom Sentinel (but be in the same article) and ISAF would transition to RS (but also be in the same article).
Clear as mud??
And this and the other articles about the U.S. War in Afghanistan would be synths of those to related but distinct operations?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Propose mergerEdit

Propose the merger of the article War in Afghanistan (2015–present) with War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Resolute Support Mission for the following reasons:

  • The conflict is ongoing, the end of NATO operations under ISAF did not end this war either, only reduced the number of troops and changed the name of the mission. The fighting are the same, the western intervention in Afghanistan continues, then the conflict goes unchanged, according sources [3] [4] [5] ;
  • We can't have two "to present" articles about the same conflict: War in Afghanistan (2015–present) and War in Afghanistan (2001–present). This does not make sense. 152.250.110.79 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Per arguments raised by nominator. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support The war has continued, and there are still American and NATO forces present in conflict with the Taliban. Gazkthul (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to be clear I didn't support the creation of this article at first but when the consensus of a discussion on the other war's page was to split into two articles, I made this one, whatever the outcome is here I'm fine either way. - SantiLak (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The conflict has essentially continued and remained unchanged despite the change in name of the NATO mission --Ritsaiph (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)vs}}
  • No position I have changed my view of being fine either way whether this article is merged or not. If the decision is to not merge, then the article War in Afghanistan (2001–present) should be changed to 2001-2014. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The separate articles gives the impression that we try to hide that the war still is US and Nato led. We need to show aggregate statistics for number of casualities on both sides during the whole Nato led period, not only during the last two years.Mange01 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support 14 years for a contemporary war makes for a very long article, but the withdrawal of foreign troops used doesn't seem complete enough for an appropriate periodization. Thing is I don't know where to split it. Also, if merge is defeated, please change the title of the prior article to (2001-2014) or something. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Opposed The belligerents change heralds a new war.--Mohatatou (talk) 22:34, 25 August

2015 (UTC)

  • Opposed The article become too long if merged with War in Afghanistan (2001–present). The author is maintaing the quality, reliability of the contents and written the article with neutral point of view. As per the wikipedia policy merging must be avoided if " The resulting article is too long or "clunky" and if the articles are merged together It will be too long. See WP:MERGEREASONPriyadarshivishal23 (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23
  • Opposed The two articles represent two separate phases of the conflict in Afghanistan which has been going on since 1978. As such, they should remain separate articles, just as each of the other phases of the conflict have their own articles. The same weak arguement used by the supporters of this merger based on the continuous nature of the conflict could be used to argue for the merger of all of those articles, since it could be argued that fighting has been continuous since April 27, 1978. I fail to see sufficient reason for a merger.I would also like to add that the only reason the 2001 conflict says to the present is because every time someone tries to change, another user reverts. The only thing "ridiculous" about the situation is the fact that people keep reverting anyone who tries to make the correction. Case in point, I will now attempt to rectify the situation yet again. Let's see how quickly it's reverted. Anasaitis (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There sources supporting the idea that this is another war and that Western intervention finished? I think not. I can not see how one can speak in a different war if there is continuity in everything except one of the parties (NATO) has withdrawn most of the troops. Unless they is adopted a thesis that poses immense problems in terms of WP:NPOV: the country was invaded and Western intervention ended in 2014. Maybe too early to say whether War in Afghanistan (2015–present) really represents something new or not. It makes no sense to evoke the size of article to give an idea to the reader that in 2014 ended a war and in 2015 started another. As in other cases, what should be done is to create specialized articles, but must remain a generic. If this article intends to report on Taliban attacks, part of its content can be merged with Taliban insurgency (which is quite outdated). 200.153.241.94 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not the only thing that has changed. ISIL and its affiliated groups have joined the conflict. Furthermore, there is new support for the Taliban by foreigners and Pakistan role in the conflict has changed if the sources are to be believed. Anasaitis (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Its the same war being fought be the same men at the same locations. Just because the US Government is calling it a new war, doesn't mean it is a new war. Juno (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That isn't the only reason that it is being called a new war. Some of the sides have changed, and ISIL has joined the fight as a new faction. Don't just assume that it's only called a new war because the U.S. says so. There are multiple reasons for it. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, technically Afghanistan has been in a state of constant warfare since 1978, and all the conflicts that have occurred in that time are considered seperate phases of the Civil War in Afghanistan. The U.S was involved in Afghanistan long before 9/11, as were many of the nation's that are currently involved. Technically speaking, these " wars" are all just different phases of the same conflict. Due to the ever-changing and complicated nature of the conflict, however, each of the phases has it's own separate article. This policy isn't new to this conflict. We used the same approach with the article on the conflict in Somalia. I see no reason to change that policy because of some similarities between two distinct phases of the conflict, for that is what they are. We need to stop looking at the recent confict in Afghanistan as a distinct war, and view it as simply the latest phases of a conflict that dates back to the Cold War. I think that is the mistake Juno and the others who are in favor of merging the two articles have made. Anasaitis (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Did ISIS enter the conflict on 01, January 2015? Because if they didn't the distinction still seems arbitrary. The primary players are still on the ground, pursuing the same primary means did not change when Washington claims that they changed. Juno (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the Rolling Stones isn't exactly a reliable source. They aren't experts on political or military history. They are merely a magazine that discusses popular culture. They're also no strangers to exaggeration and fabrication, as their history can attest. The first two sources are more reliable, but It appears that whoever provides the links didn't properly link the third source, as I can't find it. Still, I don't think we should move the article based on just two reliable sources and two unreliable or inaccessible ones. Anasaitis (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sources you're referring to but RS has had reporters embedded in NATO Command. Does the NTY have any now? RS is the reason that General McChrystal isn't wearing a uniform any more. Where was the Washington Post on that? They fouled up the UVA story, but RS is a RS. Juno (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you should not reduce the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to a mere "phase of the afghan civil war", because this conflict is embedded within a much larger context: the War on Terror. The afghan war began in 2001 on the pretext of fighting terrorism, but the United States still continue bombing and launching operations to combat terrorism in the country. Then how can you say that there is a different war? The U.S and NATO interests in Afghanistan has changed the 2014 to 2015? 177.68.222.63 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. This is maybe a different campaign (probably the same campaign) inside of the WOT. Juno (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If need be cite more sources to what is being said: [6], [7], [8] ... I understand that War in Afghanistan (2001-present) is a specific article for the Western intervention in Afghanistan. So now we have NATO providing training to Afghan forces fight the terrorists and the US making counter-terrorism operations, and this war is fits into the context of the War on Terror, then I believe that Western interest in the country is the same since 2001. The only thing that changed it was the removal of a large contingent of troops from Afghanistan and ISAF being replaced by the Resolute Support Mission; namely changed the strategy but the goal remains been the same since 2001. In addition, until now no one has presented reliable sources that support unquestionably so that in 2015 there is a "new phase of the afghan civil war" and that this "other war" began on 1 January 2015 as reported in the article... original research? 177.103.3.151 (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Too long if merged. Better when splitted by period with an ambrella article War in Afghanistan (1978–present). For periods see {{Campaignbox Afghan Civil War}}. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to the other article becoming to large if merged, and also its a totally new phase of the long-running war in Afghanistan (since 1978) which is separate from the 2001-14 phase. EkoGraf (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the stated reasons. Applodion (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Map of the current situationEdit

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

I'd thought it would be worthwhile, as Afghanistan is a fairly important theater of military operations in the world, and with the Taliban taking more territory in the country [1] [2], that it should be represented like in the articles above. --Ritsaiph (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ritsaiph: see template:Taliban insurgency detailed map.GreyShark (dibra) 06:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
GreyShark, thank you very much for helping make this map regarding the current conflict in Afghanistan :) I'm trying to figure out how to put the map into the info-box, like it is with the Syrian Civil War article for example. --Ritsaiph (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The thanks goes mainly to user:Banak and user:Pbfreespace3; me and user:MrPenguin20 also contributed.GreyShark (dibra) 10:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You're overselling me and underselling MrPenguin20. Banak (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"non-combat troops"Edit

Now that American forces have an explicitly combat mission, can we own up to reality and change this? Juno (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say the American forces aren't acting in a combat role, the lead sums up that they formally ended combat operations, which is true, they have been active in combat in certain cases, which should be mentioned in the article, but no one is not willing to "own up to reality", the article isn't sanitized or anything like that, if there's missing information, add it. - SantiLak (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The Americans have combat troops, whose task in-country is combat, going outside the wire on combat missions. I don't think its accurate to say that they have ended combat operations and I can cite a number of sources who share that opinion. It may be worth noting that the American government said at some point that it ended combat operations, but it never did. Juno (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Iran no support TalibanEdit

Taliban is Sunni - Iran is Shia, Iran supported the Shias who are against the Taliban (Hasaras) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazaras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.36.197 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You incredibly oversimplified the situation, citations support Iran's inclusion there. - SantiLak (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You have absolutely simple viewpoint, citations support Iran's inclusion there by US media (and even by the British tabloid), no any French, German, Italian or Indian sourses. Only directly view from one of the side of the conflict, not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.3 (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2015Edit

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: Not moved per opposes stated below. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)



War in Afghanistan (2015–present)Afghan Civil War (2015–present) – As ISAF/NATO's involvement in Afghanistan ended, propose that the title of the article should be amended to Afghan Civil War (2015–present). Following the example of Soviet–Afghan War: when the soviet intervention is over, the war has changed phase and the conflict just happened to be a civil war (Afghan Civil War (1989–92)). The same should be applied here, following the pattern described in Afghan civil war (the phases of civil war without foreign direct involvement are referred to as "Afghan Civil War"). 177.188.61.136 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - Seems almost plausible, but the US decides to keep its ground troops in Afghanistan, indicating direct foreign involvement. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. NATO retains 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. The "Special Operations Joint Task Force – Afghanistan" remains in place, and "[c]onducts offensive operations in Afghanistan to degrade the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the Haqqani Networks". Contrary to the nomination, this is clearly not a "civil war without foreign direct involvement". In October, Obama announced "that he will keep 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan into 2017", so the conflict will feature foreign involvement for at least another year.
    If Obama's successor proceeds with this plan, we can review the article title again. But at this stage, the proposed renaming is premature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
But this article is not designed with the argument that direct Western intervention is over and the Afghan Civil War entered a another phase? Whereas the article War in Afghanistan (2001–14) be about foreign intervention and this article is about the conflict after the Western withdrawal; then it there is still a direct intervention of NATO, what sense the existence of this article? 200.100.230.190 (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
AFAICS, the split appears to be based on the fact that the era of explicit American leadership has ended. That seem sto me to be a sensible point at which to break the narrative.
However, this proposed renaming is based on the claim that the US has not just given up leadership, but has ended its "involvement". That claim is demonstrably false. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 17 December 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.

QatarEdit

I removed Qatar from the info-box under 'Support' for the Taliban due to the fact that in other conflicts shown on Wikipedia, countries have only been included as supporters of a group depending on what kind of aid they provide. See list of armed groups in the Syrian civil war and then the Syrian civil war infobox to understand what I mean.

In the case of Pakistan, Iran and Russia, it is cited in various sources that Taliban commanders and hierarchy have received weapons, intelligence, and protection from any one of the three nations listed. This is why they are presently listed in the info-box.

The source mentioning Qatar was dated (2014) and highlighted a political office built for a Taliban delegation to negotiate potential peace talks with the U.S and Afghan government. Qatar was playing the role of host, allowing for discussions between the various groups to take place on its soil. This should not be misconstrued as Qatar internationally recognizing Taliban sovereignty over Afghanistan, or even sheltering Taliban officials, much like Pakistan has done. It's like writing China supports the Taliban due to China hosting talks with Taliban and Afghan government officials as well, see here [9]. Maybe it was the way the article heading was written; Qatar’s Support of Islamists Alienates Allies Near and Far and the history of financial and even military Qatari support for the Muslim brotherhood, Hamas and Libya and Syria's various islamist militias. But there is no such credible evidence indicating that Qatar is aiding the Taliban insurgency in the Afghan conflict, unlike in Libya or Syria. Nor is there any evidence that the Qatari government have even taken sides in the conflict. --Donenne (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on War in Afghanistan (2015–present). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on War in Afghanistan (2015–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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in War in Afghanistan (2015–present)Edit

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of War in Afghanistan (2015–present)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC":

  • From Bagram Airfield: "Bagram: US base in Afghanistan". BBC. 27 February 2007.
  • From Shoe: Bush shoe-ing worst Arab insult, BBC, 16 December 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for major changes: split, renaming, mergeEdit

The war in Afghanistan articles since 2001 need to be reformed.

A new article should be created called 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, or 2001 Afghanistan War, using content from War in Afghanistan (2001–2014). The reason for this is because what happened in 2001 is a whole different entity. The 2001 war involved the Northern Alliance with US air support fighting and toppling the Taliban. Everything that happened after December 2001 is simply the 'aftermath' of the war. From 2002 onwards, there was no more Northern Alliance, no more US air support, no longer a Taliban to be toppled. In fact, there wasn't even a 'war' going on anymore, as the remaining Taliban members were very low in numbers and most of the country was secured (it didn't take until about 2005 for them to properly kickstart a new insurgency campaign). ISAF was created in December 2001 not for war, but security. It's a whole different thing. There was no war after Dec 2001, but simply an effort from NATO to secure the country. The remaining (post-Dec 2001) content should stay in this article, but it should be renamed to NATO intervention in Afghanistan or similar (like e.g. NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and like that article says, the same principles 'establish, preserve, peace during and after war' applied to their ISAF mission in Afghanistan). The confusion lies among the fact that the Taliban have been insurgents since 2002, but NATO had a mission of their own from Dec 2001 to Dec 2014.

In addition, the article War in Afghanistan (2015-present) should be merged into Taliban insurgency (which covers their insurgency since 2002). The reason is that the name of the article suggests that a new war started, when in fact nothing new happened except that NATO's mission ended. This is why the current 2001-2014 article needs to be renamed to NATO intervention. The current situation in Afghanistan is the same as it was in 2002, with the main difference being that NATO's mission ended - the Taliban are still continuing their insurgency activities. Whilst there are a few smaller groups rivalling both the Taliban and the government currently, the main conflict is between government and Taliban. ISIL do operate in Afghanistan but they are not 'insurgents' like the Taliban - they do not recognize the countries and only claim their own 'caliphate' - they themselves are rivals of the Taliban. In the Colombian conflict for instance, there are several groups fighting the government but the one predominant group is FARC. In the current Syrian civil war as well, ISIL is a participant (not one of the 'main' rebels fighting the government like the Free Syrian Army) but the international intervention is a different article, Military intervention against ISIL. In Afghanistan, ever since 2002, the predominant anti-government group has always been the Taliban.

Summary of changes (my personal suggestion):

Due to the potential major changes, these are likely going to be controversial among some people, so I would like to allow this proposal to stay in place for a long time before any decisions are made.

Discuss these proposals on Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2014). Thank you.

--Hyperwq+639 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

--Peterius (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC) - I don't understand why there are 2016 and 2017 dates underneath the 2015 timeline section heading. If its part of a general summary, it shouldn't be under 2015 but before it.

Removal of "alleged support"Edit

Hello, I think all this alleged support to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan should be simply removed because it appears to be engineered by geo-political opponents of Pakistan, Iran and Russia to portray them in a negative light as sort of warmongers or something and opponents of NATO-backed "order".

The sources are contradicting themselves with some speculating of possible support and others denying it, I don't think speculation of some 2nd-grade self-proclaimed editor or journalist qualifies as undeniable truth, conflict is a serious matter and entire countries shouldn't be added to the list of belligerents just because their governments have certain influential and powerful political opponents among the Wikipedia editors community. Let me be clear, alleged support is not support.

If anyone please could remove all-together the "alleged support" section or add unquestionable sources which definitely prove support of these nations to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan I'd be very grateful, there's also a similar situation going on in article Yemeni Civil War (2015–present), we all know Saudis, Qataris and Americans have long argued that Iran is somehow involved in that conflict without providing any proof whatsoever but addition of DPRK and Russia to the list is absolutely libelous and against the spirit of Wikipedia if not against some of the rules themselves, the proof against those countries is virtually non-existent apart from some article written by a student in 2015 speculating that Russia somehow could be possibly involved, I mean come on, that constitutes a legitimate source to designate entire country at a state of war?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.63.161.19 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I support this proposal, imo wikipedia isn't rumour site its a knowledge site, just sayin. GroundlessAir (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. There are dozens of reliable sources backing up the claim of Russian assistance to the Taliban: - CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-supplying-taliban-weapons-top-us-general-afghanistan-suggests/ - Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/17/evidence-russian-military-support-for-afghan-taliban-is-growing.html - Voice of America: https://www.voanews.com/a/afghan-officiall-russian-advisers-help-taliban-contested-province/3806102.html - Business Insider: http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-supporting-taliban-2017-1?r=US&IR=T - CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/24/europe/putin-taliban-isis/index.html - Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/23/russia-is-sharing-information-with-the-taliban-to-fight-the-islamic-state/?utm_term=.ede85d83abea - Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/29/l-todd-wood-russia-begins-supplying-weapons-afghan/ - 1TV: http://1tvnews.af/en/news/afghanistan/28134-russia-provides-cash-military-support-to-taliban-in-kunduz-sources

Given the prevalence of this allegation, it should certainly be noticed in this article.--92.237.23.242 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 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: Not moved, as the two articles are currently in the process of being merged. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:3C26:246D:820:6640 (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


War in Afghanistan (2015–present) → ? – An RM at what was Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) determined that the two articles should be merged to War in Afghanistan (2001–present), because the topics are essentially one and the same, with slightly different actors. That article, however, is upwards of 250 KB, with several sub-articles already split off. A traditional merge/redirect would make the article unwieldy, and two (20XX–present) articles may be confusing. What should we call this subtopic? —Guanaco 02:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If they are to be completely merged into a single article, then I'm afraid that's exactly how it's going to be. The only possible way to slim down the future article following a merge would be to move out conflict-specific content by a yearly basis, similar to what's already been done on the parent article (2001-14). This would add 3 new articles (2015, 2016, and 2017), which would each have their own summaries in the main article. All of the infobox content will have to be merged though, with no trimming of any sort. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:20, 26 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.

Verb tenses should be cleaned up & correctedEdit

Example, "On 14 March 2016, Khanneshin District in Helmand Province fell to the Taliban; and district by district, Afghan troops are retreating . . . " "fell" is past tense; "are retreating" is present progressive, implying present on-going action. But an article like this will quickly be incorrect if tied to present like that. The present quickly becomes past. A correction would be, for example, "were retreating as of March 14, 2016. IMHO present tense & historic present tense should be avoided on Wikipedia since the present soon becomes past, and present tense statements become false. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC))

Forest instead of trees summary is neededEdit

Is there anyone who understands this war well enough to summarize it in broad brush so that the forest can be seen, & not just a multitude of trees? An introduction serving that purpose would surely help the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC))

Punctuation and Mechanical ErrorsEdit

Looking over this article, I am finding a lot of punctuation / mechanical errors, like failing to put a , before a quote. Sometimes I cannot fix these because I am unsure what the author meant to say. It would be best if the author can fix these errors himself, as he may be the only person who knows what he meant to say. Ideally the author would collaborate with someone who knows how to compose English correctly. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC))

Return to "War in Afghanistan (2015–present)" page.