![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Someone mind editing the Peace Initiatives section? The statement "In early January, Taliban commanders held secret exploratory talks with a United Nations special envoy to discuss peace terms. Regional commanders on the Taliban's leadership council, the Quetta Shura, sought a meeting with the UN special representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, and it took place in Dubai on January 8. It was the first such meeting between the UN and senior members of the Taliban" is stated twice, once in the first paragraph and again in the third. Thanks! 71.112.25.6 ( talk) 05:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} The al-Qaeda: 500-100[8][9] numbers should read 300- 500 according to the source provided. not 500- 100 as is stated right now in the upper right hand information box under the strength heading.
Amendez1237 ( talk) 20:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Partly done: Well spotted - I've changed it to 50-500, as one of the refs says 50-100, the other says 300-500. Cheers
IainUK
talk
21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Do we still need the semiprotect on this page? Been awhile since I heard anything from Gamerboy or whatever his name was. It'd be nice if editors who noticed a problem could just fix it. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 21:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, but the article is already due to become unprotected on 2010-09-17 at 06:53 UTC. IainUK talk 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The "soldiers" from the Czech republic are gone; they recently left the war due to money issues inside the Czech government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In the box info it reads "Part of the Civil war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror". Imo it should be either "Part of the civil war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror series" or "Part of Civil war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror". 77.11.161.129 ( talk) 22:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the other war articles, such as: iraq, or gulf, ect., they all have collages i think the generic afghan look says nothing of the war but would only be good on an article of the country. i think that there should be another collage but dont make as POV. There is a collage of pictures as the main picture of this article. All of the pictures are of soilders from only one side of the war. Isn't that POV?
UPDATE- There are actually no pictures of the other side, just a video. Come on, that's very POV. Wouldn't it be reasonable to change some of them to Taliban pics?
/K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.231.227 ( talk) 21:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, highly POV. Not sure why the previous image was changed, this one doesn't have any Taliban or other militias--it doesn't even appear to have any forces mentioned aside from U.S. I'm going to put a generic Afghan image up and see what the editors think. Publicus 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Taliban fighters hiding in a cave.jpg
It's pretty sparse.
Thundermaker (
talk)
14:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The link for citation 32 is busted and should be removed.
RRGIII ( talk) 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it is a disgrace that a country that has lost so many and contributed so much compared to its size (Denmark) don't get a mention among the nations participating on the front page. Apparently it's more important how many soldiers a country sends, even though they might not be doing any fighting.
/Mike
The unreferenced section tag was added to a long standing section that is mainly a summary of the main article Kunduz Province Campaign and the article Kunduz airstrike. These are long standing information that are verified in the main article and we do not need to add all 47 references from this article to the summary here. These are verified facts. I removed the unreferenced tag from the section and ask my challenger to add the citation needed to the information he believes are not verified. After that he left this message on my talk page:
- You indicated in your revert comment that you might be more receptive to individual template:cn tags, so here they are. Doing this to the article would be gross and WP:POINTy, so I'll do it here on your talk page.
- In April citation needed, German forces stepped up their efforts citation needed to retake some rebellious areas of Kunduz province citation needed, considered to be the most dangerous part of Northern Afghanistan by ISAF commander McChrystal citation needed. The fighting centres upon the areas to the west and south citation needed of the city of Kunduz with a main focus on an area between the town of Chahar Dara in the West and the Kunduz river in the east. Up to now this campaign consisted of several large offensives citation needed linked by countless skirmishes and gunfights. citation needed Operations of German, Afghan and Belgian troops citation needed were still ongoing as of December 2009 citation needed with American forces eventually joining them in early November. citation needed Insurgent militias suffered more than 650 casualties citation needed in this period. At least 86 coalition troops were wounded or killed. citation needed On September 4, a devastating NATO air raid was conducted 7 kilometres to the southwest of Kunduz where Taliban fighters citation needed had hijacked civilian citation needed supply trucks, killing Up to 179 people including over 100 Afghan civilians. citation needed
- Wars are always controversial, and these are the facts that I consider "likely to be challenged". Thundermaker ( talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
After adding this comment to my talk page what is WP:Pointy the user re-added the unreferenced tag to the section without engaging in a civil discussion what borders edit warring.
I strongly believe that this is not necessary and that my challenger is trying to make a WP:Point because i believe no responsible editor would challenge established fact like that the airstike happened in April or that it happened in Kunduz when these facts are verified in nearly all the 47 references off the main article.
As said all these facts are verified in the related Kunduz Province Campaign and the article Kunduz airstrike. There is no need to copy and paste all 47 references of these article into the relative short section if there are no serious doubts about these facts and information. Please be responsible and add the {{cn}{ tag only to information you believe are not already verified.
So let's talk about it and here are my questions. Do we need to verify all information again that is already fully verified in other articles? Do you have serious doubt that all the information you tagged are not verified in Kunduz Province Campaign and Kunduz airstrike e.g. that it happen in April and that it happen in Kunduz? Did you read Kunduz Province Campaign and possible some of it numerous references? IQinn ( talk) 01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't remove legitimate tags. template:Unreferenced section is appropriate for any section with 0 references. The template itself is a request to all Wikipedia editors, not just you, and you have no right to silence my request for help in that section. Thundermaker ( talk) 01:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Once again, you started the edit war. This is an issue about your behavior on Wikipedia, not the article content. I only re-posted it here after you deleted it from your talk page. I will be discussing it further there. Thundermaker ( talk) 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The correct URL I believe is http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/2007-03-05.html -- other dead links from that site (EG 294) can probably be fixed by matching the changes. 76.121.3.85 ( talk) 05:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph has been added to the article recently:
Media coverage on the current standing of the Taliban may deviate from the actual situation. 85% of Afghanistan is secured from Taliban forces, up from approximately 50% a little more than a year ago. [1] Additionally, the greatest portion of militants that take part in what is called the resurgence of the Taliban actually stem from the Haqqani network in Pakistan, indicating that they are foreign militants generally from Pakistan, and are not actually part of Mohammed Omar's Taliban. [2] [3] [4]
I move this to the talk page as it looks like that various claims are not supported by the sources and the resulting conclusion "Exaggeration of Taliban growth" looks more like based on WP:OR than verified facts. Just to start with one: The claim that "85% of Afghanistan is secured from Taliban forces, up from approximately 50% a little more than a year ago." is just wrong. These numbers refer only to the situation around Kandahar not Afghanistan as a whole. The text also should cite the source of this claim that comes from a coalition commander in southern Afghanistan. The Washington Post article even goes on to question the reliable of this coalition claim and list facts that contradicts the editors conclusion of "Exaggeration of Taliban growth"
But it is unclear whether military achievements in the south and elsewhere are being outpaced by the gains of the Taliban, whose leader recently declared that his movement was winning. The number of assassinations in the city of Kandahar rose in August, Hodges said, although he could not cite a figure. Insurgents have begun to spread throughout northern areas where their presence was previously marginal. Nationwide, militant attacks have doubled since last summer.
Another mayor claim that "the greatest portion of militants that take part in what is called the resurgence of the Taliban actually stem from the Haqqani network in Pakistan," Is not verified in the given sources. IQinn ( talk) 06:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why File:AfghanistanStub.svg, which is meant for stubs, is used as the lead image. For a war article, I've restored the more relevant File:US Army Afghanistan 2006.jpg. Spellcast ( talk) 14:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You must be delusional, since I only made 3 edits in the past 3 days, and I only reverted your edit once with a very clear and simple reason. Also, there was never a consensus in favor of the other collage, it was just created as a suggested alternative! Your statements leave me baffled! Photographs of real life aren't biased. If they're staged, they might be, but those aren't! Are you trying to say those photographs are fake, and not in fact real life? I don't think anyone agrees with your position. We don't need a sweeping collage that represents the entire war, we don't even need a collage! We just need a single picture (a collage is better though, obviously) that has to do with the war in afghanistan. A picture of US soldiers in afghanistan fills this role adequately. The only reason for using a collage is to include several pictures in the infobox. They don't need to show soldiers of every faction, civilian casualties or damages. It's not necessary, as you seem to think it is. The argument you're pushing is not a big deal at all. Swâ™ rm Talk 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Collage is better, and should include the Taliban, Afghan forces (Government and/or Northern Alliance), Air Power, US forces, UK forces and at least one other major contributor (France, Germany, Canada, Netherlands or Australia). Maybe the bottom middle picture should be UK, as UK forces have been there from the start, and in the thick of the fighting. Chwyatt ( talk) 07:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
If anyone has some time, could someone create a NATO supply route similar to this one? [1] It might be helpful to the article. Thanks. Publicus 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This article has a rather serious problem. I don't know how to raise it and see a change, so I am bringing it up here.
This article makes a serious legal mistake regarding the UN and the US legal authority to wage war. It states that the US cannot wage war without UN consent, because the US ratified the UN Charter.
First, the US ratified a treaty, not a charter. The "Charter" is, in fact, a Constitution, not a charter. Most importantly, however, the US Constitution CLEARLY STATES that no treaty overrides the authorities set in the Constitution. One of those authorities is the right of the US to wage war based on Congressional approval. Therefore, being a signatory to the UN treaty does NOT mean the US needs UN authority to wage war, as it is in direct opposition to the US Constitution.
This is no small matter.
Thanks.
Yunus Hasan 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC) After September 11 Congress authorized President Bush to retaliate against any “nations, organization, or persons†he determined to be involved in the atrocity. Therefore giving him Carte Blanche... it was legal according to the US Constitution, but war was not recommended or approved by the UN. So the article is correct in what it says, the wording should be changed to sound less anti-war. -Yunus Hasan
and more readable.. that paragraph is all over the place. The fact is .. the united states needs authorization from no outside entity under the constitution. What the UN thinks is far secondary. as a matter of fact, the US stops funding the the UN or takes removes our military donations from the UN and thier is no UN. as we are the majority funder and troop provider. The problem is.. this whole article reads like anti-war propoganda piece, and I don't expect that changing anytime soon unfortunatly. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Very Nicely put. Welcome to the wonderful word of POV/Bias, thank you Wikipedia and the Guardian fr providing 99% of watch is on this page.....what a joke,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.231.174 ( talk) 19:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC) legs
This article has several serious problems. Most notably, a complete lack of regard for the verifible truth, and at least three Republican shill editors who like it that way. The legal question is pretty straightforward. Under U.S. law, Congress can do pretty much whatever it likes - including suspending the Constitution or any and all previously-ratified treaties. Unfortunately, they were were asked to do neither, but rather to give the Commander In Chief the authority to decide who to attack and when, in response to a particular instance of terrorism on U.S. soil with the express purpose of preventing further attacks. The Commander in Chief of the moment, George Walker Bush, did not begin the war by attacking Osama Bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the attack, in his stronghold in the remote Afghan mountains, he and his British counterpart Tony Blair instead authorized the aerial bombing of Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, a sovereign state with a sitting government (however distasteful), where they explicitly knew OBL wasn't, less than 24 hours after GWB rejected an offer of the sitting government of Afghanistan to turn over OBL to UN authorities for trial in international court.
In so doing, GWB did not violate the constitution - but he did break U.S. law, by breaking the UN treaties previously ratified by Congress without expressly asking Congress for permission to do so. The only point you might argue here is that such permission was implied by the blanket Congressional authorization received - which is by no means clear.
The whole article shows obvious attempts by vested U.S. interests to re-write history in GWB's favour far more clearly than it shows any anti-war "propoganda" (clue: that's 'propaganda', a word deriving from the Catholic Church's program for Propagation of the Faith which gave rise to the Spanish Inquisition).
The war did not evolve "from a violent struggle by Coalition forces against Al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters" into anything. It started with the aerial bombing of Kabul. Period. A fact not broached until paragraph number five. The previous four paragarphs being total BS from one side or another. There is no indication in actual history that the Taliban supported "Al-Qaeda" at all - largely because the name Al-Qaeda is a CIA invention in the first place. In fact, it can be effectively argued that OBL did not create Al-Qaeda, the CIA did. The Taliban, who had control of slightly less than 75% of Afghanistan, were aware that OBL was in the country, were doubtless also aware that he was religiously anti-non-Islamic-nationals-on-Islamic-soil, and that the U.S. accused him of masterminding various attacks. This is a far cry from "support". Support implies provisioning and active assistance. Harbouring is a far more accurate Anglophonic description of the situation, though the Taliban put it very clearly themselves when they said OBL was "a guest in our house." Now, if you don't know what this means to Islamic or Pashtun culture, then you shouldn't be anywhere near this page.
I really don't have time for this nonsense, unlike some of you who are probably being paid to revise history on your masters' behalf. Suffice it to say that your efforts will not stand. The world already knows the truth - and most of the world wasn't fooled by GWB's lies in the first place. I don't know how you live with yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.155.149 ( talk) 07:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
France has decided to send renforcements to Afghanistan last summer. The number of troops in this operation (Airforce, Naval TaskForce, Army soldiers and Gendarmes) is reaching 4,000 now. I changed it on this page and on ISAF template, linking to a page of the French paper Le Figaro: http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/07/04/97001-20100704FILWWW00108-afghanistan-250-soldats-francais-de-plus.php
But my modifications were cancelled and former figures have been written back. What's wrong with the French datas? Who is refusing the change and why? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.111 ( talk) 18:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
While I agree the civilian casualty numbers are worthy of mention, the first paragraph states civilians have been the majority of casualties. The info box shows combatant troop numbers killed at "30000" and almost 2000 among ISAF. This is equal to, if not greater than the civilian casualties mentioned. To describe civilian casualties as the majority seems inaccurate generally and leaning toward bias, possibly. 166.137.11.114 ( talk) 03:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Mmcknight4 I'll just delete it if no opposition exists. 173.171.37.123 ( talk) 11:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This has apparently been corrected, if somewhat unsatisfactorily, so this comment should be removed from the discusssion. Objections to the current wording would be a new topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.157.128 ( talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This article deserves a TPOS tag; Total Piece of Shortcake.
The entire piece needs to be locked down and administered by a team of objective historians - or at least one objective rational human being with some regard for history. There are so few negative tags that don't apply here, from NPOV through Weasel Words to Factual Accuracy, that I really don't know where to begin. It's complete drivel, from start to finish, and needs to be split into rational separate articles - hopefully without rendering it entirely useless as a main article in the process. This would take three editors most of a year. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.157.128 ( talk) 09:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone who is computer savvy add the total number of hostile fatalities and non-hostile fatalities in the casualty section... This should be emphasized in the article... It is important to distinguish this. To this day there has been 1733 deaths of the coalition resulting from hostile action and 374 deaths resulting from non hostile action. This should be put in the casualty section of the article... http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByYear.aspx( 129.21.148.248 ( talk) 04:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC))
Kenfo 0 ( talk) 20:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
V
I have a tiny reader's question about the Ipsos-Reid Poll:
Since when is 50% a majority?
Just mentioning. Big issues, little oddities ...
Heunir (
talk)
00:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
PS: I know, only 43% approve of the war. But still ...
I fail to see the point behind including public opinion polls at all - the public did not decide to go to war, nor did they decide to continue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.157.128 ( talk) 08:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I cleaned up an extremely poorly written sentence on the US withdrawel of troops from Iraq, but I'm really not sure why it's there to begin with. It has no explanation or context within the article. However with some work I think it could be developed into some relevance. Meh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.231.151 ( talk) 00:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it should just be deleted. The War in Afghanistan isn't the War on Terror. There's a separate article for that. 174.5.11.131 ( talk) 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I wrote the "Article Problem" section. I know little of WP's processes. I posted the section in the hope someone who knew protocol could address altering this clearly flawed article. I ass-umed WP had folks who watched for edit-remarks and set something in motion. Like it or not, people believe what they read on WP. When there are glaring factual errors unbeknownst to the reader, the reader will likely repeat error as fact, and that is wildly dangerous in the long run.
I don't see any disagreement with what I wrote, short of the long, clearly biased rant of an anonymous poster. I wish to see this article be factual...not my "viewpoint" or anyone else's. I FULLY support a rewrite by a historian, but doubt any will be stopping in randomly. So how do we get this article changed to support objective facts? Should I write an article and submit it? Should I just edit pieces and see what happens? Please comment. I'll check back in a few days for observations. Thanks. Kenfo 0 ( talk) 09:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any information regarding US or coalition troops that are missing in action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.165.240 ( talk) 12:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
War in Afghanistan (2001–present) → War in Afghanistan – There have been many attacks on September 11. That does not mean we should move September 11 attacks to September 11 attacks (2001). War in Afghanistan already redirects here so disambiguation is unnecessary. War in Afghanistan (disambiguation) doesn't even include any articles that include the title "War in Afghanistan..." Marcus Qwertyus 18:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
British Prime Minister David Cameron stated the UK had 10,500 troops in Afghanistan in this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2IfkkhBaE0) however ISAF figures put the number as 9,500. As these are conflicting, which should be put in the article? -- SuperDan89 ( talk) 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
try to find a neutral source, eg AP or such. if you cant just put 10500-9500 as the numbers. 24.228.24.97 ( talk) 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The exact troop numbers, going back 3 years, have been released by ISAF, including a breakdown of nationality: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1256/suppl/DC1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.222.234 ( talk) 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article mention the public release of Afghan civilian casualty data by ISAF, the UN, and others a few months ago? It's all available here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1256/suppl/DC1
This is the first time this has happened for any war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenofdaworld ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is right here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1256.full —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.222.234 ( talk) 16:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
In the "Commanders and leaders" section Bush and Obama are listed but when editing there is a comment not to add Queen Elizabeth or UK Prime Ministers. Bush and Obama are/where Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces (and so is QE2 for the British armed forces as are presidents and monarchs of other nations for their national armed forces) but the last US president to actually lead a US army (abeit briefly) was James Madison in the Battle of Bladensburg during the War of 1812, nearly 200 years ago. So why are Bush and Obama listed and is the list not appropriate for others in a similar position? SpeakFree (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
So is Queen Elizabeth II? The armed forces of the UK cannot be led into hostilities or be moved abroad without the conset and action from the Queen. The prime minister is not a military commander, where as the Queen is, the uncodified consitution states that only the Queen can declare war, and only she has the finial say in the deployment of the Armed Forces. http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/ArmedForces/QueenandtheArmedForces.aspx http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/21/uk.freedomofinformation http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7758314.stm User:Geord0 —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC).
Casualties stats need update. 92.247.220.195 ( talk) 05:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
why doenst this article talk about Indian and Iranian support of the Northern Alliance during 1990s ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 ( talk) 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd change Canada's numbers but all the official web sites still have the old numbers, and ISAF for some strange reason doesn't even have a press release on this: On July 7, 2011, Canada's combat role in Afghanistan ended, and with it 2850 troops were withdrawn. Almost all of the withdrawls were done that week. Canada currently has less than 500 forces members in that country performing some transitioning, and training of local police and military. (CBC News) . And now the top soldier from Canada has returned in this link: (CTV News) SunKing2 ( talk) 01:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
many think its a fake hoax, created by the US, with there leader bin laden, who apparently knew bush and so on, theres more evidence for this, but im just saying that it was a war against al-qaeda shouldnt be put as fact, but it should be a war, against what some think as for oil, and what others say against the supposed al-qaeda, and those who dont beleive in it, say that it was a media propgnada that led to that beleif, or maybe that said in the later parts of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.30.142 ( talk) 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Blow it out your ass, buddy. DerKonig2267 ( talk) 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No, many do NOT think that. The uneducated, raised on internet conspiracy theories, believe that. Do not speak for anyone but yourself, as your statement is absurd and not based in fact. Wikipedia is about facts that can be verified. Please stay off until you can behave. Kenfo 0 ( talk) 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a calculation mistake with the numbers listed for Taliban & Co. It says total 136,000 (no reference) but if you count up the highest and lowest numbers given above for each belligerent.
Lowest: 36,000+50+1,000+5,000+1,000+30,000+4,500=77,550
Highest: 36,000+500+1,000+10,000+1,000+35,000+4,500=88,000
So shouldn't it be 77,000-88,000 instead of 136,000? Could someone correct this?
190.80.58.226 (
talk)
15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"Number of Afghan civilian deaths in 2008 highest since Taliban ouster, says UN". February 2009." Gsoler ( talk) 14:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The following statement from this article...
"The Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in an Afghan court, or have him extradited to a third country, so long as the United States provided evidence of his guilt, but the U.S. refused, as it could produce no evidence of his guilt"
(first paragraph, "2001: Initial attack" section)
has something funny with the referencing. If I click on the "6" I get the right reference, but if I scroll down and look at "5" in the references list, I see an unrelated reference. Guy Macon ( talk) 23:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
AFP: "Brown University researchers say at least 33,877 people -- foreign and Afghan troops, civilians, insurgents and others -- have died. Of those 1,788 US troops have been killed, and 14,342 wounded, according to the Pentagon." http://news.yahoo.com/obama-honors-afghanistan-war-dead-10-years-153541874.html Can somebody please add this in the correct spot. Thanks.-- Jorge Koli ( talk) 21:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Best to keep the "supported by" term out of the infobox. The infobox is used to summarize the main points of the article. Pakistan allowed (and allows) the US & ISAF to transport materiel through the country. Is this "support"? Or is PAK simply following international law WRT control of borders? That sort of issue can be explored in the article text. And editors will have opportunity to push their side of the WP:POLE. But the infobox needs to be concise and neutral. -- S. Rich ( talk) 15:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I just gave it a review, and didn't find the mention of Pakistani bases being given to US for the purpose of invasion where as I found the allegations on Pakistan are presented as facts. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This article needs a major revision. There are POV issues, outdated information, factual inaccuracies and even conflicting information. Plus, it is very unweildy, hard to read and even harder to follow. I have tried to make a few corrections, but I think the article is beyond just a few corrections. Is there a way to put this article up for a major revision? 152.131.9.132 ( talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I would say it's not the US POV but the POV of a segment of its population. Perhaps you mean the POV of the US Government. There are many voices in the US (and the world) against this war that don't have the slightest echo in this "article". It could have been written by the Pentagon Office for Propaganda. The mention of the "democratic" institutions and the "advances" of Afghanistan under duress are hard to swallow for me. I wonder how many people reads that without smiling. You end reading the article wondering why all the countries don't try to stage this kind of colonial war to improve their situation. The historic references are null, you could believe Afghanistan was born to this world the day of the ISAF invasion and that this war has no relationship at all with all the many colonial wars this poor country has withstood. The Russian invasion and the many British ones never happened in this incomplete Wikipedia world. The references about the Conservative American think tank program for Afghanistan shine because of their absence. The "enemy" has no logic, nor program: you could conclude that they act in this confusing way because they are evil, because they lack any reason. In some versions of the article, Taliban organizations invaded their own country, this sums up the jewel we have in front of us. Ciroa ( talk) 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI Video of US troops urinating on Taliban fighters is the title of a new article which may or may not be duplicating already existing content. Anyways, I'm guessing people who watch this page will know what to do with it. The article is ok but it certainly doesn't feel like this is an optimal choice of title... Pichpich ( talk) 02:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently source #2 claims that Iranian SF forces fought side by side with American SF forces during the invasion. Considering that the same source also claims that the American casulties of Op Eagle Claw were caused by an Iranian ambush, I'm going to go out on a limb here and just remove it as soon as I've finished writing this. Pavuvu ( talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"In 2010, the War in Afghanistan became the United States' second longest continuous military conflict. Only the Vietnam War (1959–1975) lasted longer." This is just a blatant attempt to compare the WiA to vietnam. When in reality the longest armed conflict the US has been involved in was the Philippines that lasted from the late 1800's all the way into the 40's. It went hot and cold several times but hostilities remained constant. This paragraph should be updated.
Lets change it out. Also:
Weasel out image.
Please change the photo the green camuflage on desert palete looks very poor.
The photo op picture is weasel lame too. Why they walking by plain to sky terain with the hevy stuf ? In Background is a chopter, if landed closer to camera they will have shorter way. What is the sense to back pack mule having parked by truck to use ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently source #2 claims that Iranian SF forces fought side by side with American SF forces during the invasion. Considering that the same source also claims that the American casulties of Op Eagle Claw were caused by an Iranian ambush, I'm going to go out on a limb here and just remove it as soon as I've finished writing this. Pavuvu ( talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"In 2010, the War in Afghanistan became the United States' second longest continuous military conflict. Only the Vietnam War (1959–1975) lasted longer." This is just a blatant attempt to compare the WiA to vietnam. When in reality the longest armed conflict the US has been involved in was the Philippines that lasted from the late 1800's all the way into the 40's. It went hot and cold several times but hostilities remained constant. This paragraph should be updated.
Lets change it out. Also:
Weasel out image.
Please change the photo the green camuflage on desert palete looks very poor.
The photo op picture is weasel lame too. Why they walking by plain to sky terain with the hevy stuf ? In Background is a chopter, if landed closer to camera they will have shorter way. What is the sense to back pack mule having parked by truck to use ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently source #2 claims that Iranian SF forces fought side by side with American SF forces during the invasion. Considering that the same source also claims that the American casulties of Op Eagle Claw were caused by an Iranian ambush, I'm going to go out on a limb here and just remove it as soon as I've finished writing this. Pavuvu ( talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"In 2010, the War in Afghanistan became the United States' second longest continuous military conflict. Only the Vietnam War (1959–1975) lasted longer." This is just a blatant attempt to compare the WiA to vietnam. When in reality the longest armed conflict the US has been involved in was the Philippines that lasted from the late 1800's all the way into the 40's. It went hot and cold several times but hostilities remained constant. This paragraph should be updated.
Lets change it out. Also:
Weasel out image.
Please change the photo the green camuflage on desert palete looks very poor.
The photo op picture is weasel lame too. Why they walking by plain to sky terain with the hevy stuf ? In Background is a chopter, if landed closer to camera they will have shorter way. What is the sense to back pack mule having parked by truck to use ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Article suffers from a lack of information regarding who has control of what areas. It appears that the govt/NATO now only control most of Kabul, while most of the rest of the country is controlled by the Taliban. How true is this? How have the 'front lines' changed over the last 11 years? Perhaps some sort of map/graphic would be useful if there's one around (I can't find one, nor any info re areas controlled)? 82.44.28.101 ( talk) 17:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The Maoist party was formed to fight the American invasion in 2004, but it isn't meantioned in this article. They might be a minor group but surely they warrant a meantion in the "insurgent group" section for being an insurgent group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.4.156 ( talk) 03:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
There's an ongoing edit war over the start year of the Vietnam war, and thus whether this war is longer. There are edits (e.g. one, two) saying the war started in 1959. Others then revert (e.g. one, two), saying the war started in 1965.
Of course, this dispute is not confined to this page, as it's debated in its own right. Since we're comparing for the purposes of understanding the duration of U.S. involvement, does it make sense to use the DoD's definition? As described at Richard B. Fitzgibbon, Jr., that's 1955. Superm401 - Talk 02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The most frequent facts people will be looking for are:
Obviously such numbers are disputed, but a range would be nice. RoedyG —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC).
Excuse me but I just want to point out that there is a photo of maywand district killer posing with the dead body of its victim.....Posting such a photo seems to be deeply immoral in nature - it is the lack of respect for the victim.....Such a photo -if I understand it correctly -should be removed.....immediately..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.0.13 ( talk) 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Sometimes I make contributions to topics I'm interested in. One of these topics is the ongoing War in Afghanistan. Over the course of the last days I made contributions with respect to US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts in order to showcase a deterioration in Afghan-American relations and the reasons therof. The sections dealing with US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts however have been ereased. Could me someone please explain why? Because I'm only a part time contributor could me someone also say what I can do so that the sections remain in the article after their restorement? Thanks. Orion 91.42.34.23 ( talk) 20:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello. User:MuZemike has me directed to this page for my rquest to update U.S.-Afghan strategic partnership section. I have two requests for this section:
1.) After the sentence "According to the document, the US will continue to provide logistical support for 12 months and a joint US-Afghan commission will decide on any detainee releases until a more permanent pact is adopted."[303] please the following source code add:
The United States signed in March 2012 with Afghanistan an memorandum of understanding which shifts the responsibiliy for all detention facilities in the country to the Afghanistan. [1]
2.) To add at the bottom of the section:
After more than a year and a half of negotiations [2] Afghanistan and America finalized on April 22, 2012 the draft text for the US Afghan strategic partnership, which will be reviewed by both countries governments before it becomes final after the Afghan and American president signed it. [3] [4] [5] [1] [6] The agreement has a duration of at least 10 years [2], lays out the framework for a future U.S. role in Afghanistan, including aid assistance and governance advice, [5] and covers the areas of social and economic development, institution building, regional cooperation and security. [1] The status of U.S. troops and the details of their operations after the 2014 withdrawl of NATO forces is not included in the partnership, but shall be covered in in a separate status of forces agreement. [2] [5] [1] Obstacles on the way to the agreement of the draft text were the issues of night raids conducted by U.S. troops and the operation of detention facilities by the United States. The New York Times reported in this context in April 2012: "In March the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding shifting responsibility for all detention facilities in the country to the Afghans, and earlier this month they handed final authority for night raids to Afghan security forces, who are now carrying out all raids unless American assistance is requested. With those two issues resolved, the strategic partnership was quickly completed." [1]
Could someplease do these changes? Thanks in advance. Orion 91.42.23.40 ( talk) 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Update by Orion on 91.42.23.40 ( talk) 00:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I've just removed the casualty figure for "Taliban and insurgents" from the infobox. This figure was unreferenced, and appears to be someone's calculation of the totals from the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. According to the BBC's Defence correspondent (circa 2010), "there are no reliable or verifiable source figures available" for Taliban deaths, and the BBC has a policy of not reporting them as a result. As such, our figure was both obvious original research and certain to be wrong. Nick-D ( talk) 07:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. There needs to be some indication of the amount of taliban killed and this is not unreliable source but actually every single thing is sourced on this page so put the old casualty figures for this which was an accumulated death toll of hundreds of sourced figures. Just because the BBC doesn't report it doesn't mean you get rid of the accumulated death toll created from multiple other sources like NATO.
List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan this death toll figure is probably the one of the most accurate death tolls for an insurgency group of any war. Most death toll figures are estimates like on the WW2 page. These are not 100% accurate but they are still there whereas with Taliban fatality page, each fatality report is well sourced and then the accumulated figure is by fact a minimum death toll for the Taliban so it should be there at least for the minimum. If Wikipedia conflict pages required 100% factual casualty figures, there would be nothing under casualties for nearly all wars so well sourced minimum or estimates for casualties should be added to give some sort of sense of the brutality or nature of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 ( talk) 22:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Plus, compiling all the casualty reports is a huge job - most news organizations probably don't have the manpower, time, or incentive for it. We can provide them with a decent minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X Nilloc X ( talk • contribs)
1. The article lists reliably sourced casualties. 2. Those figures are all acceptable by Wikipedia standards. 3. So, by the basic laws of math, the total is acceptable by Wikipedia standards as a minimum.
Which of those do you disagree with? X Nilloc X ( talk) 02:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
This was brought up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#War in Afghanistan (2001-Present). You can look there for the details, but the bottom line is that adding up the fatality figures is not allowed under Wikipedia's standards. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)