![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
X Nilloc X has started a discussion of the matters under discussion above at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#War in Afghanistan (2001-Present). Nick-D ( talk) 03:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. X Nilloc X, you have failed to get a single editor to agree with your theory. Nobody on the article talk page agrees with you. Nobody on the Dispute resolution noticeboard agrees with you. You are now repeating arguments that have been addressed several times. You asked outside editors to give their opinions, and then you rejected them because they didn't go your way. Give it up. There is no possible way for you to win this one. [1] Your arguments have been rejected, and your interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines has been determined by multiple independent editors to be severely flawed. Now that you are in a hole, stop digging. You really need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please don't beat the horse any further. It won't help. It makes no sense to continue fighting a lost cause. It's over. Walk away. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do you guys insist on having on having a 100% accurate figure of dead insurgents. If your guys logic applied to every single war there would be no casualties for Anyone because most wars are not even any where near as accurate to the original taliban figures which serve as good minimum estimate range. It is impossible to have a completely accurate estimate for an insurgent group. Just because the coalition don't do a body count doesn't mean you should not have estimates like an accumulated figure of reliable fatality reports. Of course taliban fatalities are missed that's why it is a minimum estimate. Do you really think that it is better to have unknown under the casualties part than the minimum estimate originally cited. If there are any inaccuracies with adding up of the fatality reports, this can easily be corrected with a calculator. It is completely untrue to say that there are no accurate taliban fatality reports. It is completely unacceptable to have indication, even an estimate, of taliban fatalities. This is usually a requirement for every modern war page, where far far less accurate estimates are used. Do you think it is more accurate to have soviet military WW2 death toll with range of uncertainty of 2 million deaths is more accurate than a taliban fatality toll accurate to the thousands. Please find some sort of estimate for taliban/insurgent deaths if you are not going TO accept the accumulated taliban fatality page figure. Having unknown is completely unacceptable and some what deceptive. Also i think it is important if the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan page were to be linked somewhere on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 ( talk) 20:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Also if the accumulated death toll is not good enough explain to me why it is that the civilian death toll range is an aproxomation rounded to the nearast thousand with a 20,000 deaths uncertainty a viable figure but the original death toll for the taliban is not acceptable even though that figure was more accurate and precise than the civillian death toll figure listed. Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), this page does mention the 14,000–34,000 death toll range listed. Why is this accumulted aproxomation of deaths allowed but the accumulted death toll for the Taliban not allowed. This civilian figure may be accurate but it is quite inprecise and is also an added up figure like the taliban figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 ( talk) 20:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't get rid of the figures completely on this page or the other, just add the more precise and accurate total deaths from the other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 ( talk) 10:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There are souced so civilian deaths for afghanistan so replace it with them a sourced total. Also if no civilan total is added please add this Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) under civilian deaths and this List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan under insurgent deaths just because would help and it should feature on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 ( talk) 11:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This article needs to be verified concerning the number of troops killed — Preceding unsigned comment added by FishingKing ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Last paragraph of the intro, forth line says, "After the signing Obama laid out his plans to responsible end the war in Afghanistan." It should say "After the signing Obama laid out his plans to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan." 214.13.69.132 ( talk) 04:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
{{request edit}}
Hi, I noticed that the last paragraph of the section focusing on the
U.S. Strategic Agreement includes some positive reactions to the agreement from President Karzai and U.S. officials, however there are no reactions from those with concerns about the agreement or its timing. To address this, I'd like to suggest adding the below material that I've prepared. One of the sources I've included here is written by a colleague of mine at
The Heritage Foundation, where I work, and I've also mentioned him by name, so I'd like to run this past other editors rather than adding it myself.
If you think this is a reasonable addition, please can you add it to the end of the section? I'd also suggest adding a new subheading, "Reactions to the agreement" above the current final paragraph of the section. Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 00:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
References
Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.
The
Post-expand include size has been exceeded, leaving many templates at the bottom of the page untranscluded. I
changed the
template to a simple {{
Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
<references/>
tag, so that at least some of the references would appear; however there are still a lot of templates that aren't transcluded properly (check the bottom of the page).
Given the page size, this is hardly surprising (also it takes yonks to load :P ). If a solution can't be found maybe a
page split could do the trick?
benzband (
talk)
09:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
I wish to award you both,
P3Y229 and
Nick-D, the Teamwork barnstar for your excellent work on
War in Afghanistan (2001-present). Keep it up, ![]() |
We now have a ruling on X Nilloc X and his IP address sockpuppets. I didn't want to say anything until we had a ruling. Here is my advice for dealing with this situation going forward:
First, stop engaging X Nilloc X or his sockpuppets in debate over this. His arguments have been refuted and his objections addressed. There is no need to reply every time he repeats them. If he posts to the talk page, ignore.
Second, if he or his socks edit the article in a way that the sources do not support, revert. Also, please drop me a line on my talk page if there are further problems -- I really have no interest in the actual content of this page and do not plan on watching it the page much longer (nothing wrong with the topic, it just isn't my thing). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is ridiculous and insulting. It doesn't even mention that Canada was part of this war. I and the many Canadians who fought and died in the killing fields of Kandahar/Panwajii District would, I'm sure, appreciate acknowledgement of boots on the ground. If you need a source that articulates the nature and extent of our combat operations, you can find this below.
Please edit both the table outlining 'belligerents' to include Canada, consider including some more pics of Canadian soldiers in action, acknowledge our involvement in Kandahar, and reflect our contributions in the text (s) describing the progression of the war.
Regards,
Chris Cudahy Ph.D. Candidate Department of Communication Texas A&M University
Canada has sacrificed a disproportionate number of lives to the war in Afghanistan compared to other NATO and coalition countries, including the U.S. itself, both on the basis of lives lost per domestic capita and on the basis of casualty rate of troops in Afghanistan.[109][110][111][112][113]
By as early as the end of summer 2006, Canadians were bearing the brunt of coalition casualties in Afghanistan.[107][112][114][115] A study by defence researchers found that:[107][112]
* A Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar was six times more likely to be killed by a hostile attack than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq. * Canadians accounted for 43% of all coalition military deaths from February to September 2006 (not including 5 deaths from accidents). * Canada had suffered more deaths from hostile action in Afghanistan than any other U.S. ally, with two in five of the non-U.S. deaths. * A Canadian soldier in Kandahar was three times more likely to be killed in hostile action than a British soldier in Afghanistan. * A Canadian soldier in Kandahar was 4.5 times more likely to be killed in hostile action than an American soldier in Afghanistan.
In September 2006, UK statistician Sheila M. Bird, vice-president of Britain's Royal Statistical Society and author of a similar risk assessment study, noted that Canadian soldiers were facing twice possibly four times the risk of death that British soldiers faced in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She emphasized that the risk Canadians face in Kandahar is "absolutely" riskier than what Americans face in Iraq and stated that what the Canadians are confronting is "as dangerous as what the Russians were facing 20 years ago." The Russians left Afghanistan in defeat in 1989 after a nine-year campaign.[115][107][116]
A study by Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire stated that the lower level of lethality for U.S. troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq, as well as its decline between 2005 and 2006, were primarily because the United States had "successfully "convinced" NATO member countries (especially Canada and Britain) to increasingly bear the brunt of the combat in southern Afghanistan, experiencing far greater lethality ratios."[117]
Table: Lethality ratios in Afghanistan, 2006 (soldiers killed in-theater / 1,000 troop level in-theater)[117] Country Deaths per 1,000 troops Canada 14.4 United Kingdom 6.3 - 9.8 NATO 5.0 United States 4.45 Soviet Union (1980s) 12.5
An analysis in October 2007 by Professor Sheila Bird of Cambridge University for Danish newspaper Politiken continued to show a Canadian casualty rate disproportionately higher than those of other countries: For the period from May 2006 to about October 2007, Canada's casualty rate was 17 per 1,000 troops, while Britain's was 9 per 1,000 troops, and Denmark's was 7 per 1,000 troops.[118]
A 2007 study by the Department of National Defence also found that Canadian soldiers operating in Kandahar were at significantly higher risk of dying compared to their British and American counterparts.[119]
Canada's disproportionately high casualty rates, the highest of all NATO and coalition countries as a proportion of troops in Afghanistan, have also been noted by the government-commissioned Manley panel report released in February 2008, as well as by other observers.[109][110][119][120]
Subsequent to March 2008, only one other country has lost more lives on a per domestic capita basis than Canada. (Denmark, with a population of only 5.5 million people, lost a 13th soldier in Afghanistan in March 2008 when Canada's toll was at 78).
A February 2009 comparison of troop deaths relative to domestic population size showed that Canada had 3.2 soldiers killed per million population, far ahead of the United Kingdom at 2.3 per million, and the United States at 2.1 per million population. Other major European NATO countries such as France, Germany, and Italy were entirely out of the top 10.[111][121][122]
Table: Canadian deaths per capita compared to the U.S. and U.K. (as of February 2009) Country Deaths per million capita Canada 3.2 United Kingdom 2.3 United States 2.1
NATO officials have also reported that Canadians have suffered more deaths per capita than any other foreign contingent serving in Afghanistan.[123]
In April 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated:
“
"Canada has had, per capita, by far the highest casualties in Afghanistan." ”
— Prime Minister Stephen Harper, April 2, 2009 interview on Britain's Sky TV[124][125]
Again in October 2009, the CBC reported that "the Afghan mission is taking a much bigger toll on Canadian forces, proportionately speaking, than the other major coalition nations." Analysis from the U.K. Medical Research Council's Biostatistics Unit showed Canadian troops consistently being killed at a higher rate than American and British troops in the three year period from May 2006 to May 2009.[126][127]
Table: Canadian deaths compared to the U.S. and U.K. (May 2006 - May 2009)[127]) Country Deaths per 1,000 personnel years May 1, 2006 - November 11, 2007 Deaths per 1,000 personnel years November 12, 2007 - May 17, 2009 Canada 15.7 12.2 United Kingdom 8.9 6.5 United States 4.9 4.1
The disproportionate toll paid in Canadian lives is reflected in public opinion regarding Canada's share of the burden.
Cudahychris ( talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the reason Canada had such a high death toll was most likely because they have poorly trained soldiers, as well it is important to note that Canada was only there from 2002 - 2011. Other countries have been in Afghanistan a lot longer than that...-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
should invasion of afghanistan be there, because they intervened on behalf of the northern aliance who were still recognised as the government by the un. The taliban government was overthrown by the northern aliance mainly. In 2004 nato only had 5,000 troops there and afghanistan had an elected government. The official government of afghanistan was always allied to nato since the 2001 intervention so they never over through the oficial government of afghanistan. Any way how could the northern aliance invade there own country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.118.7 ( talk) 08:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed several times that after I have edited the introduction from "Australia" to "the Commonwealth of Australia" it has been reverted back to just Australia. I do not understand why other countries are being named with their official names but Australia is downgraded from its official name? If in the title it stated something like "the United States" I'm sure someone would edit it to put in America at the end. So why is the same not applied for Australia? Double standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
But the United States of America is very formal as well? People use the US as its common name, same with Australia. But if the introduction is going to use the official names for America and Britain why not Australia?-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 08:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Where, if anywhere, should content regarding the 2,000 American servicemembers deceased in OEF-A belong? In this article, in an United States military casualties of war, in an article regarding the Obama Administration? I am asking due to this article that discusses the difference between coverage regarding the 2,000 American servicemembers deceased coverage in OIF, and how it is treated regarding the conflict which is the subject of this article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
As of right now the infobox for the Commanders and Leaders uses both (KIA) and the † symbol to denote someone who was killed in action. Is there any reason for this? Shouldn't one be picked to be used uniformly? I think † would be most appropriate to mirror the infoboxes of other conflicts. Infernoapple ( talk) 01:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Iran should be included in the list of 2001 belligerents as it sided with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobVienna ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
... an own section for an "urination incident"? User:P3Y229 keeps readding the content. I think it does not belong into the article. The article has extensive coverage of US high profile incidents (some of which do have enough weight) but makes no mention of Taliban high profile incidents such as the hotel massacre. The "urination incident" has no WP:Weight with regards to this article whatsoever. JCAla ( talk) 06:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"The War in Afghanistan (2001–present), a new phase of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present), began on October 7, 2001"
This statement is completely absurd. One of the major combatants (Soviet Union) in the 1978 conflict no longer exists and the government of Afghanistan has changed many times since then. Using this logic, The Franco Prussian War, World War One, and World War Two are all the same war! Or that the Vietnam War started in 1859 and ended in 1979!
174.102.243.129 ( talk) 14:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. SG 2090 14:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Where has the majority of Leaders and commanders gone from that section. Please add them back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.109.188 ( talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Where has the majority of Leaders and commanders gone from that section. Please add them back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.109.188 ( talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
An edit was made to the this article:
The United States identified members of al-Qaeda's Hamburg cell – financed primarily in the Arab Gulf states and particularly in Saudi Arabia – as the perpetrators of the attacks. [1]
from this
The United States identified members of the al-Qaeda movement based in Afghanistan as the perpetrators of the attacks.
The edit is reliably sourced and what is stated in it is true. A wikipedia editor has been reverting all the time with no good reason as far as I can see. I see no reason for this sourced material to be taken out of the article.The source is the 9/11 commission report by the US government. Thoughts? Zrdragon12 ( talk) 00:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Including occupation time in a war is a fairly new development. It is so embraced by the article's writer that an official end of war date is not even included.
I would not suggest changing the title, because this now generally seems to be the way modern wars are referenced and any change could add additional confusion.
I would suggest including the official end of war date. Adding a quick explanation of how occupations are now included in the war timeline.
Warning the reader that they cannot be accurately compared to historic wars with out taking into account the change in the definition of a war.
98.169.131.247 ( talk) 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following addition per WP:RS and WP:NPOV: [3]
The United States identified members of al-Qaeda's Hamburg cell – financed primarily in the Arab Gulf states and particularly in Saudi Arabia – as the perpetrators of the attacks." Chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report detailing the history of the Hamburg Cell". 9/11 Commission. " Osama’s almost letter to me". The Nation. May 7, 2012. As noted military historian Gwynne Dyer pointed out, "The 9/11 attacks were not planned in Afghanistan. They were planned by al Qaeda operatives in Germany and Florida, and it is very unlikely that the Taliban government of Afghanistan had advance warning of them." Dyer, Gwynne (September 15, 2009). "West should vote with its feet". The New Zealand Herald.
from this
The United States identified members of the al-Qaeda movement based in Afghanistan as the perpetrators of the attacks. However, noted military historian Gwynne Dyer argued that "The 9/11 attacks were not planned in Afghanistan. They were planned by al Qaeda operatives in Germany and Florida, and it is very unlikely that the Taliban government of Afghanistan had advance warning of them." Dyer, Gwynne (September 15, 2009). "West should vote with its feet". The New Zealand Herald.
or: [4]
The United States identified members of al-Qaeda's Hamburg cell as the perpetrators of the attacks. [2] [3]
Any objections to adding it in?
I think it's relevant to this article because the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was justified on the basis of the events of 9-11. Tobby72 ( talk) 12:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is already at 240kb. It's readable prose size has reached 113kb, way higher than the recommended 50-60kb. We need to either start summarizing, cutting, or splitting content. The content concerning the events of the war are way too detailed. It's unnecessary. We should really summarize the events of the war. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 22:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article is to long and needs to be shortnened by summarizing, cutting, or splitting content. I already shortened the sections for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. --P3Y229 01:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is almost perfect imho. Great stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.72.148 ( talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Which War should be frozen? There are quite a few that fit this subject. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lucian303 (
talk •
contribs)
09:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last sentence in the first para should read second-longest war. "he War in Afghanistan is also the United States' longest running war." The Vietnam War lasted 20 years according to the page this links to. 24.20.217.39 ( talk) 08:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
According to the documentary " The Afghan Nightmare", there are several reasons why the Taliban insurgency still exists:
Mention in article. 81.256.234.66 ( talk) 09:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The war was not about girls going to school. This information is not directly related to the war and is like including information on the increase in the number of international airports in the country, its life expectancy or its change in GDP since 2001. The information is superfluous.
Including this information in the article might be justifiable but clearly it does not belong in the Introduction section.( Dawnbrighter ( talk) 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC))
This war is about nation building therefore the number of school children is relevant. Mentioning the amount of refugees returning is just as related to the war as the increase in people enrolled in school, both happen because of improvements in security etc. The reason it is in the introduction section, is because at present there is nowhere else to put it, since this page lacks info about changes to Afghanistan. This information is incredibly important regarding effects of the war and needs to be mentioned and the best place currently on the page is in the introduction. There needs to be a section more specialized on stuff like this. Find somewhere else to put it but don't remove it completely. Stumink ( talk) 23:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The table showing the belligerents only show flags from English-speaking countries and Afghanistan. It's not accurate as troops from other countries like Germany or France were larger than, for instance, Canada or Australia. What is the reason ? In articles in other languages, this table is more accurate. Also commanders of the NATO are not shown, only leaders of the countries involved (the few shown above) 86.73.47.231 ( talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
86.73.47.222 ( talk) 22:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The info box shows North Korea and Iran in the list of belligerents in 2001, yet the article makes absolutely no mention of their role in the war, if any. Is there any information about this or should those countries be removed from the list? Cancerbero 8 ( talk) 06:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, this article is misnamed and can refer to at least a few wars in Afghanistan. More importantly than the situation happening now is the Russian - Afghanistan war. Which led to the situation now. Disambiguation.
Do it! I would if it allowed me to.
I agree with this suggestion. Thoughts? Mnealon ( talk) 22:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
TheTimesAreAChanging and Darkness Shines removed stats on the numbers of refugees who have fled the country since the start of the war in 2001. These reports are from highly credible sources (e.g. the United Nations) and the allegation that they are describing refugees from the previous wars is simply not true. Please read these sources and that will be clear.
This information is needed to achieve the Wikipedia balanced POV requirement. The information was originally added after a previous user included information on the number of refugees who had returned to Afghanistan after the 2001 invasion.( Dawnbrighter ( talk) 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC))
Some editors may have noticed I've been deleting a few of the images on this article. I'm trying to take out images that don't really serve any noteworthy purpose on the article, such as generic image of a particular piece of equipment, in order to make room for images that have context to the war itself, such as actual operations/combat/etc. There's a tag on the article that it needs to be cleaned up, so this was part of that process. Publicus 20:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
i agree with you on the excessive images, some of which are not directly related to the topic must be deleted. the article is also full of outdated opinions and information, and lots of nonsense really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Would user:22 Male Cali please explain why he is removing so much content from this article please. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
because this article is specifically about the war between one army (coalition forces) vs. militant groups. unrelated nonsense doesn't belong in it, like the opinions about failed state and images that are unrelated or some afghan groups claiming they will do this and that. those are politics of afghanistan and don't belong here. there is nothing mentioned about the rebuilding of a country that almost didn't exist 10 years ago. Isaf forces are fighting militants and also building up the afghan forces, rebuilding roads, schools, government institutions, economy, and everything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
So collingwood26, you have now made a number of edits here to delete or change Canadian involvement. What are your sources and how have these improved this article? Nickm57 ( talk) 21:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't deleted anything, I only lowered Canada from being third from the top down several places. I think this is necessary to show other countries did more than Canada. Canada was present only from 2002-2011, and had a maximum deployment of around 2500. Several other countries have not only been there much longer such as Germany, Italy, France and Australia, but have also deployed more troops with France and Germany having deployed over 4000 respectively. To put Canada above these other countries makes it seem they did more in the war when the facts suggest otherwise.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where you got that from? I don't recall ever saying "Australia did more fighting than Canada". I am talking about Germany, France and Italy mainly.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 12:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Never removed Canada from this article that is a blatent lie right there, I did however remove Canada from the 2001 invasion box as they only officially sent troops in early 2002, however I do acknowledge they sent several undercover special units in 2001. I never said "Australia deployed more troops" might want to read a bit more carefully, I said Germany and France sent more troops having over 4000 respectively. Only time I mentioned Australia was when I read out a list of countries that have been in Afghanistan longer than Canada. Why exactly do I need sources for what? Commonly known fact is that Canada was involved from 2002-2011, but to put Canada above Italy, France, Germany, and Australia is ignorant of their contribution which not only overall sent more troops but have been present much longer.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 23:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Does the killing of Osama bin Laden belong in the infobox's "status" section? It happened in Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan. Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 17:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe that entire squad had died shortly after carrying out orders from higher command to carry out the raid on his compound. They were all killed in a chinook helicopter going down in the deserts of Afghanistan. It was a huge tragedy, please note this in the article unless you are just another bi-ist Wiki hack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 ( talk) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Several editors have undone my previous edits regarding the list of ISAF countries in Afghanistan, Canada currently has zero troops in Afghanistan compared to Australia who has over 1550. Please explain to me why a country with zero troops currently, should be above a country with well over a thousand troops in combat?-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 10:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Failure to respond will mean I stand corrected and will resume changes.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 10:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Quite biased there Nick, your link works against you, it quite clearly says 1550 stationed in Afghanistan, so I stand corrected. Canada on the other hand has zero troops in Afghanistan, unless you can provide links otherwise. If not then Australia will have to be put before Canada.-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 01:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
....Well have you found the links or not?..-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 04:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Military personnel can be misleading, for example whilst Australia has 1550 odd numbers I think a bit less then a thousand are actual troops, but I could be wrong on that number. Anyway Canada only has some trainers which are training the Afghan army, other than that I'd say the rest of the numbers are probably engineers and such. Let me just apologise Nick-D, not just for this but for any other time I may have pissed you off. I don't mean to, it's just that when I think I'm right I get a little ahead of myself. :P Maybe we can come up with something that fairly designates in what order countries should be listed in the infobox, as it seems to get edited and changed quite a lot. Thanks -- Collingwood26 ( talk) 10:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Nick?-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 04:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a significant discrepancy between the numbers of US military personnel killed & wounded provided by icasualty (the source that is currently being cited) vs. the numbers provided by the official military Defense Casualty Analysis System.
1.
https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_oef_type.xhtml
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note: You have to download the spreadsheet on this page to get a clear picture of the totals etc.
2. http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByYear.aspx
Does anyone have insight into why these discrepancies exist & which source should be considered authoritative? I am a total amateur here, but it seems like the tendency would be to go with the official military count? Like I said, open to being schooled on this subject if I am in the wrong.
It seems like this is really a pretty important question: most non-experts who haven't received information about casualties passively from television or newspapers probably look for the answer at Wikipedia if the question occurs to them. So this is, like, the defacto number for the general public. ThomasMikael ( talk) 22:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have an objection to the source switching from icasualty to the Defense Casualty Analysis System? If no one responds to this in the space of a week, I will probably go ahead and switch the sources & the figures. ThomasMikael ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Like the Iran–Iraq_War article, this article should mention that this is the longest war of the 21st century as well. 72.72.229.110 ( talk) 12:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why the War crimes section is so one-sided? The Taliban and Al-Qaeda represent 8 out of 10 incidents, and have stated that deliberate targeting of civilians is part of their strategy. Yet they have a whopping two sentences devoted to them which vaguely states an overview, while the US who has had a handful of incidents from individual soldiers over 12 years has five paragraphs which detail every case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 ( talk) 11:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
White phosphorous????? just because some activist groups want to make it a "nefarious " weapons does not means it has any place in this article. Considering the lack of anything about the Taliban/al Qaeda crimes against humanity..it makes one wonder the intentions. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.19.252.198 (
talk)
08:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Per tag ran through this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:
Cheers. Lfstevens ( talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
According to AFGHAN government over 13,700 Afghan Security forces died in last ten years.So please change the figure from this article.This is the source. http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2014/03/03/13700-afghan-security-personnel-killed-in-10-years-officials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.52.75.173 ( talk) 10:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
24.171.168.147 ( talk) 16:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Canada stopped helping on March 12 2014. 69.11.48.191 ( talk) 13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not cited
reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. -
Arjayay (
talk)
13:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the word "include" to "including" in the following sentence in the second paragraph: "The two were later joined by other forces, include the Northern Alliance." Whytee92 ( talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
President Obama recently said that combat operations for U.S. forces will conclude by the end of 2014. All U.S. troops will be out of the country in 2016, with only embassy and diplomatic staff left as the American presence. Will the conclusion date of this page be in 2014 or 2016? For the Iraq War, combat operations ended in August 2010, but the end date was listed in December 2011, when all the troops left. Should the end of operations or the exit of troops be marked as the end? America789 ( talk) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bowe Bergdahl was released in a prisoner exchange yesterday. Can someone please remove him from the missing captured section? There are no more MIAs. 96.59.223.143 ( talk) 21:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
A 'haven' is a place for safety or refuge, thereby there can be no such thing as an 'unsafe' haven. As such, the word requires no qualifier, regardless of whether it is used in the source, particularly at there is no criterion to recite the text verbatim. The total opposite is the case. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 15:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I must stress, English is full of cliches: Will and Testament - one and the same thing; "free gift" is used more often than 'gift', and "safe haven", uttered as if one word "safehaven" just seems to be on everybody's lips. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 18:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
There was no "Declaration of war". That title should be removed. Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The section on "Legal basis for war" starts with a reference to an American law. That is the wrong starting point. The legality of military operations depends on international, not domestic law. US law may purport to render an invasion legal, but that has no effect whatsoever on international law. In this case international law is clear, the invasion was not legal. There are American jurists who argue otherwise, however they are in the minority. Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but then we have the problem of Wikipedia, who's servers are based in the U.S., pointing out that a U.S. invasion was actually illegal according to any standard that we would rightly apply to others. That's........ just not going to happen.
As of 2014, the United Kingdom will be ending military operations in Afghanistan, just putting that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.10.88 ( talk) 09:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
So is Operation Enduring Freedom actually over? Someone could change the heading to (2001-2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.89.3 ( talk) 05:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Since when did anyone say that Operation Enduring Freedom was over.
Is there any reason why Canada isn't listed among the 2001 invading countries? Canadian troops sustained heavy losses fighting in this war so it would be nice, not to mention respectful, for Canada to be given the recognition it deserves by being properly listed among belligerents. NorthernFactoid ( talk) 05:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
For some reason France is also not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.203.23 ( talk) 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Could the number of wounded be expanded to include which country they are from just as it is for deaths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.52.178 ( talk) 10:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This VOA article says "The United States will keep nearly 11,000 troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Several other coalition countries will keep some troops there, too." According to the December ISAF count, US troop strength has already been reduced to 5,500. So we are once again in the situation where half of US troops are not under the ISAF banner? Thundermaker ( talk) 09:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Will this article end up like the Iraq War one and have a post insurgency page in 2015? if not, why or why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star72 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Due to an auto-correct error, when I tried to move the title to War in Afghanistan (2001-present), the word "present" was changed to "President". I meant no malicious changes, and I deeply apologize for this error. Could an admin help me fix this? Mr. Anon 515 01:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
in the past several years it has been popular in news sources, to call the U.S. engagement in Afghanistan the "longest war". That being said there are several conflicts that could arguably be longer, such as the American Indian Wars, and the Moro rebellion, as possible candidates. For instance the Comanche Wars, lasted from 1836 until 1875; and the Apache Wars, lasted from 1849 to as recently as 1924. Therefore, I removed the good faith addition, and point towards this rebut from The Week.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As for the first two uncited claims, I've found an article that pretty clearly lays out what happened here:
Osama Bin Laden was never made to leave the country, but was urged to leave by religious clerics (not by the government) on his own accord.
Also as can be seen in the article, doesn't appear that any side was trying to negotiate anything. They both laid out terms and neither side accepted the other's terms. There wasn't any offer of negotiation by either party. I would suggest just deleting that sentence.
Source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-wont-turn-over-bin-laden/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.57.111 ( talk) 03:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Afghanistan (2001–14) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section Impact on Afghan society subsection Civilian casualties First word, first paragraph Castually Should read: Casualty 81.159.151.135 ( talk) 13:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)