Talk:Afghan civil war

Kabul?

I'm commenting out the infobox since this should be about the greater war, not about the individual Battle of Kabul (which should have its own article). Don't want to mislead readers. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

There is a confusion over what exactly this civil war is. The Soviets pulled out in 1989, and it is at this point we can consider it to be a civil war between their puppet government and other afghans. This war effectively ended in 1992 with the collapse of the puppet government. It wasnt until 1994 that the Taliban formed, and they made war with the Rabbani government. I would consider this to be a seperate civil war than the one I previously mentioned, as it is not against the soviet puppet government. As time passes the Taliban makes gains, the civil war doesnt end in 1996 with the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, but continues on as the Rabbani government, now working with other militias as the Northern Alliance, continued to fight. I think, using the precedent set by seperating the soviet war from the civil war that followed, that this civil war between the northern alliance and the Taliban would be considered ended when the United States involvement began. What do people think of this rather peculiar situation? ~Rangeley (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source [1] which illustrate the five phases: Soviet vs Mujahadeen (78-89) (what we consider soviet invasion), Mujahadeen vs Puppet (89-92), Mujahadeen vs Mujahadeen (92-96), Northern Alliance vs Taliban (96-01), and finally US involvement (01-). It doesnt quite go with my above analysis perfectly, but its similar. What we could do is include all 5 phases as a part of the civil war, and have individual articles on the individual phases. We have 1 and 5 already, we lack 2, 3, and 4, or any facimile that includes the events depicted in them. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add another note, it seems in the 92-96 phase we could possibly have it be a three way infobox, the Rabanni government, those opposed, and the Taliban. Those opposed and the government then joined together in 96 as the northern alliance [2] due to their common goal of ousting the Taliban. This phase, Northern alliance vs taliban, should be a 2 side infobox. The Mujahadeen vs puppet should also be a 2 sided infobox. Just some ideas to consider. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

However two of those phases (the soviet and the current coalition phases) involve external belligerents and therefore cannot be described as a civil war Marlarkey (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (GMT)

hmm the situation is similar like in Somalia. I think the war lasts from 1989-2006 and its ongoing (Taliban insurgency), but with different phases--TheFEARgod 10:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, should we make articles for the different phases you think? They are rather distinct, and that way we can have infoboxes. This civil war article can be an overview of it all. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ok. I suggest Afghan Civil War 1989-1992 and so on. If you have needed material for doing so it would be appreciated. But, Afghan Civil War should be a disambig as the period is already covered in History of Afghanistan 1992- --TheFEARgod 15:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, thats a good idea for the article names (until/unless there is a better applicable name). The Afghan Civil War should basically explain that its been going on since 1978, and then have breif overviews of each phase, also linking to the main article. I will start putting together the individual articles though. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

agree with this proposal What this article describes is not a civil war according to the definition in Civil War. The current phase of conflict in Afghanistan cannot be described as a civil war because it involves external belligerents and therefore does not mean the definition of a civil war. Should an internal insurgency continue after the current coalition forces hand over responsibility and withdraw then any continuing conflict at that time could then be described as a civil war. Marlarkey (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (GMT)

Good. Check my changes in the 1996-2001 article. --TheFEARgod 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your map should have been in .png format - now it's a bit blurred --TheFEARgod 16:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will change them. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Research Progress

I did a lot of research using news articles from the time for the 96-01 phase, which was surprisingly tiring (yet interesting.) I havent found any sources from before 1996 though. So we still need the 89-92 and 92-96 to be fleshed out. I can do quick summarys on this article. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:10AFGHANWARNationalGeographic.jpg

Image:10AFGHANWARNationalGeographic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh come on, this photo is a historical symbol, fer chrissakes... Like napalm girl. Read the bloody article if you don't believe me. If you were human you wouldn't need to, just a look at her would be enough. I hate those stupid image bots. --victor falk 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done?

This article has been quiet for a while. Here are some thoughts of mine:

• What do we want from expert attention? I find the summaries very well done, but I suppose there always something we've missed.

• Other sections beside timeline; suggestions?

• Some parts of the article are very poorly written. I have changed a few things, but in some cases the sentence is so badly written that the exact meaning is ambiguous, and I am afraid that by making it more clear I will give wrong information. The article needs to be re-read and checked for grammar mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.71.12 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article: I think striving to achieve that is very laudable, not only because it is a very good potential candidate, but more importantly because it is a a contemporary subject that is less noticed than its importance motivates--victor falk (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• FA status seems to be a lofty aim though quite far away - there really isn't much content in the article at present as it seems to be a very brief summary of other articles. I guess a section on impact would be useful. It will also be necessary to source the claim that it has been one long civil war in multiple periods - this is not a unanimous view and should be sourced. MLA (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree that the objective is far away and long term, though I think the path there is narrow but straight. Anybody knows about FA WP:SS articles that we might use as guides?--victor falk 19:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think we must settle some things out. Was the Soviet pariod part of the civil war? I find sources calling civil war only the 1989-2001 period. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Second, I don't like the fair use picture in the box. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The multipicity question is tricky indeed. That's something that's needed, more sources about that.

I think there is a wp:biased tendency in considering the Soviet and US involvments as separate wars, because it's so more easy too see things from a superpower than afghan perspective. Also, the shock after Sep. 11, the "What-fucking-bin-laden-country-is-Agfagnistan?" effect. Note that the civil war began in 1978 and the Soviets intervened in 79, and it's not like there was any kind of peace the day after the last Red Army soldier left and the rest of the communist government continued fighting the others.--victor falk 19:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Afghan Civil War" or "Civil war in Afghanistan"

I did a Google search for both terms and Google came up with roughly the same number of hits. (see here and here). But which one is a better term? I think "Civil war in Afghanistan" is a more accurate term. Anyone disagree? -- Behnam (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "war in (country)", in my opinion it's bad English grammar. It's the result of the unclearness of the conflict being contemporary. In the future, maybe it will be called the Afghan Forty-Two Years War or something. Until then, the most appropriate title is the most straightforward one. Maybe Afghan civil war, uncapitalised, would make that clearer.--victor falk 03:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Should'nt it just be "War in Afghanistan (1978-present)"? After all, I would have thought a civil war ceases to civil war after a large number of foreign countries, including a brace of superpowers, become involved. Any thoughts? --Raoulduke47 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not an either or proposition. A war can be both civil and international.

Hm.. What would become of War in Afghanistan (2001-present) then?--victor falk 01:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wel presumably "War in Afghanistan (2001-present)" would be part of "War in Afghanistan (1978-present)". But I'm ready to be convinced that it was mostly a civil war. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the article should be renamed as Afghan Civil War, this title has more hits than Civil war in Afghanistan. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Afghan civil war

I just read this article and a lot falls into this that would not qualify as a civil war. Certainly the Soviety invasion was not a civil war (I have a record right here of Ahmed Rashid that says the civil war started after the Soviet's left) Although the pre-Soviet stuff on here could well constitute a war too). The post-9/11 was also doubtfully a civil war with foreign forces being the primce target, although as the insurgency grows one could accede to see this as so.

The civil war article says (although i doubt it's truth) "civil war is a war between a state and domestic political actors that are in control of some part of the territory claimed by the state." Explicitly mentioning domestic actors and absolving foreign players. This article is in dire need of sources, but what sources say the current and especially the Soviet conflict is a civil war? Lihaas (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the what the definition of civil war might be, there is a clear historical continuity between the different phases of conflict in Afghanistan over the last 30years. Each phase is explained by the one that preceded it, so removing certain essential sections does not seem like very pertinent move. Raoulduke47 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a civil war with foreign intervention. If one peruses the list of civil wars, one notices that it is not at all exceptional. ¨¨ victor falk 08:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, hardly unique to have foreign powers sticking their nose in others' wars.ChillyMD (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

List of ongoing conflicts

Civil war in Afghanistan and its confused state is causing difficulties for the article List of ongoing conflicts. There have been a series of edits where people (including myself) have changed the listing of Afghanistan on List of ongoing conflicts to War in Afghanistan (2001–present) on the basis that the current (and ongoing phase of conflict in Afghanistan is not a civil war and is unrelated to the preceding conflicts in Afghanistan. A particular user User:Kermanshahi keeps changing the reference back again. Does anyone here have any views about how this should be handled ? Marlarkey (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

After more than three decades of conflict, the reconstruction process of Afghanistan has begun

If you saw the Soviet TV reports from Afghanistan, they also said they conduct reconstruction. So why this article says reconstruction only began when Americans came?--MathFacts (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Afghan civil war (once redirect with history at destination is speedy-deleted). Per Septentrionalis, article should be recast. Per Kotniski, this rename is reasonable as interim measure. Born2cycle (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Civil war in Afghanistan → Afghan Civil War — "Afghan Civil War" would appear to be the most common terminlogy for the ongoing conflict, which encompasses Soviet and NATO interventions, in addition to the civil war between the various political factions in Afghanistan. This terminology is used by various reliable sources including the Guardian, Telegraph, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, BBC, France 24 and Al Jazeera. City of Destruction 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually most of those speak of the Afghan civil war as ending in 2001 - and use lower case. This article should be split and recast. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Most sources using the phrase do so in a historical context, are referring to the period prior to Nato intervention. This is understandable, giving that the the current phase of the conflict is generally called the War in Afghanistan. But I wouldn't say the Afghan Civil War can said to be resolved in any meaningful way, since the two belligerents in the conflict are still effectively at war with one another. City of Destruction 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Which two sides would that be? Karzai's government did not exist before the invasion, and the Lion of the Panjshir is dead - and his armies dissolved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support move: The current article title is a bit misleading. "Civil war in Afghanistan" suggests that the article is about the general topic of civil wars in Afghanistan or the history of civil war in Afghanistan, not a specific civil war. The title "Afghanistan Civil War" is more precise and appropriate. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 16:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• 'Support as a temporary measure, but as PMA observes, the article needs recasting. What is its purpose? A parent article for all the conflicts since 1978? Or an article specifically about those conflicts which go by the name of "Civil War"? If the former, then I don't believe it should have a title that implies it's just about civil war. If the latter, then it needs some serious editing to make it fit that scope.--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Splitting and Recasting discussion

This needs to happen as a follow-up to the move (see above). In particular, please note comment from Septentrionalis PMAnderson "Actually most of those speak of the Afghan civil war as ending in 2001 ... This article should be split and recast." --Born2cycle (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think, Septentrionalis is wrong with that. The war did not end after 2001. There are still the same forces operating in Afghanistan. On the one side Taliban/Pakistani ISI/Wahhabis on the other side Afghans for a strong Afghan nation state. The involvement of ISAF did not change the main lines and interests connected to Afghanistan. The realities of Afghanistan will become more and more apparent in the time to come.

Also, the term "civil war" is really misleading. According to that logic all resistance battles in Eastern Europe against Soviet puppet governments could be called "civil war", which they are not and have never been. There is a tendency of foreign ignorance in describing conflicts and wars far from their own soil. A better name for the article would be as someone said above: "Wars in Afghanistan since 1978" or something similar. Wikipedia articles for the different time periods are already in place. There is one for 1989-1992, there are two for 1992-1996 and there is one for 1996-2001. So there is no need of splitting the article and remodeling it - just change the name.—JCAla (talk) 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully with JCA1a, wp:bias to say war in Afghanistan was all new brand fangled in 2001. Re civil war, see Talk:Afghan_civil_war#Afghan_civil_war. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many articles on the 1978-present war in Afghanistan

Wikipedia has way too many articles on the 1978-present war in Afghanistan and this causes confusion, this one should briefly explain the civil war which began in 1978 and each section could explain the different eras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me chase girl she chase me (talk • contribs) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Intervened" Afghanistan

I don't see any consensus for this no-summary edit (by Trust Is All You Need) changing all instances of "invaded" to "intervened" (not always grammatically). Thus, I've reverted it. It has been described as invasion by multiple reliable sources (e.g. Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, Russia marks Afghanistan retreat by Al Jazeera, etc.). Superm401 - Talk 22:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issues with edit regarding Communist involvement

This edit by Trevor Goodchild also had no summary and presents a few NPOV issues. It changes "Military coup" to "Communist revolution" (consensus appears to be that it was a coup, though it obviously had Communist involvement), "popular" to "religious" (some were religious, some were simply anti-communist) "resistance" to "rebellion" (both are probably accurate, but the rebellion may have a slightly more negative connotation), removes "unpopular" (appropriate, though a source for the popularity could be added). I've reverted all but the "unpopular" removal. Superm401 - Talk 23:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect without discussion

Why was such a huge move down unilaterally without any discussion? Parsi101 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

– This would be more in line with other pages (Algerian Civil War, American Civil War, Angolan Civil War, Cambodian Civil War, Chinese Civil War, Chadian Civil War, Chadian Civil War (1965–79), Chadian Civil War (2005–10), Costa Rican Civil War, English Civil War, Eritrean Civil Wars, Ethiopian Civil War, Finnish Civil War, First Ivorian Civil War, First Liberian Civil War, First Sudanese Civil War, Georgian Civil War, Greek Civil War, Guatemalan Civil War, Guinea-Bissau Civil War, Iraqi Civil War, Irish Civil War, Italian Civil War, Ivorian Civil War, Laotian Civil War, Lebanese Civil War, Liberian Civil War, Libyan Civil War, Libyan Civil War (2011), Libyan Civil War (2014–present), Mozambican Civil War, Nepalese Civil War, Nigerian Civil War, North Yemen Civil War, Paraguayan Civil War, Russian Civil War, Rwandan Civil War, Salvadoran Civil War, Second Ivorian Civil War, Second Liberian Civil War, Second Sudanese Civil War, Sierra Leone Civil War, Somali Civil War, South Sudanese Civil War, South Yemen Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Sri Lankan Civil War, Sudanese Civil War, Syrian Civil War, Ugandan Civil War, Uruguayan Civil War, Yemeni Civil War, Yemeni Civil War (1994), Yemeni Civil War (2015), ect.). --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support both per WP:CONSISTENCY. Khestwol (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence provided that it's a proper name. Srnec (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note that the pages in question are DAB pages, not articles on a single specific war. Only a few examples in the comparison list are this type of article (e.g. Yemeni Civil War). —  AjaxSmack  02:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarifying that I'm not against a move and I like the WP:CONSISTENCY argument. —  AjaxSmack  21:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As per AjaxSmack's observation and Ngrams GregKaye 03:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless, even every other DAB page follows the this format of capitalization. So I think WP:CONSISTENCY applies here. Charles Essie (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.