Jump to content

Talk:Afghan conflict/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Affect on minoritys

we should include what affect this civil war had on minoritys? Parsi101 (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is just basically copy and pasted from afghan civil war right? why was there not any discussion Parsi101 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello ) The afghan civil was lasted from 1978 till the present did it? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure but this is definitely a copyright violation and seems to be a pov fork Parsi101 (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
well maybe your right :/ Parsi101 (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
But I still do think a discussion should of been made and I reiterate someone else besides me is bound to see this as a obvious pov content fork of another article Parsi101 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
How is it a copyright violation? It was a redirect, and I had written most of the redirected article anyways. Also when you create a "new" article to have a more appropriate title, there is no possibility for an edit summary. Also, why the heck, do all these SPA socks like Parsi101 feel the need to follow either DS or me? Can you not edit under your main account whatever that is? JCAla (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You do know when they attack you then you must be doing something right? Nice work on this article BTW. And I see you had a good hunting expedition recently Darkness Shines (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Empire

Seriously? How is this wording encyclopedic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.181.212.214 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ask at Soviet Empire Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis?

Do our sources indicate that there has been a single War in Afghanistan going on for almost 40 years? A few hundred years from now, they may be lumped together, as with Punic Wars or Persian Wars, but right now it seems absurd to claim that the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the current one are, in fact, different phases of the same war. It certainly doesn't fit with current parlance. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Örebro Castle

Embedded into the article is an image of Sweden's Örebro Castle, as part of a solicitation to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments USA. Yes, Örebro Slott is indeed a fine-looking castle. I have been there many times. But what is the connection between Örebro and the War in Afghanistan and monuments in the USA? Rammer (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure). This article will call the war "War in Afghanistan" not "Afghan Civil War". There was very little participation in this RM, so no prejudice against making a new one Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


War in Afghanistan (1978–present) → Afghan Civil War – The title calls this the "War in Afghanistan" but rest of the article calls it the "Afghan Civil War", so should the article (including the title) call it the "War in Afghanistan" or "Afghan Civil War"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The current title is correct. When a foreign power tries to take you over, such as the Soviets from 1979 until whenever and the USA from 2001 until forever, that is not a civil war, that is an invasion. Okay, not forever, is 2024+some more better? (note to self, come back in a decade and correct) Apteva (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I still want to know what I asked a few sections up. How is this all one war? --BDD (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problems

The Saudi and US spent many billions in support of the Afghanistan mujahideen, shouldn't that merit a subsection? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

reliable sources

What reliable sources actually say this period is an independent subject that last until the present?
I have at least two that say that war ending in 1992 (Cold War Museum, Encyclopedia Britanica, American University, Georgetown University Press), and another source that says it ended in 1989 ("Understanding War in Afghanistan").--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: As asked in 2012, how is this all one war? What reliable sources verify that it is a single war? If it can be shown by reliable sources it is not, or as appears to be the case that there are no reliable sources that treat it as a single conflict, perhaps this article's scope can/should be changed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: We can boldly move the article, and close the scope to meet the reliable sources. Or should we request move, and open it up for debate?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer the RM route. I'm not discounting the idea that the status quo is completely legitimate; it just doesn't seem that way to me, and nothing has demonstrated otherwise. This may also have implications for War in Afghanistan (2001–14), War in Afghanistan (2015–present), and the proposed merge of those pages. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Back in 2006 this article was started as the Battle of Kabul, moved to Afghan Civil War in 2006, then moved to Afghanistani Civil War in 2007, then moved to Civil War in Afghanistan in November 2007; it was not until 2013 that it gained its current title. Another option is WP:TNT and start it over. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


War in Afghanistan (1978–present) → Afghan War (1978–1992) – Have been unable to find reliable sources that verify that there has been a single war ongoing since 1978 until today. As discussed elsewhere there are at least four reliable sources that verify that the war that began in 1978 ended in 1992 (Cold War Museum, Encyclopedia Britanica, American University, Georgetown University Press), and one reliable source that verifies that it ended in 1989 "Understanding War in Afghanistan"). Therefore weight should be given to the definition more often used by reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I will notify appropriate individuals and wikiprojects.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I support the solution being proposed by BDD. Another solution is just to delete this article, and merge relevant content to their appropriate articles, about those separate wars/conflicts. Granted they are all related as they are all in Afghanistan, but there doesn't appear to be reliable sources that treat them all as one single conflict, which this article does, and which per BDD is Wikipedia original research synthesis unverified by reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Merging and deleting can be tricky, but if we didn't want the current title showing up in the search bar and such, we could move to something else in order to preserve the attribution history and just not leave a redirect behind. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This article should definitely be deleted. The 1978–present periodization doesn't made any sense; and while 1978-1992 is better, there's already two articles about it, the creation of a third one is not the answer. Iponey (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I, too, like User:BDD's proposal and agree with User:Iponey about not needing a third article. Also consider redirecting the title to the Afghan civil war dab page. Then, if the current title pops up in the search bar, readers can quickly ascertain which period they want. However, keep the title as a redirect to preserve the edit history and move the content to either the individual conflict articles or the history article. —  AjaxSmack  08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment All of this wiki periodization is a mess anyway. Who decided that Wikipedia needs the Afghan civil war divided in three articles? Iponey (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

And that lies the problem, it doesn't meet our basic verification requirements. While no one is arguing that there has been a series of several conflicts in Afghanistan since the late 1970s, few if any at all reliable sources treat those conflicts as a single war. Thus the argument being forwarded by BDD.
I would be OK with redirecting this to the title Afghan civil war dab page, it appears to be a fair compromise. That being said, again, few if any reliable sources say it is all a single conflict, and it is the WP:BURDEN of those who oppose this move to show that a significant weight of reliable sources do.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. As that talks about all the separate wars discussed in this topic.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose All one war with different phases [1][2][3][4][5]. There was no pause between the different conflict periods. Also, a tag has not been placed at the article's main page that this discussion is underway. Please place it. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The first source does not say that a phase ended in 2014. Stratfor is analysis, and thus is not fact but the opinion of the writer, in this case George Friedman.
Quote from the second source:

Afghanistan has been plagued by war for 30 years. The conflicts that have occurred during this time have involved major world powers, Afghanistan’s neighbors, and various Afghan factions.

— Ending the 30-Year War in Afghanistan
Thus although there has been war for 30 years, this shows that there are separate conflicts, not one war, but war in general.
The ICRC source, says there has been war for 30 years, but not say that is a thirty year single war.
Same issue remains for the source from the PhD Student from Fondation Pierre du Bois. No where in the source does it say that the 30 years of war is a single conflict.
Only the source from OxFam treats it as a single conflict:

To better understand how Afghans have experienced and understand the conflict, eight nongovernmental organizations operating in Afghanistan conducted research in 14 provinces across the country.

Therefore, even based on the sources provided by the editor above, the weight of sources do not show that there is a consensus from reliable sources that the period of 1978 onward is a single war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Matter of opinion. And it says war for 30 years, not warS. In any case, said my piece. Let the chips now fall where they may. EkoGraf (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose reducing the scope of this article and oppose even more strongly the idea of deleting it. It's not clear to me how serious this discussion is: first off I see no sign of the canvassing of concerned wikiprojects and involved editors that the nominator promised to do. Also if the purpose of the discussion is to delete the article as some editors are suggesting, then the correct procedure should be to star an AFD(and good luck with that). The sources presented here by RightCowLeftCoast are far from definitive: the Encyclopedia Britannica entry describes Afghanistans "internal conflict" as lasting from 1978 to 1992, but then goes on to state "More broadly, the term also encompasses military activity within Afghanistan since 1992 involving domestic and foreign forces", which completely contradicts the point being made. Other sources such as these [6], [7] describe the 1978-1992 period, not because it was a single standalone conflict, but because it was during this time that Afghanistan was ruled by the PDPA, a regime known as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. It makes sense for sources that have studied a specific period of the conflict to present it as a war, but this doesn't mean that the fighting that happened before and after that period was part of an entirely different war. Conversely, a little research can easily turn up sources that present the current war as a single conflict that has lasted for more than 30 years: see this article from the Rand corporation, or this paper from the Century foundation. You could also try Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban by Larry Goodson, or the Human rights watch website, which unambiguously present it as a single war. The idea being propagated here, that the scope of this article is based solely on OR by wikipedians, seems to be a serious misrepresentation, as it clearly is justified by a number of sources, besides the undeniable fact that Afghanistan HAS been at war for the last 30 years. How could this not be the subject of an article?? --Raoulduke47 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The Rand Corporation source provided above, talks about the Afghan Civil War. Is the above editor saying that this article is misnamed?
To quote the paper from the Century foundation:

Since 1979, its bitter conflicts have topped the list of threats to international peace and security that have actively engaged UN member states.

Thus there have been multiple conflicts, not a single conflict
The book shown above Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban, talks about a single conflict that lasted until 2001, as written in [http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57568/l-carl-brown/afghanistans-endless-war-state-failure-regional-politics-and-the this book review published in Foreign Affairs. Therefore, the war it talks about ended in 2001, and not "present", as this article alleges.
No one is arguing that there has not been some form of conflict in Afghanistan since date X. However, what is being debated is whether it is treated as a single war. That has been war, but not a single war. It is WP:SYNTH to say that there has been a single continuous war. This article is a kin to saying that there should be an article War in United States (1941-present), as there are sources that say that U.S. has almost always been at war. Not that I agree with that though, but just saying.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Eh? Your analogy doesn't make any sense. The US has been in involved in a number of wars, but they weren't continuous, and each was set in a very different geopolitical context, unless someone is suggesting that the First world war and the Vietnam war are the same thing, which would be absurd. The war in Afghanistan has been continuous, and taking place in the same geographical area, Afghanistan. There is no possible comparison. And yeah, "Afghanistan's endless war" by Larry Goodson ends in 2001, because, guess what, that's the year it was written in...not because the author considered that what happened afterwards was a different war.--Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
No one is arguing that there are a number of different conflicts in Afghanistan. But they aren't allone conflict. The editor would want us to believe something that the author Goodson didn't write in his book. That would be original research. No if this article was Wars in Afghanistan from X to Y, that is understandable, but to say that all these different wars are a single war, when [{WP:WEIGHT|most]] reliable sources treat them as separate would be WP:SYNTH.
Also the war involving the Soviet Union and the war involving United States were in two completely different political context and were also separated by a significant amount of time, therefore to treat those to conflicts as a single conflict would be, as the above editor said, "would be absurd".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I'm with EkoGraf and Raoulduke47 on this one. This request has no fundamentals. Coltsfan (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? Just cause someone opposes it another someone opposes it does not make a strong argument.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose - This merge proposal has no sourced basis. On the other hand, there are plenty of sources in the article that support the current title. The proposed move is illogical, and it is clear that it is one long continuous conflict with multiple distinct phases. LightandDark2000 (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's denying that there has been war in Afghanistan from 1978 on, but a war generally has two or more sides. What are the sides of the war that's allegedly been going on for almost 40 years now? The Soviet war in Afghanistan and Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–92) had two sides each, and I could even see an argument that that was one big war, with the Soviets and their supported government on one side and the "Mujahideen" on another. But you get to the Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–96) and there's a whole new set of players. Yeah, some commanders were involved in both, but so what? George Washington was involved in the French and Indian Wars as well as the American Revolutionary War. I don't even know what's going on with Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001). War in Afghanistan (2001–14) is straightforward, a new conflict IMO, though maybe too early to say whether War in Afghanistan (2015–present) really represents something new or not.
tldr: If you can tell me the belligerents of this alleged war and can put something in the infobox like we have for most conflicts, I might change my mind. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to clear things up, I will make a couple of comments there. This war is rather unique, because although it is not a pure, perfectly continuous war, the conflict from each of those wars does blend into the other conflicts, and by that token, it technically does qualify this as a single continuous period of conflict. Basically, after the "end" of each war (or right before the end), an insurgency would break out, or an intervention would initiate before the said Afghan Civil War conflicts even ended. That being said, this pattern continued for over 30 years, and as such, these continuing insurgencies/foreign interventions has extended the already-ongoing civil war for over 30 years. And also, the war since 1978 has never really ended, they just transitioned as each successive insurgency or intervention became the primary focus of the next several years or so of the conflict. But the war never ended. The violence never did quell. And although some of the players and goals of the war have shifted dramatically, it's still one long bloody continuous conflict. The war just transitioned from one phase to the next. There was the Soviet Phase, and the after that, the victors started fighting for control, initiating the Taliban conflict period, then in 2001, the US and eventually NATO joined the conflict, basically delineating over 3 separate periods of the same bloody conflict. Also, as for "having 1 article per war", that's just not possible in some cases. For this war, a single article for all of the conflicts that erupted and spilled over into the next would make this article way too long to navigate. So it's completely logical to split up the article, and to use the distinct focus of each phase as the title (and defining point) for each individual article of the phases of conflict. Splitting up the articles otherwise would be confusing and muddling people's perception of the events. But we do have sources proving that the conflicts all spilled over from one into the next, culminating in this seemingly eternal nightmare of a war that's lasted for over 30 years. And we have sources that support the delineation of each individual phase of this conflict. So given all of that, the article titles should all remain as they are, given that the violence from each period has continued into the next, and due to the fact that we DO have sources supporting the current titling of each subsequent article. And that is all for now. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As for the infobox, we may not be able to include all of the belligerents/statistics. We would need to start a whole new article for the infobox (like for the Syrian Civil War), because we would need 5 or 6 belligerent columns in the article, as well as over 30 years of statistics for the cumulative conflicts, which is just not possible. The infobox template wouldn't be able to handle 5 or 6 belligerents, let alone 30+ years of shifting key combatants. So I'm afraid that it just can't be done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If this is the case, using the logic defending that all these conflicts are a single conflict, here is what that logic would create: There should be one Indochina War article encompassing all the separate conflicts as a single conflict, not a summary article Indochina Wars linking to multiple different separate yet geographically similar conflicts. If this is the case there should be a single War in North America (X to present) article last from the beginning of the Indian Wars until the present War on drugs treating them all as a single conflict. I am sure there are other examples.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It's an interesting point. I wouldn't at all be surprised if hundreds of years from now, historians spoke of these various conflicts as one war. Today we talk about, say, the Persian Wars and the Punic Wars, even though they lasted 50 and 100 years, respectively. But in those cases, there are clearly two sides. We can speak of their commanders, of the wars' outcomes for both sides, etc. We certainly can't do that here. And if we can't clearly and adequately explain how this is all one war, I think that's going to be a whole lot more "confusing and muddling" to readers. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not true. The Syrian Civil War has 4 separate sides, yet it is a single war. Same goes for the Second Libyan Civil War. Also, the Yemeni insurgencies have multiple sides, not to mention most of the current wars in the Middle East right now, and yet they are still one continuous conflict(s) in their own respective theaters. A war does not need two clearly distinct sides to be considered "a war", heck, many wars and insurgencies have more then two sides. There just needs to be opposing sides using armed force, and a continous (unbroken) period of conflict (in the case of extended conflicts, spillovers of the same conflict ) for a such an event to be considered to be "a war." And in this case, that is what we have, as indicated by multiple sources. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course a war can have more than two sides, but if sides are added and subtracted between the different "phases" of the war, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest those phases might reasonably be considered distinct conflicts. --BDD (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
A significant number of reliable sources do treat them as separate conflicts. While fewer do treat them as a single conflict, we should not give those fewer sources undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope

Afghan Civil War redirect here. Shouldn't be better to restrict the scope of this article just to period between the soviet retreat and the american invasion? Moagim (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok seriously, what the hell is that last paragraph. Kyeo77 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The civil war ended in 2001-2. Since then there is only an insurgency, there is no civil war anymore. Iraq, Thailand, Colombia all have insurgencies like Afghanistan, not a civil war. This should be split into Afghan Civil War 1979-2001, and Insurgency 162.213.136.97 (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it right to put 1978-2014?

I would strongly argue "yes". - Adam37 Talk 17:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I know this is an old topic but I would like to voice my opinion. I don't think it should because the war doesn't just end because ISAF is leaving Afghanistan. Also, there could be a different war that starts as part of this war. Besides, the Taliban are still terrorising Afghanistan. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
That's true. The war is still going on. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Its not a war - its an insurgency. For it to be a war, there has to be an army that holds territory like in Syria. An insurgency is not a civil war. Palestine is not in a civil war. 162.213.136.97 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Taliban actually do hold territory in the south and in the east in the border region. They control most of several districts. And yes the war is still ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on War in Afghanistan (1978–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on War in Afghanistan (1978–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This war is done

I think the date headline should be 1979-1989 since this whole article is basically about the Afghan-Soviet war. Claiming this is still ongoing or any way related to the War on terror today is incorrect, just my opinion. Akmal94 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (1978–present) → Afghan conflict – It's a simple yet effective name that broadly refers to the whole 'conflict' in Afghanistan since 1978. The current name may also be confusing when we have the current War in Afghanistan (2001-present) article. Wq639 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

I comment here to note that CapLiber unilaterally moved the page to Afghan crisis (1978–present) without any explanation. Seeing how the move was conducted just 43 minutes after this move discussion was closed with no support for a move, I have reverted the article to its original location. If a move to the proposed "Afghan crisis (1978–present)" title is to proceed, it should follow the procedure for controversial moves: this is, to open a new move request and have a discussion on it to seek consensus for such a move. Impru20talk 20:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)" as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


War in Afghanistan (1978–present) → ? – I think the titles 'Afghan conflict (1978-present)' or 'Afghan crisis (1978-present)' would be better suited than the current title. The term 'conflict' or 'crisis' is better for this wider spectrum of different conflicts that have taken place since '78. It puts it into line with other article titles like:

Using the same method, we could have e.g. Afghan crisis (1978-present) with War in Afghanistan (2001-present) as one part of this wider series of conflicts.

Also I should mention that this article is also named too similar to War in Afghanistan (2001-present). It's not a confusion issue (as said by someone in a previous move request above) - but instead it's to do with accessibility: When searching for 'Afghanistan War' in Google you see the 2001-present article there, not this 1978-present article, partly because the 2001-present article is a lot bigger and known. This 1978-present article needs good distinguishing as a result, which would also greatly help people searching for this article in particular on Google or other search engines instead of the current 2001-present war. I am personally mostly in favor of changing the name to Afghan crisis (1978-present), but anything else similar I would prefer over the current title. Drayqueen (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Drayqueen:, would you support the version proposed by Rreagan007? Safrolic (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Dangling ref

I have located a dangling ref and have hidden it, replacing it with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have references pointing to sources that are not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk)

Fixed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for this proposal. Number 57 15:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → Crisis in Afghanistan – I think the term Crisis would be best suited instead of Conflict when you look at it form a broader spectrum. Also reduces any leftover confusions. This term is already used in eg Ukrainian crisis, Crisis in Venezuela, Libyan crisis. (alternatively some may prefer Afghan crisis but I think Crisis in Afghanistan is best suited). Weaveravel (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: I've never heard of a crisis lasting 40+ years. Serendipodous 23:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 16 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, early closing per WP:SNOW. No such user (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → Afghanistan conflict (1978–2021) – See Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Requested move 15 August 2021. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose While the U.S.-led phase of the conflict is ending and will almost certainly be over by the end of this month, I haven't seen any reliable sources claim that the larger Afghanistan civil war is totally over. On August 17, 2021, Amrullah Saleh claimed that he is the country's legitimate leader. The BBC's live online coverage has repeatedly posted news briefs about the "uncertainty" surrounding Afghanistan's future. Based on what RSes are saying, I think it's too soon for Wikipedia to claim that this long-standing, multi-phase conflict has totally ended. CoatGuy (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Just adding this source indicating that already there have been two postwar states declared in Afghanistan, fighting between the two is likely. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210817-defiant-afghan-ex-vp-vows-new-fight-with-taliban 98.217.255.37 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The phase of the conflict that started in 2001 may be over, but the overall conflict continues as a resistance is formed against the new Taliban government. EkoGraf (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewrite/Addition

This article needs a major rewrite, specifically about the 2001-2021 phase. The section is too particular, talking about bomb blasts in Kabul and such. It should have a broader focus and should include the end of the war. A new section about the Panjshir fighting, however long that war will be, should be added as well. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:CDEB:8B09:CB62:FF14 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Rename to Afghanistan Conflict (1978-2021)

The Taliban and the Panjshir resistance have signed a ceasefire with one another, so I think it is safe to say that all continuous conflict in Afghanistan has ended at the very moment, and the war is over. Justrz (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose that move - a ceasefire isn't a peace treaty and it still has to be seen how long it's going to last - after all, conflict is still happening (including the Taliban cutting off internet access and armed clashes between the groups). Like, compare to the Korean conflict - the Korean War as such ended with a ceasefire in 1953 but there's still no long-lasting peace process and so it's still described as an ongoing conflict. NHCLS (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
A country not a war, at last]SAMBLAman (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Investigation of war crimes

Just read this, from the Afghan Analysis Network. Reliable sources will hopefully be forthcoming: Afghan Victims of War Crimes Want Investigation: Hundreds of thousands apply to ICC Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Double Pictures

Why are there two pictures of the same image where President Karzai poses with the US troops? Aeazer (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is an overwhelming consensus that it is too soon to tell whether the conflict is over or not. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → Afghanistan conflict (1978–2021) – Termination of conflict SAMBLAman (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't include the ISIL–Taliban conflict in the lead as one of the phases of the 1978–present conflict, so maybe it wouldn't be counted if the Panjshir conflict ended soon. Super Ψ Dro 08:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
A crystal ball


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2021 Afghan Protests

Should we add the 2021 Afghan protests under the Panjshir conflict in the top part of the article where they list the various conflict? I think we should because the 2021 Afghan protests are considered part of the Panjshir conflict and the Taliban has used their military, the Islamic Army of Afghanistan, against protesters and making it more military-ish. PatriotMapperCDP (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Fall of Panjshir

With the collapse of the resistance in that region, and the Taliban victory, we can finally call the whole conflict. Whatever comes next, if anything, is not part of this long conflict. It will be, if it is to be at all, something new. Frankly, that the warring parties who started it are not the same as the ones who ended it, with some of the states who started it no longer even existing, and at least one changing sides to occupy the occupier slot, shows it ought to have been called and split long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.246.108 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → Conflict in Afghanistan (1978–present) – Because this is a series of conflicts that are not necessarily interconnected. The current name makes it sound like it's the Afghanistan conflict, but it's more than just that. 'Conflict in Afghanistan' is more neutral. It's also the (right) format used for Internal conflict in Myanmar. WR 21:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 07:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Why 1978 in the title, rather than 1973?

The introduction itself states that "the 1973 Afghan coup d'état brought the monarch Mohammed Zahir Shah’s 39-year reign to an end and ended Afghanistan’s relatively peaceful period in modern history". So why is the article named Afghanistan conflict (1978-present) and not Afghanistan conflict (1973-present)? Seems a little arbitrary to put as the beginning of the chaos that continues until today a counter-coup (the one from 1978) rather than the actual first coup that had established a one-party autocracy (1973). Just some food for thought, would appreciate people's opinions. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It is very debatable if the 1973 or the 1978 coup marked the end of the peaceful period for Afghanistan but my impression is most authors depict the Saur revolution as the more important event. For instance, here long-time Afghanistan observer William Maley puts the end of that period in 1978:
Maley, William (2021). The Afghanistan Wars (3rd ed.). Red Globe Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-352-01100-5.

Afghanistan is a land of extremes. For nearly 50 years of the twentieth century, from 1929 until 1978, it appeared to be one of the most peaceful countries in Asia, although tensions were building – both internally and in its international relations – that finally erupted with dramatic force.

Rodric Braithwaite also puts the start of the tragedy into 1978.
Braithwaite, Rodric (2011). Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan 1979–1989. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-19-983265-1.

On 27 April 1978 President Daud was bloodily overthrown by the Afghan Communists, the innocuous-sounding People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan. The victors called it the ‘April Revolution’, the beginning of a new age which would transform their country. More than a decade later Russians were still arguing whether it had been a proper revolution or only a coup. But General Lyakhovski, the chronicler of the war that followed in which he himself served for five years, had a starker name. For him the April coup was the beginning of tragedy not only for Afghanistan, but for the Soviet Union as well.

Also, the level of violence sharply increased after the 1978 coup and the literature is starting to describe the conflict as a civil war at some point during the year 1979. Olivier Roy estimated between 50,000 and 100,000 people disappeared during the 20 months of the Taraki–Amin period alone. The Daoud period had also seen increased violence but nothing comparable to the Taraki-Amin period.
Roy, Olivier (1990). Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 95–96. ISBN 978-0-521-39700-1.

During the period of government of Taraki-Amin, the Afghan people suffered cruel repression. [...] In all, between 50,000 and 100,000 people disappeared

Jo1971 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Jo1971. As you say, it is indeed a controversial issue. Still, I can't help but think that the name, as it now is, can be interpreted as biasedly saying that all as well in Afghanistan until "the Communists" showed up and gave a coup who would be to blame for all the chaos in the country until today, when, was we know, the stable monarchy was overthrown in the 1973 coup and an authoritarian regime put in place, only it wasn't a Communist. Given the West-East divide, including in academic perceptions, at the time, maybe we should ask ourselves if there isn't a bias in the year we choose for the beginning of the article - if there should be a year there in 1970s at all, as I don't really see how the current situation has anything to do with the coup of 1973 nor with the counter-coup of 1978... Dan Palraz (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Dan Palraz: The destabilization of the country already began before the 1973 coup. In fact, the monarchy wasn't such a stable monarchy anymore in the beginning of the 1970s. For details see i.e. Ruttig, Thomas (2013). "How It All Began: Pre-1979 Origins of Afghanistan's Conflict". Afghanistan Analysts Network. It's correct that Daoud's regime was authorian but with the PDPA in the government (he purged the communist members by 1977 though). If you think there is a bias for chosing the 1978 coup, which academic writes otherwise? From what I read it's not contested that the PDPA policies drove the country into the civil war. See for instance here:
Dorronsoro, Gilles (2005). Revolution Unending. Afghanistan: 1979 to the Present. London: Hurst & Company. p. 96. ISBN 1-85065-703-3.

However, it was finally the policy of repression undertaken by the authorities which alienated the governing class, the non-communist intelligentsia and, before long, the entire population. Going beyond anecdotal explanations and immediate causes of the uprising, if was the violence of the state rather than its reforms that lay the root of the crisis.

Rubin, Barnett R. (2002). The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System (2nd ed.). New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-300-09519-7.

The government, under the sole control of Khalq—itself increasingly dominated by Hafizullah Amin—tried to carry out a revolutionary transformation of Afghan society by decree and terror.

p. 115

In pursuit of a plan to eliminate opposition, Khalq used mass arrests, torture, and secret executions on a scale Afghanistan had not seen since the time of Abdul Rahman Khan, and probably not even then. Daoud and his immediate family perished in the coup.

But I think the decreasing legitimacy of the state and the increasing tensions within the country starting from the end of the 1960s could be way more detailed from my point of view. --Jo1971 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have always thought that same thing, I guess since there wasn't much happening between the 1973 coup and the 1978 counter-coup but there has been almost constant fighting since the 1978 counter-coup than it make more sense to use 1978 as the start date of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.33.191 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz: @76.124.33.191: I think you're forgetting one major thing: we're talking about a conflict here. There was a coup in 1973, but it doesn't necessarily mean an armed conflict started. And if anything, there weren't any notable armed conflicts to call the situation a conflict. For the most part, the country remained peaceful during the pre-'78 period - there were only one or two isolated incidents like the Panjshir uprising, but nothing of the sort to call it a national conflict. 1978 is the correct starting year. --WR 00:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved at this time, per the discussion below, which shows no agreement that a move is advisable at this time. Of course, "extended and free discussion" on the topic can take place on the talk page as usual outside of the context of a move request. However, given the result of this discussion and the long history of move requests on this page ending as "not moved", it is worth considering that it appears unlikely that opinions on the topic are changing significantly and I would suggest building some degree of agreement before initiating a new request. Dekimasuよ! 02:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → ? – Altogether these wars are not all the Afghanistan conflict, but separate conflicts that have taken place in Afghanistan. The way this article and name is set up now makes it look like this is a single conflict. The situation in Afghanistan differs from, say, Colombian conflict. I was thinking of changing to Internal conflict in Afghanistan, as 'Internal' takes into account the smaller regional conflicts that have taken place like the Taliban-ISIL conflict or the border skirmishes. Internal conflict in Myanmar uses this format as well.

Additionally I think this article needs a cutting down, since there is so much duplicates with the main articles - it reads almost like History of Afghanistan. Articles like Congolese Civil War and Insurgency in Yemen are simply bulleted lists of separate conflicts that have taken place, just as is the case in Afghanistan. WR 00:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I support the move. I don't really see how the situation now is related to the 1978 conflict. Dan Palraz (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Please state in bold what title you support a move to. --WR 11:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It is all a part of one conflict- the Afghan Civil War which began in 1978 and continues until today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:400:4280:8CEE:9FE2:26C7:D5B3 (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

And why do you think that is? --WR 11:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Because that is what it is. It has been a long standing Civil War which has been going on since 1978 with foreign intervention from 1979 - 1989 and 2001 - 2021. What has been going on recently may have little-to-nothing with the Saur Revolution of 1978 but that just means that the War has evolved, that is the case with many Wars that last for Decades (if not Centuries). There has been a continuous evolutionary line from the Saur Revolution to today, where one thing led to another thing which got us to where we are today. It is part of one conflict that has evolved over time. The Soviet War in Afghanistan had little in common with the United States War in Afghanistan but it was part of the same evolutionary line so it is the same conflict. 2601:4A:400:4280:8CEE:9FE2:26C7:D5B3 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Even taking into account your view, the article would be much better titled as Internal conflict in Afghanistan, because even as you say, the US war had little in common with the Soviet war - thus this is not the Afghanistan conflict. The "Internal conflict" title is incredibly neutral and takes it all into account. --WR 19:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Counter question: Was there a single point of time since the Saur revolution and the outbreak of the Civil War in 1978/79 when there was really peace in the country? --Jo1971 (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
For brief periods. In 1978 trouble started but it didn't turn into a state of "civil war" until at least the summer/fall of 1979. Following the end of the 2001 invasion, there was a period of relative "peace" for a time during 2002-2003, before the Taliban relaunched the insurgency. More recently, since the Taliban's takeover in 2021, there is a period of relative "peace". This does not include security incidents like terror attacks, but that does not necessarily mean a state of conflict. --WR 19:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
You are saying it: "relative peace" but no real peace. If these were individual unrelated conflicts, when did they end then? Did the war end with the Soviet withdrawal in 1989? No, it did not. Did it end with the fall of the Najibullah regime in 1992? No, it did not. Did it end when the Taliban conquered Kabul in 1996? It turned into a low-intensity war but it was still going on. Did it end when the Taliban regime was toppled in 2001? It was probably something like peace at least for some time but it would be probably absurd to see the NATO intervention in 2001 and the Taliban insurgency not as a single conflict. See for instance on the whole period from 1978:
Maley, William (2021). The Afghanistan Wars (3rd ed.). Red Globe Press. ISBN 978-1-352-01100-5.
--Jo1971 (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
But the point here is that these are all different wars. The way the article is currently like makes it look like this is one close, continuous conflict called "the Afghanistan conflict", which is absolutely not the case here. Hence why I proposed "Internal conflict in Afghanistan" as a neutral, better alternative title. --WR 23:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
They are different Sub-Wars but they are all part of one larger War, The Iraqi Conflict article is a good example of this. 2601:4A:400:4280:697D:FC3E:3C7F:A7D2 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Contrary to the Iraqi Conflict article, Congolese Civil War or Insurgency in Yemen don't follow that format. Besides even with your view, having the title Internal conflict in Afghanistan is a lot more neutral for this article. --WR 11:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If it would all be different wars, then it should be easy to define an ending of these wars. --Jo1971 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Think of the current title: do these conflicts make up "the Afghanistan conflict?". Because from what I see they are simply not, it is not comparable to, say, the Colombian conflict. --WR 11:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is very confused about its purpose: there are several different wars. The text also cites military interventions by foreign countries in Afghanistan as if they were civil wars. I don't understand how an international conflict that took place in the context of the Cold War (Soviet–Afghan War) would be related to an international conflict of the War on Terror (War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)). The correct thing would be to change the title to make it clear that this is a series of different conflicts.--Fontaine347 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been constant fighting since 1978 so it is all one large War with a series of smaller Sub-Wars all of whom we have sepeate articles for so it does make sense to call it all one conflict. 2601:4A:400:4280:697D:FC3E:3C7F:A7D2 (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The same question has been asked in the past by other editors on this subject. There were no satisfactory answers. See: Talk:Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)/Archive 1#reliable sources.--Fontaine347 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Afghanistan has been notified of this discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Cold War has been notified of this discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I am opposed to any move; Weaveravel failed to come up with a recommended target before starting this RM discussion. I agree with the IP: this has been an ongoing Afghan civil war since 1978. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Chris, "failing to come up with a recommended target" is not a weakness in this case. I left the door open for extended and free discussion rather than committing to one now. As mentioned I am currently leaning on Internal Conflict. WR 00:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't see this as a move request, frankly. There isn't a proposed new title, and the debate centres around the nature/scope of the subject itself. Instead of a move, WP:RFC may be the appropriate venue. Ribbet32 (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Dekimasu: @Ribbet32: I think this request was closed prematurely and without consensus. As you can see, apart from one user who supported, there was a very valid comment from User:Fontaine347 that the article's current state is not clear.

User:Ribbet32 and User:Chris troutman are commenting that I didn't propose a title, yet completely ignoring any sort of discussion here. I voiced my personal support for a move to the title Internal conflict in Afghanistan, but did not outright put it in the proposal to leave the door open to discussion and others' views. I wonder how Ribbet32 and Chris troutman would have responded if I did directly state proposing a move to the title I consider best.

Taking my and Fontaine347's comments into account - i.e. that the current title may not be suitable or the best to reflect the content - it is imperative to at least have an in-depth discussion about its fate. --WR 23:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

My response would have been the same, because again, RM is not the right venue for this. The question isn't about the title, it's about the scope and nature of the article itself. You might as well have put it on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to start a discussion on whether all the discussed wars make up a single "Afghanistan conflict", and that would have also been the wrong place for the debate. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What happens next with Afghanistan?

With the Taliban fully in power in most of the country, there isn't a big threat (at least for now) to threaten their rule. While there is still pockets of resistance around the Panjshir Valley and in the Andarab Valley, they can't pose a big threat. There are also ISIS-K (a sub group of the more well known group ISIS) pose some threat to the Taliban, which have actually attacked some parts of Afghanistan (like the Capital, Kabul), but are widely unpopular. 

The Taliban has been placing strict Sharia laws which limit Women going to school and banning them from secondary schools and universites and strict punishments on crimes.

The Afghan people are getting poorer as the day go by, with people going as far and selling their children. NRFAWIKI (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afghan_conflict/Archive_1&oldid=1244551018"