Someone mind editing the Peace Initiatives section? The statement "In early January, Taliban commanders held secret exploratory talks with a United Nations special envoy to discuss peace terms. Regional commanders on the Taliban's leadership council, the Quetta Shura, sought a meeting with the UN special representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, and it took place in Dubai on January 8. It was the first such meeting between the UN and senior members of the Taliban" is stated twice, once in the first paragraph and again in the third. Thanks! 71.112.25.6 (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
The al-Qaeda: 500-100[8][9] numbers should read 300- 500 according to the source provided. not 500- 100 as is stated right now in the upper right hand information box under the strength heading.
Partly done: Well spotted - I've changed it to 50-500, as one of the refs says 50-100, the other says 300-500. Cheers IainUKtalk21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Semiprotect
Do we still need the semiprotect on this page? Been awhile since I heard anything from Gamerboy or whatever his name was. It'd be nice if editors who noticed a problem could just fix it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
In the box info it reads "Part of the Civil war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror". Imo it should be either "Part of the civil war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror series" or "Part of Civil war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror". 77.11.161.129 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
POV?
If you look at the other war articles, such as: iraq, or gulf, ect., they all have collages i think the generic afghan look says nothing of the war but would only be good on an article of the country. i think that there should be another collage but dont make as POV.
There is a collage of pictures as the main picture of this article. All of the pictures are of soilders from only one side of the war. Isn't that POV?
UPDATE- There are actually no pictures of the other side, just a video. Come on, that's very POV. Wouldn't it be reasonable to change some of them to Taliban pics?
Agreed, highly POV. Not sure why the previous image was changed, this one doesn't have any Taliban or other militias--it doesn't even appear to have any forces mentioned aside from U.S. I'm going to put a generic Afghan image up and see what the editors think. Publicus18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Not so much "POV" as WP:Systemic bias, I think. You could probably argue that that's still fairly weighted due to the amount of coverage american soldiers get in comparision to Taliban "soldiers." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way, just pointing out that "POV" has a very strong negative connotation (at least here on wikipedia) and I think when the collage was created in the first place, it was in good faith. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone aware of any PD photos of Taliban troops? I'm not, and none appear to be available on Wikicommons. Without a usable alternate photo, claiming 'bias' is a bit silly. The current image doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic value (the commons record calls it "Map of Afghanistan with flag" and it appears to have been self-made by some editor) and isn't visually arresting. I'd suggest a photo of Western and Afghan troops operating together. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to this discussion, any editors want to take on another collage? The Taliban image above plus some coalition troops and some Afghan security forces would be a good collage. Just something basic to replace the generic map. Publicus22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Well a bot just re-added it; it had been in three locations. I tried going to the homepage and searching for 'factsheet', but there were too many results to figure out where the source had gone. carl bunderson(talk)(contributions)02:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Denmark
I think it is a disgrace that a country that has lost so many and contributed so much compared to its size (Denmark) don't get a mention among the nations participating on the front page. Apparently it's more important how many soldiers a country sends, even though they might not be doing any fighting.
/Mike
Responsible use of tags...
The unreferenced section tag was added to a long standing section that is mainly a summary of the main article Kunduz Province Campaign and the article Kunduz airstrike.
These are long standing information that are verified in the main article and we do not need to add all 47 references from this article to the summary here. These are verified facts. I removed the unreferenced tag from the section and ask my challenger to add the [citation needed] to the information he believes are not verified. After that he left this message on my talk page:
You indicated in your revert comment that you might be more receptive to individual template:cn tags, so here they are. Doing this to the article would be gross and WP:POINTy, so I'll do it here on your talk page.
In April[citation needed], German forces stepped up their efforts[citation needed] to retake some rebellious areas of Kunduz province[citation needed], considered to be the most dangerous part of Northern Afghanistan by ISAF commander McChrystal[citation needed]. The fighting centres upon the areas to the west and south[citation needed] of the city of Kunduz with a main focus on an area between the town of Chahar Dara in the West and the Kunduz river in the east. Up to now this campaign consisted of several large offensives[citation needed] linked by countless skirmishes and gunfights.[citation needed] Operations of German, Afghan and Belgian troops[citation needed] were still ongoing as of December 2009[citation needed] with American forces eventually joining them in early November.[citation needed] Insurgent militias suffered more than 650 casualties[citation needed] in this period. At least 86 coalition troops were wounded or killed.[citation needed] On September 4, a devastating NATO air raid was conducted 7 kilometres to the southwest of Kunduz where Taliban fighters[citation needed] had hijacked civilian[citation needed] supply trucks, killing Up to 179 people including over 100 Afghan civilians.[citation needed]
Wars are always controversial, and these are the facts that I consider "likely to be challenged". Thundermaker (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
After adding this comment to my talk page what is WP:Pointy the user re-added the unreferenced tag to the section without engaging in a civil discussion what borders edit warring.
I strongly believe that this is not necessary and that my challenger is trying to make a WP:Point because i believe no responsible editor would challenge established fact like that the airstike happened in April or that it happened in Kunduz when these facts are verified in nearly all the 47 references off the main article.
As said all these facts are verified in the related Kunduz Province Campaign and the article Kunduz airstrike. There is no need to copy and paste all 47 references of these article into the relative short section if there are no serious doubts about these facts and information. Please be responsible and add the {{cn}{ tag only to information you believe are not already verified.
So let's talk about it and here are my questions. Do we need to verify all information again that is already fully verified in other articles? Do you have serious doubt that all the information you tagged are not verified in Kunduz Province Campaign and Kunduz airstrike e.g. that it happen in April and that it happen in Kunduz? Did you read Kunduz Province Campaign and possible some of it numerous references? IQinn (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we need inline citations on this page. Forcing a reader to visit a second page for verification of information is not acceptable. Thundermaker (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
As i told you this here is the right place to discuss content issue, not my talk page nor ANI. I am sure we can solve this quickly if you stop edit warring and instead engages in a civil conversation that i have started off here on the talk page. So i am asking you again to answer my question so that we get the discussion going and can solve this quickly. Thank you.
1) Do we need to verify all information again that is already fully verified in other articles? 2) Do you have serious doubt that all the information you tagged are not verified in Kunduz Province Campaign and Kunduz airstrike e.g. that it happen in April and that it happen in Kunduz? 3) Did you read Kunduz Province Campaign and possible some of it numerous references?
You shouldn't remove legitimate tags. template:Unreferenced section is appropriate for any section with 0 references. The template itself is a request to all Wikipedia editors, not just you, and you have no right to silence my request for help in that section. Thundermaker (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Once again, you started the edit war. This is an issue about your behavior on Wikipedia, not the article content. I only re-posted it here after you deleted it from your talk page. I will be discussing it further there. Thundermaker (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion here on the talk page where it belongs. The article talk page are the place to discuss article issues not my talk page. Once again, you started the edit war. Your reverted after i started the discussion here. That clearly is edit warring. Please be careful with that as you can be blocked for edit warring. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Iqinn, we keep tags on unless there is a good reason to remove them. Citations should be copied along with material. If it hasn't in this case, then the tags are justified. It is not sufficient to point to another article and say "the references are there". AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph has been added to the article recently:
Media coverage on the current standing of the Taliban may deviate from the actual situation. 85% of Afghanistan is secured from Taliban forces, up from approximately 50% a little more than a year ago.[1] Additionally, the greatest portion of militants that take part in what is called the resurgence of the Taliban actually stem from the Haqqani network in Pakistan, indicating that they are foreign militants generally from Pakistan, and are not actually part of Mohammed Omar's Taliban.[2][3][4]
I move this to the talk page as it looks like that various claims are not supported by the sources and the resulting conclusion "Exaggeration of Taliban growth" looks more like based on WP:OR than verified facts. Just to start with one: The claim that "85% of Afghanistan is secured from Taliban forces, up from approximately 50% a little more than a year ago." is just wrong. These numbers refer only to the situation around Kandahar not Afghanistan as a whole. The text also should cite the source of this claim that comes from a coalition commander in southern Afghanistan.
The Washington Post article even goes on to question the reliable of this coalition claim and list facts that contradicts the editors conclusion of "Exaggeration of Taliban growth"
But it is unclear whether military achievements in the south and elsewhere are being outpaced by the gains of the Taliban, whose leader recently declared that his movement was winning. The number of assassinations in the city of Kandahar rose in August, Hodges said, although he could not cite a figure. Insurgents have begun to spread throughout northern areas where their presence was previously marginal. Nationwide, militant attacks have doubled since last summer.
Another mayor claim that "the greatest portion of militants that take part in what is called the resurgence of the Taliban actually stem from the Haqqani network in Pakistan," Is not verified in the given sources. IQinn (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes it looks to me like the claims in that paragraph are inaccurate when compared to the sources. The blog isn't a RS for this kind of info, the statement about "media coverage" is unsupported, the stats are about a smaller area as you point out, and the story about the Haqqani network says they're the most lethal, not the most numerous. I think the notable event in all of this is the emergence of a Pakistan-based insurgent group as a major player, maybe the new section should be re-written under a new title such as "Infiltration by Haqqani network". Thundermaker (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
There have been a lot of POV changes of the image recently. We had this already and the used one is at least neutral. You should give us at least one reason why you think your image would be a good illustration of the war in Afghanistan. I think an image of injured civilians would be equal relevant. There was another change today that brought back an earlier suggestion that i reverted back for the moment. I am adding this image here for discussion. I guess the best would be to discuss this here on the talk page first. IQinn (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I knew File:US Army Afghanistan 2006.jpg was used for a large part of the year, but I wasn't aware of that collage. It's standard for any war article to have pictures of troops in the lead, which is far better than the stub symbol. An image of troops doesn't mean it's POV just because it doesn't show civilian casualties. Spellcast (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all the image used now is not a "stub symbol" is simply a map of Afghanistan with the flag and it is neutral. I also dispute that there is a standard that any war article on Wikipedia needs to have a picture of troops in the Infobox. The image should illustrate the articles topic. If you disagree with an image of killed or injured civilians than how about an image of Al Qaida or Taliban fighters or an image where we at least see some fighting going on? I am absolutely open for an improvement here but the image you choose does not represent the war in Afghanistan. Do you know if it has been republished in secondary sources? I am not aware of that and i do not see any reason why your image should represent this 10 years long war with extensive fighting and casualties. IQinn (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's unrealistic to ask for a single pic that encapsulates the whole war. A pic doesn't have to be published by several secondary sources; it only needs to be free and relevant. I don't see why this should be such a big deal. An image that actually shows something during the war is better than simply a coloured map. Spellcast (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - pretty much anything would be better than the current image, which is meaningless. There's lots of photos on Wikicommons which could be used instead, from 5 minutes worth of trawling through, I found the following photos which seem suitable: File:Flickr_-_The_U.S._Army_-_Group_patrol.jpg (US and Afghan troops patrolling together through harsh terrain), File:US Army in Ghazni Province of Afghanistan2.jpg (arresting photo of US troops), File:Patrolling Sabari.jpg (an American and Afghan soldier patrolling together). I'm sure that there are even better ones available in Commons which can be used. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Spellcast, if we can not find a single image that represents this major war in an unbiased and neutral way than is this no justification to go with a biased version or to violate WP:NPOV. That's why WWI and WWII and the Vietnam war all do not have a single image. It is always hard to verify if an image is relevant if it has not been published by a single reliable secondary source. If your image would be relevant than secondary sources would have use it. Your suggestions have never been used by secondary sources. So how do we know they are relevant? We do not know and so far you have not explained why your image is relevant? These images are biased because they do not show fighting nor casualties. Why not take 155px? I guess we have to go with an collage anyway like in the WW1, WW2, Vietnam and other war articles. IQinn (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Any image, whether a single one or collage, would be better than the current one. Just because a lead image isn't a collage, it doesn't automatically mean there's a POV intent. Spellcast (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone make a collage which includes one or both of the Taliban images I posted above (in the first discussion)? If nobody is willing, I'm OK with a 1-sided one. 2 sides > 1 side > 0 sides. Thundermaker (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you please suggest an image to use then? If you'd like a collage, can you please assemble one for the consideration of other editors? Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No fighting and no casualties in this collage. Maybe instead of the image of the single soldier. I think a bit too much redundancy... soldiers just walking around. Can we change this? IQinn (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
War is more moving than shooting, it's hard to get free images of casualties, harder still to argue that they are NPOV. This one shows fighters from both sides with some of their typical gear. It's definitely better than the stub. Thanks, Publicus. Thundermaker (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No prob. How about merging the new collage I just put together (which is basically an old collage someone else did) plus one of the "action" scenes from this other collage? (see below) Publicus22:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thundermaker. Images of casualties are not NPOV. Could you please explain that. Not to show casualties would be a violation of NPOV. Sure we have tons of free propaganda images released by the US military under a free copyright license and on the other hand most of the images that show casualties are non free. Hard do stay NPOV and not to replicate US propaganda but we should do our best. IQinn (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Where is this image of a casualty you want included? It's not going to be a military casualty, because neither side will provide pictures of their own wounded, and publishing pictures of POWs is considered propaganda and a violation of the Geneva Conventions. So it's going to be a civilian casualty which illustrates either incompetence or evilness of the side that caused it. That is POV and inappropriate for the lead image. I don't have a problem adding casualty pictures to the appropriate section, just with using them as the lead picture.
And while some of the free photos are produced by DoD and could be considered "propaganda", many more are taken by ordinary people who happen to work in the armed forces. They e-mail them home to friends and family to keep in touch.
Publicus, if you're going to do another collage I think it would be better to crop than to squish. The Taliban came out even taller and skinnier than they are in real life. Thundermaker (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is all ridiculous. Even still not one of these collages is being used? Pictures of soldiers are not propaganda, and the allegation that photographs of troops on the ground are biased is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with these photos, nothing. And "not to show casualties would be a violation of NPOV"?? That is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the policy and its purpose. Your calling photos of coalition troops propaganda and wanting to show casualties is absolutely absurd, Iqinn. Sw♠rmTalk03:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
@Swarm your position is laughable :)) Simply propaganda the collage of heroic soldiers that you just added, a gross violation of NPOV. Please read WP:NPOV and act accordingly. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to fling insults around. I can't see anything particularly propagandistic about the photos used in the collage; they're fairly routine photos of soldiers and airmen doing their jobs. The problem with that collage is that it only depicts US troops in what's a very multi-national war. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Routine photos? You do not want to include Taliban fighters? How about showing at least some of destruction in terms of human losses and damage to the infrastructure? You do not want to include meaningful images? That collage does not represent the war in Afghanistan. Not at all. IQinn (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
IQinn, it appears that you're the only one with that opinion, and everyone else who has commented sees nothing biased about any of the collages. Your position is blatantly, blatantly biased, and your being counter-productive at this point. Sw♠rmTalk05:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
@Swarm, it appears that you are the one who tries to make his point through edit warring and incivility although other editor of this discussion created and added a new collage that is not perfect but much better than the biased propaganda one that you personal prefer. So i am re-adding the new collage as it has been created and edit by other users of this discussion and is therefor the community consensus until we might find even a better one. IQinn (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You've accused me of edit warring, even though you've reverted me twice. You accuse me of wanting to add biased propaganda that I personally prefer. You called my position "laughable". Where do you think the insult was? Anyway, there is no community consensus behind your position. There was a longstanding consensus that the old collage was fine, but you're the only one who seems to think it's biased. Others have been kind enough to try and accommodate your point of view, but the collage that includes pictures of the Taliban isn't of the best quality (the picture is out of proportion). If a good quality collage can be created, that's fine, but including a lower quality image when a better one exists already doesn't make sense. Photographs of real life aren't biased. Call it propaganda as much as you want, it isn't propaganda. It's made up of plain photographs, no staged heroics, no flags being mounted, just soldiers doing what they do. You may want to look at wikt:propaganda. Sw♠rmTalk16:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You are obviously edit warring as you just reverted the 4th time. It is also to note that other editors (Thundermaker) from this discussion added the other collage that was created as a consensus. What you also simply reverted. There is no longstanding consensus for the other collage. Various editors removed it before. Pointing out you are edit warring is not an insult but a fact. Pointing out that i think this collage is propaganda to a point that it is already laughable is not an insult. This collage does not represent the war in Afghanistan. There is no community consensus behind your position and your continues edit warring is not helpful to find community consensus. You say "Photographs of real life aren't biased." That is wrong. Of course they can be biased. And this is real life? Have you been to Afghanistan? How do you know that is "real life"? You might explain that and should explain why you think these images represent the war in Afghanistan? It is also the summary of these images that is biased. Non of the images show the other party of the war nor the vast destruction to civilian life and infrastructure. "This collage is just laughable. Biased propaganda and the shame of any encyclopedia." IQinn (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You must be delusional, since I only made 3 edits in the past 3 days, and I only reverted your edit once with a very clear and simple reason. Also, there was never a consensus in favor of the other collage, it was just created as a suggested alternative! Your statements leave me baffled! Photographs of real life aren't biased. If they're staged, they might be, but those aren't! Are you trying to say those photographs are fake, and not in fact real life? I don't think anyone agrees with your position. We don't need a sweeping collage that represents the entire war, we don't even need a collage! We just need a single picture (a collage is better though, obviously) that has to do with the war in afghanistan. A picture of US soldiers in afghanistan fills this role adequately. The only reason for using a collage is to include several pictures in the infobox. They don't need to show soldiers of every faction, civilian casualties or damages. It's not necessary, as you seem to think it is. The argument you're pushing is not a big deal at all. Sw♠rmTalk19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"You must be delusional" :) No, not at all. You re-added the same image at least 3 times. I strongly disagree with you. The collage should be of course WP:NPOV. And NPOV is one of our core policies so of course it is a "big deal". The collage should include images of both sites and should show something of the destruction to civilian lives and infrastructure. We can not ignore WP:NPOV. The new collage is already an improvement so that we do not need to go back to this old terrible biased propaganda collage. IQinn (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright, we're not getting anywhere, so I've uploaded a new collage, as the original can accommodate the photo of the Taliban without altering the proportions. Thoughts? Sw♠rmTalk21:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
While the change is an improvement, all the non-Taliban troops are still Americans - there should be representation of the Afghan National Army and some of the ISAF contributing nations. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Expanded to include a photo of French and Afghan forces; I'll probably modify the image to include another non-US photo some time soon, and write the caption as well. Tomorrow sometime. Sw♠rmTalk02:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
No adding of either the UK? (Along with the US, first to invade in 2001, second highest contributor to ISAF forces) or Germany? (Third largest contribution to ISAF) SuperDan89 (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Collage is better, and should include the Taliban, Afghan forces (Government and/or Northern Alliance), Air Power, US forces, UK forces and at least one other major contributor (France, Germany, Canada, Netherlands or Australia). Maybe the bottom middle picture should be UK, as UK forces have been there from the start, and in the thick of the fighting. Chwyatt (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
If anyone has some time, could someone create a NATO supply route similar to this one?[1] It might be helpful to the article. Thanks. Publicus16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Article Problem
This article has a rather serious problem. I don't know how to raise it and see a change, so I am bringing it up here.
This article makes a serious legal mistake regarding the UN and the US legal authority to wage war. It states that the US cannot wage war without UN consent, because the US ratified the UN Charter.
First, the US ratified a treaty, not a charter. The "Charter" is, in fact, a Constitution, not a charter. Most importantly, however, the US Constitution CLEARLY STATES that no treaty overrides the authorities set in the Constitution. One of those authorities is the right of the US to wage war based on Congressional approval. Therefore, being a signatory to the UN treaty does NOT mean the US needs UN authority to wage war, as it is in direct opposition to the US Constitution.
This is no small matter.
Thanks.
Yunus Hasan 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC) After September 11 Congress authorized President Bush to retaliate against any “nations, organization, or persons” he determined to be involved in the atrocity. Therefore giving him Carte Blanche... it was legal according to the US Constitution, but war was not recommended or approved by the UN. So the article is correct in what it says, the wording should be changed to sound less anti-war. -Yunus Hasan
and more readable.. that paragraph is all over the place. The fact is .. the united states needs authorization from no outside entity under the constitution. What the UN thinks is far secondary. as a matter of fact, the US stops funding the the UN or takes removes our military donations from the UN and thier is no UN. as we are the majority funder and troop provider. The problem is.. this whole article reads like anti-war propoganda piece, and I don't expect that changing anytime soon unfortunatly. -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Very Nicely put. Welcome to the wonderful word of POV/Bias, thank you Wikipedia and the Guardian fr providing 99% of watch is on this page.....what a joke,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.231.174 (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC) legs
This article has several serious problems. Most notably, a complete lack of regard for the verifible truth, and at least three Republican shill editors who like it that way. The legal question is pretty straightforward. Under U.S. law, Congress can do pretty much whatever it likes - including suspending the Constitution or any and all previously-ratified treaties. Unfortunately, they were were asked to do neither, but rather to give the Commander In Chief the authority to decide who to attack and when, in response to a particular instance of terrorism on U.S. soil with the express purpose of preventing further attacks. The Commander in Chief of the moment, George Walker Bush, did not begin the war by attacking Osama Bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the attack, in his stronghold in the remote Afghan mountains, he and his British counterpart Tony Blair instead authorized the aerial bombing of Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, a sovereign state with a sitting government (however distasteful), where they explicitly knew OBL wasn't, less than 24 hours after GWB rejected an offer of the sitting government of Afghanistan to turn over OBL to UN authorities for trial in international court.
In so doing, GWB did not violate the constitution - but he did break U.S. law, by breaking the UN treaties previously ratified by Congress without expressly asking Congress for permission to do so. The only point you might argue here is that such permission was implied by the blanket Congressional authorization received - which is by no means clear.
The whole article shows obvious attempts by vested U.S. interests to re-write history in GWB's favour far more clearly than it shows any anti-war "propoganda" (clue: that's 'propaganda', a word deriving from the Catholic Church's program for Propagation of the Faith which gave rise to the Spanish Inquisition).
The war did not evolve "from a violent struggle by Coalition forces against Al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters" into anything. It started with the aerial bombing of Kabul. Period. A fact not broached until paragraph number five. The previous four paragarphs being total BS from one side or another. There is no indication in actual history that the Taliban supported "Al-Qaeda" at all - largely because the name Al-Qaeda is a CIA invention in the first place. In fact, it can be effectively argued that OBL did not create Al-Qaeda, the CIA did. The Taliban, who had control of slightly less than 75% of Afghanistan, were aware that OBL was in the country, were doubtless also aware that he was religiously anti-non-Islamic-nationals-on-Islamic-soil, and that the U.S. accused him of masterminding various attacks. This is a far cry from "support". Support implies provisioning and active assistance. Harbouring is a far more accurate Anglophonic description of the situation, though the Taliban put it very clearly themselves when they said OBL was "a guest in our house." Now, if you don't know what this means to Islamic or Pashtun culture, then you shouldn't be anywhere near this page.
I really don't have time for this nonsense, unlike some of you who are probably being paid to revise history on your masters' behalf. Suffice it to say that your efforts will not stand. The world already knows the truth - and most of the world wasn't fooled by GWB's lies in the first place. I don't know how you live with yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.155.149 (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
But my modifications were cancelled and former figures have been written back. What's wrong with the French datas? Who is refusing the change and why?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.111 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
inaccurate/POV statement
While I agree the civilian casualty numbers are worthy of mention, the first paragraph states civilians have been the majority of casualties. The info box shows combatant troop numbers killed at "30000" and almost 2000 among ISAF. This is equal to, if not greater than the civilian casualties mentioned. To describe civilian casualties as the majority seems inaccurate generally and leaning toward bias, possibly. 166.137.11.114 (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Mmcknight4
I'll just delete it if no opposition exists.173.171.37.123 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This has apparently been corrected, if somewhat unsatisfactorily, so this comment should be removed from the discusssion. Objections to the current wording would be a new topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.157.128 (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Total rewrite required by team of professional historians
This article deserves a TPOS tag; Total Piece of Shortcake.
The entire piece needs to be locked down and administered by a team of objective historians - or at least one objective rational human being with some regard for history. There are so few negative tags that don't apply here, from NPOV through Weasel Words to Factual Accuracy, that I really don't know where to begin. It's complete drivel, from start to finish, and needs to be split into rational separate articles - hopefully without rendering it entirely useless as a main article in the process. This would take three editors most of a year. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.157.128 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Casualties
Can someone who is computer savvy add the total number of hostile fatalities and non-hostile fatalities in the casualty section... This should be emphasized in the article... It is important to distinguish this. To this day there has been 1733 deaths of the coalition resulting from hostile action and 374 deaths resulting from non hostile action. This should be put in the casualty section of the article... http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByYear.aspx(129.21.148.248 (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC))
Do you mean a total? I support the inclusion of a total. However, I find the Taliban and civilian statistic seem to be very low considering the length of the war. Maybe these sections need updating. I did a quick count of the allied forces (Afghan government, Northern Alliance, External governments) and their count for deaths is; 11,697 as of 3rd feb 2011 which is why I feel the civilian and taliban figures seem low / outdated.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Public opinion
I have a tiny reader's question about the Ipsos-Reid Poll:
PS: I know, only 43% approve of the war. But still ...
I fail to see the point behind including public opinion polls at all - the public did not decide to go to war, nor did they decide to continue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.157.128 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It can be relevant but you're right, it has little to do with the execution of the war. Perhaps it affects recruitment by the parties involved, maybe it results in withdrawals by individual parties but other then that it counts for naught.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the Iraq section for?
I cleaned up an extremely poorly written sentence on the US withdrawel of troops from Iraq, but I'm really not sure why it's there to begin with. It has no explanation or context within the article. However with some work I think it could be developed into some relevance. Meh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.231.151 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I wrote the "Article Problem" section. I know little of WP's processes. I posted the section in the hope someone who knew protocol could address altering this clearly flawed article. I ass-umed WP had folks who watched for edit-remarks and set something in motion. Like it or not, people believe what they read on WP. When there are glaring factual errors unbeknownst to the reader, the reader will likely repeat error as fact, and that is wildly dangerous in the long run.
I don't see any disagreement with what I wrote, short of the long, clearly biased rant of an anonymous poster. I wish to see this article be factual...not my "viewpoint" or anyone else's. I FULLY support a rewrite by a historian, but doubt any will be stopping in randomly. So how do we get this article changed to support objective facts? Should I write an article and submit it? Should I just edit pieces and see what happens? Please comment. I'll check back in a few days for observations. Thanks. Kenfo 0 (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived 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.
Question Does anyone know the original reasoning behind the current title? If memory serves this topic has come up before. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, in the last 30 years there have been three major wars in Afghanistan. This is one of them. There may have been other attacks on September 11, but none has become known under the name of "September 11 attacks". That is different with the wars in Afghanistan. I also think the 1996-2001 war should be renamed into "War in Afghanistan (1996-2001)", due to the involvement of foreign (Pakistani) troops. If we leave the 2001-present that shows more clearly that this is one of many wars in the last 30 years. JCAla (talk) 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose this is not about the general topic of "war" in Afghanistan. There have been many wars in Afghanistan, it is the Graveyard of Empires, afterall. The disambiguation page should be returned to "War in Afghanistan", where it was situated until last year. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Traffic stats are not the only way we establish a primary topic. There have been many wars in Afghanistan. I imagine that people might type in "War in Afghanistan" and think of the 1980s Soviet war. This isn't the primary topic just because someone thought to redirect it and add (disambiguation) to the dab page. If you look in Google Scholar - there are 40,000 articles about "war in Afghanistan" from 1970-2000, and 60,000 articles from 2001-2011. By no means is the current war clearly the primary one. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Google's page counting mechanism absolutely cannot be counted on. If you flipped through all the pages to the back of Google's page rankings you could find the correct number but that is not possible on Scholar which only allows you to view the first hundred pages. It is absolutely outrageous and I can't believe Google even pretends to count the results. Also the primary topic guideline was put in place to convenience the reader as much as possible. In 1984, War in Afghanistan would redirect to Soviet War in Afghanistan but currently OEF is the primary topic. MarcusQwertyus07:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I hate doing that stupid trick with counting back all the pages, but thanks for the heads up on Google Scholar. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2011
Support. It is pretty obvious that this is the primary topic for "War in Afghanistan". This is the only article even titled "War in Afghanistan" and "War in Afghanistan" redirects here. Moving the article just makes sense. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It didn't work that way until 2010, there used to be a disambiguation page at that name. It should be returned to being a dismabiguation page. WP:RECENTISM on the use of this term to only refer to this war. Considering the amount of discussion about Afghanistan being the graveyard of empires, the use of this term to refer to this war, there are many other uses frequently expounded on. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment My observation is that you really can't trust the redirect as a reason for the primary topic. Dabs and redirects are rogue territory, and often times it will redirect or not depending on someone's arbitrary decision. There was a long debate as to whether PSP should redirect to PlayStation Portable; the consensus was no, then someone just redirected it there anyway. Someone made Jack Thompson (activist) as the primary topic and it took an RM to make it a disambig again. McVeigh, Göring, Rabin, Englund, all used to redirect to specific biographies but are now disambigs. The point is that the process is highly unregulated. All it takes is for someone to undo it and most people will not even notice. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
If you don't like the current redirect situation, I suggest you bring it up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. But as long as "War on Terror" redirects here and there is no other article with the same title, there is no need for the parenthetical disambig in this article's title. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2011 (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.
Shouldn't this article mention the public release of Afghan civilian casualty data by ISAF, the UN, and others a few months ago? It's all available here:
In the "Commanders and leaders" section Bush and Obama are listed but when editing there is a comment not to add Queen Elizabeth or UK Prime Ministers. Bush and Obama are/where Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces (and so is QE2 for the British armed forces as are presidents and monarchs of other nations for their national armed forces) but the last US president to actually lead a US army (abeit briefly) was James Madison in the Battle of Bladensburg during the War of 1812, nearly 200 years ago. So why are Bush and Obama listed and is the list not appropriate for others in a similar position? SpeakFree(talk)17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The US President is both the de-facto and actual commander of the military. Obama generally does not give orders from the battlefield, but he is the one who authorizes many specific missions, such as the raid on bin Laden's house. I'm sure this issue has been discussed here previously, maybe someone can give us a pointer to the right archive. Thundermaker (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd change Canada's numbers but all the official web sites still have the old numbers, and ISAF for some strange reason doesn't even have a press release on this:
On July 7, 2011, Canada's combat role in Afghanistan ended, and with it 2850 troops were withdrawn. Almost all of the withdrawls were done that week. Canada currently has less than 500 forces members in that country performing some transitioning, and training of local police and military.
(CBC News) . And now the top soldier from Canada has returned in this link: (CTV News)SunKing2 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
it says al qaeda but...
many think its a fake hoax, created by the US, with there leader bin laden, who apparently knew bush and so on, theres more evidence for this, but im just saying that it was a war against al-qaeda shouldnt be put as fact, but it should be a war, against what some think as for oil, and what others say against the supposed al-qaeda, and those who dont beleive in it, say that it was a media propgnada that led to that beleif, or maybe that said in the later parts of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.30.142 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
No, many do NOT think that. The uneducated, raised on internet conspiracy theories, believe that. Do not speak for anyone but yourself, as your statement is absurd and not based in fact. Wikipedia is about facts that can be verified. Please stay off until you can behave. Kenfo 0 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Calculation mistake?
I think there is a calculation mistake with the numbers listed for Taliban & Co. It says total 136,000 (no reference) but if you count up the highest and lowest numbers given above for each belligerent. Lowest: 36,000+50+1,000+5,000+1,000+30,000+4,500=77,550 Highest: 36,000+500+1,000+10,000+1,000+35,000+4,500=88,000 So shouldn't it be 77,000-88,000 instead of 136,000? Could someone correct this?190.80.58.226 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"The Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in an Afghan court, or have him extradited to a third country, so long as the United States provided evidence of his guilt, but the U.S. refused, as it could produce no evidence of his guilt"
(first paragraph, "2001: Initial attack" section)
has something funny with the referencing. If I click on the "6" I get the right reference, but if I scroll down and look at "5" in the references list, I see an unrelated reference. Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Best to keep the "supported by" term out of the infobox. The infobox is used to summarize the main points of the article. Pakistan allowed (and allows) the US & ISAF to transport materiel through the country. Is this "support"? Or is PAK simply following international law WRT control of borders? That sort of issue can be explored in the article text. And editors will have opportunity to push their side of the WP:POLE. But the infobox needs to be concise and neutral. --S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Pakistan actually gave military bases for the invasion. That (including this) is support and should be in the infobox. So there's no issue here about keeping the supported by term for Pakistan in case of 2001 invasion (keep in mind that I added it to the invasion part only) as that was not even removed by the editor who added it to the other side. The edit by JCAla was a POV edit and was already decided not to be added in the infobox at WP:NPOVN#Taliban. As for including the term "supported by" at all, see this example. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In reviewing these articles, I see it is tough enough keeping the ledes NPOV, let alone the article text. IMHO, it is better to keep the "supported by" term out of the infoboxes and ledes. Inclusion simply invites controversy. The infobox should summarize key facts; accordingly, if there are extended and heated discussions about these "support" issues, we cannot say "supported by" is a key fact. Indeed, exactly what is "support": quiet moral support? cheering on from the side-lines? diplomatic support? permissive and passive base usage support? materiel or logistical support? active troop support? --S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is difficult but then we can not WP:CENSOR because of that. If it was military troop support, the country would rather simply be added in the list. It was for supply line military bases etc. Now that fact is undisputed that Pakistan supported the 2001 invasion. So we can safely add that side. The part whether Pakistan is playing a so called double game now or who it supports now is the next separate issue which has had a month long debate and was finally decided on not keeping in the infobox. I've cited the consensus in my previous comment. I don't think this is contentious at all. By no way can it be added to the other side. And there has been no objection on adding at 2011 invasion which you removed to be on safe side. I think this is a simple keep. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with S. Rich. There is too much controversy surrounding this issue. So, as we concluded in the month-long discussion it is better to leave it out of the infobox alltogether. Yes, they let them use the bases BUT they also allowed Taliban leader Mullah Omar and others to seek safe refuge on their territory to regroup and rearm. A double-game is hard to put on one side of the infobox. Either it must be on both or on neither. JCAla (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The addition you made was about the this issue we just settled at NPOVN. The one I made was to the initial invasion which is a separate discussion somewhat related to that one. There is no disagreement on Pakistan's support to the invaders in this case and if any thing controversial is notable that belongs to the body. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, it provided bases, air space, but - at the same time - it also provided refuge to Taliban leaders to regroup and rearm. So either it should be on both sides or no side of the infobox. JCAla (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Allegedly and with denial from Pakistani side which ends up on the same issue which was decided at NPOVN. But the support given to the invasion is not disputable. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
When at the same time the other side was being helped too, putting Pakistan on only one side of the infobox is factually difficult and even misleading. So as was decided on NPOV when there is so much controversy it is better to leave it out of the infobox alltogether. JCAla (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I just gave it a review, and didn't find the mention of Pakistani bases being given to US for the purpose of invasion where as I found the allegations on Pakistan are presented as facts. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Major Rewrite Needed
This article needs a major revision. There are POV issues, outdated information, factual inaccuracies and even conflicting information. Plus, it is very unweildy, hard to read and even harder to follow. I have tried to make a few corrections, but I think the article is beyond just a few corrections. Is there a way to put this article up for a major revision? 152.131.9.132 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I would say it's not the US POV but the POV of a segment of its population. Perhaps you mean the POV of the US Government. There are many voices in the US (and the world) against this war that don't have the slightest echo in this "article". It could have been written by the Pentagon Office for Propaganda. The mention of the "democratic" institutions and the "advances" of Afghanistan under duress are hard to swallow for me. I wonder how many people reads that without smiling. You end reading the article wondering why all the countries don't try to stage this kind of colonial war to improve their situation. The historic references are null, you could believe Afghanistan was born to this world the day of the ISAF invasion and that this war has no relationship at all with all the many colonial wars this poor country has withstood. The Russian invasion and the many British ones never happened in this incomplete Wikipedia world. The references about the Conservative American think tank program for Afghanistan shine because of their absence. The "enemy" has no logic, nor program: you could conclude that they act in this confusing way because they are evil, because they lack any reason. In some versions of the article, Taliban organizations invaded their own country, this sums up the jewel we have in front of us. Ciroa (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Video of US troops urinating on Taliban fighters
FYI Video of US troops urinating on Taliban fighters is the title of a new article which may or may not be duplicating already existing content. Anyways, I'm guessing people who watch this page will know what to do with it. The article is ok but it certainly doesn't feel like this is an optimal choice of title... Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Iranian participation
Currently source #2 claims that Iranian SF forces fought side by side with American SF forces during the invasion. Considering that the same source also claims that the American casulties of Op Eagle Claw were caused by an Iranian ambush, I'm going to go out on a limb here and just remove it as soon as I've finished writing this. Pavuvu (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Weasel Words in opening section
"In 2010, the War in Afghanistan became the United States' second longest continuous military conflict. Only the Vietnam War (1959–1975) lasted longer."
This is just a blatant attempt to compare the WiA to vietnam. When in reality the longest armed conflict the US has been involved in was the Philippines that lasted from the late 1800's all the way into the 40's. It went hot and cold several times but hostilities remained constant. This paragraph should be updated.
Lets change it out. Also:
Weasel out image.
U.S. Marines in Southern Afghanistan-A ...(Special Operations Capable) ...
Please change the photo the green camuflage on desert palete looks very poor.
The photo op picture is weasel lame too. Why they walking by plain to sky terain with the hevy stuf ? In Background is a chopter, if landed closer to camera they will have shorter way. What is the sense to back pack mule having parked by truck to use ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Iranian participation
Currently source #2 claims that Iranian SF forces fought side by side with American SF forces during the invasion. Considering that the same source also claims that the American casulties of Op Eagle Claw were caused by an Iranian ambush, I'm going to go out on a limb here and just remove it as soon as I've finished writing this. Pavuvu (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Weasel Words in opening section
"In 2010, the War in Afghanistan became the United States' second longest continuous military conflict. Only the Vietnam War (1959–1975) lasted longer."
This is just a blatant attempt to compare the WiA to vietnam. When in reality the longest armed conflict the US has been involved in was the Philippines that lasted from the late 1800's all the way into the 40's. It went hot and cold several times but hostilities remained constant. This paragraph should be updated.
Lets change it out. Also:
Weasel out image.
U.S. Marines in Southern Afghanistan-A ...(Special Operations Capable) ...
Please change the photo the green camuflage on desert palete looks very poor.
The photo op picture is weasel lame too. Why they walking by plain to sky terain with the hevy stuf ? In Background is a chopter, if landed closer to camera they will have shorter way. What is the sense to back pack mule having parked by truck to use ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Iranian participation
Currently source #2 claims that Iranian SF forces fought side by side with American SF forces during the invasion. Considering that the same source also claims that the American casulties of Op Eagle Claw were caused by an Iranian ambush, I'm going to go out on a limb here and just remove it as soon as I've finished writing this. Pavuvu (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Weasel Words in opening section
"In 2010, the War in Afghanistan became the United States' second longest continuous military conflict. Only the Vietnam War (1959–1975) lasted longer."
This is just a blatant attempt to compare the WiA to vietnam. When in reality the longest armed conflict the US has been involved in was the Philippines that lasted from the late 1800's all the way into the 40's. It went hot and cold several times but hostilities remained constant. This paragraph should be updated.
Lets change it out. Also:
Weasel out image.
U.S. Marines in Southern Afghanistan-A ...(Special Operations Capable) ...
Please change the photo the green camuflage on desert palete looks very poor.
The photo op picture is weasel lame too. Why they walking by plain to sky terain with the hevy stuf ? In Background is a chopter, if landed closer to camera they will have shorter way. What is the sense to back pack mule having parked by truck to use ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Article suffers from a lack of information regarding who has control of what areas. It appears that the govt/NATO now only control most of Kabul, while most of the rest of the country is controlled by the Taliban. How true is this? How have the 'front lines' changed over the last 11 years? Perhaps some sort of map/graphic would be useful if there's one around (I can't find one, nor any info re areas controlled)? 82.44.28.101 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Maoist involvement?
The Maoist party was formed to fight the American invasion in 2004, but it isn't meantioned in this article. They might be a minor group but surely they warrant a meantion in the "insurgent group" section for being an insurgent group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.4.156 (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Vietnam comparison
There's an ongoing edit war over the start year of the Vietnam war, and thus whether this war is longer. There are edits (e.g. one, two) saying the war started in 1959. Others then revert (e.g. one, two), saying the war started in 1965.
Of course, this dispute is not confined to this page, as it's debated in its own right. Since we're comparing for the purposes of understanding the duration of U.S. involvement, does it make sense to use the DoD's definition? As described at Richard B. Fitzgibbon, Jr., that's 1955. Superm401 - Talk02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Statistics Needed
The most frequent facts people will be looking for are:
1. the number of invading Americans killed, by year. Possibly broken out by soldier/contractor.
2. the number of people from other invading countries killed.
3. the number of Afghan/Taliban resistance killed
4. the number of Afghan civilians killed. Possibly broken out by culprit though that number is probably meaningless.
Excuse me but I just want to point out that there is a photo of maywand district killer posing with the dead body of its victim.....Posting such a photo seems to be deeply immoral in nature - it is the lack of respect for the victim.....Such a photo -if I understand it correctly -should be removed.....immediately..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.0.13 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Removal of sections "US troops urinating on Taliban fighters" and "U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts"
Hello. Sometimes I make contributions to topics I'm interested in. One of these topics is the ongoing War in Afghanistan. Over the course of the last days I made contributions with respect to US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts in order to showcase a deterioration in Afghan-American relations and the reasons therof. The sections dealing with US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts however have been ereased. Could me someone please explain why? Because I'm only a part time contributor could me someone also say what I can do so that the sections remain in the article after their restorement? Thanks. Orion 91.42.34.23 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
There are some other potential issues with your entries but the specific reason it was reverted this time by Darkness Shinesseems to be that thinks you are a sockpuppet. If you're not a sock puppet than I'm sure he'd clear up any misunderstanding if you were to ask him about it on his talk page. If you do so and you still feel you're being treated unfairly bring it up here again and someone will steer you in the right direction. If you need help with translation we have plenty of German speakers who could help you as well. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
1.) After the sentence "According to the document, the US will continue to provide logistical support for 12 months and a joint US-Afghan commission will decide on any detainee releases until a more permanent pact is adopted."[303] please the following source code add:
The United States signed in March 2012 with Afghanistan an memorandum of understanding which shifts the responsibiliy for all detention facilities in the country to the Afghanistan.[1]
2.) To add at the bottom of the section:
After more than a year and a half of negotiations[2] Afghanistan and America finalized on April 22, 2012 the draft text for the US Afghan strategic partnership, which will be reviewed by both countries governments before it becomes final after the Afghan and American president signed it.[3][4][5][1][6] The agreement has a duration of at least 10 years[2], lays out the framework for a future U.S. role in Afghanistan, including aid assistance and governance advice,[5] and covers the areas of social and economic development, institution building, regional cooperation and security.[1] The status of U.S. troops and the details of their operations after the 2014 withdrawl of NATO forces is not included in the partnership, but shall be covered in in a separate status of forces agreement.[2][5][1] Obstacles on the way to the agreement of the draft text were the issues of night raids conducted by U.S. troops and the operation of detention facilities by the United States. The New York Times reported in this context in April 2012: "In March the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding shifting responsibility for all detention facilities in the country to the Afghans, and earlier this month they handed final authority for night raids to Afghan security forces, who are now carrying out all raids unless American assistance is requested. With those two issues resolved, the strategic partnership was quickly completed."[1]
Why did you re-add it then? There's no reliable source for this figure, and its certain to be wrong. I've just re-removed it from the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nick, attempting to add up Taliban casualties from news reports doesn't seem valid. As such unless a reliable source can be found it is best left blank. Such figures are not routinely published by many coalition forces anyway so any figure wiki editors come up with using this methodology is going to be incorrect, not to mention OR. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. There needs to be some indication of the amount of taliban killed and this is not unreliable source but actually every single thing is sourced on this page so put the old casualty figures for this which was an accumulated death toll of hundreds of sourced figures. Just because the BBC doesn't report it doesn't mean you get rid of the accumulated death toll created from multiple other sources like NATO.
The figure is totally uncited, and is an example of original research. I've looked, but have been unable to find any reliable online source which provides an estimate of total insurgent/Taliban casualties, so this doesn't seem to be something which editors can sensibly add up from themselves from the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan, which is bound to contain major inaccuracies and omissions given that it's a collection of random news reports various editors (many of them actually sock puppets of a banned editor with a habit of making up figures for casualties from ongoing wars) have added over the years. If anyone can find a reliable source which provides a total estimate of insurgent/Taliban casualties that would be fantastic, as without it we can't include a figure that doesn't mislead our readers. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Fog of war. We won't know how many Taliban died until the historians tell us, some day ... and their number will be a wild guess, but we'll print it because it's their number. As long as reliable sources are saying there's no number (and they're right), there's no number. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan this death toll figure is probably the one of the most accurate death tolls for an insurgency group of any war. Most death toll figures are estimates like on the WW2 page. These are not 100% accurate but they are still there whereas with Taliban fatality page, each fatality report is well sourced and then the accumulated figure is by fact a minimum death toll for the Taliban so it should be there at least for the minimum. If Wikipedia conflict pages required 100% factual casualty figures, there would be nothing under casualties for nearly all wars so well sourced minimum or estimates for casualties should be added to give some sort of sense of the brutality or nature of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a bit of a flawed argument: we have lots of reliable sources on the total casualties of World War II (including differing estimates for some countries), and the World War II casualties article does a good job of discussing this. Conversely, we have no reliable sources at all on the total Taliban/insurgent casualties in this war, despite this being an obvious thing for academics, think tanks, media organisations, etc, to attempt to measure. The fact that these experts aren't (as far as I'm aware, and can find) using measures of total casualties from news reports strongly indicates that this is not considered a credible method, as indicated by the reference I've provided above to the BBC's defence correspondent's article on this topic. Again, if anyone can provide a reliable source on total Taliban/insurgent casualties or other topics relevant to this discussion that would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
By adding up casualty reports given in reliable sources, we can establish an approximate minimum number for Taliban casualties. You say its an "obvious thing" for them to measure, but I don't see why. Its really a rather trivial thing, it doesn't impact NATO or the current Afghan government's goals in the war all that much, since they're focused on establishing a stable and strong government. After the initial invasion, the goal wasn't to destroy an enemy military - so how many Taliban loyalists were killed after that became unimportant. If you look here: http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/Report_Final_SecDef_04_27_12.pdf, particularly in the "Insurgency Severely Degraded" section, success is being measured by number of enemy attacks overall (which have been declining) and the Afghan response to them, not in terms of numbers of enemies destroyed.
Plus, compiling all the casualty reports is a huge job - most news organizations probably don't have the manpower, time, or incentive for it. We can provide them with a decent minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X Nilloc X (talk • contribs)
We don't do original research, and that reference I provided above discusses the issues you raise with NATO not tracking Taliban casualties as part of its argument that there aren't reliable figures on this topic, so this actually works against your position. The figure you've just edit warred back into the article isn't even close to being the sum of the reports in the other article anyway, which indicates the kind of major problems with this approach. I just added up all the figures in that article (using the lowest figures where there was a range given and the figures for periods where these existed), and came up with 37,658. Which is also uncited, unreliable and almost certainly totally wrong. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, why did you completely change your position from your original post, and delete this post? (diff). Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
X Nilloc X, pls read wikipedia's policy on original research - the addition of such information seems a fairly clear violation of this to me. You have admitted that the total casualty figure is not available in reliable sources and that it has been derived by adding up the casualties from an incomplete list published on wikipedia (which is not a reliable source). As such this does not meet the required standard. Anotherclown (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Its not original research, its simple math - reliable sources give those casualty figures. Adding them up, we get a minimum, nobody's saying its the exact number - didn't you notice the "+" beside it? By your logic, we should delete everything on Wikipedia, since there's no reliable source that contains the exact text of any article. X Nilloc X (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a rather weak argument: we can easily provide direct references for most facts included in articles, and there's obviously no need to cite individual words! There is no reference for this figure you keep edit warring back into the article despite the majority view here (not to mention Anotherclown's clear explanation of the problems with this), and it's not even close to being the sum of the lowest estimates of casualty reports in the other anyway. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Then fix the number, don't remove the whole thing. And that's exactly my point: we have a list of reliable, sources Taliban fatality reports. There's no need to cite a total for the minimum because the page already has that. X Nilloc X (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
As myself and others keep pointing out, we actually don't. That article doesn't even contain any of the numbers of total casualties you keep edit warring into the article, much less a reliable source for these totals. Nick-D (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Here, I'll spell it out real clear for you:
1. The article lists reliably sourced casualties.
2. Those figures are all acceptable by Wikipedia standards.
3. So, by the basic laws of math, the total is acceptable by Wikipedia standards as a minimum.
Not just consensus to allow it, either; there must be "consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources". I have already pointed out that the calculation is not correct -- it contains a statistical fallacy that X Nilloc X has not disputed. User:Zero0000 pointed out that it is likely that some of the reports are duplicate references to the same incidents. And X Nilloc X himself said "The reports are fragmentary, and a lot don't get added to it" and "A lot of Taliban fatalities go unknown". Any one of these identified error sources would make it so that the calculation is not "obvious and correct". Multiple rulings on the noticeboards have clearly defined WP:CALC as applying only to non-controversial calculations that nobody objects to. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Partly done: Well spotted - I've changed it to 50-500, as one of the refs says 50-100, the other says 300-500. Cheers IainUK talk 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Taliban fighters hiding in a cave.jpg
It's pretty sparse. Thundermaker (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Citation 32 ([The Taliban Resurgence in Afghanistan". http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/.]]) works perfectly for me. Or was it a different citation you were referring to? Please create another request if you have any further questions. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Done Updated to include UK soldiers. SwarmTalk 02:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
