Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Report at Dispute resolution noticeboard

X Nilloc X has started a discussion of the matters under discussion above at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#War in Afghanistan (2001-Present). Nick-D (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here; I am going to repeat what I wrote there: A reliable source ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/01/reporting_afghanistan_casualti.html ) says:

"In our coverage of Afghanistan, we at BBC News do not generally report the numbers of Taliban or insurgent casualties and fatalities, because there are no reliable or verifiable source figures available."

Wikipedia must report what the sources say, and the sources say that there are no reliable or verifiable figures for Taliban casualties. End of subject unless someone finds a reliable source that directly contradicts the above-quoted source. Counting the numbers in another Wikipedia article is WP:SYNTHESIS and the numbers you get cannot be used to replace a direct statement by a reliable source.

In addition, there is a statistical fallacy in play when you count the numbers and add them up. If we assume that the individual sources cited in List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan tried to be accurate (a questionable assumption -- news agencies make money by attempting to panic the readers -- but let's accept it for the sake of argument) then some will be too high and some will be too low. The problem is that there is a limit on being too low (nobody reports a negative number of fatalities) but there is no limit on being too high. This makes the basic idea of adding them up statistically invalid. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Several reliable sources have made estimates and recording such estimates is both appropriate and policy compaint, as long as they are notated as estimates. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If references to reliable sources are provided for such estimates then absolutely yes include them, if not they have to go. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be making up information, only citing what already exists. Anotherclown (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

TomPointTwo, which sources are you talking about here? I've been unable to find any reliable sources which provide an estimate of total casualties for the Taliban forces, and no-one else has been able to point one out. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would note that any answer would have to cite a source that explicitly states an estimate for total casualties. Citing multiple sources and adding them together violates WP:SYNTHESIS, which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. X Nilloc X, you have failed to get a single editor to agree with your theory. Nobody on the article talk page agrees with you. Nobody on the Dispute resolution noticeboard agrees with you. You are now repeating arguments that have been addressed several times. You asked outside editors to give their opinions, and then you rejected them because they didn't go your way. Give it up. There is no possible way for you to win this one.[1] Your arguments have been rejected, and your interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines has been determined by multiple independent editors to be severely flawed. Now that you are in a hole, stop digging. You really need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please don't beat the horse any further. It won't help. It makes no sense to continue fighting a lost cause. It's over. Walk away. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

These made-up figures are now being edit warred into the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article by 88.104.218.11 (talk · contribs) Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

These figures are not made up and should be on that page at-least. It is not really original research if the total is accumulated from all the reports on the same page. It just a total of the figures similar to numerous total on many wiki pages especially on sports players pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Which part of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I already explained that on the dispute resolution page. The example it gives is something like "The UN says its mission is to bring world peace <reference 1>, but since its inception there have been 180 wars <reference2>", implying the UN has failed. That is not what's going on. WP:CALC clearly says "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers...is allowed..." Basic arithmetic is allowed. That is all we are doing. Number don't matter when established Wikipedia policy is on my side. X Nilloc X (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you are being deliberately deceitful. You only quoted the first part of WP:CALC. The entire sentence is "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." You don't have consensus and you know it. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Taliban deaths

Why do you guys insist on having on having a 100% accurate figure of dead insurgents. If your guys logic applied to every single war there would be no casualties for Anyone because most wars are not even any where near as accurate to the original taliban figures which serve as good minimum estimate range. It is impossible to have a completely accurate estimate for an insurgent group. Just because the coalition don't do a body count doesn't mean you should not have estimates like an accumulated figure of reliable fatality reports. Of course taliban fatalities are missed that's why it is a minimum estimate. Do you really think that it is better to have unknown under the casualties part than the minimum estimate originally cited. If there are any inaccuracies with adding up of the fatality reports, this can easily be corrected with a calculator. It is completely untrue to say that there are no accurate taliban fatality reports. It is completely unacceptable to have indication, even an estimate, of taliban fatalities. This is usually a requirement for every modern war page, where far far less accurate estimates are used. Do you think it is more accurate to have soviet military WW2 death toll with range of uncertainty of 2 million deaths is more accurate than a taliban fatality toll accurate to the thousands. Please find some sort of estimate for taliban/insurgent deaths if you are not going TO accept the accumulated taliban fatality page figure. Having unknown is completely unacceptable and some what deceptive. Also i think it is important if the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan page were to be linked somewhere on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Civilian deaths compared with the Taliban deaths

Also if the accumulated death toll is not good enough explain to me why it is that the civilian death toll range is an aproxomation rounded to the nearast thousand with a 20,000 deaths uncertainty a viable figure but the original death toll for the taliban is not acceptable even though that figure was more accurate and precise than the civillian death toll figure listed. Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), this page does mention the 14,000–34,000 death toll range listed. Why is this accumulted aproxomation of deaths allowed but the accumulted death toll for the Taliban not allowed. This civilian figure may be accurate but it is quite inprecise and is also an added up figure like the taliban figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! The editors who are trying to remove the Taliban casualties are ignoring basic logic, established Wikipedia policy, and they're being inconsistent. X Nilloc X (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point - I thought that these figures were cited within that table, which I think was the case at one point. It seems that someone has since altered the figures so that they're no longer cited. As such, I've removed them from this article as well as the other article. Thanks for pointing this out. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't get rid of the figures completely on this page or the other, just add the more precise and accurate total deaths from the other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That article also doesn't provide a cited figure for total civilian casualties, though it does have a number of cited totals for individual years, from different sources. The same issues as discussed above obviously apply. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There are souced so civilian deaths for afghanistan so replace it with them a sourced total. Also if no civilan total is added please add this Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) under civilian deaths and this List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan under insurgent deaths just because would help and it should feature on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for the total civilian casualties. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• A source for civilian deaths, as of 2011 estimated civilian casualties are in excess of 24,000 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be verified concerning the number of troops killed — Preceding unsigned comment added by FishingKing (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request (minor typo)

Last paragraph of the intro, forth line says, "After the signing Obama laid out his plans to responsible end the war in Afghanistan." It should say "After the signing Obama laid out his plans to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan." 214.13.69.132 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Good catch! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to add balance to section on Strategic Agreement

{{request edit}} Hi, I noticed that the last paragraph of the section focusing on the U.S. Strategic Agreement includes some positive reactions to the agreement from President Karzai and U.S. officials, however there are no reactions from those with concerns about the agreement or its timing. To address this, I'd like to suggest adding the below material that I've prepared. One of the sources I've included here is written by a colleague of mine at The Heritage Foundation, where I work, and I've also mentioned him by name, so I'd like to run this past other editors rather than adding it myself.

If you think this is a reasonable addition, please can you add it to the end of the section? I'd also suggest adding a new subheading, "Reactions to the agreement" above the current final paragraph of the section. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

==Reactions to the agreement==

According to The Christian Science Monitor, concerns have been raised about the agreement to end combat operations and withdraw troops earlier than previously planned, in particular regarding Afghanistan's security. The newspaper stated that Afghan militants and the Taliban continue to carry out attacks on Western troops and that the Afghan military and police are not ready to assume responsibility for the country's security. Other concerns the Monitor noted include: a potential increase in illegal drug trafficking; negative impact on the economy and on social reforms, particularly those for women and destabilization of the country that could affect neighboring countries Pakistan and Iran. Concerns were also raised by Iran; following the announcement, a spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry stated that the agreement will lead to increased instability in Afghanistan due to the continued presence of U.S. forces.

The agreement received criticism from Republican members of Congress including Buck McKeon and James Inhofe. McKeon argued that the agreement did not provide anything new, and Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called it "an attempt to shore up President Obama's national-security credentials". Conservatives including Inhofe and Heritage Foundation fellow James Carafano criticized the timing of the agreement and Obama's visit to Afghanistan, which they argue appears to have been related to his re-election campaign. However, they support the signing of the agreement to ensure the long term presence of U.S. forces in the country as necessary for its stabilization.

References

Your suggestion to add balance to section on Strategic Agreement is good. As author of the Strategic Partnership Agreement I included your content because its add balance to the reaction section. --P3Y229 08:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, P3Y229! Kalkaska sand (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Template limit

Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.
The Post-expand include size has been exceeded, leaving many templates at the bottom of the page untranscluded. I changed the {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} template to a simple <references/> tag, so that at least some of the references would appear; however there are still a lot of templates that aren't transcluded properly (check the bottom of the page).
Given the page size, this is hardly surprising (also it takes yonks to load :P ). If a solution can't be found maybe a page split could do the trick? benzband (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your code didn't work properly, so I've reverted it. I agree that the article is massively over-size though - it's 320Kb long, which is well over twice the recommended maximum for article length. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of trimming some of the huge quantity of outdated material out of the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not touch anything related to the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement section. I just created a site dealing with the topic. Currently I'm in the process of trimming the section at this site and linking the section to the new article page. Thanks --P3Y229 10:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

OK, excellent. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Shortening of "U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement section" is done. Linked section to new main article. --P3Y229 10:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

Nice work. That's about 50Kb less text between us. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I wish to award you both, P3Y229 and Nick-D, the Teamwork barnstar for your excellent work on War in Afghanistan (2001-present). Keep it up, benzband (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! P3Y229, I agree with your re-addition of that section, but I think that it needs to be edited down given that the incident didn't amount to much - the protests which the western media was expecting never occurred, and subsequent reports indicated that this shouldn't have surprised anyone given the contempt in which suicide bombers are held. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I created a new article relating to the Insurgents’ bodies incident and linked it back to the Afghanistan war page. An experienced user as you are is better suited than me to make the edits because I have only little experience with the correct editing. Could you therefore edit the new created article and the related section at this article page? --P3Y229 12:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Update: I made some edits in the Insurgents’ bodies incident main article and at the relating section at this page, but I would appreciate it if both sites are cross-checked by other users. --P3Y229 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What's in the article on this topic looks great to me - nice work. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

We now have a ruling on X Nilloc X and his IP address sockpuppets. I didn't want to say anything until we had a ruling. Here is my advice for dealing with this situation going forward:

First, stop engaging X Nilloc X or his sockpuppets in debate over this. His arguments have been refuted and his objections addressed. There is no need to reply every time he repeats them. If he posts to the talk page, ignore.

Second, if he or his socks edit the article in a way that the sources do not support, revert. Also, please drop me a line on my talk page if there are further problems -- I really have no interest in the actual content of this page and do not plan on watching it the page much longer (nothing wrong with the topic, it just isn't my thing). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that he's a sockpuppet of a long running sockmaster. What a waste of time. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2012

This article is ridiculous and insulting. It doesn't even mention that Canada was part of this war. I and the many Canadians who fought and died in the killing fields of Kandahar/Panwajii District would, I'm sure, appreciate acknowledgement of boots on the ground. If you need a source that articulates the nature and extent of our combat operations, you can find this below.

Please edit both the table outlining 'belligerents' to include Canada, consider including some more pics of Canadian soldiers in action, acknowledge our involvement in Kandahar, and reflect our contributions in the text (s) describing the progression of the war.

Regards,

Chris Cudahy Ph.D. Candidate Department of Communication Texas A&M University

Canada has sacrificed a disproportionate number of lives to the war in Afghanistan compared to other NATO and coalition countries, including the U.S. itself, both on the basis of lives lost per domestic capita and on the basis of casualty rate of troops in Afghanistan.[109][110][111][112][113]

By as early as the end of summer 2006, Canadians were bearing the brunt of coalition casualties in Afghanistan.[107][112][114][115] A study by defence researchers found that:[107][112]

   * A Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar was six times more likely to be killed by a hostile attack than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq.
   * Canadians accounted for 43% of all coalition military deaths from February to September 2006 (not including 5 deaths from accidents).
   * Canada had suffered more deaths from hostile action in Afghanistan than any other U.S. ally, with two in five of the non-U.S. deaths.
   * A Canadian soldier in Kandahar was three times more likely to be killed in hostile action than a British soldier in Afghanistan.
   * A Canadian soldier in Kandahar was 4.5 times more likely to be killed in hostile action than an American soldier in Afghanistan.

In September 2006, UK statistician Sheila M. Bird, vice-president of Britain's Royal Statistical Society and author of a similar risk assessment study, noted that Canadian soldiers were facing twice possibly four times the risk of death that British soldiers faced in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She emphasized that the risk Canadians face in Kandahar is "absolutely" riskier than what Americans face in Iraq and stated that what the Canadians are confronting is "as dangerous as what the Russians were facing 20 years ago." The Russians left Afghanistan in defeat in 1989 after a nine-year campaign.[115][107][116]

A study by Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire stated that the lower level of lethality for U.S. troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq, as well as its decline between 2005 and 2006, were primarily because the United States had "successfully "convinced" NATO member countries (especially Canada and Britain) to increasingly bear the brunt of the combat in southern Afghanistan, experiencing far greater lethality ratios."[117]

Table: Lethality ratios in Afghanistan, 2006 (soldiers killed in-theater / 1,000 troop level in-theater)[117] Country Deaths per 1,000 troops Canada 14.4 United Kingdom 6.3 - 9.8 NATO 5.0 United States 4.45 Soviet Union (1980s) 12.5

An analysis in October 2007 by Professor Sheila Bird of Cambridge University for Danish newspaper Politiken continued to show a Canadian casualty rate disproportionately higher than those of other countries: For the period from May 2006 to about October 2007, Canada's casualty rate was 17 per 1,000 troops, while Britain's was 9 per 1,000 troops, and Denmark's was 7 per 1,000 troops.[118]

A 2007 study by the Department of National Defence also found that Canadian soldiers operating in Kandahar were at significantly higher risk of dying compared to their British and American counterparts.[119]

Canada's disproportionately high casualty rates, the highest of all NATO and coalition countries as a proportion of troops in Afghanistan, have also been noted by the government-commissioned Manley panel report released in February 2008, as well as by other observers.[109][110][119][120]

Subsequent to March 2008, only one other country has lost more lives on a per domestic capita basis than Canada. (Denmark, with a population of only 5.5 million people, lost a 13th soldier in Afghanistan in March 2008 when Canada's toll was at 78).

A February 2009 comparison of troop deaths relative to domestic population size showed that Canada had 3.2 soldiers killed per million population, far ahead of the United Kingdom at 2.3 per million, and the United States at 2.1 per million population. Other major European NATO countries such as France, Germany, and Italy were entirely out of the top 10.[111][121][122]

Table: Canadian deaths per capita compared to the U.S. and U.K. (as of February 2009) Country Deaths per million capita Canada 3.2 United Kingdom 2.3 United States 2.1

NATO officials have also reported that Canadians have suffered more deaths per capita than any other foreign contingent serving in Afghanistan.[123]

In April 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated:

“

"Canada has had, per capita, by far the highest casualties in Afghanistan." ”

— Prime Minister Stephen Harper, April 2, 2009 interview on Britain's Sky TV[124][125]

Again in October 2009, the CBC reported that "the Afghan mission is taking a much bigger toll on Canadian forces, proportionately speaking, than the other major coalition nations." Analysis from the U.K. Medical Research Council's Biostatistics Unit showed Canadian troops consistently being killed at a higher rate than American and British troops in the three year period from May 2006 to May 2009.[126][127]

Table: Canadian deaths compared to the U.S. and U.K. (May 2006 - May 2009)[127]) Country Deaths per 1,000 personnel years May 1, 2006 - November 11, 2007 Deaths per 1,000 personnel years November 12, 2007 - May 17, 2009 Canada 15.7 12.2 United Kingdom 8.9 6.5 United States 4.9 4.1

The disproportionate toll paid in Canadian lives is reflected in public opinion regarding Canada's share of the burden.

Cudahychris (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not done, your references in the above content are just numbers. Are they existing references from the article? Canada is linked in from the info box[2] And they pulled out in 2011. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please suggest some specific changes to the article? This would be more helpful than a general complaint in addressing your concerns. Please also note that we do have a Canada's role in the Afghanistan War article. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason Canada had such a high death toll was most likely because they have poorly trained soldiers, as well it is important to note that Canada was only there from 2002 - 2011. Other countries have been in Afghanistan a lot longer than that...--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim about the training of the Canadian Army? You might want to reflect on the very different sizes and roles of the Canadian and (say) Australian forces before shooting your mouth off. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

status

should invasion of afghanistan be there, because they intervened on behalf of the northern aliance who were still recognised as the government by the un. The taliban government was overthrown by the northern aliance mainly. In 2004 nato only had 5,000 troops there and afghanistan had an elected government. The official government of afghanistan was always allied to nato since the 2001 intervention so they never over through the oficial government of afghanistan. Any way how could the northern aliance invade there own country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.118.7 (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Australia

I have noticed several times that after I have edited the introduction from "Australia" to "the Commonwealth of Australia" it has been reverted back to just Australia. I do not understand why other countries are being named with their official names but Australia is downgraded from its official name? If in the title it stated something like "the United States" I'm sure someone would edit it to put in America at the end. So why is the same not applied for Australia? Double standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I made this change as 'Commonwealth of Australia' is only used in very formal circumstances. 'Australia' is the country's common name (including in most government documents). Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

But the United States of America is very formal as well? People use the US as its common name, same with Australia. But if the introduction is going to use the official names for America and Britain why not Australia?--Collingwood26 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point: I've removed the 'of America'. I've got no idea who wrote this. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks.--Collingwood26 (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

2K American casualties

Where, if anywhere, should content regarding the 2,000 American servicemembers deceased in OEF-A belong? In this article, in an United States military casualties of war, in an article regarding the Obama Administration? I am asking due to this article that discusses the difference between coverage regarding the 2,000 American servicemembers deceased coverage in OIF, and how it is treated regarding the conflict which is the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would mention it in this article and in an article regarding the Obama Administration in a more detailed version, while making a short note along the line "The landmark of the 2,000th US casualty in the Afghanistan war received less press coverage than the landmark of the 2,000th US casualty in the Iraq war" in the United States military casualties of war article. --P3Y229 19:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

KIA in Infobox

As of right now the infobox for the Commanders and Leaders uses both (KIA) and the † symbol to denote someone who was killed in action. Is there any reason for this? Shouldn't one be picked to be used uniformly? I think † would be most appropriate to mirror the infoboxes of other conflicts. Infernoapple (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For what it's worth, KIA reminds me of a car company more than it makes me think "killed in action". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Iran

Iran should be included in the list of 2001 belligerents as it sided with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobVienna (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. This source from that article is. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we need ...

... an own section for an "urination incident"? User:‎P3Y229 keeps readding the content. I think it does not belong into the article. The article has extensive coverage of US high profile incidents (some of which do have enough weight) but makes no mention of Taliban high profile incidents such as the hotel massacre. The "urination incident" has no WP:Weight with regards to this article whatsoever. JCAla (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't. More so in light of the fact that it has its own article which can be linked out to as a component of a more tightly written section. As a matter of fact exactly this sort of misuse of real estate which has significantly contributed to this article becoming one of the largest, unreadable, unnavigable and poorly written articles in the entire project. TomPointTwo (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We're Still Fighting The Soviet Union In Afghanistan???

"The War in Afghanistan (2001–present), a new phase of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present), began on October 7, 2001"

This statement is completely absurd. One of the major combatants (Soviet Union) in the 1978 conflict no longer exists and the government of Afghanistan has changed many times since then. Using this logic, The Franco Prussian War, World War One, and World War Two are all the same war! Or that the Vietnam War started in 1859 and ended in 1979!

174.102.243.129 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. SG²⁰⁹⁰ 14:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaders and Commanders

Where has the majority of Leaders and commanders gone from that section. Please add them back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.109.188 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaders and Commanders

Where has the majority of Leaders and commanders gone from that section. Please add them back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.109.188 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

An edit was made to the this article:

The United States identified members of al-Qaeda's Hamburg cell – financed primarily in the Arab Gulf states and particularly in Saudi Arabia – as the perpetrators of the attacks.

from this

The United States identified members of the al-Qaeda movement based in Afghanistan as the perpetrators of the attacks.

The edit is reliably sourced and what is stated in it is true. A wikipedia editor has been reverting all the time with no good reason as far as I can see. I see no reason for this sourced material to be taken out of the article.The source is the 9/11 commission report by the US government. Thoughts? Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arab state finances have nothing to do with Afghanistan.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arab state financing has nothing to do with Al Qaeda,that is what you are saying? Even though the evidence clearly states it does. The people who committed 9/11 were a bunch of Saudis who were in Hamburg and financed by Arab states. The king pin KSM lived in Kuwait.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, but this is an article about the war in Afghanistan and the reasons for it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are the reasons for it. A group of Saudis who lived in Hamburg with a boss who lived in Kuwait and finances from Saudi attack the twin towers.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's relevant to an article on the attacks or on al-Qaeda more generally, but it's not at all relevant to this article on the war in Afghanistan. I'm not seeing any explicit connection between how the attacks were financed and the war in Afghanistan in the source. As such, I think it should be removed. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just reviewed where the piece is place and withdraw my objection for it being removed. ThanksZrdragon12 (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Including Occupation Time in a War

Including occupation time in a war is a fairly new development. It is so embraced by the article's writer that an official end of war date is not even included.

I would not suggest changing the title, because this now generally seems to be the way modern wars are referenced and any change could add additional confusion.

I would suggest including the official end of war date. Adding a quick explanation of how occupations are now included in the war timeline.

Warning the reader that they cannot be accurately compared to historic wars with out taking into account the change in the definition of a war.

)

98.169.131.247 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

11 September 2001

I would like to propose the following addition per WP:RS and WP:NPOV: [3]

The United States identified members of al-Qaeda's Hamburg cell – financed primarily in the Arab Gulf states and particularly in Saudi Arabia – as the perpetrators of the attacks."Chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report detailing the history of the Hamburg Cell". 9/11 Commission. "Osama’s almost letter to me". The Nation. May 7, 2012. As noted military historian Gwynne Dyer pointed out, "The 9/11 attacks were not planned in Afghanistan. They were planned by al Qaeda operatives in Germany and Florida, and it is very unlikely that the Taliban government of Afghanistan had advance warning of them."Dyer, Gwynne (September 15, 2009). "West should vote with its feet". The New Zealand Herald.

from this

The United States identified members of the al-Qaeda movement based in Afghanistan as the perpetrators of the attacks. However, noted military historian Gwynne Dyer argued that "The 9/11 attacks were not planned in Afghanistan. They were planned by al Qaeda operatives in Germany and Florida, and it is very unlikely that the Taliban government of Afghanistan had advance warning of them."Dyer, Gwynne (September 15, 2009). "West should vote with its feet". The New Zealand Herald.

or: [4]

The United States identified members of al-Qaeda's Hamburg cell as the perpetrators of the attacks.

Any objections to adding it in?

I think it's relevant to this article because the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was justified on the basis of the events of 9-11. Tobby72 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'd recommend adding this to September 11 attacks. This article is already too long. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted...[5]. Tobby72 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's also pushing a POV that the attacks had little to do with Afghanistan, which is pretty dubious. I've just removed the opinion article from Gwynne Dyer from the article - while he's certainly reputable, he's one commentator among thousands and he's not always accurate. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is way too long

This article is already at 240kb. It's readable prose size has reached 113kb, way higher than the recommended 50-60kb. We need to either start summarizing, cutting, or splitting content. The content concerning the events of the war are way too detailed. It's unnecessary. We should really summarize the events of the war. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article is to long and needs to be shortnened by summarizing, cutting, or splitting content. I already shortened the sections for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. --P3Y229 01:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Could be frozen imho

This article is almost perfect imho. Great stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.72.148 (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Which War should be frozen? There are quite a few that fit this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucian303 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2012

The last sentence in the first para should read second-longest war. "he War in Afghanistan is also the United States' longest running war." The Vietnam War lasted 20 years according to the page this links to. 24.20.217.39 (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reasons why the insurgency still exists

According to the documentary "The Afghan Nightmare", there are several reasons why the Taliban insurgency still exists:

• The government in Aghanistan is dividing it's security forces depending on the ethnicity of the region. For example the Pashtun people have received little to no police/military force, making the area insecure until today. Also, water availability is still not arranged everywhere (no water wells, water distribution grid) and so people in many regions need to walk many kilometres to find any (non-saline) water, hence making them angry towards the government, and more inclined to follow/strengthen the insurgency. Perhaps it's useful to deploy much more units like the 189th Infantry Brigade of the 1st Army (to build wells, ...)
• Finally, the developed countries are now redrawing and leave everything to the Afghan military/police forces. However, these have little skills. It would be better to still mix in a few skilled Western soldiers in Afghan brigades, platoons, ...

Mention in article. 81.256.234.66 (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing #s of Girls in School from Introduction

The war was not about girls going to school. This information is not directly related to the war and is like including information on the increase in the number of international airports in the country, its life expectancy or its change in GDP since 2001. The information is superfluous.

Including this information in the article might be justifiable but clearly it does not belong in the Introduction section.(Dawnbrighter (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

This war is about nation building therefore the number of school children is relevant. Mentioning the amount of refugees returning is just as related to the war as the increase in people enrolled in school, both happen because of improvements in security etc. The reason it is in the introduction section, is because at present there is nowhere else to put it, since this page lacks info about changes to Afghanistan. This information is incredibly important regarding effects of the war and needs to be mentioned and the best place currently on the page is in the introduction. There needs to be a section more specialized on stuff like this. Find somewhere else to put it but don't remove it completely. Stumink (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Belligerents

The table showing the belligerents only show flags from English-speaking countries and Afghanistan. It's not accurate as troops from other countries like Germany or France were larger than, for instance, Canada or Australia. What is the reason ? In articles in other languages, this table is more accurate. Also commanders of the NATO are not shown, only leaders of the countries involved (the few shown above) 86.73.47.231 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

All right no one seems to be surprised. Anyway, the list of countries can be seen on this more accurate article from en wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force. People can also just take a look at the articles in (any) other language. I don't contribute to English wiki, so I leave that to any of you. Besides, this article is constantly spoiled. I don't recommend to anyone reading it to find a correct information.

86.73.47.222 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Role of North Korea/Iran in the war?

The info box shows North Korea and Iran in the list of belligerents in 2001, yet the article makes absolutely no mention of their role in the war, if any. Is there any information about this or should those countries be removed from the list? Cancerbero 8 (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There have been reports that Iran arms Taliban insurgents, though it certainly did no such thing in 2001. (Iran had nearly gone to war with the Taliban a few years before, and even today only wants to be a nuisance to the Americans.) I've heard nothing about a North Korean role in the conflict, so it should be removed unless a source is provided.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: this is nonsense, and I've just removed it. Iran was actually assisting the anti-Taliban efforts at this time. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Which "War in Afghanistan?" ... disambiguation before you promote this as a top wikipedia article ... too late

Seriously, this article is misnamed and can refer to at least a few wars in Afghanistan. More importantly than the situation happening now is the Russian - Afghanistan war. Which led to the situation now. Disambiguation.

Do it! I would if it allowed me to.

I agree with this suggestion. Thoughts? Mnealon (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing Refugee figures from 2011

TheTimesAreAChanging and Darkness Shines removed stats on the numbers of refugees who have fled the country since the start of the war in 2001. These reports are from highly credible sources (e.g. the United Nations) and the allegation that they are describing refugees from the previous wars is simply not true. Please read these sources and that will be clear.

This information is needed to achieve the Wikipedia balanced POV requirement. The information was originally added after a previous user included information on the number of refugees who had returned to Afghanistan after the 2001 invasion.(Dawnbrighter (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

That is simply untrue. The source states only that "More than 5.7 million refugees have voluntarily repatriated to Afghanistan in the last 10 years, of whom more than 4.6 million were assisted to do so by UNHCR. Nonetheless, some 2.7 million Afghans continue to live in exile in neighbouring countries."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The previous user was in fact a sockpuppet of Dawnbrighter. See here for the very large sock farm. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion

Some editors may have noticed I've been deleting a few of the images on this article. I'm trying to take out images that don't really serve any noteworthy purpose on the article, such as generic image of a particular piece of equipment, in order to make room for images that have context to the war itself, such as actual operations/combat/etc. There's a tag on the article that it needs to be cleaned up, so this was part of that process.Publicus 20:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

i agree with you on the excessive images, some of which are not directly related to the topic must be deleted. the article is also full of outdated opinions and information, and lots of nonsense really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Content removal

Would user:22 Male Cali please explain why he is removing so much content from this article please. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

because this article is specifically about the war between one army (coalition forces) vs. militant groups. unrelated nonsense doesn't belong in it, like the opinions about failed state and images that are unrelated or some afghan groups claiming they will do this and that. those are politics of afghanistan and don't belong here. there is nothing mentioned about the rebuilding of a country that almost didn't exist 10 years ago. Isaf forces are fighting militants and also building up the afghan forces, rebuilding roads, schools, government institutions, economy, and everything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali (talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your pestcamel aren't you? There is information about schools and whatnot, and the politics of the country obviously has a bearing on the article. 19:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

On Canada

So collingwood26, you have now made a number of edits here to delete or change Canadian involvement. What are your sources and how have these improved this article?Nickm57 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything, I only lowered Canada from being third from the top down several places. I think this is necessary to show other countries did more than Canada. Canada was present only from 2002-2011, and had a maximum deployment of around 2500. Several other countries have not only been there much longer such as Germany, Italy, France and Australia, but have also deployed more troops with France and Germany having deployed over 4000 respectively. To put Canada above these other countries makes it seem they did more in the war when the facts suggest otherwise.--Collingwood26 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reference to support your claim that Canada deployed more troops and did more fighting than Australia? The Australian contribution has maxed out at about 1,500 personnel and there was essentially no Australian presence in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2005. The Australian reconstruction/mentoring task force which has been in the country since 2006 has not undertaken a great deal of combat as it's been focused on engineering and training roles and Dutch and US units have played the main role in fighting the Taliban in its area of operations. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that from? I don't recall ever saying "Australia did more fighting than Canada". I am talking about Germany, France and Italy mainly.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

On the 29 May and 4 June ( and previously) you made edits removing Canada from this article, and you have also asserted "Australia sent more troops." You have written in your most recent edit summary that you have sources and suggested to another editor the matter be taken to the talk page. So... I think everyone is awaiting your sources. Nickm57 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Never removed Canada from this article that is a blatent lie right there, I did however remove Canada from the 2001 invasion box as they only officially sent troops in early 2002, however I do acknowledge they sent several undercover special units in 2001. I never said "Australia deployed more troops" might want to read a bit more carefully, I said Germany and France sent more troops having over 4000 respectively. Only time I mentioned Australia was when I read out a list of countries that have been in Afghanistan longer than Canada. Why exactly do I need sources for what? Commonly known fact is that Canada was involved from 2002-2011, but to put Canada above Italy, France, Germany, and Australia is ignorant of their contribution which not only overall sent more troops but have been present much longer.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep well - our edit summaries are there for all to judge I guess. So if Canada deployed more combat troops and suffered greater casualties it needs to go before Australia. We all seem in agreement on that. DoneNickm57 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Killing of Osama bin Laden?

Does the killing of Osama bin Laden belong in the infobox's "status" section? It happened in Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The operation was launched in Afghanistan and bin Laden was the perpetrator of 9/11, which led to the war.108.201.216.214 (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Seals in Bin Laden raid dead

I believe that entire squad had died shortly after carrying out orders from higher command to carry out the raid on his compound. They were all killed in a chinook helicopter going down in the deserts of Afghanistan. It was a huge tragedy, please note this in the article unless you are just another bi-ist Wiki hack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Canada

Several editors have undone my previous edits regarding the list of ISAF countries in Afghanistan, Canada currently has zero troops in Afghanistan compared to Australia who has over 1550. Please explain to me why a country with zero troops currently, should be above a country with well over a thousand troops in combat?--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Failure to respond will mean I stand corrected and will resume changes.--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. Your assertion about Canada is also not correct - there are are 950 Canadians still in Afghanistan conducting training tasks: [6]. The number of Australians in the country at the moment is actually 800, and as part of the "draw down" process most now rarely go far from their base: [7] [8]. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite biased there Nick, your link works against you, it quite clearly says 1550 stationed in Afghanistan, so I stand corrected. Canada on the other hand has zero troops in Afghanistan, unless you can provide links otherwise. If not then Australia will have to be put before Canada.--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

....Well have you found the links or not?..--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That table on the Defence page is screwed up (the rows don't match for the Operation Slipper section) - you're right about that figure: my mistake. The Canadian Government website plainly states that it has 950 military personnel in Afghanistan. Anyway, as discussed above I don't accept your contention that countries should be listed in order of their current forces deployed, which seems non-sensical given that most countries are in the process of withdrawing most of their forces. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Military personnel can be misleading, for example whilst Australia has 1550 odd numbers I think a bit less then a thousand are actual troops, but I could be wrong on that number. Anyway Canada only has some trainers which are training the Afghan army, other than that I'd say the rest of the numbers are probably engineers and such. Let me just apologise Nick-D, not just for this but for any other time I may have pissed you off. I don't mean to, it's just that when I think I'm right I get a little ahead of myself. :P Maybe we can come up with something that fairly designates in what order countries should be listed in the infobox, as it seems to get edited and changed quite a lot. Thanks --Collingwood26 (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nick?--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This matter has been taken to WP:ANINickm57 (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Calculating Casualties->Discrepancies between iCasualty and the official Military Count

There is a significant discrepancy between the numbers of US military personnel killed & wounded provided by icasualty (the source that is currently being cited) vs. the numbers provided by the official military Defense Casualty Analysis System.

1. https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_oef_type.xhtml
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note: You have to download the spreadsheet on this page to get a clear picture of the totals etc.

2. http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByYear.aspx

Does anyone have insight into why these discrepancies exist & which source should be considered authoritative? I am a total amateur here, but it seems like the tendency would be to go with the official military count? Like I said, open to being schooled on this subject if I am in the wrong.

It seems like this is really a pretty important question: most non-experts who haven't received information about casualties passively from television or newspapers probably look for the answer at Wikipedia if the question occurs to them. So this is, like, the defacto number for the general public. ThomasMikael (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to the source switching from icasualty to the Defense Casualty Analysis System? If no one responds to this in the space of a week, I will probably go ahead and switch the sources & the figures.ThomasMikael (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Longest War

Like the Iran–Iraq_War article, this article should mention that this is the longest war of the 21st century as well. 72.72.229.110 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

War Crimes

Can someone please explain why the War crimes section is so one-sided? The Taliban and Al-Qaeda represent 8 out of 10 incidents, and have stated that deliberate targeting of civilians is part of their strategy. Yet they have a whopping two sentences devoted to them which vaguely states an overview, while the US who has had a handful of incidents from individual soldiers over 12 years has five paragraphs which detail every case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sadly it is probably because we don't really report on Taliban war crimes in the west. When Coalition forces shoot a family you will get the news report about it to quite a good degree of detail. When a Taliban attack happens all you will ever hear is "An attack happened in [place] today killing [x] civilians. The Taliban claimed responsibility." and than that would be about it. So although the vast majority of war crimes are caused by the Taliban you will never really find any good sources to back it up so all we have is the UN quote. I will have a look into finding some relatively neutral news feeds of Taliban operations that would be classified as war crimes and post them if I can. Mishka Shaw (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason also is because most of the casualties from the Taliban are collateral damage due to their ineffective ability to coordinate attacks and lack of technological advancement. The United States on the other hand have been actual torture and other purposeful inhumane crimes such as Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse and Waterboarding. 72.72.229.110 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

White phosphorous????? just because some activist groups want to make it a "nefarious " weapons does not means it has any place in this article. Considering the lack of anything about the Taliban/al Qaeda crimes against humanity..it makes one wonder the intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.252.198 (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit

Per tag ran through this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:

• WAY TOO LONG. I reduced it from >20k words to some 16k, but that's just a start. I propose refactoring this article and War in Afghanistan (1978–present) into something less overlapping.

• Much of the material is very outdated. Many dead links need to be corrected.
• I propose that the Human rights section be merged with the War crimes section
• I fixed a lot of the dead links, introduced sfn in several places, removed repetitive uses of the same ref and added lots of google books links. More needs to be done.
• Longest article I've ever worked on (of thousands). Needs major weight loss/refactoring into other pieces.
• Went with mujahideen, because that's the spelling in the wp article on the topic.

Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Afghan Army Casualty Count

According to AFGHAN government over 13,700 Afghan Security forces died in last ten years.So please change the figure from this article.This is the source.http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2014/03/03/13700-afghan-security-personnel-killed-in-10-years-officials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.52.75.173 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014 the best fucking year

24.171.168.147 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014

Canada stopped helping on March 12 2014. 69.11.48.191 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014

Please change the word "include" to "including" in the following sentence in the second paragraph: "The two were later joined by other forces, include the Northern Alliance." Whytee92 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 17:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

When will it end

President Obama recently said that combat operations for U.S. forces will conclude by the end of 2014. All U.S. troops will be out of the country in 2016, with only embassy and diplomatic staff left as the American presence. Will the conclusion date of this page be in 2014 or 2016? For the Iraq War, combat operations ended in August 2010, but the end date was listed in December 2011, when all the troops left. Should the end of operations or the exit of troops be marked as the end? America789 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2014

Bowe Bergdahl was released in a prisoner exchange yesterday. Can someone please remove him from the missing captured section? There are no more MIAs. 96.59.223.143 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Done NQ (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Safe haven

A 'haven' is a place for safety or refuge, thereby there can be no such thing as an 'unsafe' haven. As such, the word requires no qualifier, regardless of whether it is used in the source, particularly at there is no criterion to recite the text verbatim. The total opposite is the case. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your first opinion that thereby there can be no such thing as an 'unsafe' haven. As you correctly observed a haven is a place for safety or refuge. But the conditions of such a haven can change so that it becomes a dangerous place i.e. is no longer a haven, but is instead an unsafe haven. An example to illuminate my point are irish political prisoners. They sought a safe place in the United States since the 1800s, but this changed in 1986. In part as a reward for Britain's support in the US attack on Libya the U.S. government used specific sanctions - deportation, extradition, prosecution - to go after these political prisoners. The United States was thus no longer a safe place for refuge, but instead had become a dangerous place i.e. an unsafe haven. For further details of this example please see the 2000 book "Unsafe Haven: The United States, the IRA and Political Prisoners" by Karen McElrath. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Since to your credibility you have declared that English isn't your first language, I'll try to explain this to you. The word 'haven' in these contexts is a maritime word adopted into conflict terminology but used in a figurative manner, a haven is an inlet into which ships land, or from where they set sail. When the term is used politically, it refers to a temporary safe area which you seem to know. Now, when the condition of such place change as to be conquered by an opposing belligerent, then yes it is no longer "safe", but at the same time, it loses its status as being a "haven"! Does that make sense now? It can be one or the other. Once penetrated, no more haven. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. It makes sense now. I think the haven issue can be resolved by replacing the word haven with safe area or safe basis of operation. These words are for me more clear and precise than the ambiguous word haven. That's why I replaced haven with safe basis of operation. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I must stress, English is full of cliches: Will and Testament - one and the same thing; "free gift" is used more often than 'gift', and "safe haven", uttered as if one word "safehaven" just seems to be on everybody's lips. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Declaration of war

There was no "Declaration of war". That title should be removed.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Legality

The section on "Legal basis for war" starts with a reference to an American law. That is the wrong starting point. The legality of military operations depends on international, not domestic law. US law may purport to render an invasion legal, but that has no effect whatsoever on international law. In this case international law is clear, the invasion was not legal. There are American jurists who argue otherwise, however they are in the minority.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but then we have the problem of Wikipedia, who's servers are based in the U.S., pointing out that a U.S. invasion was actually illegal according to any standard that we would rightly apply to others. That's........ just not going to happen.

Britians retraction from the war

As of 2014, the United Kingdom will be ending military operations in Afghanistan, just putting that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.10.88 (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

War over?

So is Operation Enduring Freedom actually over? Someone could change the heading to (2001-2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.89.3 (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Since when did anyone say that Operation Enduring Freedom was over.

Canadian JTF2 commandos were in Afghanistan in Oct 2001

Is there any reason why Canada isn't listed among the 2001 invading countries? Canadian troops sustained heavy losses fighting in this war so it would be nice, not to mention respectful, for Canada to be given the recognition it deserves by being properly listed among belligerents. NorthernFactoid (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's probably because a stupid troll kept removing Canada and no-one has fixed this yet. I've just fixed it. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, mate. NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

For some reason France is also not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.203.23 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think France did not join until 2004. Thundermaker (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed Edit made by Nick-D, also noted your hateful comments regarding myself. Canadian government did not formally join the war effort in Afghanistan until early 2002, they did send a tiny special forces squad in secret in 2001. However that is not the same.--Empire of War (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Collingwood26. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes my thoughts exactly. Very similar pattern of edits, Collingwood26 gets blocked in Nov 2013 and Empire of War appears in Dec 2013. Not to mention the Canada issue... Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, also don't try to change the subject, unless you have a reference to prove otherwise.--Empire of War (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely you realize that you just admitted that it was you (Empire of War) that originally removed the Canadian flag in the first place, yet the edit history of the article shows this was done by Collingwood26 in Oct 2013 who was then involved in a discussion about the matter, whilst your edit history indicates that you (Empire of War) hadn't edited this article until yesterday? What conclusion should we draw from this if not that you (Empire of War) are Collingwood26? Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Collingwood26/Empire of War, a government sending troops to invade another country (in this case, JTF2 elite commandos) in secret OR the open is immaterial. Exact numbers of troops do not matter, either. The fact remains, Canada authorized an invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and sent troops as part of the initial coalition invasion. NorthernFactoid (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Number of wounded

Could the number of wounded be expanded to include which country they are from just as it is for deaths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.52.178 (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-ISAF troop strength

This VOA article says "The United States will keep nearly 11,000 troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Several other coalition countries will keep some troops there, too." According to the December ISAF count, US troop strength has already been reduced to 5,500. So we are once again in the situation where half of US troops are not under the ISAF banner? Thundermaker (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Future of this article

Will this article end up like the Iraq War one and have a post insurgency page in 2015? if not, why or why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star72 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It all depends what happens. The war might still be going on without the United States. However we do have Taliban insurgency. However, looking at the wars in Afghanistan since 1978, it might be a page named "War in Afghanistan (2015-present)". Jackninja5 (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Move mistake

Due to an auto-correct error, when I tried to move the title to War in Afghanistan (2001-present), the word "present" was changed to "President". I meant no malicious changes, and I deeply apologize for this error. Could an admin help me fix this? Mr. Anon515 01:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again for moving the page back. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Longest War

in the past several years it has been popular in news sources, to call the U.S. engagement in Afghanistan the "longest war". That being said there are several conflicts that could arguably be longer, such as the American Indian Wars, and the Moro rebellion, as possible candidates. For instance the Comanche Wars, lasted from 1836 until 1875; and the Apache Wars, lasted from 1849 to as recently as 1924. Therefore, I removed the good faith addition, and point towards this rebut from The Week.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Even more recently there is United States occupation of Nicaragua, from 1912 to 1933, part of the Banana Wars. Therefore it can be said that source X says Y, and source Z says A, but to state in Wikipedia voice, that the subject of this article is the longest conflict which the U.S. has been involved in, would IMHO be false, and we should not mislead our readers to accept that as fact.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That article from The Week is already 5 years old now and outdated with its Vietnam-vs-Afghanistan claims, though it brings up some other truly long conflicts. However, it seems that the Banana Wars, Sioux Wars, etc. were a series of individual conflicts with strong overarching causes, rather than a single focused war (hence the typical use of the plural in their names). But that might be beside the point. It seems to me an important point to mention in the article that the War in Afghanistan at least "is arguably" or "has been arguably considered" (with citations presented of course) the longest war in US history, and we could apply a modifier of that kind if it seems more precise. This Wikipedia page labels the War in Afghanistan as being the longest instance of all "U.S. conventional combat forces' participation in major wars" -- if that wording seems more suitable. Wolfdog (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

List of the lengths of American participation in major wars, is wrong. See WP:WINARS. While the Banana Wars, and Indian Wars, were made up of individual conflicts, much like the War on Terror is, I have already shown one part of the Banana Wars that was more than twenty years in length. Even the Moro rebellion, arguably a part of the Philippine insurrection/Philippine-American War, lasted longer (14 years) than the subject of this article, if we assume that 2001-2014 date. Therefore, although it can be said via attribution that X states Y, IMHO such a statement does not belong in the lead of the article, and should be countered with reliable sources, that disprove it per WP:BALANCE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that Wikipedia was a reliable source, just that you might have preferred something similar to the wording used on one of its other articles. I am not interested in adding the idea to the article except that a war being considered one of the longest in US military history seemed significant. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to find arguments that it was the single longest and there is obviously a lack of clarity about exactly when certain wars begin or end, or even what defines a war, as shown by your various examples. I respect your arguments. Wolfdog (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

First two uncited claims:

As for the first two uncited claims, I've found an article that pretty clearly lays out what happened here:

Osama Bin Laden was never made to leave the country, but was urged to leave by religious clerics (not by the government) on his own accord.

Also as can be seen in the article, doesn't appear that any side was trying to negotiate anything. They both laid out terms and neither side accepted the other's terms. There wasn't any offer of negotiation by either party. I would suggest just deleting that sentence.

Source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-wont-turn-over-bin-laden/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.57.111 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2015

Section Impact on Afghan society subsection Civilian casualties First word, first paragraph Castually Should read: Casualty 81.159.151.135 (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)