This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Second Anglo-Afghan War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 1, 2013. |
They seem to be in the picture, and the war is in their honours, but they don't seem to be in the order of battle. 174.112.18.193 ( talk) 03:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Why an Afghan victory? Just asking, as it's in the box, but nothing I know (and nothing in the text), really supports such a one-sided summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.90 ( talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The second and third Anglo-Afghan wars were fought between the Afghans and the British Empire - not the UK - all articles on the subject need correcting. Temperamental1 ( talk) 11:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The British officer John Masters recorded in his autobiography that Afghan women in the North-West Frontier Province (1901–1955) of British India during the Second Anglo-Afghan War would castrate and urinate non-Muslim soldiers who were captured, like British and Sikhs. ; But this claim is incredible, because Pathans do not allow their women to look at their close relatives. How is it possible to let them urinate in others moths.Pathans urinated into prisoner's mouths. Captured British soldiers were spread out and fastened with restraints to the ground, then a stick, or a piece of wood was used to keep their mouth open to prevent swallowing. Pathan then squatted and urinated directly into the mouth of the man until he drowned in the urine, taking turns one at a time.
Not a single word about the British duplicity, incompetence and brutality. No word of Auckland, Elphinstone, McNaughten, Burnes, Sale and a host of other British. No word of the Russians either, nor of their Polish unofficial envoy whose simple presence started the entire Anglo-Afghan disaster. This article is too brief for such a huge and important topic whose ramifications continue to this day. You could start by reading "The Return of the King" by William Dalrymple, and follow his key references. Historygypsy ( talk) 12:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
From his Midlothian campaign: Remember the rights of the savage, as we call him. Remember that the happiness of his humble home, remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God, as can be your own. Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williameg150999.html
The Wiki conveniently ignores this... it is a thoroughly jingoistic version of history.
Another point that needs recalling is that Roberts was able to easily march to Kandahar in 1880 because he was doing so to withdraw and return to India. The Amir sent emissaries to the tribes urging them not to create any problems for his exit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.232.183 ( talk) 19:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Not an English victory by any means. The british just signed a treaty to stop Afghans from pestering them, that's a loss not a win. Akmal94 ( talk) 16:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Cureel has come forward and stated that Master's book does not mention the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War, that the alleged incidents were not about the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war. That does not look like vandalism, it looks like an informed position. Masters was writing some decades after his experience near, not in, Afghanistan and otherwise wrote popular fiction. Unless there is a positive discussion about the exact location and time that Masters is writing about and a defence of this author as a credible source, I wish to remove discussion of his comments from this entry. Brunswicknic ( talk) 12:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Multiple IP users that keeps making recent changes needs to discuss here - it is becoming an edit war. Eastfarthingan ( talk) 15:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
protectorate or protected state?because wikipedia clearly differentiate between "protectorate" and "protected state". please change the war result imformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.22.22 ( talk) 21:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It should be "both sides claim victory" not "british victory" as both sides couldn't reach their objectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E08A:BD25:357C:3C8C ( talk) 19:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The source attached to the sentence of "british protectorate over afganistan" in the table doesnt even mention the word "protectorate" its obvious that afganistan is a protected state. Definition of protectorate:- British protectorates were protectorates under the jurisdiction of the British government. (Afganistan was not under jurisdication of Britian nor was it formally part of british empire) Protected states:-the following states were never officially part of the British Empire and retained near-total control over internal affairs; however, the British controlled their foreign policy. Their status was rarely advertised while it was in effect, it becoming clear only after it was lifted. ( Since afganistan had full control over its internal administration and britian only covered its foreign policy afanistan is a protected state and not a protectoeate of British) and all of these are mentioned in British protectorate wikipedia page.
there are differences between the two possibilities but the goal of a protected state is that the Afghan state has full control over their internal affairs and that the English promise to protect them against enemy invaders and to pay the king each year it was the term of the treaty of Gandamak of the English with the emir Abdur Rahman Khan but they are deprived of their foreign business and also no British flag appearing in the Afghan flag and the afghan had not adopted the British money nor their anthem is exactly the aim of a protected state if you read the article on British protectorate now a protectorate where a country promises its protectorate to protect it and to pay all their military and administrative expenses in return for the country placed. under the protectorate will have to adopt the anthem of the country which placed it under its protectorate as a national anthem will have to accept the money as national money and will have to adopt a small flag of the country above their flag exactly like the French protectorate of Morocco AfghansPashtun ( talk) 12:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
and also I had forgotten to specify that afghanistan was never part of the British empire because it was a protected state while Morocco was officially part of the French colonial empire during its protectorate AfghansPashtun ( talk) 13:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Reference clearly states: “In this treaty, the Amir of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919.”
So you have to stick to reference as proof. As far as links on other articles on Wikipedia, those are not reliable just like Wikipedia states that it’s articles can be plain wrong or vandalized especially since anyone can edit at any time.
Bottom line, information should be what the reference states. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 00:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon 36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.185.114.99 ( talk) 22:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Afghanistan Victory 1st and 2nd war
[2] Reference states: According to a large number of previous studies, Afghanistan was fixed as a buffer state between Russia and British India as a result of the war and the Gandamak Treaty, which was concluded between Amīr Ya‘qūb Khān and the British on 26 May 1879, substantially as proof of the surrender of the Afghan side. In this treaty, the Amīr of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919. Source confirms it. 199.82.243.102 ( talk) 19:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This is..incorrect as multiple other sources state that Afghanistan was not a British protectorate. Your source only says “virtually a british protectorate” not confirming it in anyway sort of form, it is not included apart of British India as well. You can read sources provided including from James Onely. Noorullah21 ( talk) 23:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Multiple sources state that during the Treaty of Gandamak, the Emir of Afghanistan signed the British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. The source on the article has no mention about the treaty or the details about the treaty. By the way virtually means in essence, or for all intents and purposes. But regardless, there are numerous articles and books by academic scholars where Afghanistan has been considered British Protectorate as signed by the Emir during the treaty of Gandamak.
Reference 1,
[3] states Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate. Following the Peace of Gandamak, the Amir of Afghanistan agreed to leave the control of his foreign relations to the British Government....Afghanistan's status as a PROTECTORATE was recognized in the Anglo Russian Agreement of 1907.
Reference 2,
[4]. Reference states that 1879, May 26 - Peace of Gandamak. Afghanistan became, in effect, a protectorate of Great Britain.
Reference 3,
[5] Reference states that At the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE and Kabul was opened up to a British mission, something Afghans still consider to be an appalling loss of face.
Reference 4,
[6] Reference states The following year, Anglo Indian troops invaded Afghanistan and imposed, through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass....
Reference 5,
[7] Reference states In 1878, the Second Anglo-Afghan war broke out. It ended two years later with the Treaty of Gandamak, which effectively made Afghanistan a PROTECTORATE of Britain.
Reference 6
[8] Reference states Afghanistan was technically a PROTECTORATE of the British Empire since the treaty of Gandamak of 1879 and reinforced in the Durand line accord of 1893.
All the sources confirms Afghanistan as a British PROTECTORATE state as per the treaty of Gandamak. 199.82.243.102 ( talk) 10:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Reference 7 [9] Reference states by the treaty of Gandamak of May 1879, Afghanistan, in effect, became a British PROTECTORATE and gave British control of the Khyber Pass to ensure easy entry by the British troops. 199.82.243.102 ( talk) 11:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
When the 26-year-old Amanullah ascended the Kabul throne in February 1919, Great Britain retained control over Afghanistan’s foreign affairs, rendering the country a British PROTECTORATE.
Overall Afghanistan was a British Protectorate. Above link and all the references provided even before that detail the same information. @ Eastfarthingan and @ FDW777 as well as @ RegentsPark, @ TrangaBellam, @ Cinderella157, please provide your opinion about all the references provided above which states that Afghanistan was a PROTECTORATE state. 199.82.243.92 ( talk) 23:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The term protectorate is still varyingly different from protected state, hence why it is protected state, you arent repeating the details because there is no curtailing reference that states Afghanistan was ruled by the British or Raj, you seem to ignore how your own sources also stated the opposite and you still ignored them after I brought it up. Noorullah21 ( talk) 03:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The reason academic scholars use it today is because it was firstly read as a protectorate, none of the treaty terms enstate it as a protectorate and it is a protected state by DEFINITION. The Admins on British protectorate page also agreed with me and you also ignore that. Noorullah21 ( talk) 03:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Admins agreed with you? On British protectorate? No they didn't. That is not reference or source. You are continuously ignoring the fact about what the scholars have stated and indulging in discussion about the definition and how protected and protectorate differentiate. BUT discussion here is about what the Treaty of Gandamak was about, which was that Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE state. You choose to ignore the information that all academic scholars have stated in their articles and books. Wikipedia asks for reference to back the statement added on the article and so far all the references I provided support that. So its better to leave it on others to decide so that they can review the references and judge for themselves. 199.82.243.95 ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
But I haven’t ignored your references? I explained through them in priorly which you still ignored and claim I am ignoring the references. The Treaty of Gandamak didn’t enstate Afghanistan as a protectorate, it is a defacto protected state by all means, I also asked for source on how the british ruled the government and you ignored that, hence it is a protected state as sources provided EVEN YOURS fufillingly said so that the british only had inclusion of foreign affairs and the afghans had complete independence in their own affairs, read your own sources properly please.
I will leave this to the rest because you keep claiming I am ignoring all the sources you have provided when I clearly regarded them. Noorullah21 ( talk) 14:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Also infact, yes they did hence they reverted your edits, (for the admin part). I’m not using that as a source but they recognize that I was also in the right on that case. Noorullah21 ( talk) 14:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Revert wasn't about whether who was right or wrong about the case. That wasn't the reason for revert. Treaty of Gandamak did enstate Afghanistan as Protectorate. Infact, in 1907 at the ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONVENTION OF 1907, following was the agreement reached between the British and Russians about the influences on Afghanistan. The agreement on Afghanistan, where the two powers had a longer history of rivalry and conflict, was more complex; in essence it was a victory for Britain. The British government declared that it had no intention of changing the political status of Afghanistan and that it would exercise its “influence in Afghanistan only in a pacific sense,” and would neither “take, nor encourage Afghanistan to take, any measures threatening Russia.” The Russian government declared in return that it recognized “Afghanistan as outside the sphere of Russian influence,” and engaged to conduct all its relations with Afghanistan “through the intermediary of His Britannic Majesty’s Government.” Furthermore, Russia would not send agents into Afghanistan (text of the convention in J. C. Hurewitz, ed., The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics, New Haven, 1975, I, pp. 538-41). The British promised not to annex any Afghan territory “or to interfere in the internal administration of the country, provided that the Ameer fulfills the engagements already contracted by him towards His Britannic Majesty’s Government . . . . ” So this is obvious that Afghanistan was British Protectorate as per the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 which is what all the scholars and references are pointing to. Either way, anyone else have any thoughts or opinions, please provide your opinion. Thanks. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 17:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, a state with the british only keeping foreign rights access is called a PROTECTED STATE, included by oxford, if the British were direct in internal affairs of Afghanistan, then it’d be considered a protectorate because that is the full definition and meaning. Noorullah21 ( talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
And by fufill for the Amir, that would mean recognizing the Durand line and keeping ahead with its forwarding off British protected state status, in exchange of course would be the subsidies etc. Noorullah21 ( talk) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Protectorate is also again also referred as a second hand choice instead of PROTECTED STATE, this was mentioned before as well, and the definition of protectorate does not match with what the British had in Afghanistan, the British had a state which allowed them foreign rights access in exchange secluding them and not intefering in foreign affairs. A Protectorate is both. I can see the confusion and why most sources include Protectorate, mostly from the fact that both words are used, and the pure definition of protectorate does not align with what it was.
I hope you understand the clear definition of Protectorate and Protected State, as former user on the British protectorate also told you, from Kaut: Protectorate and Protected State are quite similar, only specialists can tell the difference, and the difference being that a protectorate is of course includes both access and control over the nation with its foreign affairs and internal. While a protected state is just foreign affairs.
I hope this clears up and this argument once and for all because you seem to not understand the two differences. Noorullah21 ( talk) 19:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree to Disagree as you don't seem to understand the events or the definitions and continuously ignoring each and every detail that has been provided. And assumption is not a source either. It has been very clear that British were involved in the internal Administration as its revealed in the pact/peace treaty of Anglo-Russian. British were also involved since Second Anglo-Afghan war in appointing Emirs with increasing British interference in Afghan affairs that aimed at establishing embryonic forms of colonial rule along Afghanistan's borderlands. Also as one of the references states earlier that through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass. Thus British Protectorate over Afghanistan. Like I said earlier, leave it on other to decide. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 19:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, it is not a protectorate, for example, a protectorate would need permission to declare war and to be forwarded by the British government, this was not the case for the Afghans under Abdur Rahman fighting northward states, or even the hazara uprisings where the British did not help because they are not a protectorate because they dont deal with FOREIGN affairs. You can search the hazaran uprisings. I also did not assume anything I said whatsoever lol I mentioned the definitions of both protectorate and protected state which you seem to fail to define and even see in. Noorullah21 ( talk) 19:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You keeping changing your statements. Also you are copying other editor's comments and pasting here "only specialists can tell the difference". And if you at first consider Protected and Protectorate similar, then you shouldn't have had problem changing the infobox with Protectorate which is a more common terminology used when it comes to British Protectorate of Afghanistan. Also why would you try to change Protectorate to Protected on
Afghan Independence Day page in that case? Once as your user Noorullah21 and then with your IP?
23:09, 18 September 2021 Noorullah21 talk contribs 5,974 bytes +16 Protected state not protectorate.
08:56, 19 September 2021 2a01:cb15:300:3000:ccd8:437f:f3ad:1b66 talk 5,974 bytes +16
And these changes were reverted.
199.82.243.108 (
talk) 19:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Great! Now you changed the statement again. Back to differences. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 19:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Also yes an admin did support me in this case on the British protectorate page with your revert! [14] Noorullah21 ( talk) 22:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia quite well tells you to login or to edit without logging in. So no need to play a victim card here. Also no, the admin didn't support your change. He just reverted the change of the blocked user. That is what they are required to do. The admin didn't state that he agreed with you or that is why he is reverting so you need to stop using that as your back up support level to prove the point your cannot make. You have time and again changed statements and lost the credibility of making your point. That is why I am insisting others to provide their opinion. You have no intention to change the protected state to protectorate and that is pretty clear and will come with any sort of excuse, even going against the information provided in the references by the academic scholars, as far as even claiming them to be wrong. And using the statement by other editor isn't a word written on stone. That is not a reference. Wikipedia asks sources and references. And PROTECTORATE is the common used terminology such as British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. Protected has no relevance when it comes to the treaty of Gandamak and British providing the Emir British military assistance and aid to help him curb to any domestic and foreign pressure. Overall, like I said earlier, British PROTECTORATE is what the article needs to state which is what it was originally there. If reference states, protectorate, article should state protectorate. That is how clear it is. And also I said before that leave the discussion and opinions for others to provide because you have lost all credibility with your own conflicting statements. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 22:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no sense of playing victim card here, it is a simple mistake.
“You have time and again changed statements” No I have not, I have not changed my statements whatsoever, protectorate and protected state are completely different things. You have ignored every argument put up by me including your OWN SOURCES being against you claiming I am calling them wrong and incorrect. You are claiming I am losing my credibility because you cannot prove your point whatsoever, you are trying to implicate false information on the Wikipedia as apart of “Protectorate” when multiple points proven, that YOU ignore, state it as a protected state and you have literally no response to it whatsoever. The British had never helped the Emir in ANY of his multiple wars after the Second Anglo Afghan war. Not with Military aid either. You are losing the credibility of your arguments by ignoring what other people put up as points. You cannot prove your own point hence you call upon others to support you in your case. The term Protected State and Protectorate are different and you completely ignore that, as a result the credibility of your arguments are varing. I’ve also explained why British protectorate is used as a term OVER protected State. Can you guess why you didn’t catch on? You ignored all points provided and it has been proven.
You have no consideration for what other people put up as points and my above statement had proven it, including YOUR OWN sources being against you, so again, your credibility and debate form is really in question here. I rest my case and will not be responding further because you seem to not understand and ignore all points given. I will not bother reading your replies at this point because if I try to respond you will completely ignore them. There is a reason why you are blocked from editing for disruptive editing.
Also regarding the Admin case, technically yes, he did infact support me. You are a blocked user trying to make these jarring edits and the Admin noticed as well that you were not only a blocked user, but making false edits. The Admin of course would have removed the content and edits I made if they believed it was not true, but you also ignore that.
Aside from that I rest my case, don’t bother responding because your lack of eligibility to notice my points provided and your complete ignoring of your sources against you. Don’t try to bother replying to this as I won’t read it, the credibility of your arguments has been shattered due to the fact that you care not to see anybody’s points. You completely ignored them and I proved it in the statements above on why scholars refer it off to Protectorate V Protected state. Noorullah21 ( talk) 23:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Just because a source says it does not mean its true, there is conflicting sources and context to said source, including your protectorate issue as again, YOUR OWN SOURCES FROM REGARDING PROTECTORATE ALSO DESCRIBE IT AS A PROTECTED STATE IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES AFTER. Noorullah21 ( talk) 23:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleting the discussion isn't going to help you hide the information provided in this discussion. You make absolutely no sense in the comments you made. British PROTECTORATE, case and point made and I made it very clear with strong references. So let others provide their opinion. Do not to need to delete this discussion as it has the information with reference and sources for other editors to look at and consider. Deleting this won't help you. Again, let others comment. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Readded page, was removing due to you being a blocked user. Noorullah21 ( talk) 01:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
“ A protected state has a form of protection where it continues to retain an "international personality" and enjoys an agreed amount of independence in conducting its foreign policy.[9][12] For political and pragmatic reasons, the relationship of protection is not usually advertised, but described in euphemisms such as "an independent state with special treaty relations" with the protecting state.[13] A protected state appears on world maps just as any other independent state.[a]” quoted directly from Protectorate page. Was afghanistan considered apart of the british empire and not shown on maps? No, it was shown on maps and was not considered apart of the British empire. Sources include protectorate in your case because protectorate MEANS protected state essentially just with varying terms. In this case, protectorate means a nation who is protected, controlled in some form, and the lower nation also relies on their said greater power protector to help them in Military wars. This was of course not the case for Afghanistan.
A protected state is you already know, I won’t repeat it. Noorullah21 ( talk) 06:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely incorrect. Protectorate in sources is exactly what Protectorate is defined as, otherwise there is no reason for academic scholars to use such terminology. Therefore, British Protectorate of Afghanistan. British selected Amirs and these Amirs ratified the Treaty of Gandamak and helped British achieve all their geopolitical ambitions in the region including internal administration. Amirs fulfilled the engagements towards their Britannic Majesty’s Government. Protected has no relevance when it comes to the treaty of Gandamak and British provided the Amirs British military assistance and aid to help curb to any domestic and foreign pressure. PROTECTORATE is the common used terminology such as British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. There is no reason for you to discuss this with me anymore. I would prefer to hear from other users. 199.82.243.88 ( talk) 12:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Correct, there is no reason for you to talk to me anymore, you have standstill constantly ignoring every point brought up and your own sources even providing the fact that it is a protected state.
I already regarded why most sources used protectorate, but guess what? You refuse to read any point brought up, hence theres no point arguing with you because your credibility and refusing to listen to other peoples points. Noorullah21 ( talk) 12:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
What part of "You do not need to discuss with me anymore" didn't you understand? You have blunt out your own conflicting statements, illogical theories and even disregarded the sources by the academic scholars that state British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. So such "other" (only you) people have no credibility. Therefore, I already made it clear earlier that there is no point for you to discuss with me anymore. 199.82.243.88 ( talk) 13:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Again ignorance and completely ignoring your own sources being against you again. Great. Noorullah21 ( talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like you don't want to stop. Personal views are not required and sources are put well forth for everyone to see and decide. Thank you very much. 199.82.243.88 ( talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Here from 3rd Opinion. I lean towards calling it protectorate, but before casting my !vote, I would like to ask both of you to provide the three best sources supporting your point. Pls do not merely provide a link, but use the "cite book" template (it is easier for others to check various reliability factors-publisher, author etc). I haven't noticed any RS claiming that it was not a Protectorate State" or "it was SomethingElse". Please ping me. Cinadon 36 07:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Lake, David A. (July 21, 2020). Entangling Relations American Foreign Policy in Its Century. Princeton University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780691216119.
Willoughby, Westel Woodbury; Fenwick, Charles Ghequiere (1919). Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 14.. About Charles Ghequiere Willoughby [15]
Little, David (January 8, 2007). Peacemakers in Action. Cambridge University Press. p. 385. ISBN 9780521853583.. About David Little [16]
Schull, Kent F.; Can, Lale; Low, Michael Christopher; Zens, Robert (2020). The Subjects of Ottoman International Law. Indiana University Press. p. 163. ISBN 9780253056634.. About Kent F. Schull [17], Lale Can [18], Michael Christopher Low [19], Robert Zens [20].
Inglis, Lucy (February 5, 2019). Milk of Paradise: A History of Opium. Pegasus Books. p. 272. ISBN 9781643130958.. About Lucy Inglis [21]
Joseph, Paul (June 15, 2016). The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives. SAGE Publications. p. 9. ISBN 9781483359885.. About Paul Joseph [22]
Furnia, Arthur Homer (1978). Afghanistan. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Office of International Health, Division of Program Analysis. p. 126.. 199.82.243.110 ( talk) 12:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I will wait to see the counter-RS a couple of days or a week max. Cinadon 36 19:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
All of my references state, Treaty of Gandamak as well as British Protectorate/English Protectorate state by acclaimed scholars. Your opinion about my references make no sense. All you were asked by 3rd opinion is to provide your best 3 references in a cite book template which shows publisher, author etc. to make it easier to lookout and whether it was British Protected state as the outcome of the Second Anglo Afghan war. Seems like you are just throwing out links of sites such as RadioFreeEuropeRadioliberty (refrl.org), historians.org and others which don't go through anything about British protected state because if it was just about getting information about British Protectorate on random sites, I have many of them. But regardless, atleast provide the 3rd opinion what is asked. Best 3 references with cite book template. That's all. And then leave the rest on 3rd opinion where references of both can be evaluated to make a final decision. 199.82.243.84 ( talk) 07:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and its been explained why it was called a protectorare which you again ignore, that also includes me posting the actual book sources that you did which claim it as an elgish protectorate, but then describe it as a protected state, you have constantly ignored other peoples arguments and purposely leave bits out to not reply toward. Noorullah21 ( talk) 12:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
All your sources have pointed toward being undefined and confirming that Afghanistan only had relinquished foreign right affairs to the british, oxford also quotes the difference between the both, and so does James Onley. Noorullah21 ( talk) 12:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
No need for your personal opinions and disregard for the sources provided by acclaimed historians. You do not need to repeat your opinion again and again when all you were asked was to provide 3 best references with cite book template. Even after looking at your links, 3rd opinion has made the final decision of calling it Protectorate. So the article needs to reverted back to its original content of British Protectorate State instead of British Protected State that you changed to without any 3rd opinion before. End of discussion and I hope you make the change right away. 199.82.243.85 ( talk) 13:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Need third opinion to state here for the change, this is not personal opinion as well, you disregarded Alexander as a historian and claimed he has no experience in the field, completely ignorant of all sources against you including your own. Noorullah21 ( talk) 19:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I also provided said websites as a back up source, I used your own sources priorly given to describe the protected state status, stop being so ignorant of that including the inclusion of your own sources provided above. Noorullah21 ( talk) 19:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand what you are trying to say. Makes no sense. This is what 3rd opinion said on the [33], Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC). So you can make the change now. Or if there is any other user who have access, please do. 199.82.243.85 ( talk) 19:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The person did not officially state the third opinion here, stop ignoring it, you are also ignoring the complete point that I didn’t even respond to the third opinion in my own case. It is not personal opinion and putting up sources completely against you which you are ignorant of. Noorullah21 ( talk) 05:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: It seems I didnt help much so I suggest you follow other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution pathways. Cinadon 36 10:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, ignorance prevails, thank you IP user for ignoring multiple statements that has been provided in an argument against you, despite being disproven you disregard all points and nitpick or goo of topic toward something else, claiming it is personal opinion, ignoring oxford referendes, James onely, etc. Noorullah21 ( talk) 15:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
No comments. Thank you. 199.82.243.93 ( talk) 20:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like all Anglo-Afghan wars have been topics of dispute and edit warring from what I have noticed. This is going to be never ending dispute which can be resolved with a neutral solution. I would suggest and highly recommend for both IP 199* and Noorullah21 is to remove the line from the infobox. Matter of fact, keeping WP:MILMOS into consideration, remove all lines except for "British Victory" and "Treaty of Gandamak" with wiki link. This is the best solution in resolving the dispute once and for all. IP 199* and Noorullah21, On Third Anglo-Afghan War, once again, keeping WP:MILMOS into consideration and keeping any disputes neutral, remove all lines except for Treaty of Rawalpindi with wiki link. One of you should make above changes on both pages to end the disputes between you both or any other editors in the future. 134.195.198.201 ( talk) 10:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I suppose, if the IP user agrees with this mediation, then I will enact it. Noorullah21 ( talk) 15:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC) @ Noorullah21: I am ok with the change on both Second and Third Anglo Afghan war as a resolution to resolves the dispute on both pages as recommended by IP 134.195.198.201. Thank you. 192.189.187.117 ( talk) 15:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, its best that we end this argument through this mediation, I’ll add/change it when I get on my PC (if I remember hopefully) Noorullah21 ( talk) 17:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The war did not result in complete British victory as the Afghans had their Tactical Victory, after achieving the prevention of a British residence in Kabul and British military withdrawal. Although it is true there was British Strategic Victory, after achieving most desired goals (controlling Afghanistan’s foreign policy on the condition of subsidies paid to the Afghans, North-West Frontier province annexed to British India). The result of this war however should be the treaty, not a side being victorious. 168.4.124.75 ( talk) 04:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Eastfarthingan Abdur Rahman Khan was neither with Ayub Khan (or Sher Ali), and instead came out from exile in Turkistan to lay his own claim for government. That is appropriate for a 3rd belligerent in the infobox because he also made conquests.
Specifically invading Badakhshan, and then seizing all of Afghan Turkestan. (Lee 376-377).
While the British were also looking for suitable candidate Amirs that could be allies for them, they scouted Abdur Rahman Khan and invited him to take the throne (which he was hesitant to do because he was a British opponent per the sources, with many of his own men wishing for war against them). (Lee 378-379).
Lee also explains the outcome of the war. (381-383) And its aftermath including Abdur Rahman Khan's often hostility towards the British, by violating many agreements and even calling for war against them. (384-397). Noorullah ( talk) 18:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
After evaluating the sources thorougly, here are my findings. Abdur Rahman was not part of Second Anglo-Afghan war. He sure benefitted from it after British defeated Ayub Khan and he returned back with both him and the British party made a resolution or agreement I must say, where the British would concede Abdur Rahman as the new king or emir, in return for him to take in admission of the British right to control his foreign relations. Infobox should not have any third party clutter. RangersRus ( talk) 15:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Second Anglo-Afghan War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 1, 2013. |
They seem to be in the picture, and the war is in their honours, but they don't seem to be in the order of battle. 174.112.18.193 ( talk) 03:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Why an Afghan victory? Just asking, as it's in the box, but nothing I know (and nothing in the text), really supports such a one-sided summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.90 ( talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The second and third Anglo-Afghan wars were fought between the Afghans and the British Empire - not the UK - all articles on the subject need correcting. Temperamental1 ( talk) 11:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The British officer John Masters recorded in his autobiography that Afghan women in the North-West Frontier Province (1901–1955) of British India during the Second Anglo-Afghan War would castrate and urinate non-Muslim soldiers who were captured, like British and Sikhs. ; But this claim is incredible, because Pathans do not allow their women to look at their close relatives. How is it possible to let them urinate in others moths.Pathans urinated into prisoner's mouths. Captured British soldiers were spread out and fastened with restraints to the ground, then a stick, or a piece of wood was used to keep their mouth open to prevent swallowing. Pathan then squatted and urinated directly into the mouth of the man until he drowned in the urine, taking turns one at a time.
Not a single word about the British duplicity, incompetence and brutality. No word of Auckland, Elphinstone, McNaughten, Burnes, Sale and a host of other British. No word of the Russians either, nor of their Polish unofficial envoy whose simple presence started the entire Anglo-Afghan disaster. This article is too brief for such a huge and important topic whose ramifications continue to this day. You could start by reading "The Return of the King" by William Dalrymple, and follow his key references. Historygypsy ( talk) 12:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
From his Midlothian campaign: Remember the rights of the savage, as we call him. Remember that the happiness of his humble home, remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God, as can be your own. Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williameg150999.html
The Wiki conveniently ignores this... it is a thoroughly jingoistic version of history.
Another point that needs recalling is that Roberts was able to easily march to Kandahar in 1880 because he was doing so to withdraw and return to India. The Amir sent emissaries to the tribes urging them not to create any problems for his exit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.232.183 ( talk) 19:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Not an English victory by any means. The british just signed a treaty to stop Afghans from pestering them, that's a loss not a win. Akmal94 ( talk) 16:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Cureel has come forward and stated that Master's book does not mention the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War, that the alleged incidents were not about the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war. That does not look like vandalism, it looks like an informed position. Masters was writing some decades after his experience near, not in, Afghanistan and otherwise wrote popular fiction. Unless there is a positive discussion about the exact location and time that Masters is writing about and a defence of this author as a credible source, I wish to remove discussion of his comments from this entry. Brunswicknic ( talk) 12:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Multiple IP users that keeps making recent changes needs to discuss here - it is becoming an edit war. Eastfarthingan ( talk) 15:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
protectorate or protected state?because wikipedia clearly differentiate between "protectorate" and "protected state". please change the war result imformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.22.22 ( talk) 21:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It should be "both sides claim victory" not "british victory" as both sides couldn't reach their objectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E08A:BD25:357C:3C8C ( talk) 19:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The source attached to the sentence of "british protectorate over afganistan" in the table doesnt even mention the word "protectorate" its obvious that afganistan is a protected state. Definition of protectorate:- British protectorates were protectorates under the jurisdiction of the British government. (Afganistan was not under jurisdication of Britian nor was it formally part of british empire) Protected states:-the following states were never officially part of the British Empire and retained near-total control over internal affairs; however, the British controlled their foreign policy. Their status was rarely advertised while it was in effect, it becoming clear only after it was lifted. ( Since afganistan had full control over its internal administration and britian only covered its foreign policy afanistan is a protected state and not a protectoeate of British) and all of these are mentioned in British protectorate wikipedia page.
there are differences between the two possibilities but the goal of a protected state is that the Afghan state has full control over their internal affairs and that the English promise to protect them against enemy invaders and to pay the king each year it was the term of the treaty of Gandamak of the English with the emir Abdur Rahman Khan but they are deprived of their foreign business and also no British flag appearing in the Afghan flag and the afghan had not adopted the British money nor their anthem is exactly the aim of a protected state if you read the article on British protectorate now a protectorate where a country promises its protectorate to protect it and to pay all their military and administrative expenses in return for the country placed. under the protectorate will have to adopt the anthem of the country which placed it under its protectorate as a national anthem will have to accept the money as national money and will have to adopt a small flag of the country above their flag exactly like the French protectorate of Morocco AfghansPashtun ( talk) 12:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
and also I had forgotten to specify that afghanistan was never part of the British empire because it was a protected state while Morocco was officially part of the French colonial empire during its protectorate AfghansPashtun ( talk) 13:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Reference clearly states: “In this treaty, the Amir of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919.”
So you have to stick to reference as proof. As far as links on other articles on Wikipedia, those are not reliable just like Wikipedia states that it’s articles can be plain wrong or vandalized especially since anyone can edit at any time.
Bottom line, information should be what the reference states. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 00:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon 36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.185.114.99 ( talk) 22:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Afghanistan Victory 1st and 2nd war
[2] Reference states: According to a large number of previous studies, Afghanistan was fixed as a buffer state between Russia and British India as a result of the war and the Gandamak Treaty, which was concluded between Amīr Ya‘qūb Khān and the British on 26 May 1879, substantially as proof of the surrender of the Afghan side. In this treaty, the Amīr of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919. Source confirms it. 199.82.243.102 ( talk) 19:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This is..incorrect as multiple other sources state that Afghanistan was not a British protectorate. Your source only says “virtually a british protectorate” not confirming it in anyway sort of form, it is not included apart of British India as well. You can read sources provided including from James Onely. Noorullah21 ( talk) 23:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Multiple sources state that during the Treaty of Gandamak, the Emir of Afghanistan signed the British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. The source on the article has no mention about the treaty or the details about the treaty. By the way virtually means in essence, or for all intents and purposes. But regardless, there are numerous articles and books by academic scholars where Afghanistan has been considered British Protectorate as signed by the Emir during the treaty of Gandamak.
Reference 1,
[3] states Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate. Following the Peace of Gandamak, the Amir of Afghanistan agreed to leave the control of his foreign relations to the British Government....Afghanistan's status as a PROTECTORATE was recognized in the Anglo Russian Agreement of 1907.
Reference 2,
[4]. Reference states that 1879, May 26 - Peace of Gandamak. Afghanistan became, in effect, a protectorate of Great Britain.
Reference 3,
[5] Reference states that At the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE and Kabul was opened up to a British mission, something Afghans still consider to be an appalling loss of face.
Reference 4,
[6] Reference states The following year, Anglo Indian troops invaded Afghanistan and imposed, through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass....
Reference 5,
[7] Reference states In 1878, the Second Anglo-Afghan war broke out. It ended two years later with the Treaty of Gandamak, which effectively made Afghanistan a PROTECTORATE of Britain.
Reference 6
[8] Reference states Afghanistan was technically a PROTECTORATE of the British Empire since the treaty of Gandamak of 1879 and reinforced in the Durand line accord of 1893.
All the sources confirms Afghanistan as a British PROTECTORATE state as per the treaty of Gandamak. 199.82.243.102 ( talk) 10:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Reference 7 [9] Reference states by the treaty of Gandamak of May 1879, Afghanistan, in effect, became a British PROTECTORATE and gave British control of the Khyber Pass to ensure easy entry by the British troops. 199.82.243.102 ( talk) 11:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
When the 26-year-old Amanullah ascended the Kabul throne in February 1919, Great Britain retained control over Afghanistan’s foreign affairs, rendering the country a British PROTECTORATE.
Overall Afghanistan was a British Protectorate. Above link and all the references provided even before that detail the same information. @ Eastfarthingan and @ FDW777 as well as @ RegentsPark, @ TrangaBellam, @ Cinderella157, please provide your opinion about all the references provided above which states that Afghanistan was a PROTECTORATE state. 199.82.243.92 ( talk) 23:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The term protectorate is still varyingly different from protected state, hence why it is protected state, you arent repeating the details because there is no curtailing reference that states Afghanistan was ruled by the British or Raj, you seem to ignore how your own sources also stated the opposite and you still ignored them after I brought it up. Noorullah21 ( talk) 03:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The reason academic scholars use it today is because it was firstly read as a protectorate, none of the treaty terms enstate it as a protectorate and it is a protected state by DEFINITION. The Admins on British protectorate page also agreed with me and you also ignore that. Noorullah21 ( talk) 03:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Admins agreed with you? On British protectorate? No they didn't. That is not reference or source. You are continuously ignoring the fact about what the scholars have stated and indulging in discussion about the definition and how protected and protectorate differentiate. BUT discussion here is about what the Treaty of Gandamak was about, which was that Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE state. You choose to ignore the information that all academic scholars have stated in their articles and books. Wikipedia asks for reference to back the statement added on the article and so far all the references I provided support that. So its better to leave it on others to decide so that they can review the references and judge for themselves. 199.82.243.95 ( talk) 05:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
But I haven’t ignored your references? I explained through them in priorly which you still ignored and claim I am ignoring the references. The Treaty of Gandamak didn’t enstate Afghanistan as a protectorate, it is a defacto protected state by all means, I also asked for source on how the british ruled the government and you ignored that, hence it is a protected state as sources provided EVEN YOURS fufillingly said so that the british only had inclusion of foreign affairs and the afghans had complete independence in their own affairs, read your own sources properly please.
I will leave this to the rest because you keep claiming I am ignoring all the sources you have provided when I clearly regarded them. Noorullah21 ( talk) 14:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Also infact, yes they did hence they reverted your edits, (for the admin part). I’m not using that as a source but they recognize that I was also in the right on that case. Noorullah21 ( talk) 14:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Revert wasn't about whether who was right or wrong about the case. That wasn't the reason for revert. Treaty of Gandamak did enstate Afghanistan as Protectorate. Infact, in 1907 at the ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONVENTION OF 1907, following was the agreement reached between the British and Russians about the influences on Afghanistan. The agreement on Afghanistan, where the two powers had a longer history of rivalry and conflict, was more complex; in essence it was a victory for Britain. The British government declared that it had no intention of changing the political status of Afghanistan and that it would exercise its “influence in Afghanistan only in a pacific sense,” and would neither “take, nor encourage Afghanistan to take, any measures threatening Russia.” The Russian government declared in return that it recognized “Afghanistan as outside the sphere of Russian influence,” and engaged to conduct all its relations with Afghanistan “through the intermediary of His Britannic Majesty’s Government.” Furthermore, Russia would not send agents into Afghanistan (text of the convention in J. C. Hurewitz, ed., The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics, New Haven, 1975, I, pp. 538-41). The British promised not to annex any Afghan territory “or to interfere in the internal administration of the country, provided that the Ameer fulfills the engagements already contracted by him towards His Britannic Majesty’s Government . . . . ” So this is obvious that Afghanistan was British Protectorate as per the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 which is what all the scholars and references are pointing to. Either way, anyone else have any thoughts or opinions, please provide your opinion. Thanks. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 17:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, a state with the british only keeping foreign rights access is called a PROTECTED STATE, included by oxford, if the British were direct in internal affairs of Afghanistan, then it’d be considered a protectorate because that is the full definition and meaning. Noorullah21 ( talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
And by fufill for the Amir, that would mean recognizing the Durand line and keeping ahead with its forwarding off British protected state status, in exchange of course would be the subsidies etc. Noorullah21 ( talk) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Protectorate is also again also referred as a second hand choice instead of PROTECTED STATE, this was mentioned before as well, and the definition of protectorate does not match with what the British had in Afghanistan, the British had a state which allowed them foreign rights access in exchange secluding them and not intefering in foreign affairs. A Protectorate is both. I can see the confusion and why most sources include Protectorate, mostly from the fact that both words are used, and the pure definition of protectorate does not align with what it was.
I hope you understand the clear definition of Protectorate and Protected State, as former user on the British protectorate also told you, from Kaut: Protectorate and Protected State are quite similar, only specialists can tell the difference, and the difference being that a protectorate is of course includes both access and control over the nation with its foreign affairs and internal. While a protected state is just foreign affairs.
I hope this clears up and this argument once and for all because you seem to not understand the two differences. Noorullah21 ( talk) 19:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree to Disagree as you don't seem to understand the events or the definitions and continuously ignoring each and every detail that has been provided. And assumption is not a source either. It has been very clear that British were involved in the internal Administration as its revealed in the pact/peace treaty of Anglo-Russian. British were also involved since Second Anglo-Afghan war in appointing Emirs with increasing British interference in Afghan affairs that aimed at establishing embryonic forms of colonial rule along Afghanistan's borderlands. Also as one of the references states earlier that through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass. Thus British Protectorate over Afghanistan. Like I said earlier, leave it on other to decide. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 19:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, it is not a protectorate, for example, a protectorate would need permission to declare war and to be forwarded by the British government, this was not the case for the Afghans under Abdur Rahman fighting northward states, or even the hazara uprisings where the British did not help because they are not a protectorate because they dont deal with FOREIGN affairs. You can search the hazaran uprisings. I also did not assume anything I said whatsoever lol I mentioned the definitions of both protectorate and protected state which you seem to fail to define and even see in. Noorullah21 ( talk) 19:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You keeping changing your statements. Also you are copying other editor's comments and pasting here "only specialists can tell the difference". And if you at first consider Protected and Protectorate similar, then you shouldn't have had problem changing the infobox with Protectorate which is a more common terminology used when it comes to British Protectorate of Afghanistan. Also why would you try to change Protectorate to Protected on
Afghan Independence Day page in that case? Once as your user Noorullah21 and then with your IP?
23:09, 18 September 2021 Noorullah21 talk contribs 5,974 bytes +16 Protected state not protectorate.
08:56, 19 September 2021 2a01:cb15:300:3000:ccd8:437f:f3ad:1b66 talk 5,974 bytes +16
And these changes were reverted.
199.82.243.108 (
talk) 19:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Great! Now you changed the statement again. Back to differences. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 19:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Also yes an admin did support me in this case on the British protectorate page with your revert! [14] Noorullah21 ( talk) 22:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia quite well tells you to login or to edit without logging in. So no need to play a victim card here. Also no, the admin didn't support your change. He just reverted the change of the blocked user. That is what they are required to do. The admin didn't state that he agreed with you or that is why he is reverting so you need to stop using that as your back up support level to prove the point your cannot make. You have time and again changed statements and lost the credibility of making your point. That is why I am insisting others to provide their opinion. You have no intention to change the protected state to protectorate and that is pretty clear and will come with any sort of excuse, even going against the information provided in the references by the academic scholars, as far as even claiming them to be wrong. And using the statement by other editor isn't a word written on stone. That is not a reference. Wikipedia asks sources and references. And PROTECTORATE is the common used terminology such as British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. Protected has no relevance when it comes to the treaty of Gandamak and British providing the Emir British military assistance and aid to help him curb to any domestic and foreign pressure. Overall, like I said earlier, British PROTECTORATE is what the article needs to state which is what it was originally there. If reference states, protectorate, article should state protectorate. That is how clear it is. And also I said before that leave the discussion and opinions for others to provide because you have lost all credibility with your own conflicting statements. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 22:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no sense of playing victim card here, it is a simple mistake.
“You have time and again changed statements” No I have not, I have not changed my statements whatsoever, protectorate and protected state are completely different things. You have ignored every argument put up by me including your OWN SOURCES being against you claiming I am calling them wrong and incorrect. You are claiming I am losing my credibility because you cannot prove your point whatsoever, you are trying to implicate false information on the Wikipedia as apart of “Protectorate” when multiple points proven, that YOU ignore, state it as a protected state and you have literally no response to it whatsoever. The British had never helped the Emir in ANY of his multiple wars after the Second Anglo Afghan war. Not with Military aid either. You are losing the credibility of your arguments by ignoring what other people put up as points. You cannot prove your own point hence you call upon others to support you in your case. The term Protected State and Protectorate are different and you completely ignore that, as a result the credibility of your arguments are varing. I’ve also explained why British protectorate is used as a term OVER protected State. Can you guess why you didn’t catch on? You ignored all points provided and it has been proven.
You have no consideration for what other people put up as points and my above statement had proven it, including YOUR OWN sources being against you, so again, your credibility and debate form is really in question here. I rest my case and will not be responding further because you seem to not understand and ignore all points given. I will not bother reading your replies at this point because if I try to respond you will completely ignore them. There is a reason why you are blocked from editing for disruptive editing.
Also regarding the Admin case, technically yes, he did infact support me. You are a blocked user trying to make these jarring edits and the Admin noticed as well that you were not only a blocked user, but making false edits. The Admin of course would have removed the content and edits I made if they believed it was not true, but you also ignore that.
Aside from that I rest my case, don’t bother responding because your lack of eligibility to notice my points provided and your complete ignoring of your sources against you. Don’t try to bother replying to this as I won’t read it, the credibility of your arguments has been shattered due to the fact that you care not to see anybody’s points. You completely ignored them and I proved it in the statements above on why scholars refer it off to Protectorate V Protected state. Noorullah21 ( talk) 23:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Just because a source says it does not mean its true, there is conflicting sources and context to said source, including your protectorate issue as again, YOUR OWN SOURCES FROM REGARDING PROTECTORATE ALSO DESCRIBE IT AS A PROTECTED STATE IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES AFTER. Noorullah21 ( talk) 23:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleting the discussion isn't going to help you hide the information provided in this discussion. You make absolutely no sense in the comments you made. British PROTECTORATE, case and point made and I made it very clear with strong references. So let others provide their opinion. Do not to need to delete this discussion as it has the information with reference and sources for other editors to look at and consider. Deleting this won't help you. Again, let others comment. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Readded page, was removing due to you being a blocked user. Noorullah21 ( talk) 01:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
“ A protected state has a form of protection where it continues to retain an "international personality" and enjoys an agreed amount of independence in conducting its foreign policy.[9][12] For political and pragmatic reasons, the relationship of protection is not usually advertised, but described in euphemisms such as "an independent state with special treaty relations" with the protecting state.[13] A protected state appears on world maps just as any other independent state.[a]” quoted directly from Protectorate page. Was afghanistan considered apart of the british empire and not shown on maps? No, it was shown on maps and was not considered apart of the British empire. Sources include protectorate in your case because protectorate MEANS protected state essentially just with varying terms. In this case, protectorate means a nation who is protected, controlled in some form, and the lower nation also relies on their said greater power protector to help them in Military wars. This was of course not the case for Afghanistan.
A protected state is you already know, I won’t repeat it. Noorullah21 ( talk) 06:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely incorrect. Protectorate in sources is exactly what Protectorate is defined as, otherwise there is no reason for academic scholars to use such terminology. Therefore, British Protectorate of Afghanistan. British selected Amirs and these Amirs ratified the Treaty of Gandamak and helped British achieve all their geopolitical ambitions in the region including internal administration. Amirs fulfilled the engagements towards their Britannic Majesty’s Government. Protected has no relevance when it comes to the treaty of Gandamak and British provided the Amirs British military assistance and aid to help curb to any domestic and foreign pressure. PROTECTORATE is the common used terminology such as British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. There is no reason for you to discuss this with me anymore. I would prefer to hear from other users. 199.82.243.88 ( talk) 12:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Correct, there is no reason for you to talk to me anymore, you have standstill constantly ignoring every point brought up and your own sources even providing the fact that it is a protected state.
I already regarded why most sources used protectorate, but guess what? You refuse to read any point brought up, hence theres no point arguing with you because your credibility and refusing to listen to other peoples points. Noorullah21 ( talk) 12:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
What part of "You do not need to discuss with me anymore" didn't you understand? You have blunt out your own conflicting statements, illogical theories and even disregarded the sources by the academic scholars that state British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. So such "other" (only you) people have no credibility. Therefore, I already made it clear earlier that there is no point for you to discuss with me anymore. 199.82.243.88 ( talk) 13:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Again ignorance and completely ignoring your own sources being against you again. Great. Noorullah21 ( talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like you don't want to stop. Personal views are not required and sources are put well forth for everyone to see and decide. Thank you very much. 199.82.243.88 ( talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Here from 3rd Opinion. I lean towards calling it protectorate, but before casting my !vote, I would like to ask both of you to provide the three best sources supporting your point. Pls do not merely provide a link, but use the "cite book" template (it is easier for others to check various reliability factors-publisher, author etc). I haven't noticed any RS claiming that it was not a Protectorate State" or "it was SomethingElse". Please ping me. Cinadon 36 07:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Lake, David A. (July 21, 2020). Entangling Relations American Foreign Policy in Its Century. Princeton University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780691216119.
Willoughby, Westel Woodbury; Fenwick, Charles Ghequiere (1919). Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 14.. About Charles Ghequiere Willoughby [15]
Little, David (January 8, 2007). Peacemakers in Action. Cambridge University Press. p. 385. ISBN 9780521853583.. About David Little [16]
Schull, Kent F.; Can, Lale; Low, Michael Christopher; Zens, Robert (2020). The Subjects of Ottoman International Law. Indiana University Press. p. 163. ISBN 9780253056634.. About Kent F. Schull [17], Lale Can [18], Michael Christopher Low [19], Robert Zens [20].
Inglis, Lucy (February 5, 2019). Milk of Paradise: A History of Opium. Pegasus Books. p. 272. ISBN 9781643130958.. About Lucy Inglis [21]
Joseph, Paul (June 15, 2016). The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives. SAGE Publications. p. 9. ISBN 9781483359885.. About Paul Joseph [22]
Furnia, Arthur Homer (1978). Afghanistan. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Office of International Health, Division of Program Analysis. p. 126.. 199.82.243.110 ( talk) 12:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I will wait to see the counter-RS a couple of days or a week max. Cinadon 36 19:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
All of my references state, Treaty of Gandamak as well as British Protectorate/English Protectorate state by acclaimed scholars. Your opinion about my references make no sense. All you were asked by 3rd opinion is to provide your best 3 references in a cite book template which shows publisher, author etc. to make it easier to lookout and whether it was British Protected state as the outcome of the Second Anglo Afghan war. Seems like you are just throwing out links of sites such as RadioFreeEuropeRadioliberty (refrl.org), historians.org and others which don't go through anything about British protected state because if it was just about getting information about British Protectorate on random sites, I have many of them. But regardless, atleast provide the 3rd opinion what is asked. Best 3 references with cite book template. That's all. And then leave the rest on 3rd opinion where references of both can be evaluated to make a final decision. 199.82.243.84 ( talk) 07:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and its been explained why it was called a protectorare which you again ignore, that also includes me posting the actual book sources that you did which claim it as an elgish protectorate, but then describe it as a protected state, you have constantly ignored other peoples arguments and purposely leave bits out to not reply toward. Noorullah21 ( talk) 12:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
All your sources have pointed toward being undefined and confirming that Afghanistan only had relinquished foreign right affairs to the british, oxford also quotes the difference between the both, and so does James Onley. Noorullah21 ( talk) 12:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
No need for your personal opinions and disregard for the sources provided by acclaimed historians. You do not need to repeat your opinion again and again when all you were asked was to provide 3 best references with cite book template. Even after looking at your links, 3rd opinion has made the final decision of calling it Protectorate. So the article needs to reverted back to its original content of British Protectorate State instead of British Protected State that you changed to without any 3rd opinion before. End of discussion and I hope you make the change right away. 199.82.243.85 ( talk) 13:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Need third opinion to state here for the change, this is not personal opinion as well, you disregarded Alexander as a historian and claimed he has no experience in the field, completely ignorant of all sources against you including your own. Noorullah21 ( talk) 19:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I also provided said websites as a back up source, I used your own sources priorly given to describe the protected state status, stop being so ignorant of that including the inclusion of your own sources provided above. Noorullah21 ( talk) 19:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand what you are trying to say. Makes no sense. This is what 3rd opinion said on the [33], Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC). So you can make the change now. Or if there is any other user who have access, please do. 199.82.243.85 ( talk) 19:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The person did not officially state the third opinion here, stop ignoring it, you are also ignoring the complete point that I didn’t even respond to the third opinion in my own case. It is not personal opinion and putting up sources completely against you which you are ignorant of. Noorullah21 ( talk) 05:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: It seems I didnt help much so I suggest you follow other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution pathways. Cinadon 36 10:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, ignorance prevails, thank you IP user for ignoring multiple statements that has been provided in an argument against you, despite being disproven you disregard all points and nitpick or goo of topic toward something else, claiming it is personal opinion, ignoring oxford referendes, James onely, etc. Noorullah21 ( talk) 15:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
No comments. Thank you. 199.82.243.93 ( talk) 20:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like all Anglo-Afghan wars have been topics of dispute and edit warring from what I have noticed. This is going to be never ending dispute which can be resolved with a neutral solution. I would suggest and highly recommend for both IP 199* and Noorullah21 is to remove the line from the infobox. Matter of fact, keeping WP:MILMOS into consideration, remove all lines except for "British Victory" and "Treaty of Gandamak" with wiki link. This is the best solution in resolving the dispute once and for all. IP 199* and Noorullah21, On Third Anglo-Afghan War, once again, keeping WP:MILMOS into consideration and keeping any disputes neutral, remove all lines except for Treaty of Rawalpindi with wiki link. One of you should make above changes on both pages to end the disputes between you both or any other editors in the future. 134.195.198.201 ( talk) 10:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I suppose, if the IP user agrees with this mediation, then I will enact it. Noorullah21 ( talk) 15:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC) @ Noorullah21: I am ok with the change on both Second and Third Anglo Afghan war as a resolution to resolves the dispute on both pages as recommended by IP 134.195.198.201. Thank you. 192.189.187.117 ( talk) 15:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, its best that we end this argument through this mediation, I’ll add/change it when I get on my PC (if I remember hopefully) Noorullah21 ( talk) 17:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The war did not result in complete British victory as the Afghans had their Tactical Victory, after achieving the prevention of a British residence in Kabul and British military withdrawal. Although it is true there was British Strategic Victory, after achieving most desired goals (controlling Afghanistan’s foreign policy on the condition of subsidies paid to the Afghans, North-West Frontier province annexed to British India). The result of this war however should be the treaty, not a side being victorious. 168.4.124.75 ( talk) 04:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Eastfarthingan Abdur Rahman Khan was neither with Ayub Khan (or Sher Ali), and instead came out from exile in Turkistan to lay his own claim for government. That is appropriate for a 3rd belligerent in the infobox because he also made conquests.
Specifically invading Badakhshan, and then seizing all of Afghan Turkestan. (Lee 376-377).
While the British were also looking for suitable candidate Amirs that could be allies for them, they scouted Abdur Rahman Khan and invited him to take the throne (which he was hesitant to do because he was a British opponent per the sources, with many of his own men wishing for war against them). (Lee 378-379).
Lee also explains the outcome of the war. (381-383) And its aftermath including Abdur Rahman Khan's often hostility towards the British, by violating many agreements and even calling for war against them. (384-397). Noorullah ( talk) 18:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
After evaluating the sources thorougly, here are my findings. Abdur Rahman was not part of Second Anglo-Afghan war. He sure benefitted from it after British defeated Ayub Khan and he returned back with both him and the British party made a resolution or agreement I must say, where the British would concede Abdur Rahman as the new king or emir, in return for him to take in admission of the British right to control his foreign relations. Infobox should not have any third party clutter. RangersRus ( talk) 15:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |