![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The dramatic drop in Wikipedia-reported total Coalition deaths from September to October 2008 raises the question of where we get our numbers. Wanderer57 ( talk) 02:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you spell it (Petraeus? Petreus? Putreas?) but I'm pretty sure he's the new head commander of the War in Afghanistan. Should we put him in? - Aashalom ( talk) 01:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
MY VIEW AS A CANADIAN, is that canadian commanders and any other darn commanders should be listed. If anyone would have suggested that americans be not included in the list it would have been seen as a scandal. In this case, Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance is a canadian commander in afghanistan no ifs or buts. If you don't want to include him or any other allies, then remove your entire american list and state joint task force, end of story. Patric ( talk) 09:01, 06 March 2009(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.235 ( talk)
I am puzzled by the inclusion of two American Presidents and two British Prime Ministers in the list of commanders. The US President is Commander in Chief but not commander in any direct military sense and the C in C of British forces is the Queen, not her Prime Minister. These people ought to be listed as Leaders if they appear at all, not mixed up with the Generals. Erwfaethlon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC).
The US is involved. Yet neither its name or its flag appeared in the list of the section "Belligerents".
The icon of the flag of the US was added to the entry "Operation Enduring Freedom Allies", with the rationale that Operation Enduring Freedom is a US operation, US-named, US-initiated, US-led, US-controlled, and 85-95% US soldiers - with max 5-15% participation from other countries under US direction.
This was removed with the comment "OEF's symbol is not the flag of the United States" in [1], and then removed a second time.
As a compromise, I've added the United States to the list of belligerents. It clearly belongs there anyway. The US is by far the dominant military force in the war, having the most soldiers involved, some 33,000, the most actual combatants involved, the most military casualties, the most planes, the most helicopters, the most bombs, the biggest budget, etc.
Please note that no flag has been added back for "Operation Enduring Freedom Allies" which represents those countries that have participated as allies to the US's Operation Enduring Freedom.
Please note as well that for the article Iraq War, the United States is listed as a belligerent, accompanied with its flag icon, and that a separate entry is listed for "Other Coalition Forces". On that page, the United States' role in the war as a belligerent is not covered up behind a proxy such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom". OIF = US and OEF = US. Similarly, the Gulf War page shows the US as a belligerent, and, again, a separate entry "Other Coalition forces" is listed. Like "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Operation Desert Storm" is not listed as the belligerent in place of the United States.
This compromise now makes this page consistent with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.120.80 ( talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay folks, I think I made a compromise. I fixed combatants, so now main forces are ISAF, Afghanistan, and OEF allies. United States, UK and Germany are included under ISAF, because these countries are greatest contributors. -- Novis-M ( talk) 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Compromise - I think that version I proposed was better, because United States forces are included in these two operations. However, wikipedia is not mine only - unfortunately :D but I agree with you guys, that the operation was launched by US and UK forces, without NATO. So I made hopefully last version :) -- Novis-M ( talk) 14:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know there is some 50 nations taking part in Enduring Freedom. No matter how one looks at it, it is wrong to only mnetion the US and the UK. This is an account of history and we can't just simplify it like that. One has to look at amount of soldiers compared to population of the respective countries. Norway for instance is one of the largest contributors compared to it's population. Mortyman ( talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Novis-M, I agree with your updating of that box section, however I came across information today that clearly states that the US actually has 48,250 troops in Afghanistan since June 1: Congressional Research Services Report for Congress - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - Updated July 15, 2008 also available here RS22633 - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - July 15, 2008
The previously reported total of 33,000 is also clearly based on old information from April as shown here Congressional Research Services Report for Congress - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - Updated May 9, 2008 and also reflected in Figure 6. on page 5 of Congressional Research Services Report for Congress - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - Updated July 15, 2008
I wasn't too sure how to incorporate this information into your changes because I haven't been able to find any information on how the new 15,000 US troops have been divided between OEF and ISAF. But I think I've found a way: The non-US component of ISAF is fairly constant and verifiable so that is a known quantity. The total number of US troops is also a verifiable known quantity.
I think organizing it along that line also makes sense because the US troops that are nominally under ISAF are still actually militarily under the command of the US and not NATO-ISAF (ex. "In Kabul, Brig. Gen. Carlos Branco, a senior spokesman for the ISAF, said the Marines "answer to" ISAF but are under the "tactical control" of RC-South. He said ISAF was satisfied that this is the best arrangement to "coordinate and synchronize" combat operations."
The US government also seems to refer to all the US troops in Afghanistan, including the ones nominally in ISAF, as OEF in their reports (like the Congressional reports above and others). The US forces are now also all unified under one single US command, that of US general McKiernan:
There also seem to be many conflicting numbers on how the US troops are divided between OEF and ISAF (for example, in the quote above, it's more in OEF and fewer in ISAF). Listing the total figure for the US is easier than trying to futilely divide it between ISAF and OEF.
I'm open to other ways of organizing it, but I think it has to reflect the 48,250 figure to be accurate and informative. 74.12.220.139 ( talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has adjusted the non-ISAF number to 48,250. According to the cited sources, 48,250 is the (June) total and 29,500 is (July) US-ISAF, if I had both numbers for the same date I could calculate the correct value. Thundermaker ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is getting huge. I copied and pasted the public opinion section onto a word document and that section alone was 10 pages long. So I have moved it to its own article. Introduction on that section and article could bee improved. Would also be useful to see international public opinion from 2001-2002 if those stats are out there. Chwyatt ( talk) 09:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the number of deaths of US soldiers killed in Afghanistan is different on this page than the Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan. The list on that page seems more accurate because it does not to include US soldiers killed outside of Afghanistan when in operations in different countries. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf The numbers on the two pages should be the same to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's very clear that the Anglo-American news media is slanted in support of the war. Now, whether or not this is a 'good' or 'bad' thing is beside the point. Prehaps- as with the war against Nazi Germany- it's great that the media is on the side of democracy against the Taliban. Perhaps not, if the media is whitewashing anti-Muslim/pro-Christian imperialist agression. But either way, the article needs to admit that the slant exists as a matter of fact.
I don’t really want to get into an esoteric discussion of grammar, but these two corrections were both “picky” and wrong. Both sentences said exactly what they intended the way they were (and are again). “… it would not distinguish between al-Qaeda and nations that harbor them.” The policy was put in effect in the past, so “would not” is used. However, it is still in effect so the present tense is correctly used with “nations that harbor them”.
In the second case, “currently plans” expresses a vague intention. If that is the intention, we must hope that they are making plans and “… is currently planning…” is correct.-- Another-sailor ( talk) 13:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Novis-M, I truly don't understand your revert of changes I did in good faith with valid sources referenced. Did you even check the source links? In fact, I followed your way of doing things and updated numbers for you for your way of structuring information.
I had argued for dividing troops numbers into US and non-US ISAF. You insisted on dividing US troop numbers into ISAF and non-ISAF. You decided that should be done by subtracting the number of US troops in ISAF from the total number from the Congressional reports. I stated my objections but tried to cooperate and went along with your way. If you don't remember, it's all on this page at #Strengths section (troop numbers) and #US flag is missing from the list of belligerents.
Not only did I go along with your way, but I've updated the numbers for you - again - and within your preferred structure and by your own method. I've brought more up-to-date figures to this page the last 3 times. If it weren't for my contributions, the article would still be using completely out-of-date figures from the spring.
If you're going to impose your way of doing things, if you're going to have country flags and troop numbers duplicated everywhere, at least keep it up to date. And why are you reverting it when someone takes the time to help you bring it up to date with the newer data from the very same sources and within your preferred way of doing things? 76.69.229.139 ( talk) 05:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Although the white man is known for his altruism there sure are plenty of leftard analyses addressing the economic or geopolitical background of that another Capital-driven Imperialist war of aggression. Them I would like to hear on wikipedia as well as it is a nuissance to dig through all the proletarian and progressive blog forces of the world. I hope I'm not alone. Are there any w'pedians on the left? 79.216.212.95 ( talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Possibly this picture somewhere?
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/CAO3UP6P_20070314112440.jpg
Ryan, June
Anyone else??
I have moved the protests section to a subsection of the "public opinion" section, because in my mind one is a subset of the other. The international reaction section also needs expansion to include at least something about how countries responded to the war. While I am aware of the "main" link which does include this information, I think we do need at least something here, because when I see "International Reactions", my personal interest (and I'm sure others as well) is more focused on how governments view the war, rather than the protests/public opinion side of things. Lawrence, M.J. ( talk) 07:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a guy namesd greg mortenson and he was climbing mountains in afganastan when he got lost. A village took him in and nursed him to health. he said i will build you guys a school. So he raised the money and did it the did it for other villages. Soon he built 200 schools then they bombed by afganastainians. I read about this in a book called three cups of tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.72.3 ( talk) 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there's no mention of the financial cost of the War in Afghanistan. There's a decent article about this for the Iraq War in case anyone's interested in adding this information to the War in Afghanistan article. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War Dionyseus ( talk) 08:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
paJDAS;jasjk;illion dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.45.111 ( talk) 08:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I was unable to post this information, because the article is locked: According to the documentary film Afghan Massacre - the Convoy of Death, Taliban fighters, some captured, but many of whom voluntarily surrendered in response to promises of release after disarmament, were loaded into shipping containers, where many of them died from thirst, suffocation and gunshots fired into the containers. After the surviving POWs were removed, the bodies were disposed of in mass graves, but those who were not dead were summarily executed. Eyewitnesses interviewed in the film place U.S. Special Forces personnel on the scene during the incident and during the disposal of the bodies. Many prisoners are still unaccounted for. [1] [2] 118.4.190.177 ( talk) 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
references: 1 http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/taliban.html "U.S. Soldiers Watched Massacre of Taliban - Filmmaker" 2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/14/afghanistan.lukeharding "Afghan Massacre Haunts Pentagon" 3 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/336/story/57649.html "As possible Afghan war-crimes evidence removed, U.S. silent" 118.4.190.177 ( talk) 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding a link to article titled Permanent war economy to show how & why the wage system makes some people want war to "create jobs" making weapons & military (teaching war), which the Bible predicts someday will cease. Isaiah 2:4. Stars4change ( talk) 17:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just saw that User:Vinn0r had added the Belgian flagicon to the list of Belligerents, when the actual page states: Please do not add any other countries .. I guess we need some sort of Guidance here as people are clearly ignoring this comment. Here is a suggestion Only add the flags of countries above a nominal number, e.g. 1000.. According to ISAF nations there should only be 10 flags in total.. Jez t e C 12:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It sais 111 were killed, however in the article itself it seems only 23 of those killed were private security contractors, the others were not from security companies but from regular companies, I see they were engeneers, ect. These are not combatants, they are civilians. I think we should not include them in the casualties at the coalition side. Kermanshahi ( talk) 17:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that the Kashmiri separatists should be included as belligerents and commanders on this article. One could argue that Lashkar-e-Taiba might play a small support role to groups in Afghanistan (per the LeT article), but I have found no evidence cited to link Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen. Nor should leaders of these groups ( Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Maulana Masood Azhar and Sayeed Salahudeen) be listed as commanders in the War in Afghanistan. They do not control any forces in the area.- RDavi404 ( talk) 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This war should be put in the context of the history of foreign intervention in Afganistan, with reference to its strategic importance. The role of the United States and its allies in creating Islamist groups to oppose the Communist government should be included. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 05:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Belgium is a relative small contibitor and should not be pointed out. -- Lindberg ( talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I say we leave it there so they dont get all high and mighty about being against the war in Afghanistan well it is a fact they contributed so it shall stay. P.S. A soldier has just been captured in afghanisan we need to update this info ChesterTheWorm ( talk) 10:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm
This section seems like an advert and lack sources. Can someone who is stronger in the ways of Wikipedia validate that it complies with the guidelines? 71.207.111.103 ( talk) 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That section has been removed. I have replaced it with a "Depleted Uranium Controversy" section which covers both sides of the issue (with sources) and does not mention that guy's video. Thundermaker ( talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "The war has a triple purpose" and lists 3 reasons, 2 of which are related to opium trafficking. AFAICT, this claim is unsourced. Was it something Bush said? Someone at the UN or ISAF? Assuming good faith, I'm not going to suggest that the list was made-up, but it's important to know who stated those reasons and when.
In the article's history, opium is not mentioned until early 2007 and is first listed as a reason for war on 6 August 2009. Thundermaker ( talk) 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The claim was removed at 07:41, 27 August 2009. I guess it's a non-issue now. Thundermaker ( talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Britain is the second largest contributer to the war in Aghanistan. Yet there is not a single image of British troop in the whole article. Dispite the fact that there are many award winning ones. 94.170.21.124 ( talk) 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This section is very mixed and confusing. Could it possibly be split into two sections? Thanks, Flosssock1 ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Commanders (section one) |
---|
Neither Gordon Brown nor Tony Blair were/are 'commanders' the british armed forces swear allegience to their commander in chief and queen regnant elizabeth ii; she is the head od state. The prime minister is the proverbial first amongst equals. I'll leave a few days but i intend to remove brown/blair from that list unless theres significant disaproval. I'm also against the listing of presidents of the usa as commanders in the info boxes. I think most people would generally like to know who the most senior 'operational commanders' are rather than a bizarre list that includes a list of the operational and 'consitutional commanders'. Names like obama/brown/blair/bush don't add any real information to the article; therefore i propose changing 'commanders' to 'operational commanders' (or any other suggestion) and removing the heads of executive/state. Zaq12wsx ( talk) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple of editors (one registered, one anon) have insisted that the prime ministers of Canada and the UK be listed in the infobox as "Commanders" in the Afghan War. In doing so, they are inserting blatant falsehoods. In those countries, the prime minister has no - zero - official role in the military; at best, he or she is the chief advisor to the Commander-in-Chief, who, in both cases, is presently Queen Elizabeth II. The users insisting that this is incorrect should present their sources that claim the prime ministers of Canada and the UK are military commanders. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean the Queen 'does not make a lot of decisions' in Afghanistan? She doesn't make any decisions. From the wikitionary definition of commander "commander (plural: commanders) 1. One who exercises control and direction of a military or naval organization. 2. A naval officer whose rank is above that of a lieutenant commander and below that of captain. 3. One who exercises control and direction over a group of persons. 4. A designation or rank in certain non-military organizations such as NASA and various police forces." The Queen does not fit in with any of these designations. She certainly doesn't control and direct the military. Yes, by the letter of the law the Queen is the commander in chief. The British constitution is based on convention, many parts of it are essentially unwritten. Using the letter of the law distorts the actual political situation. The Queens powers only exist in theory, she can't actually do anything about Afghanistan. In accordance with convention the person who actually controls the military is the prime minister, he decides whether military action is taken and of what sort. Look up the article on British armed forces 'Consistent with longstanding constitutional convention, however, the Prime Minister holds de facto authority over the armed forces.' The inclusion of the Queen next to GWB and Obama is actively misleading, they actually took the decision to take military action. Which the Queen cannot do. Tiberius Curtainsmith ( talk) 00:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) No, but the UK has an unwritten constitution which also forms the imperial law for many Commonwealth countries. But if the Queen rules by the grace of God and is Defender of the Faith and head of the established Church (at least in England and Wales) then God must be the ultimate commander-in-chief. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Still more pointless attacks, this time with a misunderstanding of your own logic. But, given that your beloved prime ministers are presently listed, one wonders why you are still complaining about them. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
|
Commanders (section two) |
---|
What a joke this discussion has become (as has the article, which, besides needing a heavy cleanup, is POV and unbalanced). A lot of this seems to be pro-war fans of their respective country's militaries or monarchies seeking to give undue weight to their country or monarchy through the inclusion of little flags and names in the infobox. At the moment there are 7 "commanders" listed for Canada and 10 for the US. That is completely undue weight. The US initiated and led the war (as "Operation Enduring Freedom"), has about 2 out of 3 of all the foreign troops in Afghanistan, and the commander of all the foreign troops in Afghanistan is a US commander. Canada has less than 3% of the foreign troops in Afghanistan, and was not even involved in the initial invasion. As such, Canada should not even be listed at all in the Commanders box. There are also 8 "commanders" listed for the UK, vs. 10 for the US. That too is undue weight. The UK has maybe 9% of the foreign troops in Afghanistan. If there are 10 commanders listed for the US, there should be at most 1 commander listed from the UK to respect that proportion. Maybe throw in one other only because the UK was involved with the US in its original invasion. The Queen should not be included in the infobox for that and many other reasons. As WP:NPOV/ WP:UNDUE indicates, information should be presented "in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." When you read news articles about the war, of the 8 UK "commanders" listed in the infobox, you saw Tony Blair and now see Gordon Brown mentioned in relation to the war most of the time. You will see Dannatt, Richards, Kemp mentioned once in a while. I have yet to see Queen Elizabeth mentioned, let alone in the role of commander. Including her in this infobox is simply not in any proportion to her "prevalence within the source material" that is used in coverage of the war or used in this article. -- 70.49.120.245 ( talk) 05:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've added David Petraeus, a key figure in this war, and Richard Meyers. The former is mentioned 3-4 times in this article, the latter is mentioned twice. Note, Queen Elizabeth is not mentioned anywhere in this article about the war in Afghanistan. Her inclusion in the infox is quite clearly undue weight. -- 70.49.120.245 ( talk) 05:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Should be CENTCOM and ISAF commanders. Having Queen Elizabeth is frankly ridiculous Chwyatt ( talk) 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Freaking 40 coalition commanders? I mean seriously, Soviets at Eastern Front (World War II) have less than that and this conflict here is a minor skirmish compared to that one. Template:Infobox military conflict recommends upper limit of about seven per combatant column. Whatever criteria has been used here, it totally isn't sufficient and needs some serious upgrading, about 30 Coalition commanders should be thrown out to get this list into somewhat reasonable size. Also seeing Elizabeth II among commanders, twice by the way, is just humorous.-- Staberinde ( talk) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What about the recent increase in commanders. Are the new ones needed? Flosssock1 ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
This discussion has gotten nowhere, while controversial, disputed, unsourced, possibly misleading and possibly synthesized information sits in the infobox. First of all, I think we can use common sense to decide that while the information is so heavily disputed, it should not be included in the article until a consensus is reached or until reliable sources can directly back the claim. The current sources I'm surprised no one has looked at other articles for an example. The reigning monarch of the UK is generally not included as a commander in British wars, be it the Seven Years' War, the American Revolutionary War, the Second Anglo-Mysore War, the Anglo-Persian War or the Falklands War. I know of one other article, Korean War, that lists the monarch and prime ministers in the same format as this article. Furthermore, prime ministers are generally not listed as commanders either, however exceptions to this occur slightly more frequently, as can be seen at Iraq War and Falklands War. That's just out there for reference, but it suggests that the monarch and prime minister are traditionally not recognized as military commanders. It should also be common sense that the issue is not whether or not the queen is the head of the armed forces at all, but whether or not she is an active military commander in the war -- a claim that is not supported by any reliable source. Even if she is constitutionally the head of the armed forces, claiming that that makes her a commander in the War in Afghanistan is synthesis. In short: There is no consensus or reliable source to support the disputed and controversial claim that the queen or prime ministers are military commanders. Until we get a reliable source or an expert familiar with the civilian government's role in the command of the British military, it is probably unwise to sustain those claims in the article (this obviously applies to Canada as well), so I'll take them down for now. I've left Bob Ainsworth (the British defense secretary) on the list, because based on this passage: "It is the Defence Council which has the power of command over the members of the armed forces and the power to make appointments within the armed forces." From source
Now briefly to the matter of the United States, which should be corrected right away. The president of the United States is a direct commander of the US military and clearly an active commander in the War in Afghanistan -- something that is massively covered in the media, thus easily verifiable. However, to say that the United States Secretary of Defense is a commander is a quite a stretch. The defense secretary is mainly an advisor to the president on military matters, and while he might relay orders to the military command and see that they're carried out, he doesn't hold any authority to command the military...so that should be removed from the commanders section.-- Abusing ( talk) 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The current "Taliban: 7,000-11,000" ref is 404 (Yahoo news articles are deleted after a few days, so avoid Yahoo news as a ref). According to
U.S. intelligence assessment, showing the number of active fighters in the insurgency is now roughly 25,000
there are now roughly 25 000 active Taliban fighters. Agreement to updating using this active figure until a reliable estimate of non-active fighters (killed and those who've left the Taliban) can be added to it? -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-10-10t18:45z, -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-10-10t19:45z
I'm doing a school project on the NZ SAS in Afghanistan. Since you all know a lot more about the war and this article than I do, would you mind answering my questions?
Sorry... each question is multi-pronged. Thanks in advance anyway :) Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ ( talk) 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no list of international reactions at the time of invasion? 83.108.203.102 ( talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I usually come to the Wiki when I want a no-BS assessment. I think the section on 2009+ doesn't really explain the difficulties the US is having. I tried to remedy this a bit by adding the "permanent presence" comment. I know we have a lot of experts watching the page. Would it be possible to expand that section a bit? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Supply_lines_to_Afghanistan could be expanded using information in this article Smartse ( talk) 13:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously. The list of external links here is absurd. It looks like everyone who published an article about the war has been given free reign to link it here. An editor who has invested some time on this article should jump in there and get slaphappy with the DELETE button. Ideally, there will be an 80% casualty rate for links listed there (pardon the silly analogy).
--
K10wnsta (
talk) 05:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So I was on a trip for the last two days and I haven't had a chance to review every edit that's been made since then. Are there any other editors who have watchlisted this page that have reviewed them? Where did this factual accuracy dispute come from? There is no section on the talk page about it. I'm going to delete it in a little bit if there is no justification for it. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction, what about Operation Herrick? Flosssock1 ( talk) 23:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I think its about time that this article gets split. Previous sections of the war have been divided by 5 year periods more or less. I think its fair to say additionally that the war has entered into a new phase as of 2006 when the Taliban insurgency escalated.
I therefore propose that we split the article into two sections: 2001-2006 to cover the initial invasion, the warlord policy, Karzai's period as "mayor of Kabul" and the slow ISAF expansion and a second section, 2006-Present to cover the beginning and escalation of the Taliban insurgency and related events.
I think however that even a simple split won't be enough. Things such as "opposition to the war" and "Long Term military presence in Afghanistan" could be significantly shrunk and moved into a separate article, as its a bit long to go on the main page. Putting the invasion timeline and subsequent battles (mazar-e sharif, kunduz, etc) into a separate article from the 2002-2005 timeline might be worthwhile as well, and separate articles on all the battles are definitely warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article is getting long. But I think that is mostly a function of the war itself getting so long (as well as the need for some editing and summarizing to shorten the piece, where appropriate.) Splitting the article could limit the ability of readers to take in the full scope of the war and to move quickly -- up and down, when they choose -- from causes to effects, from current actions to precedents, from recent statements to contradictions or affirmations in previously stated policy.
I note that both World War II and our war in Vietnam are contained in single articles.
I think that if a longer, single Afghanistan War piece is well-organized and well-written, it will do the job best.
( User talk:Danieldis47) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
Rather than splitting the article up, it would be better to focus on pulling out various sections into related articles. As an early comment noted, WWII a far longer and more complex war was covered in one article. Publicus 17:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Boyd Reimer
Greetings
Perhaps many of us would like to see this article subdivided because many of us agree with the policies of Wikipedia on article size, but the devil is in the details:
1. Maintain Fairness
For example, how can we divide it up in a way that is fair to all contributors? The manner in which it is divided up will probably reflect the biases of the person(s) or party who does the dividing. After it is divided up, some contributors are likely to feel as if their own contribution to the article have become less prominent.
Fairness is paramount in this process: particularly "fairness" in giving "fair" degrees of prominence and accessibility to all contributions.
Here is one possible solution: A great way to "equalize" the prominence/accessibility of every contribution is to use an Infobox in every related article. For every contribution that is relocated away from the main page, we could place an Infobox in that relocated page. This would help to reduce the hard feelings that many contributors are likely to feel when their contribution becomes less prominent in the process of reducing the size of the main page.
Infoboxes are always at the top (right) of the page, thus increasing accessibility and prominence.
I noticed that there is already a Template:Campaignbox 2001 war in Afghanistan and a Template:Campaignbox Afghanistan War attacks but they are not very prominent/accessible because the reader is forced to do two things to access the information in them: 1. Scroll down, 2. open the box
Here are some helpful links about Infoboxes: Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), Help:Infobox, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)
2. Retain context
Regardless of how an article is broken up, it is important to retain at least a section on the context. The context of any event is essential regardless of whether that event is a war or not. Otherwise how will the reader be able to gain understanding of the event?
3. Looking at other examples
By the way, I, too, noticed that the entry for World War II is in one piece, even though it was the largest global conflict in human history. I would suggest examining that article to see how they managed to keep it in one piece.
I see that they divided it up according to invasions: for example, Invasion of Normandy etc.
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from War in Afghanistan (2001-present) was copied or moved into User:Grant bud/War in Afghanistan (2001-2006). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from War in Afghanistan (2001-present) was copied or moved into User:Grant bud/War in Afghanistan (2006-Present). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
If the piece must be reduced, I would discourage a split into 5-year periods (for reasons expressed above). Instead: There is a great amount of detail in the article about each specific battle. Perhaps, in this main piece, each battle's description could be limited (a paragraph or so?) and greater detail provided in separate pages for each battle (or related battles in a single "campaign.") I note that, for the WWII article, "D-Day" -- the allied invasion of northern Europe -- is covered in one 6-line paragraph. The term "D-Day" then links to its own article. By way of contrast, in "War in Afghanistan," the "Taking of Kandahar" is described in 7 paragraphs and 28 total lines.
User talk:Danieldis47
The problem is the war in Afghanistan is already divided into separate 5 year periods, with a specific main page. Afghanistan has been at war for the last 30 years, all with different phases, and I think its important that we keep the same formatting in this regard, as not to remove the context of the war (right down to the soviet invasion) This war currently is a subsection already of the major article (see Civil War in Afghanistan). At the very least I think we should move the 'invasion' of Afghanistan out of this article into a separate one, and the occupation (albeit one supported by the government), into another one, with of course notes on the context left in both articles. This will help guide people who are looking for military history and the invasion, and those who are looking to learn more about the present situation etc. Grant bud ( talk) 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To use the World War II example once again, the article is divided into separate fronts. As the main article is "Civil War in Afghanistan" dividing this into certain periods is probably the best way we can divide the main article up to prevent it from being too long. Grant bud ( talk) 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the previous articles, and I don't think we need to split it just yet, until it can be incorporated better into the main article " Civil War in Afghanistan" and this requires a massive improvement of that page, particularly in terms of making it more similar to other articles about war such as World War 2. Once that has happened I think it would be fair to split this into an article titled "American invasion" or "NATO intervention" or "Foreign intervention" or something similar, as well as one for "Taliban insurgency (2003-Present)" or "NATO occupation" etc.
Proposal: Acknowledge that a split is needed eventually, but not until: 1..the main page Civil War in Afghanistan is improved to incorporate the main parts of this article 2. The current article is subdivided into smaller sections while retaining the context 3. Battles and campaigns discussed in these articles are given a proper page of their own
Opinions?
On a further note I have some proposed subdivisions, reducing the below sections to a paragraph or two and making a new page: 1. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#U.S._plans_prior_to_September_11.2C_2001 to US Involvement in Afghanistan prior to September 11th 2. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#September_11.2C_2001_attacks change to make smaller and more concise 3. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#2001:_Initial_attack to Initial phase in 2001 invasion of Afghanistan or something similiarly named to cover 1) the air campaign 2) the special forces 4. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#The_Battle_of_Mazar-i_Sharif becomes Battle of Mazar-i Sharif (2001) with appropriate disambiguation tag (leave current one at present side) 5. Basically everything after 2009 should be moved to separate articles. We don't need a big overview of supply lines on the main page but separate pages would be useful. Likewise with public opinion, civilian casualties, as these can be (and are) well covered in other articles, but keeping a paragraph to summarize is certainly warranted. In terms of the long term presence, as this is mostly speculation, I think it should get its own article with maybe some small mention in an info box but this is just my opinion. Human rights abuses should probably be shrunk and given its own page.
To be blunt, I think in keeping with other war articles, the main articles should be concerned more with the military history of the war, while the rest should be given smaller pages with the proper links to go to the appropriate page. Grant bud ( talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Grant bud ( talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing all this great work on the article!
I still would argue against too much splitting of the article.
Unlike WW2, Afghanistan is an ongoing war. We don't yet know where the the middle is, let alone the end. We don't yet know which events are (or will be) the "highlights." We can't yet make informed choices about such things. And sections like "Public Opinion" are super-relevant because public opinion can, and is, effecting the decisions being made about the war in real-time, today.
All this is to say that I think it is more beneficial to readers to let the article be a bit long and a bit messy (but not TOO much so!) until later, when it can be better written -- as "history." Danieldis47 ( talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
On the topic of "fairness in article splitting," see
this Wikipedia policy for this quote:
"... split can be performed in a POV way, for example by putting everything you don't like in a new article and then giving that article an un- common name, so obfuscating its whereabouts.
The NPOV way of splitting articles is explained in Wikipedia:Content forking: every main section of the article is reduced in size, keeping to the "space and balance" principle as explained above, and an equal number of sub-pages is created using a technique as explained in Wikipedia:Summary style."
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publication date=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publication date=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The dramatic drop in Wikipedia-reported total Coalition deaths from September to October 2008 raises the question of where we get our numbers. Wanderer57 ( talk) 02:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you spell it (Petraeus? Petreus? Putreas?) but I'm pretty sure he's the new head commander of the War in Afghanistan. Should we put him in? - Aashalom ( talk) 01:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
MY VIEW AS A CANADIAN, is that canadian commanders and any other darn commanders should be listed. If anyone would have suggested that americans be not included in the list it would have been seen as a scandal. In this case, Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance is a canadian commander in afghanistan no ifs or buts. If you don't want to include him or any other allies, then remove your entire american list and state joint task force, end of story. Patric ( talk) 09:01, 06 March 2009(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.235 ( talk)
I am puzzled by the inclusion of two American Presidents and two British Prime Ministers in the list of commanders. The US President is Commander in Chief but not commander in any direct military sense and the C in C of British forces is the Queen, not her Prime Minister. These people ought to be listed as Leaders if they appear at all, not mixed up with the Generals. Erwfaethlon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC).
The US is involved. Yet neither its name or its flag appeared in the list of the section "Belligerents".
The icon of the flag of the US was added to the entry "Operation Enduring Freedom Allies", with the rationale that Operation Enduring Freedom is a US operation, US-named, US-initiated, US-led, US-controlled, and 85-95% US soldiers - with max 5-15% participation from other countries under US direction.
This was removed with the comment "OEF's symbol is not the flag of the United States" in [1], and then removed a second time.
As a compromise, I've added the United States to the list of belligerents. It clearly belongs there anyway. The US is by far the dominant military force in the war, having the most soldiers involved, some 33,000, the most actual combatants involved, the most military casualties, the most planes, the most helicopters, the most bombs, the biggest budget, etc.
Please note that no flag has been added back for "Operation Enduring Freedom Allies" which represents those countries that have participated as allies to the US's Operation Enduring Freedom.
Please note as well that for the article Iraq War, the United States is listed as a belligerent, accompanied with its flag icon, and that a separate entry is listed for "Other Coalition Forces". On that page, the United States' role in the war as a belligerent is not covered up behind a proxy such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom". OIF = US and OEF = US. Similarly, the Gulf War page shows the US as a belligerent, and, again, a separate entry "Other Coalition forces" is listed. Like "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Operation Desert Storm" is not listed as the belligerent in place of the United States.
This compromise now makes this page consistent with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.120.80 ( talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay folks, I think I made a compromise. I fixed combatants, so now main forces are ISAF, Afghanistan, and OEF allies. United States, UK and Germany are included under ISAF, because these countries are greatest contributors. -- Novis-M ( talk) 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Compromise - I think that version I proposed was better, because United States forces are included in these two operations. However, wikipedia is not mine only - unfortunately :D but I agree with you guys, that the operation was launched by US and UK forces, without NATO. So I made hopefully last version :) -- Novis-M ( talk) 14:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know there is some 50 nations taking part in Enduring Freedom. No matter how one looks at it, it is wrong to only mnetion the US and the UK. This is an account of history and we can't just simplify it like that. One has to look at amount of soldiers compared to population of the respective countries. Norway for instance is one of the largest contributors compared to it's population. Mortyman ( talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Novis-M, I agree with your updating of that box section, however I came across information today that clearly states that the US actually has 48,250 troops in Afghanistan since June 1: Congressional Research Services Report for Congress - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - Updated July 15, 2008 also available here RS22633 - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - July 15, 2008
The previously reported total of 33,000 is also clearly based on old information from April as shown here Congressional Research Services Report for Congress - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - Updated May 9, 2008 and also reflected in Figure 6. on page 5 of Congressional Research Services Report for Congress - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan - Updated July 15, 2008
I wasn't too sure how to incorporate this information into your changes because I haven't been able to find any information on how the new 15,000 US troops have been divided between OEF and ISAF. But I think I've found a way: The non-US component of ISAF is fairly constant and verifiable so that is a known quantity. The total number of US troops is also a verifiable known quantity.
I think organizing it along that line also makes sense because the US troops that are nominally under ISAF are still actually militarily under the command of the US and not NATO-ISAF (ex. "In Kabul, Brig. Gen. Carlos Branco, a senior spokesman for the ISAF, said the Marines "answer to" ISAF but are under the "tactical control" of RC-South. He said ISAF was satisfied that this is the best arrangement to "coordinate and synchronize" combat operations."
The US government also seems to refer to all the US troops in Afghanistan, including the ones nominally in ISAF, as OEF in their reports (like the Congressional reports above and others). The US forces are now also all unified under one single US command, that of US general McKiernan:
There also seem to be many conflicting numbers on how the US troops are divided between OEF and ISAF (for example, in the quote above, it's more in OEF and fewer in ISAF). Listing the total figure for the US is easier than trying to futilely divide it between ISAF and OEF.
I'm open to other ways of organizing it, but I think it has to reflect the 48,250 figure to be accurate and informative. 74.12.220.139 ( talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has adjusted the non-ISAF number to 48,250. According to the cited sources, 48,250 is the (June) total and 29,500 is (July) US-ISAF, if I had both numbers for the same date I could calculate the correct value. Thundermaker ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is getting huge. I copied and pasted the public opinion section onto a word document and that section alone was 10 pages long. So I have moved it to its own article. Introduction on that section and article could bee improved. Would also be useful to see international public opinion from 2001-2002 if those stats are out there. Chwyatt ( talk) 09:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the number of deaths of US soldiers killed in Afghanistan is different on this page than the Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan. The list on that page seems more accurate because it does not to include US soldiers killed outside of Afghanistan when in operations in different countries. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf The numbers on the two pages should be the same to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's very clear that the Anglo-American news media is slanted in support of the war. Now, whether or not this is a 'good' or 'bad' thing is beside the point. Prehaps- as with the war against Nazi Germany- it's great that the media is on the side of democracy against the Taliban. Perhaps not, if the media is whitewashing anti-Muslim/pro-Christian imperialist agression. But either way, the article needs to admit that the slant exists as a matter of fact.
I don’t really want to get into an esoteric discussion of grammar, but these two corrections were both “picky” and wrong. Both sentences said exactly what they intended the way they were (and are again). “… it would not distinguish between al-Qaeda and nations that harbor them.” The policy was put in effect in the past, so “would not” is used. However, it is still in effect so the present tense is correctly used with “nations that harbor them”.
In the second case, “currently plans” expresses a vague intention. If that is the intention, we must hope that they are making plans and “… is currently planning…” is correct.-- Another-sailor ( talk) 13:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Novis-M, I truly don't understand your revert of changes I did in good faith with valid sources referenced. Did you even check the source links? In fact, I followed your way of doing things and updated numbers for you for your way of structuring information.
I had argued for dividing troops numbers into US and non-US ISAF. You insisted on dividing US troop numbers into ISAF and non-ISAF. You decided that should be done by subtracting the number of US troops in ISAF from the total number from the Congressional reports. I stated my objections but tried to cooperate and went along with your way. If you don't remember, it's all on this page at #Strengths section (troop numbers) and #US flag is missing from the list of belligerents.
Not only did I go along with your way, but I've updated the numbers for you - again - and within your preferred structure and by your own method. I've brought more up-to-date figures to this page the last 3 times. If it weren't for my contributions, the article would still be using completely out-of-date figures from the spring.
If you're going to impose your way of doing things, if you're going to have country flags and troop numbers duplicated everywhere, at least keep it up to date. And why are you reverting it when someone takes the time to help you bring it up to date with the newer data from the very same sources and within your preferred way of doing things? 76.69.229.139 ( talk) 05:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Although the white man is known for his altruism there sure are plenty of leftard analyses addressing the economic or geopolitical background of that another Capital-driven Imperialist war of aggression. Them I would like to hear on wikipedia as well as it is a nuissance to dig through all the proletarian and progressive blog forces of the world. I hope I'm not alone. Are there any w'pedians on the left? 79.216.212.95 ( talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Possibly this picture somewhere?
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/CAO3UP6P_20070314112440.jpg
Ryan, June
Anyone else??
I have moved the protests section to a subsection of the "public opinion" section, because in my mind one is a subset of the other. The international reaction section also needs expansion to include at least something about how countries responded to the war. While I am aware of the "main" link which does include this information, I think we do need at least something here, because when I see "International Reactions", my personal interest (and I'm sure others as well) is more focused on how governments view the war, rather than the protests/public opinion side of things. Lawrence, M.J. ( talk) 07:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a guy namesd greg mortenson and he was climbing mountains in afganastan when he got lost. A village took him in and nursed him to health. he said i will build you guys a school. So he raised the money and did it the did it for other villages. Soon he built 200 schools then they bombed by afganastainians. I read about this in a book called three cups of tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.72.3 ( talk) 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there's no mention of the financial cost of the War in Afghanistan. There's a decent article about this for the Iraq War in case anyone's interested in adding this information to the War in Afghanistan article. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War Dionyseus ( talk) 08:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
paJDAS;jasjk;illion dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.45.111 ( talk) 08:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I was unable to post this information, because the article is locked: According to the documentary film Afghan Massacre - the Convoy of Death, Taliban fighters, some captured, but many of whom voluntarily surrendered in response to promises of release after disarmament, were loaded into shipping containers, where many of them died from thirst, suffocation and gunshots fired into the containers. After the surviving POWs were removed, the bodies were disposed of in mass graves, but those who were not dead were summarily executed. Eyewitnesses interviewed in the film place U.S. Special Forces personnel on the scene during the incident and during the disposal of the bodies. Many prisoners are still unaccounted for. [1] [2] 118.4.190.177 ( talk) 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
references: 1 http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/taliban.html "U.S. Soldiers Watched Massacre of Taliban - Filmmaker" 2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/14/afghanistan.lukeharding "Afghan Massacre Haunts Pentagon" 3 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/336/story/57649.html "As possible Afghan war-crimes evidence removed, U.S. silent" 118.4.190.177 ( talk) 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding a link to article titled Permanent war economy to show how & why the wage system makes some people want war to "create jobs" making weapons & military (teaching war), which the Bible predicts someday will cease. Isaiah 2:4. Stars4change ( talk) 17:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just saw that User:Vinn0r had added the Belgian flagicon to the list of Belligerents, when the actual page states: Please do not add any other countries .. I guess we need some sort of Guidance here as people are clearly ignoring this comment. Here is a suggestion Only add the flags of countries above a nominal number, e.g. 1000.. According to ISAF nations there should only be 10 flags in total.. Jez t e C 12:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It sais 111 were killed, however in the article itself it seems only 23 of those killed were private security contractors, the others were not from security companies but from regular companies, I see they were engeneers, ect. These are not combatants, they are civilians. I think we should not include them in the casualties at the coalition side. Kermanshahi ( talk) 17:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that the Kashmiri separatists should be included as belligerents and commanders on this article. One could argue that Lashkar-e-Taiba might play a small support role to groups in Afghanistan (per the LeT article), but I have found no evidence cited to link Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen. Nor should leaders of these groups ( Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Maulana Masood Azhar and Sayeed Salahudeen) be listed as commanders in the War in Afghanistan. They do not control any forces in the area.- RDavi404 ( talk) 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This war should be put in the context of the history of foreign intervention in Afganistan, with reference to its strategic importance. The role of the United States and its allies in creating Islamist groups to oppose the Communist government should be included. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 05:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Belgium is a relative small contibitor and should not be pointed out. -- Lindberg ( talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I say we leave it there so they dont get all high and mighty about being against the war in Afghanistan well it is a fact they contributed so it shall stay. P.S. A soldier has just been captured in afghanisan we need to update this info ChesterTheWorm ( talk) 10:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm
This section seems like an advert and lack sources. Can someone who is stronger in the ways of Wikipedia validate that it complies with the guidelines? 71.207.111.103 ( talk) 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That section has been removed. I have replaced it with a "Depleted Uranium Controversy" section which covers both sides of the issue (with sources) and does not mention that guy's video. Thundermaker ( talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "The war has a triple purpose" and lists 3 reasons, 2 of which are related to opium trafficking. AFAICT, this claim is unsourced. Was it something Bush said? Someone at the UN or ISAF? Assuming good faith, I'm not going to suggest that the list was made-up, but it's important to know who stated those reasons and when.
In the article's history, opium is not mentioned until early 2007 and is first listed as a reason for war on 6 August 2009. Thundermaker ( talk) 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The claim was removed at 07:41, 27 August 2009. I guess it's a non-issue now. Thundermaker ( talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Britain is the second largest contributer to the war in Aghanistan. Yet there is not a single image of British troop in the whole article. Dispite the fact that there are many award winning ones. 94.170.21.124 ( talk) 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This section is very mixed and confusing. Could it possibly be split into two sections? Thanks, Flosssock1 ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Commanders (section one) |
---|
Neither Gordon Brown nor Tony Blair were/are 'commanders' the british armed forces swear allegience to their commander in chief and queen regnant elizabeth ii; she is the head od state. The prime minister is the proverbial first amongst equals. I'll leave a few days but i intend to remove brown/blair from that list unless theres significant disaproval. I'm also against the listing of presidents of the usa as commanders in the info boxes. I think most people would generally like to know who the most senior 'operational commanders' are rather than a bizarre list that includes a list of the operational and 'consitutional commanders'. Names like obama/brown/blair/bush don't add any real information to the article; therefore i propose changing 'commanders' to 'operational commanders' (or any other suggestion) and removing the heads of executive/state. Zaq12wsx ( talk) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple of editors (one registered, one anon) have insisted that the prime ministers of Canada and the UK be listed in the infobox as "Commanders" in the Afghan War. In doing so, they are inserting blatant falsehoods. In those countries, the prime minister has no - zero - official role in the military; at best, he or she is the chief advisor to the Commander-in-Chief, who, in both cases, is presently Queen Elizabeth II. The users insisting that this is incorrect should present their sources that claim the prime ministers of Canada and the UK are military commanders. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean the Queen 'does not make a lot of decisions' in Afghanistan? She doesn't make any decisions. From the wikitionary definition of commander "commander (plural: commanders) 1. One who exercises control and direction of a military or naval organization. 2. A naval officer whose rank is above that of a lieutenant commander and below that of captain. 3. One who exercises control and direction over a group of persons. 4. A designation or rank in certain non-military organizations such as NASA and various police forces." The Queen does not fit in with any of these designations. She certainly doesn't control and direct the military. Yes, by the letter of the law the Queen is the commander in chief. The British constitution is based on convention, many parts of it are essentially unwritten. Using the letter of the law distorts the actual political situation. The Queens powers only exist in theory, she can't actually do anything about Afghanistan. In accordance with convention the person who actually controls the military is the prime minister, he decides whether military action is taken and of what sort. Look up the article on British armed forces 'Consistent with longstanding constitutional convention, however, the Prime Minister holds de facto authority over the armed forces.' The inclusion of the Queen next to GWB and Obama is actively misleading, they actually took the decision to take military action. Which the Queen cannot do. Tiberius Curtainsmith ( talk) 00:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) No, but the UK has an unwritten constitution which also forms the imperial law for many Commonwealth countries. But if the Queen rules by the grace of God and is Defender of the Faith and head of the established Church (at least in England and Wales) then God must be the ultimate commander-in-chief. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Still more pointless attacks, this time with a misunderstanding of your own logic. But, given that your beloved prime ministers are presently listed, one wonders why you are still complaining about them. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
|
Commanders (section two) |
---|
What a joke this discussion has become (as has the article, which, besides needing a heavy cleanup, is POV and unbalanced). A lot of this seems to be pro-war fans of their respective country's militaries or monarchies seeking to give undue weight to their country or monarchy through the inclusion of little flags and names in the infobox. At the moment there are 7 "commanders" listed for Canada and 10 for the US. That is completely undue weight. The US initiated and led the war (as "Operation Enduring Freedom"), has about 2 out of 3 of all the foreign troops in Afghanistan, and the commander of all the foreign troops in Afghanistan is a US commander. Canada has less than 3% of the foreign troops in Afghanistan, and was not even involved in the initial invasion. As such, Canada should not even be listed at all in the Commanders box. There are also 8 "commanders" listed for the UK, vs. 10 for the US. That too is undue weight. The UK has maybe 9% of the foreign troops in Afghanistan. If there are 10 commanders listed for the US, there should be at most 1 commander listed from the UK to respect that proportion. Maybe throw in one other only because the UK was involved with the US in its original invasion. The Queen should not be included in the infobox for that and many other reasons. As WP:NPOV/ WP:UNDUE indicates, information should be presented "in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." When you read news articles about the war, of the 8 UK "commanders" listed in the infobox, you saw Tony Blair and now see Gordon Brown mentioned in relation to the war most of the time. You will see Dannatt, Richards, Kemp mentioned once in a while. I have yet to see Queen Elizabeth mentioned, let alone in the role of commander. Including her in this infobox is simply not in any proportion to her "prevalence within the source material" that is used in coverage of the war or used in this article. -- 70.49.120.245 ( talk) 05:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've added David Petraeus, a key figure in this war, and Richard Meyers. The former is mentioned 3-4 times in this article, the latter is mentioned twice. Note, Queen Elizabeth is not mentioned anywhere in this article about the war in Afghanistan. Her inclusion in the infox is quite clearly undue weight. -- 70.49.120.245 ( talk) 05:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Should be CENTCOM and ISAF commanders. Having Queen Elizabeth is frankly ridiculous Chwyatt ( talk) 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Freaking 40 coalition commanders? I mean seriously, Soviets at Eastern Front (World War II) have less than that and this conflict here is a minor skirmish compared to that one. Template:Infobox military conflict recommends upper limit of about seven per combatant column. Whatever criteria has been used here, it totally isn't sufficient and needs some serious upgrading, about 30 Coalition commanders should be thrown out to get this list into somewhat reasonable size. Also seeing Elizabeth II among commanders, twice by the way, is just humorous.-- Staberinde ( talk) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What about the recent increase in commanders. Are the new ones needed? Flosssock1 ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
This discussion has gotten nowhere, while controversial, disputed, unsourced, possibly misleading and possibly synthesized information sits in the infobox. First of all, I think we can use common sense to decide that while the information is so heavily disputed, it should not be included in the article until a consensus is reached or until reliable sources can directly back the claim. The current sources I'm surprised no one has looked at other articles for an example. The reigning monarch of the UK is generally not included as a commander in British wars, be it the Seven Years' War, the American Revolutionary War, the Second Anglo-Mysore War, the Anglo-Persian War or the Falklands War. I know of one other article, Korean War, that lists the monarch and prime ministers in the same format as this article. Furthermore, prime ministers are generally not listed as commanders either, however exceptions to this occur slightly more frequently, as can be seen at Iraq War and Falklands War. That's just out there for reference, but it suggests that the monarch and prime minister are traditionally not recognized as military commanders. It should also be common sense that the issue is not whether or not the queen is the head of the armed forces at all, but whether or not she is an active military commander in the war -- a claim that is not supported by any reliable source. Even if she is constitutionally the head of the armed forces, claiming that that makes her a commander in the War in Afghanistan is synthesis. In short: There is no consensus or reliable source to support the disputed and controversial claim that the queen or prime ministers are military commanders. Until we get a reliable source or an expert familiar with the civilian government's role in the command of the British military, it is probably unwise to sustain those claims in the article (this obviously applies to Canada as well), so I'll take them down for now. I've left Bob Ainsworth (the British defense secretary) on the list, because based on this passage: "It is the Defence Council which has the power of command over the members of the armed forces and the power to make appointments within the armed forces." From source
Now briefly to the matter of the United States, which should be corrected right away. The president of the United States is a direct commander of the US military and clearly an active commander in the War in Afghanistan -- something that is massively covered in the media, thus easily verifiable. However, to say that the United States Secretary of Defense is a commander is a quite a stretch. The defense secretary is mainly an advisor to the president on military matters, and while he might relay orders to the military command and see that they're carried out, he doesn't hold any authority to command the military...so that should be removed from the commanders section.-- Abusing ( talk) 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The current "Taliban: 7,000-11,000" ref is 404 (Yahoo news articles are deleted after a few days, so avoid Yahoo news as a ref). According to
U.S. intelligence assessment, showing the number of active fighters in the insurgency is now roughly 25,000
there are now roughly 25 000 active Taliban fighters. Agreement to updating using this active figure until a reliable estimate of non-active fighters (killed and those who've left the Taliban) can be added to it? -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-10-10t18:45z, -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-10-10t19:45z
I'm doing a school project on the NZ SAS in Afghanistan. Since you all know a lot more about the war and this article than I do, would you mind answering my questions?
Sorry... each question is multi-pronged. Thanks in advance anyway :) Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ ( talk) 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no list of international reactions at the time of invasion? 83.108.203.102 ( talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I usually come to the Wiki when I want a no-BS assessment. I think the section on 2009+ doesn't really explain the difficulties the US is having. I tried to remedy this a bit by adding the "permanent presence" comment. I know we have a lot of experts watching the page. Would it be possible to expand that section a bit? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Supply_lines_to_Afghanistan could be expanded using information in this article Smartse ( talk) 13:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously. The list of external links here is absurd. It looks like everyone who published an article about the war has been given free reign to link it here. An editor who has invested some time on this article should jump in there and get slaphappy with the DELETE button. Ideally, there will be an 80% casualty rate for links listed there (pardon the silly analogy).
--
K10wnsta (
talk) 05:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So I was on a trip for the last two days and I haven't had a chance to review every edit that's been made since then. Are there any other editors who have watchlisted this page that have reviewed them? Where did this factual accuracy dispute come from? There is no section on the talk page about it. I'm going to delete it in a little bit if there is no justification for it. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction, what about Operation Herrick? Flosssock1 ( talk) 23:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I think its about time that this article gets split. Previous sections of the war have been divided by 5 year periods more or less. I think its fair to say additionally that the war has entered into a new phase as of 2006 when the Taliban insurgency escalated.
I therefore propose that we split the article into two sections: 2001-2006 to cover the initial invasion, the warlord policy, Karzai's period as "mayor of Kabul" and the slow ISAF expansion and a second section, 2006-Present to cover the beginning and escalation of the Taliban insurgency and related events.
I think however that even a simple split won't be enough. Things such as "opposition to the war" and "Long Term military presence in Afghanistan" could be significantly shrunk and moved into a separate article, as its a bit long to go on the main page. Putting the invasion timeline and subsequent battles (mazar-e sharif, kunduz, etc) into a separate article from the 2002-2005 timeline might be worthwhile as well, and separate articles on all the battles are definitely warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article is getting long. But I think that is mostly a function of the war itself getting so long (as well as the need for some editing and summarizing to shorten the piece, where appropriate.) Splitting the article could limit the ability of readers to take in the full scope of the war and to move quickly -- up and down, when they choose -- from causes to effects, from current actions to precedents, from recent statements to contradictions or affirmations in previously stated policy.
I note that both World War II and our war in Vietnam are contained in single articles.
I think that if a longer, single Afghanistan War piece is well-organized and well-written, it will do the job best.
( User talk:Danieldis47) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
Rather than splitting the article up, it would be better to focus on pulling out various sections into related articles. As an early comment noted, WWII a far longer and more complex war was covered in one article. Publicus 17:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Boyd Reimer
Greetings
Perhaps many of us would like to see this article subdivided because many of us agree with the policies of Wikipedia on article size, but the devil is in the details:
1. Maintain Fairness
For example, how can we divide it up in a way that is fair to all contributors? The manner in which it is divided up will probably reflect the biases of the person(s) or party who does the dividing. After it is divided up, some contributors are likely to feel as if their own contribution to the article have become less prominent.
Fairness is paramount in this process: particularly "fairness" in giving "fair" degrees of prominence and accessibility to all contributions.
Here is one possible solution: A great way to "equalize" the prominence/accessibility of every contribution is to use an Infobox in every related article. For every contribution that is relocated away from the main page, we could place an Infobox in that relocated page. This would help to reduce the hard feelings that many contributors are likely to feel when their contribution becomes less prominent in the process of reducing the size of the main page.
Infoboxes are always at the top (right) of the page, thus increasing accessibility and prominence.
I noticed that there is already a Template:Campaignbox 2001 war in Afghanistan and a Template:Campaignbox Afghanistan War attacks but they are not very prominent/accessible because the reader is forced to do two things to access the information in them: 1. Scroll down, 2. open the box
Here are some helpful links about Infoboxes: Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), Help:Infobox, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)
2. Retain context
Regardless of how an article is broken up, it is important to retain at least a section on the context. The context of any event is essential regardless of whether that event is a war or not. Otherwise how will the reader be able to gain understanding of the event?
3. Looking at other examples
By the way, I, too, noticed that the entry for World War II is in one piece, even though it was the largest global conflict in human history. I would suggest examining that article to see how they managed to keep it in one piece.
I see that they divided it up according to invasions: for example, Invasion of Normandy etc.
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from War in Afghanistan (2001-present) was copied or moved into User:Grant bud/War in Afghanistan (2001-2006). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from War in Afghanistan (2001-present) was copied or moved into User:Grant bud/War in Afghanistan (2006-Present). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
If the piece must be reduced, I would discourage a split into 5-year periods (for reasons expressed above). Instead: There is a great amount of detail in the article about each specific battle. Perhaps, in this main piece, each battle's description could be limited (a paragraph or so?) and greater detail provided in separate pages for each battle (or related battles in a single "campaign.") I note that, for the WWII article, "D-Day" -- the allied invasion of northern Europe -- is covered in one 6-line paragraph. The term "D-Day" then links to its own article. By way of contrast, in "War in Afghanistan," the "Taking of Kandahar" is described in 7 paragraphs and 28 total lines.
User talk:Danieldis47
The problem is the war in Afghanistan is already divided into separate 5 year periods, with a specific main page. Afghanistan has been at war for the last 30 years, all with different phases, and I think its important that we keep the same formatting in this regard, as not to remove the context of the war (right down to the soviet invasion) This war currently is a subsection already of the major article (see Civil War in Afghanistan). At the very least I think we should move the 'invasion' of Afghanistan out of this article into a separate one, and the occupation (albeit one supported by the government), into another one, with of course notes on the context left in both articles. This will help guide people who are looking for military history and the invasion, and those who are looking to learn more about the present situation etc. Grant bud ( talk) 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To use the World War II example once again, the article is divided into separate fronts. As the main article is "Civil War in Afghanistan" dividing this into certain periods is probably the best way we can divide the main article up to prevent it from being too long. Grant bud ( talk) 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the previous articles, and I don't think we need to split it just yet, until it can be incorporated better into the main article " Civil War in Afghanistan" and this requires a massive improvement of that page, particularly in terms of making it more similar to other articles about war such as World War 2. Once that has happened I think it would be fair to split this into an article titled "American invasion" or "NATO intervention" or "Foreign intervention" or something similar, as well as one for "Taliban insurgency (2003-Present)" or "NATO occupation" etc.
Proposal: Acknowledge that a split is needed eventually, but not until: 1..the main page Civil War in Afghanistan is improved to incorporate the main parts of this article 2. The current article is subdivided into smaller sections while retaining the context 3. Battles and campaigns discussed in these articles are given a proper page of their own
Opinions?
On a further note I have some proposed subdivisions, reducing the below sections to a paragraph or two and making a new page: 1. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#U.S._plans_prior_to_September_11.2C_2001 to US Involvement in Afghanistan prior to September 11th 2. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#September_11.2C_2001_attacks change to make smaller and more concise 3. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#2001:_Initial_attack to Initial phase in 2001 invasion of Afghanistan or something similiarly named to cover 1) the air campaign 2) the special forces 4. War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#The_Battle_of_Mazar-i_Sharif becomes Battle of Mazar-i Sharif (2001) with appropriate disambiguation tag (leave current one at present side) 5. Basically everything after 2009 should be moved to separate articles. We don't need a big overview of supply lines on the main page but separate pages would be useful. Likewise with public opinion, civilian casualties, as these can be (and are) well covered in other articles, but keeping a paragraph to summarize is certainly warranted. In terms of the long term presence, as this is mostly speculation, I think it should get its own article with maybe some small mention in an info box but this is just my opinion. Human rights abuses should probably be shrunk and given its own page.
To be blunt, I think in keeping with other war articles, the main articles should be concerned more with the military history of the war, while the rest should be given smaller pages with the proper links to go to the appropriate page. Grant bud ( talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Grant bud ( talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing all this great work on the article!
I still would argue against too much splitting of the article.
Unlike WW2, Afghanistan is an ongoing war. We don't yet know where the the middle is, let alone the end. We don't yet know which events are (or will be) the "highlights." We can't yet make informed choices about such things. And sections like "Public Opinion" are super-relevant because public opinion can, and is, effecting the decisions being made about the war in real-time, today.
All this is to say that I think it is more beneficial to readers to let the article be a bit long and a bit messy (but not TOO much so!) until later, when it can be better written -- as "history." Danieldis47 ( talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
On the topic of "fairness in article splitting," see
this Wikipedia policy for this quote:
"... split can be performed in a POV way, for example by putting everything you don't like in a new article and then giving that article an un- common name, so obfuscating its whereabouts.
The NPOV way of splitting articles is explained in Wikipedia:Content forking: every main section of the article is reduced in size, keeping to the "space and balance" principle as explained above, and an equal number of sub-pages is created using a technique as explained in Wikipedia:Summary style."
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publication date=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publication date=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)