Jump to content

Talk:Afghan conflict

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

Sourcing/WP:OR

[edit]

Without sourcing showing that reliable sources treat the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Afghan civil war, the US war in Afghanistan, and the present ISIS insurgency as a single conflict-topic beginning in 1978 (which none of the sources presently cited in the article appear to do) this is basically original research linking topics only related by the place in which they took place. Specifically, it is a synthesis of sources to express a conclusion that none of them state. It is the equivalent of writing an article entitled European conflict (1914-present). We already have articles on each of the individual wars that has taken place in Afghanistan during this period. We also have list-articles on conflicts within Afghanistan, so this is basically duplication without sourcing to support it as a distinct topic. It is also is basically a POVfork, based on the POV that all wars in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion are basically one conflict.
Examples of sources that might help:

  • A reliable, independent history book that treats all (not just two or more, but all) of these wars as a single conflict.
  • A reliable, independent article giving all of the casualties of all of these wars as a single figure (at present we are doing a WP:SYNTH of multiple casualty estimates compiled with differing methodology over differing periods).
  • A reliable, independent newspaper or magazine article (not an op-ed) treating all of these conflicts as a single conflict.

FOARP (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See for instance the following book that covers all phases of the war you mentioned (until 2020):
Maley, William (2021). The Afghanistan Wars (3rd ed.). Red Globe Press. ISBN 978-1-352-01100-5.
Jo1971 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo1971. I note the title of the book is "wars" (plural) meaning it does not describe this as a single conflict and, as you say, it ends in 2020 and thus does not include all of the conflicts presently listed in this article. It also begins before 1978 and the first thing it appears to consider as a "war" is the 1979 invasion. It does not appear to match the structure of this article in any particular detail, leaving this article as WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on this a bit more, there are multiple history books entitled "The World Wars" (e.g., this one, this one, this one), but that wouldn't support a single article about the two world wars together as a single conflict or series of conflicts, because most sources don't do this and even the sources that do describe them together clearly describe them as separate wars and thus as separate topics. FOARP (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed to Afghan Conflict (1978–present)

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

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → Afghan Conflict (1978–present) – The term for the “Afghanistan conflict” is not grammatical, the title for the Afghan conflict in should be used, similar to Afghan Mujahideen or others related with Afghanistan Eupakistani (talk) 10:57

  • Support moving to Afghan conflict per basically everything that was said in the recent Iraqi conflict move discussion which resulted in Iraq conflict (2003-present) being moved to just Iraqi conflict. In more detail:
  • The 1978 start-date is disputed and anyway is not the date of the first conflict mentioned in this article. There are arguments for both 1973 (the date of the armed coup mentioned on this page) and 1979 (which is supported by the above-discussed "The Afghanistan Wars" book as the start-date of the first "war" covered in it). Since the start-date is disputed, we should not try to fix it in the title but instead decide it through ordinary editing as an article-content discussion.
  • That a conflict (singular, not plural) that began in 1978 is still continuing today is disputed, and in fact is right now lacking any actual source that supports it. For the same reasons, therefore, as removing the 1978 start-date from the title, we should remove the "present" part from the title and decide the end-date through ordinary editing of the article.
  • Just as with Iraqi conflict, if there really is a conflict that has been ongoing since 1978 (or whenever) until now (or whenever), involving the deaths of millions and multiple super-powers, it surely is the WP:PRIMARY topic and does not need disambiguation from other conflicts within or involving Afghanistan. Such a conflict would almost certainly be what people are looking for if they are searching for this topic, they would not be surprised landing here. They could not have been looking for, for example, the list of wars involving Afghanistan, since that is "wars" or "conflicts" plural. ETA: just to further emphasise this point a little further, Afghan conflict already redirects to this page so we already take the position that this is the primary topic.
  • WP:CONCISE supports the shortest possible title, which "Afghan conflict" surely is.
FOARP (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I remember one of previous discussion on some other article title. If, I am not wrong, as per WP:MOSCAPS I suppose "C" in word "conflict" need not be a capital letter but small letter cwould be preferable. If needed you can discuss @ WT:MOSCAPS.
  • Oppose Afghan conflict. There have been many conflicts in Afghanistan. No reason that this one should be the primary topic just because it's still happening and none of us here were alive for the others. That's pure WP:RECENTISM. Neutral on the original proposal, although it should remain lowercased. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp - Afghan conflict presently redirects here. Are you of the view that this conflict is not the primary topic and that the redirect is wrongly targeted? FOARP (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I am. It should redirect to War in Afghanistan, the list of all conflicts in Afghanistan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06 - That would be a good argument if this were Dari/Pashto Wikipedia. However, this is English Wikipedia, so what matters is what we say in English. Obviously we do not avoid using the term "German" or "French" on Wikipedia, despite the fact that the French and Germans do not use these words. As shown in Cinderella157's comment below, "Afghan conflict" is a more common term in English than "Afghanistan conflict" and so should be favoured per WP:COMMONNAME. WP:CONCISE also directs us to favour the shorter name. FOARP (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support moving to Afghan conflict. I now solidly favor Afghan conflict over Afghanistan conflict as per evidence presented by Cinderella157 that this is the WP:COMMONNAME. Fanatizka (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving to Afghan conflict I note the comments by FOARP in respect to this. Both Afghan conflict and Afghanistan conflict are rediredcts to this article. They are therefore the acknowledged WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no actual title conflict with either Afghan conflict and Afghanistan conflict. WP:AT (WP:TITLEDAB) tells us to only use qualifiers (natural or otherwise) that are necessary to resolve an actual conflict in title. This is clearly not the case here and therefore, retention of the date range is clearly contradicting policy. Per WP:NHC, statements that contradict policy should be discounted. This ngram tells us that both titles (Afghan conflict and Afghanistan conflict) have been significantly used since 1980. I note FOARPs comment about the disputed start date but the ngram evidence, with 40 years of usage and peaks roughly corresponding to key modern events (ie since 1980) would quite clearly evidence that an argument of WP:RECENTISM really doesn't hold water. This same ngram would also indicate that Afghan conflict is more common than Afghanistan conflict by a ratio of roughly 2:1 (by visual estimation across the range). In consideration of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, Afghan conflict should be preferred over Afghanistan conflict. In consideration of capitalising conflict there are these ngrams for Afghan conflict and Afghanistan conflict. In neither case is the capitalised form consistently used that would meet the guidance (per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) whereby conflict would be capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use an expression to directly graph the ratio.[1]  —Michael Z. 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed, with a change of letter case that’s not justified or even mentioned. That said, although Afghanistan conflict is a perfectly grammatical attributive use of a name and has better recognizability for using the full name of the country, Afghan conflict is more concise and most importantly, more commonly used.[2] So a modified request could pass. —Michael Z. 14:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Afghanistan conflict has the advantage that it unambiguously describes a conflict in a specific country. Afghan conflict is less specific: could mean that, or a conflict among a certain national group, or over a particular language, or having to do with some nice long-haired dogs.  —Michael Z. 23:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afghan conflict per many above (NOT capitalized Conflict). Afghan is more common in sources, and both terms appear only since 1978 so it's not very ambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Necrothesp and others. It seems there is already consensus that it would be "Afghan conflict" and not "Afghan Conflict", so I won't argue that point. But, I don't see this as being the primary topic over the Great Game conflict of the 19th century. Also, I don't believe there is a consensus historiographical term; and if we are using a descriptive name I don't believe "Afghan conflict" is grammatically correct. It's the Vietnam War, not the Vietnamese War. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walt Yoder: Did you mean to say you believe "Afghan conflict" is not grammatically correct? (Afghan is an adjective, like Vietnamese; Afghanistan and Vietnam are nouns.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Original comment fixed. On re-reading, "grammatical" isn't quite the right term for what I mean either, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walt Yoder Different conflicts have different names. The Bosnian War is not called the "Bosnia War" nor are either the first nor second Chechen Wars called "Chechnya War." I don't think we can reference other conflicts in this discussion, we have to look from an isolated perspective on which term is more widely used for this particular conflict. Fanatizka (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least in the United States popular press, there is no common name for the topic; there is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and then the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) (which, as an American name for an American war, doesn't mention the Americans).
If we are choosing a descriptive name, we should consider similar topics. However, I'm convinced at this point that that argument doesn't make a strong case for "Afghanistan conflict" over "Afghan conflict". Walt Yoder (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, good point. I've come to think that the root of the problem is largely that this article is trying to treat what is really a chain of different wars as though it was one singe continuous conflict. This makes coming up with an appropriate title challenging because this "conflict" is extremely ambiguous to begin with. Personally I've come to be okay with "Afghan conflict" on the basis of WP:CONCISE although I do feel it's a little subjective. Fanatizka (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Walt Yoder you state that argument doesn't make a strong case for "Afghanistan conflict" over "Afghan conflict". I would read this as preferring "Afghan conflict"? Also, you might view this evidence, which compares the relative usage of the two terms. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on "Afghan" v. "Afghanistan" now (while still being opposed to removing the year-based disambiguation). Walt Yoder (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Walt Yoder - For the year-based disambiguation to be used in a title, it needs to be unambiguously correct, and verifiably supported by sources per WP:V. It simply is not: no source supports the idea that there is a conflict that began in 1978 that is still ongoing today in 2023. None is cited on the page, none has been provided in this discussion. In previous discussions it has been asserted that this is the case, but nothing saying so has been provided. FOARP (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Afghanistan/Afghan conflict per FOARP. It may not be the correct primary topic, but the disambiguation fails WP:V and cannot stand. A further discussion on how to distinguish this conflict from others can be held later. Avilich (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is still basically a WP:SYNTH

[edit]

Fixing the title improves things, but ultimately the page is still a massive WP:SYNTH based on the POV that the Soviet, Afghan civil war, US/NATO, Taliban-ISIS, Panshir valley wars in Afghanistan were all ultimately a single conflict. No source actually supports this: the best that anyone has been able to do is produce one (1) book describing some of them as the "Afghan wars" - that is "wars" plural. No-one would write an article called "Europe conflict" about WW1 and WW2 together based simply on the fact that there are books that cover the world wars together, because even if they are covered in the same book they are addressed as separate conflicts.

Looking back through the edit-history I can see that this page is seemingly the result of a whole slew of undiscussed moves and edit-wars, based originally on the WP:OR POV that there was an "Afghan civil war" (this page's original title and where it stayed for most of its first five years) that had been continuing since 1978. It has been repeatedly pointed out over this time by various editors that no source actually says that these are single conflict. TBH I'm not sure how to fix this other than taking it to AFD but frankly the drama doesn't seem to make it worthwhile.

I've tagged the estimate of people killed as dubious - this is because taking different estimates with different confidence-intervals collected at different times and adding them together is just poor methodology and arrives at a conclusion that none of them state (which is the essence of WP:SYNTH). Again, I don't think this can be fixed because ultimately there are no reliable independent sources that even cover all of this as a single conflict, and no total estimate collated with consistent methodology for the whole period. This is especially the case given that the date given is 2014, before at least two of the conflicts this article asserts were part of this even began. FOARP (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really, no source actually supports this? First source I checked:
Leake, Elisabeth (2022). Afghan Crucible: The Soviet Invasion and the Making of Modern Afghanistan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. XIX–XX. ISBN 978-0-19-884601-7.

A coup led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), eighteen months before, had created an unexpected but seismic shift in Afghanistan. Upon coming to power, the leaders of the PDPA had announced: ‘The last remnants of imperialist tyranny and despotism have been put to an end.’ This pronouncement hinted at the aspirations of the PDPA, whose socialist intentions soon became apparent. Afghanistan’s new rulers sought the total reshaping of Afghan society and politics: the creation of a new, modern, socialist Afghanistan. However, what might have been just one in a series of twentieth-century coups turned into a civil war.
[...]
The Islamists found supportive allies in Pakistan, Iran, and the Muslim world, while the PDPA’s Soviet allies chose to take extreme action to maintain Afghan socialism, launching their invasion in December 1979. The Soviet intervention would explode an already violent conflict into a decades-long war whose ramifications continue to be felt across the world.

--Jo1971 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note how this:1) does not actually set a start nor end-date, and 2) does not specify which conflicts are part of these "decades long war" and, 3) is really just a throw away statement in piece that covers specifically just one of the conflicts that are part of this page. It's ambiguous enough that it could actually just be a statement about the Soviet-Afghan war which took place in three decades (the 1970's, the 1980's, and the 1990's including the Najibullah government's struggle). I could also find similar statements connecting WW1 and WW2 (e.g., Philip K. Bobbitt's Shield of Achilles lumps them together). This leaves this page, which lumps together five or more separate conflicts, still just a WP:SYNTH. FOARP (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with you that this page is SYNTH as a result. But what should the solution be then exactly? Should this article be turned into a short summary with links to each main conflict? Fardry (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fardry - The solution to a WP:SYNTH is just to delete it if no sourcing can be found. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does IS-K still hold any territory?

[edit]

I know they held a village or valley here and there during the civil war, but I haven’t seen any maps.

The initial main Republican force fighting after August 15 2021 was destroyed by late September. The last actual territory held by them was captured by January 2022. There’s still occasional incidents and geurilla attacks, but the actual full blown war ended with the failure of the loyalists to get support.

If IS-K lost all its territory at some point and is just down to occasional terrorist attacks, isn’t the conflict over at this point? From 1978 - 2021 there was always some territory not held by the central government or its coalition. Anti-Communist rebels in 78-79, Communists and Muhjadeen in 79-92, the Muhja, Hazaras, and Communists in 92-94, the Taliban after, then it was them vs the Northern Alliance, then they almost lost but held on, slowly regained ground, and won. Then the Republican Loyalists failed to get significant support and lost everything by 2022. So if IS-K is gone, that’s it. The country is unified under a single government for the first time since the Saur Revolution. End of this non stop conflict 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:94C4:A02B:DDE9:656E (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afghan_conflict&oldid=1244551030"