Talk:Afghan civil war

message: I'm commenting out the infobox since this should be about the greater war, not about the individual Battle of Kabul (which should have its own article). Don't want to mislead readers. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kabul?

message: There is a confusion over what exactly this civil war is. The Soviets pulled out in 1989, and it is at this point we can consider it to be a civil war between their puppet government and other afghans. This war effectively ended in 1992 with the collapse of the puppet government. It wasnt until 1994 that the Taliban formed, and they made war with the Rabbani government. I would consider this to be a seperate civil war than the one I previously mentioned, as it is not against the soviet puppet government. As time passes the Taliban makes gains, the civil war doesnt end in 1996 with the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, but continues on as the Rabbani government, now working with other militias as the Northern Alliance, continued to fight. I think, using the precedent set by seperating the soviet war from the civil war that followed, that this civil war between the northern alliance and the Taliban would be considered ended when the United States involvement began. What do people think of this rather peculiar situation? ~Rangeley (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a source  which illustrate the five phases: Soviet vs Mujahadeen (78-89) (what we consider soviet invasion), Mujahadeen vs Puppet (89-92), Mujahadeen vs Mujahadeen (92-96), Northern Alliance vs Taliban (96-01), and finally US involvement (01-). It doesnt quite go with my above analysis perfectly, but its similar. What we could do is include all 5 phases as a part of the civil war, and have individual articles on the individual phases. We have 1 and 5 already, we lack 2, 3, and 4, or any facimile that includes the events depicted in them. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add another note, it seems in the 92-96 phase we could possibly have it be a three way infobox, the Rabanni government, those opposed, and the Taliban. Those opposed and the government then joined together in 96 as the northern alliance  due to their common goal of ousting the Taliban. This phase, Northern alliance vs taliban, should be a 2 side infobox. The Mujahadeen vs puppet should also be a 2 sided infobox. Just some ideas to consider. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: However two of those phases (the soviet and the current coalition phases) involve external belligerents and therefore cannot be described as a civil war Marlarkey (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (GMT)
hmm the situation is similar like in Somalia. I think the war lasts from 1989-2006 and its ongoing (Taliban insurgency), but with different phases--TheFEARgod 10:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea, should we make articles for the different phases you think? They are rather distinct, and that way we can have infoboxes. This civil war article can be an overview of it all. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea, thats a good idea for the article names (until/unless there is a better applicable name). The Afghan Civil War should basically explain that its been going on since 1978, and then have breif overviews of each phase, also linking to the main article. I will start putting together the individual articles though. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: agree with this proposal What this article describes is not a civil war according to the definition in Civil War.  The current phase of conflict in Afghanistan cannot be described as a civil war because it involves external belligerents and therefore does not mean the definition of a civil war.  Should an internal insurgency continue after the current coalition forces hand over responsibility and withdraw then any continuing conflict at that time could then be described as a civil war. Marlarkey (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (GMT)
Good. Check my changes in the 1996-2001 article. --TheFEARgod 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, I will change them. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: I did a lot of research using news articles from the time for the 96-01 phase, which was surprisingly tiring (yet interesting.) I havent found any sources from before 1996 though. So we still need the 89-92 and 92-96 to be fleshed out. I can do quick summarys on this article. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Progress 

message: :Image:10AFGHANWARNationalGeographic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh come on, this photo is a historical symbol, fer chrissakes... Like napalm girl. Read the bloody article if you don't believe me. If you were human you wouldn't need to, just a look at her would be enough. I hate those stupid image bots. --victor falk 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:10AFGHANWARNationalGeographic.jpg

message: :I just read this article and a lot falls into this that would not qualify as a civil war. Certainly the Soviety invasion was not a civil war (I have a record right here of Ahmed Rashid that says the civil war started after the Soviet's left) Although the pre-Soviet stuff on here could well constitute a war too). The post-9/11 was also doubtfully a civil war with foreign forces being the primce target, although as the insurgency grows one could accede to see this as so.
:The civil war article says (although i doubt it's truth) "civil war is a war between a state and domestic political actors that are in control of some part of the territory claimed by the state." Explicitly mentioning domestic actors and absolving foreign players. This article is in dire need of sources, but what sources say the current and especially the Soviet conflict is a civil war? Lihaas (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the what the definition of civil war might be, there is a clear historical continuity between the different phases of conflict in Afghanistan over the last 30years. Each phase is explained by the one that preceded it, so removing certain essential sections does not seem like very pertinent move. Raoulduke47 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a civil war with foreign intervention. If one peruses the list of civil wars, one notices that it is not at all exceptional. ¨¨ victor falk 08:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, hardly unique to have foreign powers sticking their nose in others' wars.ChillyMD (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Afghan civil war

message: Civil war in Afghanistan and its confused state is causing difficulties for the article List of ongoing conflicts.  There have been a series of edits where people (including myself) have changed the listing of Afghanistan on List of ongoing conflicts to War in Afghanistan (2001–present) on the basis that the current (and ongoing phase of conflict in Afghanistan is not a civil war and is unrelated to the preceding conflicts in Afghanistan.  A particular user User:Kermanshahi keeps changing the reference back again.  Does anyone here have any views about how this should be handled ? Marlarkey (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: List of ongoing conflicts

message: If you saw the Soviet TV reports from Afghanistan, they also said they conduct reconstruction. So why this article says reconstruction only began when Americans came?--MathFacts (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  After more than three decades of conflict, the reconstruction process of Afghanistan has begun 

message: Wikipedia has way too many articles on the 1978-present war in Afghanistan and this causes confusion, this one should briefly explain the civil war which began in 1978 and each section could explain the different eras.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me chase girl she chase me (talk • contribs) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many articles on the 1978-present war in Afghanistan

message: I don't see any consensus for this  no-summary edit (by Trust Is All You Need) changing all instances of "invaded" to "intervened" (not always grammatically).  Thus, I've reverted it.  It has been described as invasion by multiple reliable sources (e.g. Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, Russia marks Afghanistan retreat by Al Jazeera, etc.). Superm401 - Talk 22:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Intervened" Afghanistan 

message: This edit by Trevor Goodchild also had no summary and presents a few NPOV issues.  It changes "Military coup" to "Communist revolution" (consensus appears to be that it was a coup, though it obviously had Communist involvement), "popular" to "religious" (some were religious, some were simply anti-communist) "resistance" to "rebellion" (both are probably accurate, but the rebellion may have a slightly more negative connotation), removes "unpopular" (appropriate, though a source for the popularity could be added).  I've reverted all but the "unpopular" removal. Superm401 - Talk 23:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issues  with edit regarding Communist involvement 

message: Why was such a huge move down unilaterally without any discussion? Parsi101 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect without discussion