Talk:Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

message: AfD closure comments: I strongly recommend that someone rename this article to something else, per comments in the above AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are a few things don't sound plausible.
*1. The civilian casualties of the war in Iraq are given as 1.4 million. Why should Afghanistan be so much lower when the war went on even longer? That requires explanation.
*2. The UN said there would be about a million casualties from starvation and freezing if the USA blocked humanitarian aid and supplies from outside during the early days of the war. They did anyway. Where are the casualties? That requires explanation.
*3. If you take the cost of the war divided by the number of casualities you will get a number equivalent to winning a major lottery. This does not compute. That requires an explanation.
RoedyG  —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anomalies 

message: * Where is the page, subheading, or even a link on the civilian casualties caused by the Taliban?  They dwarf those caused by ISAF.  This is a serious imbalance in the coverage. Amdurbin (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * What does one expect from the Taliban editors at Wikipedia? Also, previously reliable sources such as the Guardian UK, no longer tally those sorts of figures. As with much of the Main Stream Media - including Wikipedia, they are being willfully negligent, instead focusing on the civilian casualties, supposedly just the US' fault. Previously, the Guardian UK was reporting somewhere in the range of 30,000-40,000 Taliban killed during this war. Further, as is always the case, the truth does not long lie covered up. Look at what happened with AGW, where Wikipedia complied in covering up useful counter arguments. Try KeyWiki or Conservapedia for a break from the Taliban editors at Wikipedia. 10stone5 (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian casualties caused by the Taliban?

message: this article is extremely POV, and unnecessary, it should be merged with a different article or deleted.
Whatever the true number of civilian casualties in Operation Enduring Freedom, it has been the least bloody war in modern Afghan history. For example, about 1.8 million people were killed during the Afghan Civil war and subsequent Soviet Invasion.
And that makes it right?
There are no civilians in Afghanistan, only targets. And if for one second, you don't believe that they'd slit your throat as soon as look at you, then you deserve what you get. They (the Afghans) sure don't deserve the mercy we've shown them.
-By somone that cares
I think the above statement is horrible, there are civilians in Afghanistan! You think the whole country is pro terrirosm?
Sure, there are "bad guys" in Afghanistan, but for one minute, to beleive that there all "bad guys" is seriously wrong.
Thats like for me to say "All Americans are Unliked, Rude and Mean".
Sure, most of the world thinks that, but a country does not DEFINE you who are. Just where you live, and what taxes you pay.
You cannot put all of Afghanistan into one or two groups nor any country for that matter.
I know this isn't going to change one persons mind that is made up to believe that all Afghani people are targets.
Beacause only you can change your mind.
I'm looking for estimates of civilian deaths for several conflicts related to Operation Enduring Freedom.  To the person above, the Afghan civil war came after the Soviet invasion for which I can find a figure of 1.3 million civilian casualties.  I recall reading that between 35,000 and 60,000 were killed in the civil war that occurred after the fall of the pro-Soviet government in 1992 but I am as yet unable to find a source for this.  As for the comment, "Whatever the true number of civilian casualties in Operation Enduring Freedom, it has been the least bloody war in modern Afghan history", this is a non sequitur.  The number of civilian casualties, once known, will be exactly the needed datum to determine the invasions bloodiness to date.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.243.67 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: What is this NPOV you speak of? There is no NPOV anywhere in Afghanistan! Hundreds of NPOVs are killing themselves in front of the gates of... oh wait, wrong war.
Seriously? I don't see why we need this article. Even we keep it, it should be heavily rewritten to not reek quite so much of "OMG THE EVIL EMPIRE!"
--Bringa 23:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article is very POV. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. V7-sport (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Perhaps the article has been modified since the initial disputation was offered, so this may be an outdated or irrelevant comment and question. Yet if not, I must say that it is difficult to see how the text of the article can be interpreted as conveying a bias. As such, would the person who posted the original message please consider explaining the precise reasons for challenging the neutrality of the tone of the article? Many thanks in advance. :) *
Rob van Doorn 14:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested 

message: This page appears so out of date as to be useless, with the last casualty listed in mid-2005. --Kickstart70·Talk 18:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remove the update tag as it applies to the whole article, since the list does go up to 2007 now. I also took the 'please expand' tag off the talk of the article and moved it to the specific sections you mentioned. Sanguinalis 15:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates needed

message: It has been proposed that this article be deleted.
* Lack of sources
* POV during a current affair (the occupation isn't over)
* Inaccurate (there are large margins of estimated deaths.)
Also since it is technically impossible to gather all the names of those who died during the invasion, this article has been doomed from the start.
Please discuss,
Sfacets 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't counted, but you may well be right. However, as polls are evil, it's not the number but the reasons that count. Are you the person who tried to sneak a deletion through on Prod? JackyR | Talk 12:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Deletion

message: The AfD has ended with a recommendation that this article be renamed. I'd propose Civilian casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The rest of the series is named Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan (not v specific given the number of wars fought in Afg) and U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. If the parent article's name changes (as discussed there), we can shift this one to follow, but we shouldn't hold off re-naming this one as the other has no timescale. Comments? JackyR 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice fix to the link. I'd let this article's title sit a few weeks, in case the name change at the parent doesn't take... *sigh* JackyR | Talk 13:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-naming 

message: I removed the following event:
# October 7, 2006 - The Pakistani news agency AIP reported that two German journalists were found murdered in a tent around 150 kilometres south of the northern provincial capital Baghlan. This was confirmed by the ISAF confirmed. The two -a man and a woman - had been working 'in connection with ISAF' until 4 October 2006, when they went travelling on their own.[14]
South Asia News; "Two journalists, NATO soldier killed in Afghanistan" October 7, 2006 accessed 7 October 2006.
All the other events listed here were about civilians killed as a result of Coalition forces' actions. This one does not seem to fit in since I have not seen who is responsible for their death. If it does, we should also add all the civilians killed by bombs and other events not caused by the coalition.
Hudicourt 15:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, certainly. JackyR | Talk 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from Article 

message: I've shoved in a date of June 2003 for the report that gave the figure of ~3,600 dead. This is the date of the last incident in the table in Herold's report headed "Version: Oct 16, 2003. Appendix 4. Daily Casualty Count of Afghan Civilians Killed by U.S Bombing and Special Forces Attacks, October 7 until present day". By all means correct/refine this if I've misread anything (I only skimmed it). Cheers, JackyR | Talk 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates of Herold's reports

message: It seems to me that whenever NATO claims to have killed a group of taliban fighters, the taliban often issue a counter claim saying the victims were mostly civilian. Could we not include a sentence in the opening paragraph that says it is hard to distinguish in some case if casualties are indeed civilian or not due to the nature of the conflict (taliban fighting in civilian clothing and hiding in villages)? Daft, 16 May 2007; 17:30
: One of the things that needs to be done in this article, is for each incident in which civilian casualties are reported, indicate who is saying that civilians are killed. None of the news stories I looked at use the Taliban as a source. Instead the source is usally a local government official (typically a provincial governor), though in some cases reporters have spoken with villagers themselves. In cases where US or NATO spokespeople deny that civilians were killed, we should mention that too. Typically they neither confirm nor deny. Sanguinalis 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  civilian VS taliban deaths 

message: This article appears to be a list of incidents in which civilians were killed by coalition troops, and yet many of the figures included in the Total casualties sections (especially for the years 2005 onward) include civilians killed by militants, and some of the sources just count "people killed" without classifying them as civilians, militants, or security forces. Sanguinalis (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yearly totals 

message: Major casualties and accidental strikes by coalition forces
* 2010
* January 15, 2010 - At least five Afghan civilians were wounded when a combined force of Afghan troops and US Marines opened fire on a crowd at the gate to a military base in Helmand, Afghanistan's most volatile province, Nato said today.The incident, which took place on Wednesday but was not reported until Friday, was the second demonstration to turn violent in two days in Helmand's Garmsir district, suggesting mounting civil unrest in a part of the country where US Marines under Nato command made major advances last year.http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0115/breaking65.htm
Please add above information in the article.As edit button is removed and my user is blocked and wikipedia close all my ways for edit in any article.So can you please add above information in the article.I have really thankfull to you if you add above information in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.86.242 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troops fire on crowd in Afghanistan 

message: * Major casualties and accidental strikes by coalition forces
* 2010
* January 17, 2010 - NATO forces in southern Afghanistan killed one civilian on Sunday after he approached their convoy in a vehicle, while a US soldier was killed in a clash with suspected Taliban in the eastern region, the military said.The incident happened when the civilian vehicle approached the convoy in Garmsir district in Helmand province Sunday morning, the alliance said in a statement."The vehicle had no headlights, and was travelling at a high rate of speed at the time of the incident," it said. "After firing three to five rounds into the grill of the vehicle, it stopped.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.84.29 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NATO forces kill Afghan civilian, US soldier killed in clash  

message: POV is disputed. There are a lot of value-laden adjectives and markings. I.e., "at least" is put in italics. Contention that "most" casualties are caused by non-Afghans is unverified or referrenced -- Srich32977's log comment
: The phrase "at least" is present because sources of this data which we consider reliable are conservative and tend not to present an upper bound, which would be assuming that they are aware of all casualties.  I have no idea why it is in italics in one place.  "most of the direct civilian deaths were the result of U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire" does appear to be unreferenced and should probably be removed.  Remove the italics, remove that statement, and you're satisfied?  Or are there more POV issues?  Anyone?  Thundermaker (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tagger seems to have disengaged but the article is almost pov by neglect if that is even possible. There are so many incidents which have not been included here so I am leaving the tag on for that reason. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: At the start of this article there should be a running total based upon reputable sources of the number of dead killed by Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I understand that there will be disagreements as to the methodology and the exact number. But this article reads as obfuscation. Especially when day after day we are updated with the exact number of Canadian, and American Soldiers killed, wounded etc...I want know, generally, what those closest to this situation think is the number of people killed by Coalition forces in afghanistan. At least I want to know what the range of estimates are. ``
:What sources to you propose to use to support this running total? Adding up numbers from press reports is unsatisfactory as not all casualties are reported in the media and doing so would violate Wikipedia's rules against original research. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why So Confusing and Complex with Scientific Language?

message: Please add Casualty Monitor as an external link.
http://www.casualty-monitor.org/search/label/Afghan%20Casualties
Thank you.
Readknowwrite (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Given that this site is already an external link in related articles (Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001) I've assumed there's an implied consenseus for its inclusion, though I have not evaluated it myself.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Readknowwrite, 26 June 2010 

message: : Its funny how the protests of civilian deaths seemed to stop after Obama took office, or was it ok to kill civlians after Obama
 took office?  This article is nothing but left-wing drivel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.47.73 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghan protestation of civilian deaths caused by international forces 

message: Why are people restoring content cited by WP:SPS, particularly where people are named per WP:BLP.  Do I have to take this to WP:BLPN?  If you think its good content, despite being added by a disruptive sock puppeteer, then source it properly.  And knowing the guy that did it, check any source he names as the guy included cites that had no relation to the content.  Wee Curry Monster talk 00:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep removing valid content. Why do you call the New York Times article SPS. It perfectly verifies the information and more RS can easily be found. If there are problems with valid information than we prefer to fix them instead of removal. IQinn (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already explained to you, the editor responsible was the sock puppet of a disruptived editor who named sources that did not support content.  Just because he named the NYT didn't make it a reliable cite for the claim made; he falsified his cites.  And as I explained to you already I had a huge clean up task to do and in clearing up the mess left behind making a mistake is forgivable.  But recognition of an error wasn't helped with two editors continuing to revert content with snarky remarks, or as you have just done responding to my attempt to engage in talk in between reverts but only after the issue was resolved on your talk page.  And I have already pointed out that I had mistaken Monstersandcritics.com for an SPS and not the NY Times.  And I really, really don't understand why you chose to bring up a now stale issue again after it had been resolved.  I would suggest there is more productive uses for your time and mine so I do not intend to respond further.  Wee Curry Monster talk 02:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I engaged with you on my talk page and i do not think that there were snarky remarks. Good that the issue is now settled as i personally think that this is valid information that should stay in the article. IQinn (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats up? 

message: The photos in this article are from rawa.org "Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan" which is a wholly unreliable source.V7-sport (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos.  

message: Shouldn't this article be revised in light of the public release of civilian casualty data by ISAF, the UN, and others?  It's all available here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1256/suppl/DC1
These are the best numbers currently available for the death of Afghan civilians, broken down by region, perpetrator, and even cause of death.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenofdaworld (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  civilian casualty data release 

message: Isn't the title misleading?  According to my understanding, the invasion of Afghanistan started with U.S. and various NATO forces, and that ISAF was created at a later stage.  Ketil (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. ISAF was only created much later, after the initial invasion was already done. What's more, all the foreign and Afghan government forces have always been led by the U.S. military, and foreign forces in Afghanistan have always been majority two-thirds American. Right now 100,000 of the 140,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan are American. That's 71% American. On top of that the vast majority of the ISAF participants explicitly do NOT take part in combat activity. They stay only within safer areas of Afghanistan, only within secure zones, and conduct only training or reconstruction. They don't take part in combat or raids. So probably some 90% of foreign combat troops in Afghanistan are American. And when we're talking about Afghan civilian casualties caused by foreign forces, most are caused by airstrikes, and those are predominantly American. In other words, probably 90-99% of civilian casualties caused by foreign forces are caused by U.S., not ISAF troops from other countries that have strictly limited participation in combat, night raids, and airstrikes. The misleading and overly-long title "Civilian casualties caused by ISAF and US Forces in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" needs to be changed. Formats (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading title? 

message: This article has been the victim of numerous renaming and I have come to suspect that those who did it had an agenda.
At its creation, this article was called "List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan".
Then it was renamed "Civilian casualties of the U.S. invasion of AfghanistanItalic text"
it was clearly meant to list the Afghan civilians accidental, or through neglect, killed by foreign forces.
In 2007, some complained that the name was biased against the US which was not the only foreign country engaged in this war, at which time I renamed it "Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)".  That was a mistake on my part, for I should have replaced US with "foreign" or "ISAF/US", which I didn't do.  Those maintaining the article, including myself, continued to treat it exclusively as an article listing civilians killed by foreign troops.
In November 2009, someone changed the name to "List of civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–presentItalic text)"
The in January 2010, a user called "Formats" decided "list" was unwarranted and removed it and brought it back to "Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)"
Then in March 2011, some users complained that the article was biased against the foreign coalition because the article only listed civilian victims caused by the coalition and not those inflicted by the Taliban. Some even wanted to delete the article for the same reason.  Others suggested that editors should add those incidents where Afghan civilians had been killed by the Taliban and other anti-government insurgents, but no-one did.
The article was again renamed to reflect what it really was and someone renamed it "Civilian casualties caused by ISAF and US Forces- War in Afghanistan (2001–present)"Italic text
In May 2011, someone again renamed the article "Civilian casualties caused by ISAF and US Forces in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)"Italic text
Another user adds:
"Isn't the title misleading? According to my understanding, the invasion of Afghanistan started with U.S. and various NATO forces, and that ISAF was created at a later stage. User:Ketil|Ketil]] (User talk:Ketil|talk]]) 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious renaming of this article 

message: For the estimates of the no. of civilians dying indirectly due to US actions from the likes of starving, why is it worde like this, this implies it is the US's fault they are starving but more people were dying prior to the invasion from starving, malnutrition and exposure so in fact many of indirect deaths from starving and malnutrition would have died without the us invasion as malnutrition and starvation decreased as the war progressed. I suggest a change of wording as the us were most likely not responsible for many of the indirect deaths. Also many indirect deaths could be attributed to the taliban.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table wording 

message: An aggregation table like this should have a total accumulated figure of each year creating a total civilian death toll. These yearly civilian death tolls are well sourced, so there nothing wrong with creating a total to the table. Most tables containing like this have totals and it just stupid that there is no ranged total here. Please add it for the sake of this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggregation Table 

message: Was just reading Taliban which states that between 75% to 80% of civilian casualties were caused by the Taliban in 2009-2011.  Yet the article is clearly centered around civilian casualties caused by coalition forces.  That list of Karzai quotes kinda smells like WP:UNDUE to me.  Why such an emphasis on coalition inflicted casualties and barely no mention of Taliban inflicted casualties?  I made a quick edit to help that a bit, but this all reeks of WP:POV. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so much focus on NATO operations and so little on Taliban activities? 

message: This entire article catalogs Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan yet there is no actual total number estimate given, how is this excusable?
Revrant (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware of a reliable source which provides an estimate for the total number of civilian casualties? If so, please add the figure with a supporting reference. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No actual number 

message: I've just updated the article on the number of documented deaths resulting from the conflict according to the latest "Cost of War" report. That report also estimates possible indirect deaths (on all sides), and I've placed this number - 360,000 and conservative according to the study - in the article as well.
Modern epidemiology uses cluster based sampling methods to gather data on pre-war and wartime mortality rates, because documented death counts radically underestimate total deaths, direct or otherwise, in a conflict. I've been searching for data on this in Afghanistan and haven't yet found it. If anyone does find a study using these methods, please add it and/or make a note here. -Darouet (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documented deaths, estimated deaths from violence, and estimated indirect deaths 

message: Wow. The section entitled "Afghan President Hamid Karzai's repeated pleas to the foreign military forces" has probably the worst NPOV violations I've seen in my over 9 years on Wikipedia. I'm not debating that the content of the section may be useful for the article, but man is the phrasing biased. Karzai "tearful[ly]" and "repeatedly pleaded with the foreign military forces" to stop "maiming and killing" "Afghan children". Gimme a break.
Look, I get it. Judging from the talk page, this article has been through a long back and forth debate over what constitutes NPOV. However, if nothing else, I think it's obvious that this section really needs to tone it down on the language. It's pretty ridiculous. —Noha307 (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If Karzai is talking/lamenting "tearful" (= talking with tears in his eyes), it's nothing else then correct and, yes, neutral reporting to say, also in Wikipedia, that he was 'tearful'. Those tears were apparently part of his message. Leaving 'tearful' out of our article would then simply be censoring the report, withholding information from our readers. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy NPOV Violations, Batman! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101017075855/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jin59v7_ci05Cs9KtqexpO_1NxKA to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jin59v7_ci05Cs9KtqexpO_1NxKA
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309233827/http://www.unama-afg.org/docs/_UN-Docs/_human%20rights/2009/UNAMA_09february-Annual%20Report_PoC%202008_FINAL_11Feb09.pdf to http://www.unama-afg.org/docs/_UN-Docs/_human%20rights/2009/UNAMA_09february-Annual%20Report_PoC%202008_FINAL_11Feb09.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524164233/http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/1014-22.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/1014-22.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907034036/http://www.afghanemb-canada.net/en/news_bulletin/2007/may/04/index.php to http://www.afghanemb-canada.net/en/news_bulletin/2007/may/04/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907034036/http://www.afghanemb-canada.net/en/news_bulletin/2007/may/04/index.php to http://www.afghanemb-canada.net/en/news_bulletin/2007/may/04/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623104422/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/29/afghan.protest/index.html to http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/29/afghan.protest/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110606222946/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C05%5C04%5Cstory_4-5-2007_pg4_14 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C05%5C04%5Cstory_4-5-2007_pg4_14
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309233827/http://www.unama-afg.org/docs/_UN-Docs/_human%20rights/2009/UNAMA_09february-Annual%20Report_PoC%202008_FINAL_11Feb09.pdf to http://www.unama-afg.org/docs/_UN-Docs/_human%20rights/2009/UNAMA_09february-Annual%20Report_PoC%202008_FINAL_11Feb09.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310013958/http://www.unama-afg.org:80/_latestnews/2009/09feb17-civilian-casualties.html to http://www.unama-afg.org/_latestnews/2009/09feb17-civilian-casualties.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917113053/http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org:80/2008/01/index.html to http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2008/01/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130430002015/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hI3vuvC-SOmTbaRC_fDTM4XjIyng to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hI3vuvC-SOmTbaRC_fDTM4XjIyng
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013155147/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/26/america/NA-GEN-US-Afghanistan.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/26/america/NA-GEN-US-Afghanistan.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907034036/http://www.afghanemb-canada.net/en/news_bulletin/2007/may/04/index.php to http://www.afghanemb-canada.net/en/news_bulletin/2007/may/04/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726085402/http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1783&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=12602 to http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1783&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=12602
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3602
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150124234638/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hp9agRx-Y97bFaRcRTxBR7OL0ECA to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hp9agRx-Y97bFaRcRTxBR7OL0ECA
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120111164505/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/18/asia/AS-Afghanistan.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/18/asia/AS-Afghanistan.php
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121011142922/http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Karzai+issues+final+warning+civilians+killed+NATO+raid/4860532/story.html to http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Karzai+issues+final+warning+civilians+killed+NATO+raid/4860532/story.html#ixzz1NvNZ99vC
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081226.wafghansoldier1226/BNStory/Afghanistan
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090307.wkarzai0407/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120113004744/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100121/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestcivilians to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100121/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestcivilians
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080506235230/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/story/cms.php?story_id=3602 to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3602
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121004152632/http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/06/2100966/karzai-rejects-us-apology-for.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/06/2100966/karzai-rejects-us-apology-for.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2014). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212123522/http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2006/february/feb72006.html to http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2006/february/feb72006.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406083558/http://icasualties.org/oef/ to http://icasualties.org/oef/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014040037/http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=55023 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=55023
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226163948/https://www.securityaffairs.org:80/issues/2010/18/kemp.php to http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2010/18/kemp.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why does this article end with 2014 when the war is still going on? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article end with 2014 when the war is still going on? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=%2Fviews06%2F1014-22.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710161002/http://e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allPrintDocs/9024a1cd61b6b58687256c04004f9318 to http://e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allPrintDocs/9024a1cd61b6b58687256c04004f9318
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125202233/http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocs/6AA9DC5F52A1AFFA87257241000F11E8?OpenDocument to http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocs/6AA9DC5F52A1AFFA87257241000F11E8?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509085021/http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html to http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la-060202bombs
*Added  tag to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070130/afghan_deaths_070130/20070130?hub=World6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119193929/http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/Protection%20of%20Civilian%202009%20report%20English.pdf to http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/Protection%20of%20Civilian%202009%20report%20English.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904163207/http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/March%20PoC%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf to http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/March%20PoC%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904163207/http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/March%20PoC%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf to http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/March%20PoC%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la-060202bombs
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806052858/http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/09july31-UNAMA-HUMAN-RIGHTS-CIVILIAN-CASUALTIES-Mid-Year-2009-Bulletin.pdf to http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/09july31-UNAMA-HUMAN-RIGHTS-CIVILIAN-CASUALTIES-Mid-Year-2009-Bulletin.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified