Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)/Archive 4

message: Allow me to summarize some of the issues raised to see if we can find a better name.  My listing of the issues here does not mean that the issues themselves have not been disputed or that I don't dispute them.
*"invasion" has POV connotations of aggression.
*"invasion" is inaccurate, because the US' role was minor on the ground, major in the air.
*Gives all agency to the US, whereas there were two sides fighting in the war.
*Name obscures role played by non-US, US allied forces.  (hence "U.S.-led")
Objections to other names (e.g. "2001 Afghanistan War", "War in Afghanistan") include:
*Did not take place entirely in 2001.  
*Obscures role played by a major combatant (the US).
:: Doesn't it equally obscure the role played by Al-Qaida and the Taliban too?  I have a hunch that second objection is primarily raised by people who want to highlight the role played by the US because of their views of the US.  Daniel Quinlan 20:07, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
:No, by being the de facto government of Afghanistan, I consider the Taliban to be covered in the name "War in Afghanistan". DanKeshet 20:34, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
Are there any names which answer all of these objections?  Let me propose "US-Afghan War".  (By analogy, the page Soviet invasion of Afghanistan could be renamed Soviet-Afghan War.)  This addresses all the points I have summarized.  Unfortunately, it suffers from another point:
*Not widely used.
And I'm going to propose another vote block, with a twist: 1) instead of assuming the form of the title, we list the whole title.  2) we list the objections along with the titles.  3) we don't start voting until 48 hours after it's been posted, so we have a chance to list all the objections thoroughly.
DanKeshet
: Why?  The current vote has produced two titles which happen to be the most popular ones:
:* 2001 Afghanistan War or 2001 War in Afghanistan
:* U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan or perhaps U.S.-led war in Afghanistan
: I wish we could all come to agreement, but we seem to be locked, largely for reasons of POV, I'm afraid.  Until people get over trying to push various points, I think we're going to be stuck here.  If the only issue with the "2001" is that the war extended into 2002, then let's talk about fixing that.  Daniel Quinlan 20:07, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
::Daniel, I don't consider us locked.  We're taking part in a conversation, spread out over a few days and a few server outages.  I actually think we're making progress; new names have been suggested.  And at least I--and I hope others--understand people's objections and reasoning much better.  There's no rush; better to get it done well then just be done with it. DanKeshet
===No Consensus===
The reason there is no consensus is because of a POV conflict. 
Half of us feel that what the US did in Afghanistan, beginning in 2001, constitutes an illegitimate invasion. We want the word "invasion" in the title to reflect our POV: so that everyone knows it wasn't a "fair fight". That nasty bully George W. Bush just went in and smashed the sovereignty of an innocent country that was just minding its own business: a clear case of naked aggression,
The other half of us don't want the title to express this POV: we'd rather put it into the article itself, properly attributed. The motive for this can be either (a) because we disagree with the "evil aggressive" POV or (b) because we just want to keep POV out of article titles.
The only way this conflict (between Wikipedians) can be resolved is if there is some higher principle we can all agree on. --Uncle Ed 14:01, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, please.  Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is more POV is just petty. DanKeshet
Well, currently the article says in the first sentence that the Northern Alliance "invaded" Afghanistan.  Perhaps a name change could alleviate such gross misunderstanding.--Pharos 03:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming revisited 

message: The reason there is no consensus is because of a POV conflict. 
Half of us feel that what the US did in Afghanistan, beginning in 2001, constitutes an illegitimate invasion. We want the word "invasion" in the title to reflect our POV: so that everyone knows it wasn't a "fair fight". That nasty bully George W. Bush just went in and smashed the sovereignty of an innocent country that was just minding its own business: a clear case of naked aggression,
The other half of us don't want the title to express this POV: we'd rather put it into the article itself, properly attributed. The motive for this can be either (a) because we disagree with the "evil aggressive" POV or (b) because we just want to keep POV out of article titles.
The only way this conflict (between Wikipedians) can be resolved is if there is some higher principle we can all agree on. --Uncle Ed 14:01, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, please.  Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is more POV is just petty. DanKeshet
Well, currently the article says in the first sentence that the Northern Alliance "invaded" Afghanistan.  Perhaps a name change could alleviate such gross misunderstanding.--Pharos 03:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No Consensus

message: The recent U.S. involvement in Iraq has been broken into two wiki-parts: 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2003 occupation of Iraq. 
Is there a separate wiki-article for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan? Or are current events of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan listed here?
To be specific, these news story  and  refer to deaths of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan. Should reference to their deaths be placed in this article or a different article? Kingturtle 21:27, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the invasion over? 

message: The contributions by anonymous user 24.228.82.146 who seems to be solely interested in military subjects made this article 46 kilobytes long and gave a strong focus on military proceedings, which are not particularly important to the average reader. Could we condense this a bit? Get-back-world-respect 14:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Length and focus