Template talk:Campaignbox Afghan Civil War

Saur Revolution

This template is called "Civil war in Afghanistan"; it's not about wars or battles in Afghanistan. It's about events of Afghanistan's 29 year long civil war. I think the Saur Revolution should be added to the template because it is a key event; it marks the beginning of the PDPA's rise to power.

Let me know what you guys think. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might have noticed that the template is actually called a "campaignbox", a design created by the WikiProject Military history, which means it was designed for military events: wars, campaigns, battles. The so-called "saur revolution"(in fact a coup d'état), was more a political than a military event. Also, this campaignbox covers major phases of the war in Afghanistan, not single events, however important. The wikipedia article Civil war in Afghanistan is rather sketchy and incomplete, and should'nt be used as a reference. Regards. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"this campaignbox covers major phases of the war in Afghanistan, not single events", "this is about wars, not palace revolutions", who decides this? where is this written?

Also in regards to "a design created by the WikiProject Military history", the coup d'état (that's the word you used) article is actually part of the WikiProject Military history, incidentally it is not part of WikiProject Politics.

Finally (although irrelevant to the current discussion) if the "Civil war in Afghanistan article is rather sketchy and incomplete, and should'nt be used as a reference", why is it even on Wikipedia then? If it is unreliable (according to you) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you had spent more time looking around these articles, rather than threatening others with "silent edit wars", then maybe you might have understood the underlying logic of the current organisation.

• Yes, this campaignbox is used for major phases of the war in Afghanistan, that's the way it always has been, and I see no reason to change that now. There is a hierarchy between campaignboxes, and this one embraces all the periods from 1979 to the present, and thus caps all the others. Adding the Saur revolution would create a severe imbalance: why include this event and not others, like Daoud's coup that overthrew the monarchy in 73, or the murder of Taraki by Amin in 78, or come to that, the overthrow of Amin by the Soviets in 79, and his replacement with Karmal?

• In addition, the Saur revolution, despite what is written in the Civil war in Afghanistan article, does not fit into the timeframe of the war. The coup itself occurred in April 1978, but widespread fighting did not break out until much later. Their was no reaction to the arrival in power of the communists, but there was a reaction when they tried to implement land reform and alphabetization(read indoctrination) programmes. Fighting started in July 1978, but the insurrection took hold in most of the country only in the spring and summer of 79, a full year after the saur "revolution".

Lastly, I'm rather puzzled by your assumption that any incomplete or slightly inaccurate article should be automatically be deleted. Certainly, Civil war in Afghanistan is far from perfect, but that does'nt mean it should go down the drain. Also, on one hand, you seem keen to emphasize the importance of the Saur revolution, while at the same nominating that article for deletion. If you feel it is incomplete, why don't you work on improving it, rather than giving it the axe? Raoulduke47 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Woah woah woah, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick pal, I didn't threaten you. When I said "Silent-Edit War" I meant;

An edit war (a rather futile un-desirable thing, because no one can actually win) is when 2 editors can't agree on the content of an article and constantly revert each others edits. What I meant by the "silent" part was;

Often in edit wars, the 2 disagreeing editors don't communicate (which will often solve the conflict), that's why I said "I would like very much for you to respond" (so we could start a dialogue, like we have) "so we can avoid a silent edit war, cheers ;)"

LOL I can't believe you thought I was "threatening" you, what did you think the ":)" symbol was there for lol?

Now to the matter at hand, firstly please don't assume that just because I have not been editing articles involving the civil war in Afghanistan for long, that I am not familiar with the subject matter. The fact is neither you or I can prove who knows more about it, the article can however, with it's cited references.

I understand what your saying about that the template currently only has periods of the Afghan timeline on it, but what I'm saying is, who decided it should be this way? you? Sticking to my original point, in particular regarding this sentence; "There is a hierarchy between campaignboxes, and this one embraces all the periods from 1979 to the present, and thus caps all the others", Where is this written? In fact I've not even seen any other "campaignboxes"!

Finally I never said the Civil war in Afghanistan article should be deleted (it's true look back over the entry), when I said "why is it even on Wikipedia then", I meant the fact that it is still on Wikipedia proves that it is not "rather sketchy and incomplete, and should'nt be used as a reference" as you said.

Regarding me nominating the Saur Revolution article for deletion, perhaps you should have delved a little deeper and read the reason why I actually nomitated it. I wont copy n paste it here coz it's like 12 lines, but here's a link; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saur Revolution, you will see that I actually am improving it, not "axing it"

Lets try and stay civil, I'm sure we both want what is best for Wikipedia and I'm sorry that you misunderstood me :) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, OK, I see you're not here to cause trouble. Excuse me for having been suspicious, but these articles are charged with ideological and nationalistic issues and attract their share of controversy. However, I think you will agree that there is no use mentioning edit wars when no edit war is impending, no? Anyway, I have my opinion, but I'm not going to edit war to impose it.

For the hierarchy between campaign boxes, that is explained by the fact that the Soviet intervention and the US intervention(that each have their own campaignboxes) are considered part of the 30-year civil war, and thus their campaignboxes are like subdivisions of the main one. This is of course debatable, and if you check the talk page of Civil war in Afghanistan, you'll see there isn't really a consensus on this question.

As for including the Saur revolution here, I'll repeat my above arguments, that it was'nt the arrival in power of the PDPA that sparked the beginning of the mujahideen insurgency, it was their controversial policies. It would be rather abusive to include an event that happened before the war started, I think. Regards. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL mate you're really hung up on this "edit war" thing, it's not an official thing, I don't have to send you a declaration, have cease fires or anything like that lol! It's just a name for if I make an edit then you revert it and we do that over and over.

Right I see what you mean, it'd be nice to draw this debate to an end what with it being Christmas n all (lol you could call it a christmas truce in our "war" ;), so I'll be happy to concede if we can just get a little consensus together to agree with what you've told me (and I think they probably will). I recommend Military History Project (I'll message them, then send you a link to my post), how does that sound to you?

Also I think this debate might raise another interesting debate for you and the rest of the crowd who monitor these articles; Earlier you said "the template is actually called a "campaignbox", which it is. However the title that appears in the articles is "Civil war in Afghanistan", I think to avoid further confusion such as this, a name-change should be considered. I know this has been the subject of some debate in the past from the edit history, but I think new editors can be forgiven for adding to a template whose title they see on the articles as one thing, that then changes to another thing with quite different connotations. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, templates of this sort include events that were actually part of the conflict, not precursors. The question of whether the Saur Revolution was properly a part of the civil war, or merely one of the events preceding it, is something that the editors actually working on these articles need to figure out; if it's the latter, it doesn't really belong on the template.

If it is part of the war, it could probably be included; pseudo-military events such as revolutions be included, within reason. But the top-level campaignbox may not be the best place for it; you might explore the question of whether there's an identifiable "phase" to the conflict before the Soviet one; and, if so, whether it could support its own campaignbox.

Hope that helps! Kirill 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)