Talk:Afghan conflict/Archive 1

Affect on minoritys
we should include what affect this civil war had on minoritys? Parsi101 (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect copyright vio
This is just basically copy and pasted from afghan civil war right? why was there not any discussion Parsi101 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello ) The afghan civil was lasted from 1978 till the present did it? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure but this is definitely a copyright violation and seems to be a pov fork Parsi101 (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * well maybe your right :/ Parsi101 (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But I still do think a discussion should of been made and I reiterate someone else besides me is bound to see this as a obvious pov content fork of another article Parsi101 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it a copyright violation? It was a redirect, and I had written most of the redirected article anyways. Also when you create a "new" article to have a more appropriate title, there is no possibility for an edit summary. Also, why the heck, do all these SPA socks like Parsi101 feel the need to follow either DS or me? Can you not edit under your main account whatever that is? JCAla (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You do know when they attack you then you must be doing something right? Nice work on this article BTW. And I see you had a good hunting expedition recently Darkness Shines (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Empire
Seriously? How is this wording encyclopedic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.181.212.214 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask at Soviet Empire Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis?
Do our sources indicate that there has been a single War in Afghanistan going on for almost 40 years? A few hundred years from now, they may be lumped together, as with Punic Wars or Persian Wars, but right now it seems absurd to claim that the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the current one are, in fact, different phases of the same war. It certainly doesn't fit with current parlance. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Örebro Castle
Embedded into the article is an image of Sweden's Örebro Castle, as part of a solicitation to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments USA. Yes, Örebro Slott is indeed a fine-looking castle. I have been there many times. But what is the connection between Örebro and the War in Afghanistan and monuments in the USA? Rammer (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure). This article will call the war "War in Afghanistan" not "Afghan Civil War". There was very little participation in this RM, so no prejudice against making a new one Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (1978–present) → Afghan Civil War – The title calls this the "War in Afghanistan" but rest of the article calls it the "Afghan Civil War", so should the article (including the title) call it the "War in Afghanistan" or "Afghan Civil War"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is correct. When a foreign power tries to take you over, such as the Soviets from 1979 until whenever and the USA from 2001 until forever, that is not a civil war, that is an invasion. Okay, not forever, is 2024+some more better? (note to self, come back in a decade and correct) Apteva (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I still want to know what I asked a few sections up. How is this all one war? --BDD (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problems
The Saudi and US spent many billions in support of the Afghanistan mujahideen, shouldn't that merit a subsection? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

reliable sources
What reliable sources actually say this period is an independent subject that last until the present? I have at least two that say that war ending in 1992 (Cold War Museum, Encyclopedia Britanica, American University, Georgetown University Press), and another source that says it ended in 1989 ("Understanding War in Afghanistan").--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As asked in 2012, how is this all one war? What reliable sources verify that it is a single war? If it can be shown by reliable sources it is not, or as appears to be the case that there are no reliable sources that treat it as a single conflict, perhaps this article's scope can/should be changed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer to that question. Maybe this is based on a Western-centric viewpoint? "Oh, those Afghans, they've always been fighting. They've been at war for almost 40 years now!" --BDD (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm picturing a War in the United States article, whose infobox on the "ongoing" war has results like "Independence from Great Britain / Union victory / Allied victory / North Vietnamese victory". --BDD (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We can boldly move the article, and close the scope to meet the reliable sources. Or should we request move, and open it up for debate?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'd prefer the RM route. I'm not discounting the idea that the status quo is completely legitimate; it just doesn't seem that way to me, and nothing has demonstrated otherwise. This may also have implications for War in Afghanistan (2001–14), War in Afghanistan (2015–present), and the proposed merge of those pages. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Back in 2006 this article was started as the Battle of Kabul, moved to Afghan Civil War in 2006, then moved to Afghanistani Civil War in 2007, then moved to Civil War in Afghanistan in November 2007; it was not until 2013 that it gained its current title. Another option is WP:TNT and start it over. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (1978–present) → Afghan War (1978–1992) – Have been unable to find reliable sources that verify that there has been a single war ongoing since 1978 until today. As discussed elsewhere there are at least four reliable sources that verify that the war that began in 1978 ended in 1992 (Cold War Museum, Encyclopedia Britanica, American University, Georgetown University Press), and one reliable source that verifies that it ended in 1989 "Understanding War in Afghanistan"). Therefore weight should be given to the definition more often used by reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CANVASS I will notify appropriate individuals and wikiprojects.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting proposal since it requires a substantial narrowing of the focus of the article. I encourage discussion participants to look at the list of all of the relevant articles for the period involved listed at Afghan civil war.  It seems that Wikipedia treats 1979-1992 as two distinct periods (Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–1989) and Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–92)) the subsequent period (1992-present) as four periods.  I wonder if, to avoid duplication of content, the content at the current War in Afghanistan (1978–present) article should be moved to those articles and the title "War in Afghanistan (1978–present)" with the current intro be converted into a WP:CONCEPTDAB article.  Otherwise, a new "Afghan War (1978-1992)" article would still duplicate the previously mentioned articles and there would be no overview of the whole period from 1978 to the present.  —  AjaxSmack   13:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I really like the idea of this title being a CONCEPTDAB, especially if there's consensus that the idea of a 1978-present war in Afghanistan is Wikipedia synthesis. The first thing that comes to mind for me is redirecting this title to History of Afghanistan, letting the articles on the individual conflicts stand as they are, and merging content from here as necessary. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the solution being proposed by BDD. Another solution is just to delete this article, and merge relevant content to their appropriate articles, about those separate wars/conflicts. Granted they are all related as they are all in Afghanistan, but there doesn't appear to be reliable sources that treat them all as one single conflict, which this article does, and which per BDD is Wikipedia original research synthesis unverified by reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merging and deleting can be tricky, but if we didn't want the current title showing up in the search bar and such, we could move to something else in order to preserve the attribution history and just not leave a redirect behind. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This article should definitely be deleted. The 1978–present periodization doesn't made any sense; and while 1978-1992 is better, there's already two articles about it, the creation of a third one is not the answer. Iponey (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I, too, like User:BDD's proposal and agree with User:Iponey about not needing a third article. Also consider redirecting the title to the Afghan civil war dab page.  Then, if the current title pops up in the search bar, readers can quickly ascertain which period they want.  However, keep the title as a redirect to preserve the edit history and move the content to either the individual conflict articles or the history article. —  AjaxSmack   08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment All of this wiki periodization is a mess anyway. Who decided that Wikipedia needs the Afghan civil war divided in three articles? Iponey (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And that lies the problem, it doesn't meet our basic verification requirements. While no one is arguing that there has been a series of several conflicts in Afghanistan since the late 1970s, few if any at all reliable sources treat those conflicts as a single war. Thus the argument being forwarded by BDD.
 * I would be OK with redirecting this to the title Afghan civil war dab page, it appears to be a fair compromise. That being said, again, few if any reliable sources say it is all a single conflict, and it is the WP:BURDEN of those who oppose this move to show that a significant weight of reliable sources do.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support BDD proposal - redirecting this title to History of Afghanistan, letting the articles on the individual conflicts stand as they are, and merging content from here as necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. As that talks about all the separate wars discussed in this topic.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose All one war with different phases . There was no pause between the different conflict periods. Also, a tag has not been placed at the article's main page that this discussion is underway. Please place it. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first source does not say that a phase ended in 2014. Stratfor is analysis, and thus is not fact but the opinion of the writer, in this case George Friedman.
 * Quote from the second source:
 * "Afghanistan has been plagued by war for 30 years. The conflicts that have occurred during this time have involved major world powers, Afghanistan’s neighbors, and various Afghan factions."

- Ending the 30-Year War in Afghanistan


 * Thus although there has been war for 30 years, this shows that there are separate conflicts, not one war, but war in general.
 * The ICRC source, says there has been war for 30 years, but not say that is a thirty year single war.
 * Same issue remains for the source from the PhD Student from Fondation Pierre du Bois. No where in the source does it say that the 30 years of war is a single conflict.
 * Only the source from OxFam treats it as a single conflict:"To better understand how Afghans have experienced and understand the conflict, eight nongovernmental organizations operating in Afghanistan conducted research in 14 provinces across the country."


 * Therefore, even based on the sources provided by the editor above, the weight of sources do not show that there is a consensus from reliable sources that the period of 1978 onward is a single war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Matter of opinion. And it says war for 30 years, not warS. In any case, said my piece. Let the chips now fall where they may. EkoGraf (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose reducing the scope of this article and oppose even more strongly the idea of deleting it. It's not clear to me how serious this discussion is: first off I see no sign of the canvassing of concerned wikiprojects and involved editors that the nominator promised to do. Also if the purpose of the discussion is to delete the article as some editors are suggesting, then the correct procedure should be to star an AFD(and good luck with that). The sources presented here by RightCowLeftCoast are far from definitive: the Encyclopedia Britannica entry describes Afghanistans "internal conflict" as lasting from 1978 to 1992, but then goes on to state "More broadly, the term also encompasses military activity within Afghanistan since 1992 involving domestic and foreign forces", which completely contradicts the point being made. Other sources such as these, describe the 1978-1992 period, not because it was a single standalone conflict, but because it was during this time that Afghanistan was ruled by the PDPA, a regime known as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. It makes sense for sources that have studied a specific period of the conflict to present it as a war, but this doesn't mean that the fighting that happened before and after that period was part of an entirely different war. Conversely, a little research can easily turn up sources that present the current war as a single conflict that has lasted for more than 30 years: see this article from the Rand corporation, or this paper from the Century foundation. You could also try Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban by Larry Goodson, or the Human rights watch website, which unambiguously present it as a single war. The idea being propagated here, that the scope of this article is based solely on OR by wikipedians, seems to be a serious misrepresentation, as it clearly is justified by a number of sources, besides the undeniable fact that Afghanistan HAS been at war for the last 30 years. How could this not be the subject of an article?? --Raoulduke47 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Rand Corporation source provided above, talks about the Afghan Civil War. Is the above editor saying that this article is misnamed?
 * To quote the paper from the Century foundation:"Since 1979, its bitter conflicts have topped the list of threats to international peace and security that have actively engaged UN member states."


 * Thus there have been multiple conflicts, not a single conflict
 * The book shown above Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban, talks about a single conflict that lasted until 2001, as written in [http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57568/l-carl-brown/afghanistans-endless-war-state-failure-regional-politics-and-the this book review published in Foreign Affairs. Therefore, the war it talks about ended in 2001, and not "present", as this article alleges.
 * No one is arguing that there has not been some form of conflict in Afghanistan since date X. However, what is being debated is whether it is treated as a single war. That has been war, but not a single war. It is WP:SYNTH to say that there has been a single continuous war. This article is a kin to saying that there should be an article War in United States (1941-present), as there are sources that say that U.S. has almost always been at war. Not that I agree with that though, but just saying.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh? Your analogy doesn't make any sense. The US has been in involved in a number of wars, but they weren't continuous, and each was set in a very different geopolitical context, unless someone is suggesting that the First world war and the Vietnam war are the same thing, which would be absurd. The war in Afghanistan has been continuous, and taking place in the same geographical area, Afghanistan. There is no possible comparison. And yeah, "Afghanistan's endless war" by Larry Goodson ends in 2001, because, guess what, that's the year it was written in...not because the author considered that what happened afterwards was a different war.--Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that there are a number of different conflicts in Afghanistan. But they aren't allone conflict. The editor would want us to believe something that the author Goodson didn't write in his book. That would be original research. No if this article was  Wars in Afghanistan from X to Y, that is understandable, but to say that all these different wars are a single war, when [{WP:WEIGHT|most]] reliable sources treat them as separate would be WP:SYNTH.
 * Also the war involving the Soviet Union and the war involving United States were in two completely different political context and were also separated by a significant amount of time, therefore to treat those to conflicts as a single conflict would be, as the above editor said, "would be absurd".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I'm with EkoGraf and Raoulduke47 on this one. This request has no fundamentals. Coltsfan (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Just cause someone opposes it another someone opposes it does not make a strong argument.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Oppose - This merge proposal has no sourced basis. On the other hand, there are plenty of sources in the article that support the current title. The proposed move is illogical, and it is clear that it is one long continuous conflict with multiple distinct phases. LightandDark2000 (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's denying that there has been war in Afghanistan from 1978 on, but a war generally has two or more sides. What are the sides of the war that's allegedly been going on for almost 40 years now? The Soviet war in Afghanistan and Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–92) had two sides each, and I could even see an argument that that was one big war, with the Soviets and their supported government on one side and the "Mujahideen" on another. But you get to the Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–96) and there's a whole new set of players. Yeah, some commanders were involved in both, but so what? George Washington was involved in the French and Indian Wars as well as the American Revolutionary War. I don't even know what's going on with Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001). War in Afghanistan (2001–14) is straightforward, a new conflict IMO, though maybe too early to say whether War in Afghanistan (2015–present) really represents something new or not.
 * tldr: If you can tell me the belligerents of this alleged war and can put something in the infobox like we have for most conflicts, I might change my mind. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clear things up, I will make a couple of comments there. This war is rather unique, because although it is not a pure, perfectly continuous war, the conflict from each of those wars does blend into the other conflicts, and by that token, it technically does qualify this as a single continuous period of conflict. Basically, after the "end" of each war (or right before the end), an insurgency would break out, or an intervention would initiate before the said Afghan Civil War conflicts even ended. That being said, this pattern continued for over 30 years, and as such, these continuing insurgencies/foreign interventions has extended the already-ongoing civil war for over 30 years. And also, the war since 1978 has never really ended, they just transitioned as each successive insurgency or intervention became the primary focus of the next several years or so of the conflict. But the war never ended. The violence never did quell. And although some of the players and goals of the war have shifted dramatically, it's still one long bloody continuous conflict. The war just transitioned from one phase to the next. There was the Soviet Phase, and the after that, the victors started fighting for control, initiating the Taliban conflict period, then in 2001, the US and eventually NATO joined the conflict, basically delineating over 3 separate periods of the same bloody conflict. Also, as for "having 1 article per war", that's just not possible in some cases. For this war, a single article for all of the conflicts that erupted and spilled over into the next would make this article way too long to navigate. So it's completely logical to split up the article, and to use the distinct focus of each phase as the title (and defining point) for each individual article of the phases of conflict. Splitting up the articles otherwise would be confusing and muddling people's perception of the events. But we do have sources proving that the conflicts all spilled over from one into the next, culminating in this seemingly eternal nightmare of a war that's lasted for over 30 years. And we have sources that support the delineation of each individual phase of this conflict. So given all of that, the article titles should all remain as they are, given that the violence from each period has continued into the next, and due to the fact that we DO have sources supporting the current titling of each subsequent article. And that is all for now. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the infobox, we may not be able to include all of the belligerents/statistics. We would need to start a whole new article for the infobox (like for the Syrian Civil War), because we would need 5 or 6 belligerent columns in the article, as well as over 30 years of statistics for the cumulative conflicts, which is just not possible. The infobox template wouldn't be able to handle 5 or 6 belligerents, let alone 30+ years of shifting key combatants. So I'm afraid that it just can't be done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, using the logic defending that all these conflicts are a single conflict, here is what that logic would create: There should be one Indochina War article encompassing all the separate conflicts as a single conflict, not a summary article Indochina Wars linking to multiple different separate yet geographically similar conflicts. If this is the case there should be a single War in North America (X to present) article last from the beginning of the Indian Wars until the present War on drugs treating them all as a single conflict. I am sure there are other examples.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting point. I wouldn't at all be surprised if hundreds of years from now, historians spoke of these various conflicts as one war. Today we talk about, say, the Persian Wars and the Punic Wars, even though they lasted 50 and 100 years, respectively. But in those cases, there are clearly two sides. We can speak of their commanders, of the wars' outcomes for both sides, etc. We certainly can't do that here. And if we can't clearly and adequately explain how this is all one war, I think that's going to be a whole lot more "confusing and muddling" to readers. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not true. The Syrian Civil War has 4 separate sides, yet it is a single war. Same goes for the Second Libyan Civil War. Also, the Yemeni insurgencies have multiple sides, not to mention most of the current wars in the Middle East right now, and yet they are still one continuous conflict(s) in their own respective theaters. A war does not need two clearly distinct sides to be considered "a war", heck, many wars and insurgencies have more then two sides. There just needs to be opposing sides using armed force, and a continous (unbroken) period of conflict (in the case of extended conflicts, spillovers of the same conflict ) for a such an event to be considered to be "a war." And in this case, that is what we have, as indicated by multiple sources. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course a war can have more than two sides, but if sides are added and subtracted between the different "phases" of the war, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest those phases might reasonably be considered distinct conflicts. --BDD (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A significant number of reliable sources do treat them as separate conflicts. While fewer do treat them as a single conflict, we should not give those fewer sources undue weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope
Afghan Civil War redirect here. Shouldn't be better to restrict the scope of this article just to period between the soviet retreat and the american invasion? Moagim (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. As has been established in previous discussions in the archives, this is a continuously on-going civil war with periods of foreign intervention (Soviet 1979-89 & US 2001-now). walk victor falktalk 15:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok seriously, what the hell is that last paragraph. Kyeo77 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The civil war ended in 2001-2. Since then there is only an insurgency, there is no civil war anymore. Iraq, Thailand, Colombia all have insurgencies like Afghanistan, not a civil war. This should be split into Afghan Civil War 1979-2001, and Insurgency 162.213.136.97 (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it right to put 1978-2014?
I would strongly argue "yes". - Adam37   Talk  17:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I know this is an old topic but I would like to voice my opinion. I don't think it should because the war doesn't just end because ISAF is leaving Afghanistan. Also, there could be a different war that starts as part of this war. Besides, the Taliban are still terrorising Afghanistan. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true. The war is still going on. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Its not a war - its an insurgency. For it to be a war, there has to be an army that holds territory like in Syria. An insurgency is not a civil war. Palestine is not in a civil war. 162.213.136.97 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Taliban actually do hold territory in the south and in the east in the border region. They control most of several districts. And yes the war is still ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on War in Afghanistan (1978–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/20021118162327/http://www.papillonsartpalace.com:80/massacre.htm to http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/massacre.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211123252/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9808/31/iran.games/ to http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9808/31/iran.games/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131022195043/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C08%5C31%5Cstory_31-8-2008_pg3_4 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\08\31\story_31-8-2008_pg3_4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929130330/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/inside-the-taliban-3274/Overview to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/inside-the-taliban-3274/Overview
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021195320/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110111/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestusbiden_20110111142049 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110111/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestusbiden_20110111142049
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111224065417/http://www.acus.org/natosource/dutch-become-1st-nato-member-quit-afghanistan to http://www.acus.org/natosource/dutch-become-1st-nato-member-quit-afghanistan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on War in Afghanistan (1978–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/20110417165736/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2911290068493351924 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2911290068493351924#

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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This war is done
I think the date headline should be 1979-1989 since this whole article is basically about the Afghan-Soviet war. Claiming this is still ongoing or any way related to the War on terror today is incorrect, just my opinion. Akmal94 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 19:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (1978–present) → Afghan conflict – It's a simple yet effective name that broadly refers to the whole 'conflict' in Afghanistan since 1978. The current name may also be confusing when we have the current War in Afghanistan (2001-present) article. Wq639 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How can it be confused with War in Afghanistan (2001-present) that is the point of the עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose since Afghanistan has been the scene of a whole series of conflicts over the centuries, this could be a US-centric proposal. PatGallacher (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Soviet–Afghan War, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), Afghan Civil War (1996–2001)... all of these would also be "Afghan conflicts". The proposed name does not seem to meet neither the standard WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (particularly WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE) nor WP:NCE (particularly, the "what" is not easily identifiable).  Impru20 talk 11:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. How about all the other conflicts in Afghanistan through the ages? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Afghan conflict should redirect to War in Afghanistan, which describes various conflicts in Afghanistan throughout its history. Jarble (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I comment here to note that unilaterally moved the page to Afghan crisis (1978–present) without any explanation. Seeing how the move was conducted just 43 minutes after this move discussion was closed with no support for a move, I have reverted the article to its original location. If a move to the proposed "Afghan crisis (1978–present)" title is to proceed, it should follow the procedure for controversial moves: this is, to open a new move request and have a discussion on it to seek consensus for such a move.  Impru20 talk 20:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2019
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)" as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (1978–present) → ? – I think the titles 'Afghan conflict (1978-present)' or 'Afghan crisis (1978-present)' would be better suited than the current title. The term 'conflict' or 'crisis' is better for this wider spectrum of different conflicts that have taken place since '78. It puts it into line with other article titles like:
 * Iraq conflict (2003–present) (with Iraq War one part of it)
 * Ukrainian crisis (with War in Donbass one part of it)
 * Libyan Crisis (2011–present) (with Libyan Civil War (2014-present) one part of it)

Using the same method, we could have e.g. Afghan crisis (1978-present) with War in Afghanistan (2001-present) as one part of this wider series of conflicts.

Also I should mention that this article is also named too similar to War in Afghanistan (2001-present). It's not a confusion issue (as said by someone in a previous move request above) - but instead it's to do with accessibility: When searching for 'Afghanistan War' in Google you see the 2001-present article there, not this 1978-present article, partly because the 2001-present article is a lot bigger and known. This 1978-present article needs good distinguishing as a result, which would also greatly help people searching for this article in particular on Google or other search engines instead of the current 2001-present war. I am personally mostly in favor of changing the name to Afghan crisis (1978-present), but anything else similar I would prefer over the current title. Drayqueen (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC) , would you support the version proposed by Rreagan007? Safrolic (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Afghanistan conflict (1978–present). I don't like using "Afghan" instead of the actual country's name. In the examples above, "Iraq conflict" is used rather than "Iraqi conflict". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Afghanistan Conflict (1978-present) for all of the above reasons. Garuda28 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dangling ref
I have located a dangling ref and have hidden it, replacing it with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have references pointing to sources that are not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk)
 * Fixed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for this proposal. Number  5  7  15:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → Crisis in Afghanistan – I think the term Crisis would be best suited instead of Conflict when you look at it form a broader spectrum. Also reduces any leftover confusions. This term is already used in eg Ukrainian crisis, Crisis in Venezuela, Libyan crisis. (alternatively some may prefer Afghan crisis but I think Crisis in Afghanistan is best suited). Weaveravel (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I've never heard of a crisis lasting 40+ years.  Serendi pod ous  23:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose this is obviously not the common name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved, early closing per WP:SNOW. No such user (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → Afghanistan conflict (1978–2021) – See Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present). HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose- it's highly unlikely that all conflict will cease now after it's been ongoing for 43 years, and important to wait until there's evidence of it being over. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 00:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Source needs to be explicit about the end of the 43 years old ongoing conflict. Ratnahastin  tålk  04:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose While the 2001 phase of the war definitely ended with the fall of Kabul on 15 August 2021, the Afghan conflict is not over: the Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban groups are creating a stronghold in the Panjshir Valley and have promised to fight.--Karma1998 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose While the U.S.-led phase of the conflict is ending and will almost certainly be over by the end of this month, I haven't seen any reliable sources claim that the larger Afghanistan civil war is totally over. On August 17, 2021, Amrullah Saleh claimed that he is the country's legitimate leader. The BBC's live online coverage has repeatedly posted news briefs about the "uncertainty" surrounding Afghanistan's future. Based on what RSes are saying, I think it's too soon for Wikipedia to claim that this long-standing, multi-phase conflict has totally ended. CoatGuy (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Basically exactly what CoatGuy said. There is no evidence saying that the continuous conflict in Afghanistan is over, nor any reliable source to support such a claim. The US phase of the conflict has a separate move discussion occurring at Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present), but this article is covering the overarching series of conflicts, thus it is too soon to make any such move. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just adding this source indicating that already there have been two postwar states declared in Afghanistan, fighting between the two is likely. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210817-defiant-afghan-ex-vp-vows-new-fight-with-taliban 98.217.255.37 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Oppose We are on the verge of starting a new Afghan Civil War (or in a more official term a new phase of the existing Civil War) which is a part of the overall conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b005:60fa:2570:54a:2e91:38b4 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose and suggest speedy close per WP:SNOW per all of the above. Lennart97 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I understand the argument when it comes to the recent war but before acting like all conflict in Afghanistan will end you need proof for it.SteffooM (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Very strong oppose While the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) may be over, the conflict is not. The Panjshir conflict is still ongoing and we don't know how long it will last. BnC78 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * With new developments making it clear the overarching conflict is not over, I request for this discussion to be closed. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Strong oppose The phase of the conflict that started in 2001 may be over, but the overall conflict continues as a resistance is formed against the new Taliban government. EkoGraf (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite/Addition
This article needs a major rewrite, specifically about the 2001-2021 phase. The section is too particular, talking about bomb blasts in Kabul and such. It should have a broader focus and should include the end of the war. A new section about the Panjshir fighting, however long that war will be, should be added as well. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:CDEB:8B09:CB62:FF14 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Rename to Afghanistan Conflict (1978-2021)
The Taliban and the Panjshir resistance have signed a ceasefire with one another, so I think it is safe to say that all continuous conflict in Afghanistan has ended at the very moment, and the war is over. Justrz (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that move - a ceasefire isn't a peace treaty and it still has to be seen how long it's going to last - after all, conflict is still happening (including the Taliban cutting off internet access and armed clashes between the groups). Like, compare to the Korean conflict - the Korean War as such ended with a ceasefire in 1953 but there's still no long-lasting peace process and so it's still described as an ongoing conflict. NHCLS (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A country not a war, at last]SAMBLAman (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Investigation of war crimes
Just read this, from the Afghan Analysis Network. Reliable sources will hopefully be forthcoming: Afghan Victims of War Crimes Want Investigation: Hundreds of thousands apply to ICC  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   10:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Double Pictures
Why are there two pictures of the same image where President Karzai poses with the US troops? Aeazer (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is an overwhelming consensus that it is too soon to tell whether the conflict is over or not. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → Afghanistan conflict (1978–2021) – Termination of conflict SAMBLAman (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it apparently isn't 100% confirmed yet. Super   Ψ   Dro  17:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Regardless of whether or not the Panjshir conflict has ended, the ISIL–Taliban conflict is still ongoing. Furthermore, there is no deadline, so there's no reason to rush to declare an end to a 43-year-long series of conflicts. Surachit (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't include the ISIL–Taliban conflict in the lead as one of the phases of the 1978–present conflict, so maybe it wouldn't be counted if the Panjshir conflict ended soon. Super   Ψ   Dro  08:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Super  and Surachit, agreed with user arugument Uttarpradeshi (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the users above, particularly the point about "no deadline." The BBC recently reported that some resistance fighters are still active. Furthermore, I do not think we can treat Taliban claims of victory as a reliable source; the presenter of the Al Jazeera clip that SAMBLAman provided says as much at 0:18: "The Taliban have made this claim [of victory] before, only for it to be refuted by the armed resistance." We should wait until reliable sources have a clearer picture of the situation in Afghanistan and say that the country has stabilized before making such a drastic change. CoatGuy (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the Afgan Civil War which began in 1978 is still ongoing 2601:4A:402:9F10:613C:CB19:E13A:BC30 (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The conflict isn't over yet, maybe the War in Afghanistan is over, but the Afghan conflict isn't yet. You can't just say that everything in Afghanistan is over and everyone is living in peace. رايكر (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Super  and Surachit. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk  15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lets wait a year before discussing this. Or at least till December. See what RS write then. Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose NATO's war in Afghanistan is over, but conflict and resistance to Taliban rule still rages within the country. There is no deadline and to say there is any type of conflict resolution or "peace in Afghanistan" in anyway shape or form is obviously misleading. RopeTricks (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL that it'll all be over by December 31. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2021 Afghan Protests
Should we add the 2021 Afghan protests under the Panjshir conflict in the top part of the article where they list the various conflict? I think we should because the 2021 Afghan protests are considered part of the Panjshir conflict and the Taliban has used their military, the Islamic Army of Afghanistan, against protesters and making it more military-ish. PatriotMapperCDP (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Fall of Panjshir
With the collapse of the resistance in that region, and the Taliban victory, we can finally call the whole conflict. Whatever comes next, if anything, is not part of this long conflict. It will be, if it is to be at all, something new. Frankly, that the warring parties who started it are not the same as the ones who ended it, with some of the states who started it no longer even existing, and at least one changing sides to occupy the occupier slot, shows it ought to have been called and split long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.246.108 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → Conflict in Afghanistan (1978–present) – Because this is a series of conflicts that are not necessarily interconnected. The current name makes it sound like it's the Afghanistan conflict, but it's more than just that. 'Conflict in Afghanistan' is more neutral. It's also the (right) format used for Internal conflict in Myanmar.  WR   21:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)  — Relisting. VR talk 07:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. Both terms are descriptive, but as the nominator notes, the proposed title sounds more accurate for the multiple conflicts that have characterised the period in question.  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  06:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per wikipedia common name Libyan conflict, Iraqi conflict (2003–present), Palestinian conflict and Yemeni conflict (2011-present).Ytpks896 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Of the examples you gave, only Iraqi conflict (2003–present) is valid. Your example Yemeni conflict (2011-present) actually redirects to Insurgency in Yemen, which is more consistent with the proposed name. The other two examples are DAB pages, so they don't count on how we name a non-DAB article.VR talk 07:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am definitively not an expert on the topic, but from what I see, only the ISIS-Taliban conflict is unrelated from all others. Also oppose for consistency. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose another move proposal just for the sake of having another move proposal. An answer looking for a problem. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Both titles would be acceptable, but having the country first is more helpful for searching and indexing purposes. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Why 1978 in the title, rather than 1973?
The introduction itself states that "the 1973 Afghan coup d'état brought the monarch Mohammed Zahir Shah’s 39-year reign to an end and ended Afghanistan’s relatively peaceful period in modern history". So why is the article named Afghanistan conflict (1978-present) and not Afghanistan conflict (1973-present)? Seems a little arbitrary to put as the beginning of the chaos that continues until today a counter-coup (the one from 1978) rather than the actual first coup that had established a one-party autocracy (1973). Just some food for thought, would appreciate people's opinions. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is very debatable if the 1973 or the 1978 coup marked the end of the peaceful period for Afghanistan but my impression is most authors depict the Saur revolution as the more important event. For instance, here long-time Afghanistan observer William Maley puts the end of that period in 1978:
 * Rodric Braithwaite also puts the start of the tragedy into 1978.
 * Also, the level of violence sharply increased after the 1978 coup and the literature is starting to describe the conflict as a civil war at some point during the year 1979. Olivier Roy estimated between 50,000 and 100,000 people disappeared during the 20 months of the Taraki–Amin period alone. The Daoud period had also seen increased violence but nothing comparable to the Taraki-Amin period.
 * Jo1971 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jo1971. As you say, it is indeed a controversial issue. Still, I can't help but think that the name, as it now is, can be interpreted as biasedly saying that all as well in Afghanistan until "the Communists" showed up and gave a coup who would be to blame for all the chaos in the country until today, when, was we know, the stable monarchy was overthrown in the 1973 coup and an authoritarian regime put in place, only it wasn't a Communist. Given the West-East divide, including in academic perceptions, at the time, maybe we should ask ourselves if there isn't a bias in the year we choose for the beginning of the article - if there should be a year there in 1970s at all, as I don't really see how the current situation has anything to do with the coup of 1973 nor with the counter-coup of 1978... Dan Palraz (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dan Palraz: The destabilization of the country already began before the 1973 coup. In fact, the monarchy wasn't such a stable monarchy anymore in the beginning of the 1970s. For details see i.e. It's correct that Daoud's regime was authorian but with the PDPA in the government (he purged the communist members by 1977 though). If you think there is a bias for chosing the 1978 coup, which academic writes otherwise? From what I read it's not contested that the PDPA policies drove the country into the civil war. See for instance here:
 * p. 115
 * But I think the decreasing legitimacy of the state and the increasing tensions within the country starting from the end of the 1960s could be way more detailed from my point of view. --Jo1971 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jo1971 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jo1971. As you say, it is indeed a controversial issue. Still, I can't help but think that the name, as it now is, can be interpreted as biasedly saying that all as well in Afghanistan until "the Communists" showed up and gave a coup who would be to blame for all the chaos in the country until today, when, was we know, the stable monarchy was overthrown in the 1973 coup and an authoritarian regime put in place, only it wasn't a Communist. Given the West-East divide, including in academic perceptions, at the time, maybe we should ask ourselves if there isn't a bias in the year we choose for the beginning of the article - if there should be a year there in 1970s at all, as I don't really see how the current situation has anything to do with the coup of 1973 nor with the counter-coup of 1978... Dan Palraz (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dan Palraz: The destabilization of the country already began before the 1973 coup. In fact, the monarchy wasn't such a stable monarchy anymore in the beginning of the 1970s. For details see i.e. It's correct that Daoud's regime was authorian but with the PDPA in the government (he purged the communist members by 1977 though). If you think there is a bias for chosing the 1978 coup, which academic writes otherwise? From what I read it's not contested that the PDPA policies drove the country into the civil war. See for instance here:
 * p. 115
 * But I think the decreasing legitimacy of the state and the increasing tensions within the country starting from the end of the 1960s could be way more detailed from my point of view. --Jo1971 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * p. 115
 * But I think the decreasing legitimacy of the state and the increasing tensions within the country starting from the end of the 1960s could be way more detailed from my point of view. --Jo1971 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * p. 115
 * But I think the decreasing legitimacy of the state and the increasing tensions within the country starting from the end of the 1960s could be way more detailed from my point of view. --Jo1971 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But I think the decreasing legitimacy of the state and the increasing tensions within the country starting from the end of the 1960s could be way more detailed from my point of view. --Jo1971 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But I think the decreasing legitimacy of the state and the increasing tensions within the country starting from the end of the 1960s could be way more detailed from my point of view. --Jo1971 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have always thought that same thing, I guess since there wasn't much happening between the 1973 coup and the 1978 counter-coup but there has been almost constant fighting since the 1978 counter-coup than it make more sense to use 1978 as the start date of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.33.191 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting one major thing: we're talking about a conflict here. There was a coup in 1973, but it doesn't necessarily mean an armed conflict started. And if anything, there weren't any notable armed conflicts to call the situation a conflict. For the most part, the country remained peaceful during the pre-'78 period - there were only one or two isolated incidents like the Panjshir uprising, but nothing of the sort to call it a national conflict. 1978 is the correct starting year. -- WR   00:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)