Talk:Invasions of Afghanistan

informal
Wow! Do we want this informal opening in an encyclopedia?

On the other hand, it works very well.

Paul, in Saudi

-

"...which may have led to the dissolution of Soviet communism."

That sounds like stretching it a bit, doesn't it? I'd think it sooner was the other way around; the fall of communism prompting withdrawal from Afghanistan? – Rafiki (talk) 13:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

British Invasions?
What about the British invasions of Afghanistan? I believe they were the Anglo-Afghan Wars...

Misleading
I'm not sure how accurate this article is. It seems to be a lot of opinion as well as fact and the wording of the article seems a bit bias.

So how does one get the article flagged for review?

Incorrect information
The line "kick starting US-funding for Islamic resistance groups" is not the modern consensus. It is now understood that Carter began funding the Mujaheddin in an effort to destablise Afghanistan and to draw the USSR into a Vietnam like conflict. This article on the other hand makes it sound like the opposite occured.

Also, there could be more information regarding Alexanders time in Afghanistan such as the guerilla campaign, the statements about the discover of oil wells and the foundation of historical cities.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The "British Invasions" paragraph is riddled with spelling mistakes.
Just thought I'd mention this!

Orphaned references in Invasions of Afghanistan
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Invasions of Afghanistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica": From Australia: "Smallest continent and sixth largest country (in area) on Earth, lying between the Pacific and Indian oceans." From Islam:  From South Asia: "Asia" > Overview. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 2009: "The Indian subcontinent is home to a vast diversity of peoples, most of whom speak languages from the Indo-Aryan subgroup of the Indo-European family." From Timurid dynasty: Encyclopædia Britannica, "Timurid Dynasty", Online Academic Edition, 2007. (Quotation:...Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia....Trading and artistic communities were brought into the capital city of Herat, where a library was founded, and the capital became the centre of a renewed and artistically brilliant Persian culture...) From Afghanistan:  From Muhammad:  From Khwarazmian dynasty: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Khwarezm-Shah-Dynasty", (LINK) From Islamic conquest of Afghanistan: Afghanistan, The 7th-18th centuries, Encyclopædia Britannica</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Soviet intervention?
"British Invasion"<BR> "American Invasion" but <BR> Soviet intervention?

Why? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This section has now been revised,including the title, to take into account classified Central Committee and Politburo documents that have been available online since 1999 and give a clear idea of discussions within the Soviet leadership throughout 1979, in the lead-up to the invasion in early December.

These documents reached the West by several routes, a substantial number being passed by the Russian archives directly to research institutions in the West. Their significance has been examined and discussed many times since then, e.g. in volume 4 of the Cold War in History Project bulletin, published in November 2001.

John Crowfoot (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Style Consistency
This and similar articles should respect the secular BCE and CE style rather than BC and AD.


 * While presumed that that was obviously appropriate, and would favor it were discussion of the question reopened, my recollection is that it's the prerogative of the first editor of the article who finds a legitimate need to distinguish between those two eras (only antiquarians and astronomers have any need to even know that more than two calendric eras exist), to make the choice, and that succeeding editors are to maintain that choice within that article. As it were, even unwise, and even deliberately partisan, choices are better than the alternative edit wars.) That said, I'll refresh my recollection, and with any luck, report back on my new understanding of the current wise or unwise policy.  That said, editors should, no excuses, sign (using 4 of these tilde marks
 * even if your change to the talk page seems too small to mention. The information of the time, and account or ip-address, cannot be concealed, and the failure to sign is evidence of either ill-will or recklessness on your part. --JerzyA (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Oops! --JerzyA (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC) & minutes earlier
 * even if your change to the talk page seems too small to mention. The information of the time, and account or ip-address, cannot be concealed, and the failure to sign is evidence of either ill-will or recklessness on your part. --JerzyA (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Oops! --JerzyA (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC) & minutes earlier

Removed False Claims
The following claim is an outright falsification provided with 0 evidence. "The Afghanistan area has been invaded many times in recorded history, but no invader has been able to control all of its regions at the same time, and at some point faced rebellion."

1. Alexander had completely pacified Afghanistan before he moved on to the Indus. He did spend 3 years defeating guerrilla leaders but in the end Macedonian control was secured. 2. The Bactrians (Indo-Greeks) 3. The Kushans likely controlled the entire region. However, the absence of Kushan writing makes it difficult to know if they had 100% control or not. 4. The Ghurid and Khwarezm Empires held total control. 5. The Mongols then held total control for over a hundred years. This is indisputable (see rashid al din etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.69.66 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)