Talk:Soviet–Afghan War

Why is the US not at all included in terms of the sides in the conflict?
The Mujahideen were funded in what was the most expensive operation in CIA history and was basically what led the Soviets to invade and yet thrle US and CIA isnt included in the sides in the conflict? 2600:1006:B147:CDA:E1A4:D260:546:71AB (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should ask User:Cinderella157? Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article certainly mentions the role of US and the CIA. However, I donot see that there are WP:RSs that would call the US a belligerent in the war? This would be the reason why the US is not listed as a belligerent in the infobox.
 * They were not a belligerent but were heavily involved (along with Pakistan and UK) in covert military support, there are separate articles about these too. I think a consensus needs to be reached rather than state a 'depracted' opinion. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Deprecation of "supported by" is not opinion, it was arrived at through an RfC at the template talk page and is linked in the template documentation. The close does allow for an affirmative consensus (ie an RfC) that would allow and exception to the deprecation. If that is what you think should happen .... Cinderella157 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry what I meant was Military support - it gives a better understanding, and isn't as vague Supported by. I can see why the former has been depracted given the many articles that have it and conatin large lists of countries/combatants etc. So yes I think for Military support a consensus should be made . Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of the spirit and intent of the RfC that deprecated the use (here is the link), I don't see a distinction between "supported by" and "military support". I am not standing in your way as far as opening an RfC goes but I would suggest that the RfC should be explicit as to which countries are added and why (and why no other countries would be added). Before we go down this path, please consider this version of the article. You might also consider this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Units involved section
Can someone add the Afghan Armed Forces in the units involved section (preferably above paramilitaries)? It was not just Afghan paramilitaries that fought the war, but the Afghan Armed Forces as well. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Maoist mujahideen fighters
Can we please add Maoist fighters back to the infobox of the page, since Wikipedia is supposed to cover all details of a war? It was removed for very shaky reasons, the idea being that Maoists didn't play any actual role and the one major Maoist leader (Majid Kalakani) died in 1980. But that's not true. There were multiple Maoist factions, specifically ALO, SAMA and AMFF, and several major Maoist leaders such as Faiz Ahmad and Mulavi Dawood. They were killed in 1986, but were still leaders in the war up to that point, and the Maoists were an active (though considerably less so compared to the Islamists) presence in the war.

I don't necessarily believe they need to be a separate entry from the Afghan Mujahideen section, as that's an all-encompassing title, but they can be included as part of them. How about something like this?

Nights At Nyte (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This works amazingly. Thank you! AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox is already way too bloated. Make a case at TP that these additions are supported by the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Furthermore, entries in the commanders parameter need to be reviewed to what is reflected by the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That blue flag for the Sarandoy isn’t an Afghan flag…
I saw that flag at a parade at the time and decided to digitalise it… I don’t know what it means but it wasn’t used for Sarandoy. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Removed. Too much cruft here anyway. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions! AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Numbers make no sense
It starts out by saying that "3 million Afghans were killed" out of a population of 13.5M, which is ridiculous. What were they firebombing towns? Mass executing civilians? There are usually many times as many people wounded as killed, so what, half the population was wounded or killed at some point during the war? It wasn't even that bad in Serbia during WW1, and that's about as severe a case as I'm aware of. Then in the info box below that is says that 3 million is the number of casualties. Not killed. And that's the maximum estimate, which is not the most likely one. Casualties includes all the wounded, captured, missing, and killed, the last generally being by far the smallest portion. Maybe if someone took all the deaths that occured in Afghanistan during that ten year period and said "okay these were clearly caused by the war" and wrote that number down you might get something like that. Although I wonder who was keeping accurate counts of the various tribes and villages and what happened to all the people in them over a decade.

Then it says there was 200,000 mujahideen, with 150,000 casualties. 75% of them were killed or wounded? They won the war in spite of only having 50,000 fighters left? Does that include POWs, like most casualty counts? Is 200,000 the total number of fighters who served at some point during the war? Was that the average overall size of their force, which stayed constant the whole time in spite of fighters being killed or wounded, deserting, retiring from age or sickness? It didn't start out as 50K and end up at 200K? At the numbers on the other side measured by the same metric? Hard to have faith in anything an article tells you when you are already having serious doubts before you start to scroll down.

Idumea47b (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Short answer, is the information you query WP:VERIFIABLE? If not verifiable (to good quality RSs), it should be removed. If there is nuance to information, it should not be represented in the infobox in a Wiki voice as a "fact". Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , you made unexplained changes to the casualty figures in the infobox here but not to the body of the article. "Key facts" in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article and the article remain complete without the infobox (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). If there are significant difference in figures given in good quality sources, this becomes a point of nuance that cannot be effectively captured in an infobox. This part of the infobox is particularly bloated and should be rationalised. My revert is not so much a matter of what is being changed but a matter of its execution. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Following some figures for civilian casualties from the literature.
 * --Jo1971 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Soviets apparently used Napalm in the Laghman massacre. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have tried correcting and clarifying the casualties figures in the infobox, but reverted it yesterday, even though all my figures had citations. For one, under Afghanistan communist casualties, the wrong figure is currently listed; 13,310 dead by 1988. But that is the official Soviet fatality figure, not the fatality figure of the Afghan communist government. My edit had Antonio Giustozzi as a source, who lists a detailed breakthrough of Afghan communist government forces who died by each year, amounting to over 58,000 dead (page 271).
 * I also gave a range from 1 to 3 million dead, to clarify.
 * Actually yes. And they did that for over nine years. See also Soviet war crimes and the "War crimes" section in this article. Whether it was "not that bad" or worse than in Serbia during WW1 is something that is irrelevant for this article. The mujahideen had 75,000 to 90,000 dead. As in every article, we go by what reliable sources say. I will try adding this data in the infobox, if anyone finds other good sources, they can add them. But just going on by hyperbole and not believing the sources is just no valid reason to derail the article. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the official Soviet figure about casualties: That number changed over time.
 * --Jo1971 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Soviets apparently used Napalm in the Laghman massacre. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have tried correcting and clarifying the casualties figures in the infobox, but reverted it yesterday, even though all my figures had citations. For one, under Afghanistan communist casualties, the wrong figure is currently listed; 13,310 dead by 1988. But that is the official Soviet fatality figure, not the fatality figure of the Afghan communist government. My edit had Antonio Giustozzi as a source, who lists a detailed breakthrough of Afghan communist government forces who died by each year, amounting to over 58,000 dead (page 271).
 * I also gave a range from 1 to 3 million dead, to clarify.
 * Actually yes. And they did that for over nine years. See also Soviet war crimes and the "War crimes" section in this article. Whether it was "not that bad" or worse than in Serbia during WW1 is something that is irrelevant for this article. The mujahideen had 75,000 to 90,000 dead. As in every article, we go by what reliable sources say. I will try adding this data in the infobox, if anyone finds other good sources, they can add them. But just going on by hyperbole and not believing the sources is just no valid reason to derail the article. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the official Soviet figure about casualties: That number changed over time.
 * --Jo1971 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * --Jo1971 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * --Jo1971 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , I expained here, why I reverted your edit. You have reinstated it (with a correction) and the comment that (in part), This is just the first step of the process. It is more important to remedy the body of the article since the infobox is a reflection of the article - not the other way around. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)