User talk:2601:241:C200:B030:3DDE:FD11:5106:33BC

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. You need to add properly cited sources to the article, not in the edit summary. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours; further additions of unsourced figures will result in longer blocks
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have provided the sources

1. The Taliban at War: 2001 - 2018 pg 261 Antonio Giustozzi "Dr. Giustozzi holds a PhD from the LSE (International Relations) and a BA in Contemporary History from the University of Bologna. He was at the Crisis States Research Centre (LSE) until January 2011. He served with UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan) in 2003-4. Currently also affiliated with RUSI." https://books.google.it/books?id=CB6sDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA261&dq=taliban+kia+2001+2018&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqyeurh-3uAhWDz4UKHQcSBbIQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=taliban%20kia%202001%202018&f=false This is access to the Google books area (which shows the source im claiming, but may not be possible for certain regions) This is not some random source, but an expert in the field that used Al Somud, and reported Taliban KIA as 70,000 within the 2002 to 2012 period alone

2. I have provided Ministry of Defense (Afghan Government) that has released consistent press releases for years https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release

3. Even one of the previous claims (67,000 to 72,000) Used the follow article https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/officials-count-around-30000-war-dead-afghanistan-year Which reported Taliban losses in 2016 alone to be 18,500 killed WHICH cites the Ministry of Defense

Wikipedia has instead decided to ignore them and not only ignore them but lower the numbers to 20,000 to 42,000 using a Brown report that itself claims THE FOLLOWING "An estimate calculated from 185 Afghanistan Ministry of Defense press releases from January 1, 2015 to December 31, Retrieved from http://mod.gov.af/en/blog/. Neither the US or NATO have released figures on the exact number of anti-government insurgents killed. See also Crawford, Neta C. (2015, May 22). War Related Death, Injury and Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2015/War%20Related%2 0Casualties%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%202001-2014%20FIN.pdf."

The further link provided makes it very specific they have no actual numbers they use. There estimate of 42,000 did not change between 3 years of reporting periods https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/Direct%20War%20Deaths%20COW%20Estimate%20November%2013%202019%20FINAL.pdf

As you can see here from the 2016 report to the 2019 report, the Opposition number stayed the same.

You are purposely using false information and prevent access to other documents from officials that give a full representation of Taliban losses which number around 150,000+ throughout the conflict. through both the Antonio numbers which account for 2001-12 and Ministry of Defense numbers that account for the majority of the rest..

You should be ashamed. No wonder Wikipedia is considered a joke

I know you are also likely NOT going to care Because "Facts" or "Sources" are not actually the problem here. Narrative is the issue

So maybe next time, be open to OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT sources, and EXPERTS in the field Instead of claiming its some "Numbers" game


 * If you want to continue editing, you're going to need to (1) learn how to appropriately add formatted citations to the article versus just tossing a bunch of random links into the edit summary (2) read WP:SYNTH and (3) drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

So it is somehow acceptable for previous edits to combine various resource numbers? For example the 67,000 to 72,000 edit included 2 sources for the the years 2015 to 2016 (numbering 7,000 and 18,500) to add 25,5000 to the source? MY edit was merely an application of the same methods... for the MOD reports roughly 15,000+ Taliban deaths per year... However they tend to give daily (and at times seasonal) Totals The Brown report you have listed for example in the 2021 version https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/figures/2021/Human%20and%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Afghan%20War%2C%202001-2021.pdf Lists over 20,000 within 2 separate 4 month periods (which they do not add to the total number) http://www.rivmonitoring.com/ for example lists 20,211 Taliban deaths since February of 2020 (This is from Orband News an Afghan Source) If I were to add MOD numbers from individual years, would that then NOT be acceptable?? For its about the only structure that actually exists??? There is no such thing as an "Official" total war list or an actual overall estimate from a singular source. even the Brown University example you use is not one, and it admits its incomplete. Then would you as an editor find it acceptable to post an incomplete source?

Not to mention the source you used isn't even the most updated of the same study (there is a 2021 one that I just provided). None the less, the point is it admits that is it incomplete. and the idea that somehow we need to find some "official complete number" to give the idea.. on something most sources don't even attempt to study, or go about in a very limited capacity.... Is just silly. So if you enjoy giving some false perception of the conflict ... fine? JUST like the Afghan War map being based off an Anonymous Twitter account (Risbolensky) as opposed to sources like SIGAR, or even the LWJ. <--- YES I checked where those edits came from, and somehow an anonymous Twitter account with 7,000 followers is worth over 700+ of the last 1,000+ updates. <--- which go back to October of 2018. As opposed to the Long War Journal, or SIGAR (which will release its territorial control report this June) priorities....