Talk:Afghanistan–United States relations

Afghanistan Mid‑importance

	Afghanistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jorgevizcarrondo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gap in this article

What happened between 1988 and 2001? johnpseudo 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The U.S. bombed al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan under Clinton, for example.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: All right, I withdraw this and will make the proposal in a different form. Kotniski (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– Recent long community discussion about dash usage led to the conclusion that we should not space the en dashes in compounds like this (as documented at WP:ENDASH, sentence at the end of section 2., "The en dash in all of the compounds above is unspaced.") There are many bilateral relations pages that use the style that was previously recommended, i.e. they have spaces round the dash when one or both of the countries contains a space; the recent discussion concluded that this looks odd and does not conform to general English usage. The above 12 are just a sample; of course I propose moving not only these 12, but all of the bilateral relations articles whose titles take a similar form. Kotniski (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on aesthetic grounds; same reason "New York – Los Angeles" ought to be spaced. The MOS has failed in this respect, as I can see no advantage to reducing the clarity that spacing the dashes provides. Powers ^T 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's rather a lack of clarity: when you space the dash, it looks like it's being used as an interruption, like a colon, so the title looks like it ought to mean Afganistan: US relations (i.e. US relations as an aspect of the topic of Afghanistan).--Kotniski (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in a way, it is. =) Powers ^T 17:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Premature. This is under discussion in a MoS sub-page. Tony (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which? and why is that a better place to discuss it?--Kotniski (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, assuming that this is the new convention, which it appears to be. There are benefits and drawbacks to both the spaced and unspaced convention for these, but WP really needs to settle on one or the other, and the one it has adopted is by far the more common format outside of WP, despite it's disadvantages. Damn the "aesthetic grounds"—once a format has been selected by consensus, let's implement it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Surely this discussion should gather formal consensus where it started and in the relevant ongoing discussion surrounding en-dash styles first? Ideally, this should result in a specific guideline in the MoS before any global changes are made to these articles. Maethordaer (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But all this has already been done. We had a huge consultation process about dashes, and the new MoS guidance, which says that this kind of en dashes are not spaced, was the result of that. Unless there is consensus that these bilateral relations articles should be an exception for some reason, I don't see any procedural reason not to go ahead with the change.--Kotniski (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who weren't present for the discussion, could you provide a link to it or better to the diff where the guidelines were amended? Rennell435 (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion/poll was at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting. The change to the MoS seems to have been made (by the mediator of the process) by way of this edit.--Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kotniski - I wasn't aware of that discussion. But now I'm confused. The discussion you referenced was closed on 18 July, while the two I referenced were opened on the 29 July (by the same editor, apparently), and seem to be ongoing. I'm not really used to the procedures for such in-depth discussions: what are we to make of the 'open' discussions? Are they illegitimate, or are they valid? I appreciate your input on this. Maethordaer (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, they are just informal discussions between a few people; the "official" decision from the mediated process is the one currently documented in the MoS. However, this discussion isn't bound to follow the MoS if people think there are good reasons to deviate from it in this matter.--Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I haven't been involved in those discussions (and have no desire to be), do you think there are any chances they evolve from being "informal discussions" to changing the MoS? I ask because my inclination would be to follow MoS guidelines, if only to make procedures clearer for inexperienced editors. It would be a shame to move all the bilateral relations articles now only to have to move them all back if the MoS changes again. Maethordaer (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have thought so, particularly as no-one seems to be proposing any change to the point which is relevant to this decision, but I suppose there's no hurry to do these moves.--Kotniski (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Just my own bias but I personally prefer the space as it adds clarity. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I support a move of all bilateral relations articles. I'd rather not see a few done at a time as it leads to inconsistency. If consensus has led to the guidelines being changed, then there's really nothing editors can do about it other than to get the guidelines changed back. I suggest closing this move request, collecting all pages at Category:Bilateral relations that would need moving, proposing a mass-move, and dropping a note on the guidelines' talk page and those of related wikiprojects. Rennell435 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Zaher Shah Kennedy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zaher Shah Kennedy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Zaher Shah Kennedy.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I have concerns about the last paragraph of the article. It seems to acknowledge only the American viewpoint. Specifically, this section: "South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham also suggested that the United States should stay in Afghanistan permanently. This would benefit both nations, as the U.S. would have a clear idea about what was happening in the region on a daily basis, and Afghan security forces would have an edge militarily to ensure that the country never went back into the hands of the Taliban." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramamoose (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. I've added a neutrally disputed tag to the statement. Feel free to balance to an NPOV version. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve neutrality within the article, specifically around the Lindsey Graham statement, but would appreciate other comments. --Dramamoose (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of WEED

I'm not positive, but the Article states the Treaty of WEED was "completely useless." This is more of an opinion and probably should not be included however I'm not familiar with this so I'm going to let it go go for now if someone else agrees with me I would appreciate you removing it. Also why is the word "WEED" capitalized? Etineskid (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links

>:> Karzai says US cutting supplies as a tactic (Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Afghanistan–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afghanistan–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313034729/http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/01/03/senator-wants-karzai-address-corruption-us-set-air-base to http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/01/03/senator-wants-karzai-address-corruption-us-set-air-base

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afghanistan–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507215751/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/05/us-afgan_strategic_agreement_r.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/05/us-afgan_strategic_agreement_r.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Afghanistan–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afghanistan–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226125057/https://kabul.usembassy.gov/amb_transcript_0212.html to http://kabul.usembassy.gov/amb_transcript_0212.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]