Talk:Soviet–Afghan War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Need help updating one of the existing bibliographic sources

There is a source in the article from the Boca Raton News (a Florida newspaper) which was inserted in the statement about the war being nicknamed "The Bear Trap", but that source is extremely incomplete, I mean it's just a title and a URL basically, so I updated it but I can't insert it because the article is blocked from editing, so could someone with the right permissions please put this source to replace the older source I'm mentioning?
Source:

I included all relevant parameters that were missing and it's much more complete in this form as you can see, I'm not even sure how to include it in here so that it can be easily copied and pasted so I just put it with the < ref > tags.
Thanks in advance,
--177.227.43.209 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the help. Loafiewa (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

References

NPOV...

I would recommend that the entire article be flagged for a POV check.

Just browsing through, and sentences like this strike me as incredibly POV and ahistorical: "The invasion on a defenseless country was shocking for the international community, and caused a sense of alarm for its neighbor Pakistan."

1) The Pakistani ISI, in alliance with the CIA and the Saudis, had been supporting Mujaheddin fighters against the Soviet-allied government well before the Soviets sent troops in. And Brezinski has even acknowledged that this was the *goal* - to get the Soviets bogged down in their own version of Vietnam. So the Pakistanis were deeply involved in the project which brought on the Soviet involvement, and this was in fact the goal of said project.

2) Describing it as an "invasion on a defenseless country" is hardly accurate, as the internationally recognized Afghan government at the time *requested* Soviet military assistance, to fight off a proxy war being waged against it. -2003:CA:8739:9FF6:7D61:B91E:B36:F9CB (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

War crime section

I doubt that war crimes were committed only by the Soviets, however currently the article seems to imply this and does not mention any war crimes by their opponents. Does anyone have material to add to that section?

95.90.250.7 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why Red Army?

I am not sure why the name "Red Army" is being used on this page. Soelacanth (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

it is not correct. But Western media keep using this term. Notoriously. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghan fatalities

Between 562,000 and 2,000,000 Afghans were killed. - thats quite a wide range. Who counted them ever, are there name lists or something like that. Or breakdowns of groups (how much fighting civilians, rebels, how much unarmed civilians, regime soldiers, etc.). To state is that today a number of around 1 million or slightly more, e. g. 1,2 million, is given in media coverage of the 1979-1989 conflict (documentary and the like) - at least in western media - as a fact. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

"Change War Crimes category to as follows"

Massacres See also: Rauzdi massacre; Padkhwab-e Shana massacre; Kulchabat, Bala Karz and Mushkizi massacre; Baraki Barak massacre; Kunduz massacre; and Laghman massacre The army of the Soviet Union killed large numbers of Afghans to suppress their resistance. In one notable incident the Soviet Army committed mass killing of civilians in the summer of 1980.[246] To separate the Mujahideen from the local populations and eliminate their support, the Soviet army killed many civilians, drove many more Afghans from their homes, and used scorched-earth tactics to prevent their return. They used booby traps, mines, and chemical substances throughout the country.[246] The Soviet army indiscriminately killed combatants and non-combatants to ensure submission by local populations.[246] The provinces of Nangarhar, Ghazni, Laghman, Kunar, Zabul, Kandahar, Badakhshan, Logar, Paktia and Paktika witnessed extensive depopulation programmes by the Soviet forces.[245]

Chemical Weapons According to former U.S. Secretary of State, George Schultz, "Reports of chemical attacks from February through October 1982 indicate that the Soviet forces continue their selective use of chemicals and toxins against the resistance in Afghanistan." [412] Examples of Chemical Weapons used throughout the war were mycotoxins such as yellow rain and sleeping death. Yellow Rain causes internal bleeding and destruction of the bone marrow, causing vomiting, headaches, and necrosis of the skin. Victims have been seen in the position they were in before death, as the toxin kills the victim instantly. [412]

Rape The Soviet forces abducted Afghan women in helicopters while flying in the country in search of Mujahideen. In November 1980 a number of such incidents had taken place in various parts of the country, including Laghman and Kama. Soviet soldiers as well as KhAD agents kidnapped young women from the city of Kabul and the areas of Darul Aman and Khair Khana, near the Soviet garrisons, to rape them.[247] Women who were taken and raped by Soviet soldiers were considered 'dishonoured' by their families if they returned home.[248] Deserters from the Soviet Army in 1984 also reported the atrocities by Soviet troops on Afghan women and children, including rape.[249]

"Add a 412th citation in the references as follows for bibliography source Mohammed Kakar. Afghanistan : The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982. Vol. [Pbk. ed., 1997], University of California Press, 1997."

Kakar 1997, p. 248

Mycotoxins such as yellow rain, sleeping death, and Blue X seem to have been used in Afghanistan. Yellow rain causes burning sensations, vomiting, headaches, spasms, and convulsions. Internal bleeding follows, followed by the destruction of the bone marrow. The skin then turns black as necrosis sets in. The time from exposure to physical decomposition may be a matter of hours. Sleeping death kills the victim instantly. Victims have been found in fighting position, holding their rifles, eyes open, fingers on their triggers, with no apparent cause of death. Blue X, a nonlethal agent dispensed in aerosol form and dropped from aircraft, renders the victim unconscious for eight to twelve hours.28George Shultz, the former American secretary of state, has dealt with the subject of chemical warfare in Afghanistan in detail. According to Shultz, "Reports of chemical attacks from February through October 1982 indicate that the Soviet forces continue their selective use of chemicals and toxins against the resistance in Afghanistan." In twelve provinces yellow, black, red, and white substances, along with nerve gas, were released from aircraft and assault helicopters as well as pumped from armored vehicles. The chemicals were stored at Kandahar Airport, which was an important staging area for Soviet military operations. Until late 1982 many observers suspected the Soviets of using chemical substances, which were said to have been deployed as early as 1979. Shultz comments, "Our suspicions that mycotoxins have been used in Afghanistan have now been confirmed." He also states that "reports during 1980 and 1981 described a yellow­brown mist being delivered in attacks which caused blistering, vomiting and other symptoms similar Sulialialo (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: for several reasons:

• The proposed language does not follow neutral point of view guidelines in many cases.
• The proposed edits are likely not uncontroversial.
• The proposed edits do not specify exactly which text is to be replaced.

I would suggest separating the changes into smaller chunks, and discussing them here to attempt to achieve consensus, rather than using the "edit request" template. PianoDan (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sulialialo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Maoist Mujahideen

Why isn't China shown as backing the Maoist Mujahideeen factions. The Mujahideen was not a united front, and China did back the Mujahideen. China did back the Maoist factions Spaceworker2 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Only if there is a source for that. You can't assume China was backing every Maoist faction especially since China wasn't even Maoist at this time. 2601:80:8402:1AA0:0:0:0:2CC3 (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Soviet fatality number: way too low

The number of around 15,000 soviet military dead is presented to this day as a fact. Wonder why no suspicion arises on that; in the end, it was a Soviet times officially published number and should be regarded - with reason - as doctored. A Russian study stated later that in reality the number was nearly twice as high, see: The Russian General Staff: The Soviet-Afghan War. How a Superpower Fought and Lost. Translated and edited by Lester W. Grau and Michael A. Gress. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence 2002, p. 43–44. - Units digits, given now, convey pseudo-precision. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The number of 14,453 Soviet servicemember dead is correct. However, this is the number of dead on Afghan soil. The number rises to around 26,000 once the number of servicemen dead in Soviet hospitals is counted. Aurei33 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Participation of Communist countries in the war

Cuba, Bulgaria, East Germany, Vietnam and Czechoslovakia are listed as belligerents. The source for this is an 1982 New York Times article citing two unnamed Afghan officers stating that the above listed countries participated in combat operations alongside Soviet forces. This is misleading as all reliable historical sources, including official documents and reports from the mujahideen confirm that only Soviet forces took part in the war. Furthermore, out of the five countries listed, only Bulgaria and East Germany provided material support. Consult the sources: as well as all reliable sources, as the New York Times citation uses unverified and what has been proven incorrect information. I urge that these countries be removed as belligerents, or their role be more elaborated upon. Aurei33 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Here a few sources for support by Vietnam, Bulgaria, Cuba and East Germany.

J. Bruce Amstutz, US charge d’affaires in Kabul from 1977 to 1980, writes in his book, Vietnamese and Bulgarian troops have been confirmed.

Amstutz, J. Bruce (1986). Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Occupation. Washington D.C.: National Defense University. pp. 179–180. ISBN 978-0160016387.

During the five years, periodic reports appeared that other Soviet-bloc countries also were fighting against the mujahidin in Afghanistan. Those mentioned most frequently were Cuban and Bulgarians. Others cited were East Germans, Czechs, Ethiopians, Palestinians, and Vietnamese. Only two of these reports seemingly were confirmed. A former Vietnamese army officer who defected in Bangkok in May 1984 told reporters that he had been one of 208 Vietnamese sent by Vietnam to fight in Afghanistan. In June 1983 an Estonian underground newspaper published an interview with an Estonian soldier who recently had returned from service in Afghanistan. The soldier claimed that his Soviet army unit had talked with Bulgarian soldiers guarding the highway between Kabul and Jalalabad.

Michael Pohly writes here that an Afghan fighter has been wounded by Cuban troops.

See Pohly, Michael (1992). Krieg und Widerstand in Afghanistan: Ursachen, Verlauf und Folgen seit 1978 (in German). Berlin: Das arabische Buch. p. 409. ISBN 3-923446-95-0.

The GDR support is well-documented, however, mostly training and education.

See Ruttig, Thomas (2010). "Aus Bündnistreue zur Sowjetunion: Spuren der DDR-Entwicklungszusammenarbeit in Afghanistan". In Kunze, Thomas; Vogel, Thomas (eds.). Ostalgie international: Erinnerungen an die DDR von Nicaragua bis Vietnam (in German). Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag. p. 127. ISBN 978-3-86153-600-0. --Jo1971 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2022

In the Saur Revolution subarticle I think it would be convenient if Nur Muhammad Taraki was in the colour blue (double bracket)(you can know who he is without losing your line in this 200-line page). If it was already couloured, I think it would be helpful to mark it again because I haven't found him in the colour blue 213.177.197.234 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  21:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Afghanistan (1987–1992).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Very poor start to the article, the alleged support for the heroes resisting Soviet Invaders. Should lead with why Brezhnev ordered the Invasion and the appalling deaths at the hands of the Soviet Invaders. Earl Cannenbere (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

US President Jimmy Carter's National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski memo Afghanistans a Soviet Vietnam

see also Zbigniew Brzezinski and Talk:Zbigniew Brzezinski and Talk:Central Intelligence Agency

Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor of the United States under Jimmy Carter, was the architect of the Central Intellegence Agency Afghan War, he stated:

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention." The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998). University of Arizona.

Tulsipres (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

See Wikiquote on this apparently mistranslated/apocryphal, if not downright fabricated, statement. No such note to President Carter has ever been found. In fact, Brzezinski's December 26, 1979 memo to the president says nearly the opposite of what is claimed above: "Accordingly, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan poses for us an extremely grave challenge, both internationally and domestically. ... we should not be too sanguine about Afghanistan becoming a Soviet Vietnam ... " Unfortunately, our article already gives considerable weight to the debunked notion that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by legitimate security concerns; if anything, such content should be trimmed, not expanded further.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging is actively following my edits. See also Talk:Central Intellegence Agency. User:TheTimesAreAChanging a support of Zbigniew Brzezinski for at least 8 years, his GWu.edu quote ignores these 2 sentences:  :...the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan poses for us an extremely grave challenge, both internationally and domestically. While it could become a Soviet Vietnam...We should concert with Islamic countries both in a propaganda campaign and in a covert action campaign to help the rebels. That is exactly what the CIA did. And that is the central point, buried in all of this propoganda. The war in Afghanistan was a CIA proxy war, resulting in the deaths of 562,000 to 2,000,000 Afghan casulties. Tulsipres (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The bottom line is that in July 1979 Jimmy Carter signed a presidential finding permitting the CIA to spend $695,000 on non-military assistance. and In a December 26, 1979 declassified memo to President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski stated:

...the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan poses for us an extremely grave challenge, both internationally and domestically. While it could become a Soviet Vietnam...We should concert with Islamic countries both in a propaganda campaign and in a covert action campaign to help the rebels.:

As I added to the Zbigniew Brzezinski page:

In July 1979 Jimmy Carter signed a presidential finding permitting the CIA to spend $695,000 on non-military assistance. This assistance included "cash, medical equipment, and radio transmitters" to Afghan mujahideen insurgents, and a propaganda campaign targeting the Soviet-backed leadership of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA). This was in response to the March 1979 Herat uprising in Afghanistan.

In a December 26, 1979 declassified memo to President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski stated:

...the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan poses for us an extremely grave challenge, both internationally and domestically. While it could become a Soviet Vietnam...We should concert with Islamic countries both in a propaganda campaign and in a covert action campaign to help the rebels.

In a 1998 Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, he stated:

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

Brzezinski later denied he said this in an interview decades later:

Robert Gates revealed in his memoirs accurately that before the Soviets staged the formal invasion of Afghanistan but they were already in Afghanistan with Special Forces and so forth we increased military we increase financial assistance to the Mujahideen it was mostly for the acquisition presumably of weapons and then after they came in when the Soviets came in I did send a personal memo saying yes their entry into Afghanistan at a time of turmoil in Iran and in the whole Persian region in Gulf region as a consequence potentially we have a chance to give the Soviets their Vietnam.

The Real News Network: The (Le Nouvel Observateur) interview says this was before...

Brzezinski: well that's not that's not right.

Tulsipres (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

References

NPOV tag LEAD

I changed the lead and made the article beginning clearer:

The Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989) was a war with insurgent groups known collectively as the Mujahideen, as well as smaller Maoist groups, supported primarly by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, which fought a nine-year guerrilla war against Soviet Union military occupation and their satellite state, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA), throughout the 1980s, mostly in the Afghan countryside.

Tulsipres (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your unsourced WP:BOLD edit to the lede is obviously false on its face to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the academic literature. It also contradicts the body of our article, which the lede is intended to summarize. For example, the current revision of our article body states:

The Afghan mujahideen were backed primarily by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Kingdom making it a Cold War proxy war. Out of the countries that supported the Mujahideen, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia offered the greatest financial support.[11][12][13][15][16][269] However, private donors and religious charities throughout the Muslim world—particularly in the Persian Gulf—raised considerably more funds for the Afghan rebels than any foreign government; Jason Burke recounts that "as little as 25 per cent of the money for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states."[270] ... In total, the combined U.S., Saudi, and Chinese aid to the mujahideen is valued at between $6–12 billion.[301]

In other words, per the article body and all reliable sources, foreign governmental aid to the mujahideen was routed through Pakistan's ISI, with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia famously matching funds dollar-for-dollar, but "as little as 25 per cent of the money for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states." You replaced the long-standing lede summarizing these uncontested facts with misinformation stating that the insurgency was "supported primarly [sic] by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency," providing no sources whatsoever, then edit warring and slapping the entire article with a neutrality tag when you did not immediately get your way. Sorry, but this is a high-profile article; you may not immediately get your way, especially when WP:BOLDly inserting unsourced misinformation into the lede.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Note that the op, User:Tulsipres, has been indeffed as a sockpuppet of User:Coldwar2.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is it called an intervention and not an invasion?

That is disgusting whitewashing of an invasion of a sovereign country. The Soviets inflicted so much damage, as per the Wikipedia article, a third of Afghanistan's population was a refugee in either Pakistan or Iran. This was very clearly an invasion and it should be titled as such in the sub-headings of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.44.93.220 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead is severely overloaded

As per Wikipedia's policy there should be a maximum of 4 lead paragraphs. About a year or more ago the lead was cleanly laid out with 4 paragraphs and now one or more users have completely overblown it again to 11. We need to stop editors from doing this as it degrades the article quality. WR 17:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

And how exactly are you helping solve your complaint by adding a vague sentence to the lead? "The war also had lasting impacts in Pakistan." How so? There is probably a better way to work this into the lead, the specific detail (presumably) being the spillover of the war led to an increased insurgent presence in Pakistan's border regions. Yue🌙 22:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a very short sentence that glues with the other effects listed in that paragraph; if anything it's meant to be a placeholder. Definitely not something even worth mentioning regarding my complain: the lead is in a very bad condition the way it is. --WR 15:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Soviet troops near Kabul, 1986.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

should USA be in the box somewhere?

Should the USA be in the info box in a "supported by" section? or did they not get involved at all until the Afghan Civil War (1989–1992)? Irtapil (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The United States is already in the infobox under the "Supported by" section. Yue🌙 20:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to fix that to make it more legible now. But it can't be opened without loading the whole article, so i added a temp subheading, then someone reverted that while i was working on it, so i moved to my sandbox… Irtapil (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Also to be clear: You seem to think that I and another editor saw your subheading note and we either didn't understand it or ignored it. That is not the case; we understand your intention, but you should not be adding your personal notes to live articles as that is against site guidelines, hence my request that you use your sandbox. All the best, Yue🌙 22:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Yue: Did you change your screen name on here today? I'm getting confused about how many people I'm talking to? Irtapil (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing usernames is a months-long progress. Like I said on your talk page, I am not Loafiewa; you are having discussions with two different people. Yue🌙 22:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you go to your Preferences and then to the Gadgets tab, there is an option under the Appearance section that says "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page"; if you enable that option, you can edit the infobox without loading the entire article in the editing space. Yue🌙 22:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Extract Background section

Would removing this section wholesale go a long way to solving the size issue? I see people saying this section is poorly written and/or repetitive, but maybe moving and tidying after is the way to go? Dhalamh (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

launched an invasion of,[nb 1] Afghanistan

What does the grammar means? I think its broken But sorry i cannot edit it because i am unregistered user By the way can anyone fix the that grammar about "launched an invansion, nb1 afghanistan"? Why they use comma between "of" and "afghanistan"? What is the purpose for using symbol comma between words "of" and "afghanistan"? But who put this notabene 1 on this page? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:71F4:4162:9854:8BB6 (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

There is a spelling mistake:

"Causes of withdrawal

The Soviets did not have enough men to fight a counter-insurgency war (COIN),[244] and their troops he low morale. " The "he" should be replaced by "had" or an alternative wording. DEUSexMANIA (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Yue🌙 23:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

Revise the word on the first line from 'coloniqually' to 'colloquially' PetrusJacobs10125 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

In the "Belarus" subsection, remove the sentence "It remains the last war the country took part in." As of 2022, this sentence is no longer true, as Belarus has participated in the Russo-Ukrainian war. 74.71.23.27 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done I rewrote the sentence in accordance with this, thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2023

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 01:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Afghan–Soviet War → Soviet–Afghan War – It's the common name. This ngram shows that "Soviet-Afghan War" is used more commonly than "Afghan-Soviet War". I know that the previous move is based on alphabetical reasons, but I think an exception should occur here with the common name policy. What are your thoughts on this? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• I agree, it makes more sense for this page to be called the Soviet–Afghan War as that is by far the most commonly used name for this conflict. I think it's similar to how the Spanish–American War is called that, as opposed to the "American–Spanish War". Nights At Nyte (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• agree Google Scholar strongly supports the change. Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support using wp:Common name. --RD47 (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. HorseyChallenge (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support using wp:Common name. Where is it sourced 'Afghan-Soviet war'? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note: Courteous ping to Marmidukay, who had performed the last move. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I now disagree with my move without having any consensus and agree with your request. Feel free to move this article back to Soviet–Afghan War. 19:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmidukay (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contradiction with Wikipedia article 'Nuristan Province'

Wikipedia article ' Soviet-Afghan War' states: " Conversely, some regions such as Nuristan, in the northeast, and Hazarajat, in the central mountains of Afghanistan, were virtually untouched by the fighting, and lived in almost complete independence. " Wikipedia article 'Nuristan Province' appears to blatently contradict this, stating: "Nuristan was the scene of some of the heaviest guerrilla fighting during the 1980s Soviet–Afghan War." 31.94.72.211 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

consoliation = consolidation 2603:8000:D300:D0F:BD2E:96A7:1FB:A55E (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll</alspan> (🔔 • 📝) 09:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated opinion & potential war crime apologia

I found this sentence fairly disturbing and ultimately unrelated to the topic at hand, it lacks a citation and constitutes someone's opinion on a fairly serious matter and does not belong on this page.

"The U.S. likely committed war crimes in Vietnam through inconsistent application of its rules of engagement and disproportionate bombardment, but it at least attempted to hold individual soldiers accountable for murder, especially in the case of the only confirmed large-scale massacre committed by U.S. troops (the Mỹ Lai massacre)."

As noted, sentences like "The US likely..." are not, in my opinion, up to Wikipedia's standard. This is not the place for speculating on motives, especially in relation to an unrelated war. Perhaps more importantly, it is simply untrue and lacks a citation. Only one soldier of the dozens who participated was ever prosecuted for his role in the murder of 300-500 civilians. He served three years house arrest before receiving a presidential pardon. This does not constitute "attempting to hold individual soldiers accountable" by any means.

I'm not sure how such baseless, inappropriate speculation on an unrelated topic - which I think borders on war crime apologia - ever passed review. Urdnotscott97 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really have a review process, all you need to edit this article is an WP:Autoconfirmed account. That said, I agree with your concerns and have removed the passage. Koopinator (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I see, I wasn't sure how the process worked for the semi-locked articles, but thank you Urdnotscott97 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Maoist involvement

Why are Maoists even in the first paragraph and bolded in infobox, making it look like they played a major role in the war. In fact, Maoists rarely had a role in the war; the term "Maoist" is mentioned only two times in the body (in the "Mujahideen insurrection" subheading). There was only one Maoist group, the Liberation Organization of the People of Afghanistan, whose only leader Majid Kalakani died in 1980 (9 years before the war ended). I would request supposed Maoist stuff be removed from the infobox.

Agree, the Maoists never had a relevant role in the war.

Leake, Elisabeth (2022). Afghan Crucible: The Soviet Invasion and the Making of Modern Afghanistan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 125–126. ISBN 978-0-19-884601-7.

In aiding the Afghan rebels, Chinese officials chose to prioritize their relations with Pakistan over support for Afghan Maoists, who also actively fought the PDPA. The Sazman-i Javanan-i Mutaraqi (Progressive Youth Organization, or PYO), had been established in Afghanistan in the mid-1960s, and it competed with the PDPA to attract followers. Other small Maoist organizations followed. The PYO had never been very strong, having struggled with decades of infighting and structural weaknesses, and hit hard by the 1978 coup. The PDPA, seeking ideological supremacy, captured and executed a number of PYO leaders, forcing many others into exile. While Afghan Maoists took part in the fight against the PDPA and its Soviet allies, they struggled to make inroads, lacking foreign aid. The disinterest of the PRC only made this more so. […] In contrast to the increasingly regimented parties in Peshawar, the Afghan Maoists remained weak and based in small pockets across Afghanistan. They were neither easily reachable nor terribly well mobilized. Afghan Islamists, ironically, proved better at implementing Maoist insurgency strategies and tactics than Afghan Maoists, themselves.

--Jo1971 (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. There were two major Maoist organizations, the aforementioned SAMA as well as the Afghanistan Liberation Organization (ALO), and a united front between SAMA and ALO as well as other mujahideen factions called the Afghanistan Mujahedin Freedom Fighters Front (AMFFF). Majid Kalakani wasn't the sole Maoist leader, there was also Mulavi Dawood and Faiz Ahmad, who were prominent as leaders until their deaths in 1986. The Maoist factions continued on without them, albeit with reduced effectiveness. True, the Maoists played a minor role compared to the Mujahideen groups, but it's not fair to remove all mention of them especially since articles about major wars generally should include all details. Nights At Nyte (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE explain how not everything that can be said about a topic is appropriate for a single article, especially one like this which is already far above the readable prose size. Loafiewa (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Foreign support

Why was foreign support removed from the infobox? There's an entire Wiki article about Foreign involvement in the Soviet–Afghan War. Also, Pakistan and American support was so important why in the world was it removed??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.164.152.226 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If one reads the edit summary where it was removed here, the reason is given: that the use of "supported by" in the infobox is deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The English needs a speaker of English

Predominately? Oh, really?

It's predominantly. 142.205.202.71 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Spliting proposal

There are reasons we should split this article into another page about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There is already a page for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a "very long" notification at the top. Is there any reason we should not take this course of action that I am overlooking? DementiaGaming (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

How would this benefit the encyclopedia? The substantive reason for splitting a section from an article into a new article is because that section has become excessively large and the split would lead to a substantive reduction in the size of this article. At face value, I am not seeing this to be the case here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove KHAD from paramilitaries

KHAD was the official intelligence agency of Afghanistan at the time, it wasn’t a paramilitary. The Afghan Army had their own intelligence branch named KhAD-e-Nezaami but that still wasn’t a paramilitary. AfghanParatrooper1989 (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Didn't KhAD have its own Special Forces Units though Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean it’s a paramilitary? AfghanParatrooper1989 (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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)