Talk:Republican insurgency in Afghanistan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republican insurgency in Afghanistan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 August 2021. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Afghanistan High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / South Asia / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

J0urm district?

Yes, it is zero, not an "o". Look it up in the article. Never heard of this district, have You?

I don't trust User:Noorullah21

This user is even very open about encouraging people to visit Afghanistan on his user page.Speakfor23 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style for Jamestown Foundation source

@Applodion: Re this diff: In general, citation style isn't that important, and WP:CITEVAR suggests respecting what's already there. So I'm pretty lenient on this. That said, this case is so cut-and-dried I'm not sure why you reverted; "better as it was" is not a reason. This is a short, 5-paragraph article - much shorter than many other web sources already cited routinely. I'm a big fan of sfn, generally when citing page ranges out of entire books, but there's no point in using it to slice up such a tiny article. If everything in the Wikipedia article is citing pages 1-2 of the Zenn article, which they are currently, then... just have a single cite, like every other cite in the article, and use pages=1-2 in the main citation. SnowFire (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to be imprecise if one can avoid it. Zenn's article provides page numbers, making it easier for the reader to see which part is the source for what. It does not matter that it's just a few pages. Applodion (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is - consistency and concision and avoiding undue weight on this one random source as worthy of setting aside from the rest. If you go find a physical copy of the NYT paper, I'm sure you could cite different page ranges for https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/world/asia/panjshir-valley-ahmad-massoud.html , a much much longer article, too - but there's no need, because we can expect the reader to find the relevant part easily enough, using CTRL-F if necessary. One of the cited page ranges is already to the entire article anyway. There are times when it makes sense to "chop up" a citation because it's a hefty, dense journal article over 15 pages, and which page is important, but to state again: this is 5 short paragraphs. It is wild overkill to have a cite to "just" page 2 of such a short article. SnowFire (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf is 11 pages. Every reader has different time availability - some may wish to only check the specific facts cited, while others will read the source in full. In this case, giving page numbers saves the former type of reader from thinking "I don't have time to wade through 11 pages" and deciding not to check at all. The latter type of reader is not bothered by the page numbers. Boud (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salang Parwan martyrs and Akmal Ameer

there should be some corrections made to the incident report of Akmal Ameer and his people. The other commander with him was Abdul Basir Andarabi. They were meeting after some time and discussing the future. The others with them were close friends and colleagues basically their security detail. All of them were killed in salang after a few hour gun battle with the Taliban. The locals claim Taliban had almost thirty casualties. akmal Ameer was a Brigadier General and commander of all civil affairs and phycological operations for special operations kandaks of the Afghan Army. He is the highest ranking Afghan officer to be killed in combat since the collapse of the Republic 2600:1006:B0C7:7E70:0:3:9756:7A01 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly talking about the 10-14 April 2023 paragraph. If you have any sources apart from the current three sources, then please give them here. It's not clear what specific change you are requesting (which sentence should be changed? what would the new wording be?) or which source you have used for that requested change to the current text of that paragraph. Please see WP:VERIFIABILITY. Boud (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

>According to the Taliban's official website they had recently repaired 6 heavily damaged Humvees, which I presume is from one of the convoy attacks On top of that, should we add the helicopter that was shot down and add that to the casualty list, usually in losses it includes equipment losses I have also put the post siege of Panjshir valley Taliban deaths at 469 based on the provided articles, 126 wounded with the NRF casualties post siege being at least 39 combat deaths and 42 wounded + another 72 executed by the Taliban if you include the rebel commander On top of that based on this article the Taliban have at least 3 commanders of the nrf prisoner Another thing to consider it attack time period, most seem to go up in the jun-sep period so late summer early autumn sorry for the atrocious grammar, my period key isn't working Logland Belaraus (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]