Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

The war is over

It formally ended today. The title should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copulative (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats nice that the president said it has ended, but combat operations are still ongoing. The taliban is still attacking US forces in afghanistan and there are still US forces engaged in combat operations against the taliban. The war is not over, the pages title should be reverted to reflect such.XavierGreen (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's not over. Lucasjohansson (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree and have moved the article back. The civil war is continuing, and substantial numbers of foreign troops remain in Afghanistan (with some in frontline "advisory" roles) Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the NATO and ISAF intervention which began in 2001. Since today ISAF withdraws (as confirmed by multiple major news outlets), the war between ISAF and opposing sides is over, so the title should be reverted. Btw, we have a separate War in Afghanistan (1978–present). Brandmeister^talk 23:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Taliban insurgency and War in Afghanistan (1978–present) cover the conflict more broadly. Rob984 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify this, why not change the title to something like "NATO-led Intervention in Afghanistan", since the war against the Taliban is still ongoing (just being fought mainly by the Afghani government from now). Mr. Anon515 00:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think its great that so many of you agree, but its your opinion versus an action taken by the United States Government. How does that reconcile with the fact that a formal declaration has been made? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

? We're not bound by the public statements of the US government. US forces are going to continue to participate in combat operations anyway [1]

So by your logic the war will never end? Or Wikipedia will vote on when it ended? Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Beyond public statements though, I feel events like the disbanding of ISAF are significant enough to change the nature of the conflict. Mr. Anon515 01:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

But even though ISAF has been disbanded, it has been replaced albeit by a force with a different mission. Also the war isn't really over now just because ISAF has left, we should still remember the Afghan forces that are still fighting the Taliban every day. - SantiLak (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

With the disbanding of ISAF, NATO is no longer a direct combatant against the Taliban, they are only supplementing the Afghan army. In that sense, NATO is no longer "at war" with the Taliban as it has no independent interests or actions from the Afghani army.

Of course, the larger War on Terror for the United States continues. Hence, as New York Times reports, "A base in Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan, could also remain a launching point for armed drone missions in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan." I'm not fully sure whether or not this kind of continued activity, for the purposes of this article, should be considered part of the Afghanistan War. Mr. Anon515 04:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure where to reply but if the war isn't over, why does it say on the page that it went from "October 7, 2001-December 28, 2014"? Is that just the main phase of the war? Jackninja5 (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What we could do is change the title of this article to War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) and create a new article for a new phase of the war: War in Afghanistan (2014–present).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this approach as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with an approach like that. The fighting in Afghanistan definitely isn't over, but U.S. and NATO combat involvement is. This article is specifically about U.S. action after the September 11th attacks, which has been declared over even though the country is not at peace. Either add future events to the Afghan Civil War page, or start something new about covering the war 2015 and onwards, but this one should be concluded with a title change and end date. America789 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should decide what to do together here before moving on and making any other articles because the war definitely is going to go on with the Afghans fighting the Taliban and the US and NATO training them but the question still remains if we should make another article for the war ongoing as proposed or if we should continue with this article. If we look at other wars with similar circumstances i.e. the US pulls out of their combat role officially but leaves trainers and special forces and still conducts raids then we see an article like the Vietnam war article. In that article they don't split it up but instead continue the article on the War. Obviously there are different circumstances being that the Wikipedia page for that war was created far after it ended and this one is being created while its going on but I think that we should keep this article instead of making a second one for a different war. - SantiLak (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, for the Vietnam War, we do have other articles for the various stages of US involvement. Mr. Anon515 22:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Then I think that it might be appropriate to maybe make an article separate covering the part of the war before this end of ISAF operations and maintain this article but continue expanding based on continuing events because splitting it and making a new article for the rest of the war from now on would just be confusing. I am not trying to be condescending but do you understand what I mean because I might have been a little confusing. - SantiLak (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, we have this article detailing the larger conflict going on the region. So while conflict is still going on, I think it might fit better under the framework of the Long War, which has been going on for many decades in the country, rather than the US-Afghanistan War, which officially has ended. Mr. Anon515 00:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I see, this war is a part of the ongoing War in Afghanistan (1978–present) (as the infobox says), so there's no need in creating a new article. Every new event may go to War in Afghanistan (1978–present). Brandmeister^talk 08:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Koreas aren't exactly at "war". It is just a dispute. However, when you look at Afghanistan and the Taliban, that's war. Also, Switzerland left the war in 2008 and Singapore did in 2013. Some of the countries might still be participating in the war but just not as part of NATO. Jackninja5 (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No the War is not over and if we want to be consistent with the Iraq War article than it won't end until all troops (aside from an embassy presence) are out of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.11.107 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Settling this

Is there a way we can formally vote on the above suggestions? Mr. Anon515 03:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC but we should still remember WP:Democracy - SantiLak (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure he meant a way to settle this. The Iraq war ended in 2011 however the Insurgency went on. Thus another article was created. Im in support for the creation for a new article for the events of this year to its end. User:PleaseConsider (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the idea of War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) (it's the NATO war in Afghanistan, just like the Soviet War of 1979-1989). And then create a new article War in Afghanistan (2014?–present or 2015?-present). Coltsfan (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering what PleaseConsider said Coltsfan, we should remember that the Iraq war didn't end until all US forces, including those residual forces/trainers left Iraq. That hasn't happened in Afghanistan. - SantiLak (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FutureTrillionaire, Scalhotrod, PleaseConsider and Coltsfan. The end of the NATO combat mission in essence ends another phase of the overall Afghan civil war that started in 1979 and another one begins where foreign forces are no longer the leading combatant on the anti-Taliban side but instead its the Afghan government forces. Close this article and create an article titled War in Afghanistan (2014–present). EkoGraf (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the war has ended officially. It is not important if there are still soldiers or civil war or anything else ongoing. That is another case. The invasion has ended officialy without the results that the invaders wished, and the invading forces are withdrawing to their homeland, in another word, Taliban won the war and should be noted in results section as "Decisive Afghani victory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Afghan president marked the full transition of sovereignty on 1 January 2015 [2]. So I would mark the end of War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) as 31 December 2014 and the beginning of the new phase of the conflict War in Afghanistan (2015–present) as 1 January 2015. EkoGraf (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Coltsfan (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. NATO is still involved by way of Operation Resolute Support, and the U.S. is still active by way of Operation Freedom Sentinel, including an airstrike that killed 18 militants. We can include the verified statements of politicians, but to exclude ongoing combat would be ill advised at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

US has been bombing Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War, but that doesn't mean that the first gulf war is still going on. Coltsfan (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Coltsfan. Nobody is saying the overall conflict, which has lasted since 1979, has ended RightCowLeftCoast and that's not actually the topic of this discussion. What we are discussing is that the direct NATO combat involvement phase of the overall Afghan civil war (1979-present) has ended and a new phase has begun just like previously you had: the Soviet phase, the Fall of the communist government, the inter-factional fighting, than the Taliban phase, than the NATO phase (which we are discussing) and now we have a totally new phase of the conflict where the Afghan government takes the lead and NATO and US remnants have a secondary role. EkoGraf (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is massive already. it would be completely reasonable to end it here (the war with the US and NATO at front and center) and star a new one, with the government at the front and center fighting the taliban insurgency (NATO with a back up role). At least just for the sake of avoiding this article to become bigger than already is. it would make perfect sense to me. Coltsfan (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Iraq War is an example, it includes the 2003 invasion, and only ends its scope when the Operation New Dawn ends. Operation Resolute Support is an ongoing NATO mission, a continuation of the conflict. This article, which can be seen as part of the larger Afghan civil war (1979-present) subject, yes, but IMHO the article shouldn't close until after RS ends.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your example of the Iraq War fits perfectly with the example of this conflict. To make a comparison with your statement - The Afghan war (since 2001), it includes the 2001 invasion, and would only end its scope when the NATO combat mission (or better yet Operation Enduring Freedom) ends (which was last month). As for the discussion, it seems at this point almost everyone agrees that the NATO combat phase of the Afghan civil war (with which this article deals with) has ended, except for your certain level of reservations. But, we will continue to wait for a few more opinions. EkoGraf (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the main part of the war (the combat part) is over however the Resolute Support represents a new phase of the war. SO I say we should put as the headline War from 2001 to 2014 then Resolute Support Mission from 2015 to the present User:Miked1992:Miked1992, (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That was my proposition Miked. EkoGraf (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with editors EkoGrak and Future,the initial war that was launched by NATO and the US is over,even though the insurgency continues,but the main side fighting the Taliban is the Afghan military forces.Alhanuty (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So Mr. Anon515 FutureTrillionaire Scalhotrod PleaseConsider Coltsfan XxDestinyxX Miked1992 Alhanuty Brandmeister Rob984, except for a few other editors, we all agree that now we can safely close the article as War in Afghanistan (2001-2014) and all events that happen after that move to a new article titled War in Afghanistan (2015-present) since the NATO combat phase of the Afghan civil war (1978-present) with which this article deals with has ended, based on reliable sources and official statements. Just one last check before it is done to see if nobody changed their mind? EkoGraf (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So I have made that article using some sections from this article but it definitely needs expansion and I would appreciate any help I could get, here is the link War in Afghanistan (2015–present). - SantiLak (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice work SantiLak, we will of course expand the article as the conflict continues. Meanwhile I will close this article tomorrow. Will just wait tonight to see if one of the editors still has something to say. EkoGraf (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Made the Move Request under a technical difficulty note because a redirect article with the same title already exists. EkoGraf (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Having read the above I agree, and suggest the two articles remain separate for this year. Clearly it remains to be seen what combat activity (between government and rebel forces)develops, likewise any involvement of other nations (neighbouring ones in particular). Re-assess the situation in a year's time.Cloptonson (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe what we should do is re-name the article "US War in Afghanistan" which began on October 7, 2001 and continues to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.11.107 (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

With 300,000+ Afghan forces leading the charge compared to 13,000 US soldiers I don't know if it could be called a US War in Afghanistan anymore, like I said before. EkoGraf (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But they are still fighting the War that was brought on by the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (and officially began on October 7, 2001).

The war was actually already there and going on since 1978. They only opened up a new phase of the overall conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT

So the U.S. War in Afghanistan is part of the Soviet-Aghan War? What reliable sources say they are all one single war?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not say its part of the Soviet-Afghan War. You are twisting my words. I said its part of the 1978 war, the overall Afghan civil war, which started more than a year and a half before the Soviet phase of the conflict (1979-1989), and like I and the others said, the Soviet war was also just a phase of the overall conflict. After that, you even had another three phases (1989-92, 1992-96, 1996-2001) before the US phase began. As for proof, the other editors and me provided multiple sources (including the US and Afghan presidents) declaring this specific phase over. Also, I would point out that each of these phases is marked as Part of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present) and we have a whole article dedicated to that overall continuing conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

The United states is still engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan. New York Times, Washington Post. The War is not over. Regardless of the claim that Afghanistan is the only nation actively engaged in operations, and the U.S. & NATO are not, it can be verified that this is not the case. The division of this article into two separate articles was premature, and a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. Editors were quick to declare the war over, it isn't, it wasn't. Merge the articles together, create sub-articles as suggested due to this article meeting WP:TOOLONG, and move on from there. But it was to premature what was done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Editors never declared the war (which has lasted since 1978) over. Only this phase (that lasted since 2001). EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah! So the editor above admits that they (the editors involved in the name change and creation of a new article) declared a war (or phase) over. Therefore, the name change and creation of a new article was based on RECENTISM, and not based on the weight of reliable sources.

It was too soon for that 2015 article to be created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It was not based on RECENTISM but on the reliable sources presented, two of them being the US and Afghan presidents who themselves declared it to be over. PS And we did not simply declare, we discussed, commented and argued, for two months. EkoGraf (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

But those sources were all around the re-flagging event, and thus recentism applies. It was far too soon to decide whether historians will demarcate the different phases at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015. Any why then? There have been other points when the news can verify that someone somewhere says that a new phase had began in Afghanistan, such as in 2012 and 2009.

And as I had shown non-Afghan forces are still engaged in combat. So to claim, that non-Afghan nations are not is ludicrous.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also as far as the War in Afghanistan 1978 - present claim, what reliable sources says that?

I have at least two that say that war ending in 1992 (Cold War Museum, Encyclopedia Britanica, American University, Georgetown University Press), and another source that says it ended in 1989 ("Understanding War in Afghanistan").--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 14:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

---

War in Afghanistan (2001–present) → War in Afghanistan (2001–14) or War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) – Would ask all editors previously involved in the discussion Mr. Anon515 FutureTrillionaire Scalhotrod PleaseConsider Coltsfan XxDestinyxX Miked1992 Alhanuty Brandmeister Rob984 to cast their votes again on the issue whether this specific phase of the overall Afghan civil war (1978-present) has ended based on sources/official statements by several country's governments (including Afghanistan itself). A new article titled War in Afghanistan (2015–present) has already been done. The request is being made due to an administrator feeling that a proper RM vote should be conducted before the move is taken, despite a lengthy discussion on the issue already being concluded earlier in favor of the move.  – EkoGraf (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support For reasons mentioned above. Mr. Anon515 05:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I didn't support the change in the war ending as listed above but there is consensus for it and consensus dictates RM's. It needs to move. - SantiLak (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support because War in Afghanistan (2015–present) exists. I was gonna say "weak support", but man, how many wars in Afghanistan do we have? --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • George Ho They are all actually different phases of one war War in Afghanistan (1978–present). Like we have multiple war articles for different phases of the long-running Somali civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Just in case, I scrapped out "20" from "14" to shorten. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with any of them, just that we properly close the article. Will propose both titles in the lead of the RM. EkoGraf (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I opposed before but because the 2015 one is created and the war is basically finished. Not the entire war from 1978 but this specific war from 2011 to 2014. Jackninja5 (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons posted above. Coltsfan (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC

• Comment regarding proposed move, I noticed that the proposed move, only named certain individual editors, but not all editors involved in the discussion of the article. It further appears to only include individuals who supported creating the article War in Afghanistan (2015–present). This might fall under WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification, and might be a case of stacking the vote. This differs greatly from my following of WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, where Wikiprojects were notified, as seen in these diffs: WP:US, WP:MILHIST, WP:TERRORISM, WP:9/11, WP:FOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast If you want to count all of the votes on this whole talk page from all three discussions that have taken place in the last month than its 17 vs 6 for the change (almost a 3-1 ratio). Before this merge request (which is premature per WP policy) the count was 16 vs 4 for the change, a 4-1 ratio. And those editors were called in because consensus was already reached in the previous two discussions but an administrator I talked to wanted them to procedurally cast their votes before the move was made. EkoGraf (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing a denial of inappropriate canvassing.

Also please see WP:VOTE, it is not the number, but the strength of argument. We Wikipedians do not get to decide what is or is not, we just create articles and content based on reliable sources; also the arguments IMHO that lead to the creation of the new article were insufficient IMHO, and have a POV-bias towards the view point of the present American administration, that the war ended when ISAF cased its colors.

Therefore, based on Fruit of the poisonous tree logic, IMHO the proposed move that ended on 29 January is invalid, and should be reverted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The strength of the arguments of the 16 editors in favor of the rename that have expressed their opinions based on presented reliable sources, and not just POV, are sound. The not one but three discussions left only 4 editors in opposition, including you. The administrator who closed the discussion and moved the article regarded it as valid and thus must have considered the arguments strong enough. Also, the administrator who I talked to after the first two discussions ended was also of the opinion that a consensus was reached but requested that they procedurely vote before a move was made. EkoGraf (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The editors invited to the Proposed Move were canvassed inappropriately, only selected by the above editor from those who supported the change in the title of the subject. Not all editors had a strong opinion on creating the new article, and granted those of us who opposed it, said our piece and moved on to other parts of Wikipedia, which lead to the bold creation of the 2015-present article.

Therefore, as the above editor stated the "procedurely vote" was tainted by the above editor's violation of guideline WP:VOTESTACKING. I kindly as for @Number 57:'s opinion in this regards.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it, I agree it is a fairly clear case of vote stacking. However, I don't think it actually affected the result – several uninvited editors also commented, and there was unanimous support for the move. Nevetheless, EkoGraf's behaviour here was less than satisfactory (requesting a move as uncontroversial was also pretty poor, not to mention deleting that opposition note from the RM discussion...) Number 57 08:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

When I asked an admin at the time for the move as an uncontroversial one, an un-involved editor jumped in and claimed that there was no consensus on the issue and that it was speedy (despite the discussion going on for 3 weeks), so he rejected my request for a move. However, when I talked to the admin later on and pointed out that a majority (12 vs 4) was in agreement for a move (based on sources) the admin admitted he did not actually see the discussion (missed it). He said that he would wait another day or two and that it would be good for it to go through the proper move request. So based on our talk I got a feeling it was a mere formality and wasn't aware that I would be accused of vote stacking. I was also taking into account the fact that the discussion was going on for 3 weeks and no more oppose arguments were showing up for some time (only support). Still, I would like to deeply apologize in this regard if I mis-stepped unintentionally. Sorry! Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment When attempting to suppress evidence based on the "Fruits of the Poisonous Tree" legal doctrine an exception is usually made for what is called "inevitable discovery." In this case I think it extremely unlikely the RfC would have turned out differently had there been no canvassing (which clearly there was). I would call this the "Inevitable Outcome" exception. In short, let's not drag this out in order to satisfy a purely procedural, though not illegitimate, point of order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Think is we won't know what the outcome of the RM would have been as the vote-stacking, which the editor admits doing, only informed a select group of persons. The reason for WP:CANVASS is so that such straw poll results aren't tainted by improper canvassing. Saying it is an inevitable outcome is fallacious as that is assuming that the outcome obviously would turn out the way it did. As can be seen below, there is no consensus for merging, because there was never a consensus for creating a second article and artificially book-ending this one. Non-Afghan forces remain in combat, and just cause POTUS Obama makes a claim, and a flag is cased, and another flag is unfurled, doesn't mean that a war is over. There has been no withdrawal moment like there was in Iraq, there is no last helicopter out moment as there was in Saigon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

New sub-article covering initial period

I've just done an article size test of this 260 kB+ article, which showed that about 100 kB of the article covers mostly the period up to Tora Bora/Anaconda in early 2002, and only 150 kB covers the remaining 11 years !! This means the article is terribly unbalanced (as well as being way oversize), and needs to be somewhat reorganised. There's also a need for breaking things down into more periods than just years, because there were specific phases of the whole war period in question. We've also got an old article title at U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan which covered the early period (though it does not accord with the style guidelines ('invasion'). So what I plan to do is to copy the 2001-2002 material to that article title, and then cull the first section of the article significantly to bring the overall size down. I will start doing this within about 18 hours. Any comments and thoughts are welcome. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This is keeping as to how there is a U.S. Invasion of Iraq article and a separate, but related Iraq War article. This article surely passes WP:TOOLONG and needs one or two sub-articles, regardless of the outcome of the request move review and the request move at the War in Afghanistan article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SIZERULE advocates a split at over 100kB. It's because of that (and the need for periodisation of the war) that I'm doing this. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)