Talk:2003 in Afghanistan

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Military history: Middle East

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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Josh Fjelstad (2011-06-22). "The 100 Longest Entries On Wikipedia". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 2014-12-13.

Merge Suggest

The pages for all the months of 2003 are confusing, and I suggest that all pages be merged to form 2003 in Afghanistan Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jez t e C 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag removed Jez t e C 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit from Timeline_of_Afghanistan_(March_2003) on merge

Chemical attack

"A warehouse filled with gunpowder exploded in the village of Tokhichi, near the Bagram Air Base, killing an Afghan and injuring three others. The burning warehouse created a fiery orange ball that could be seen for several miles."

I was in Bagram on that day and want to mention that the large explosion and huge smoke-clowd initially prompted many of us soldiers to be ordered to shelter, also, M-8A1 chemical detectors did go off and we went to a MOPP level 2 readiness (although some, including our LT, did dawn his mask) until clarification came and all-clear was given by our company commander- I am not sure if this response was base-wide though or just in viper city area. If I can find verifiable source I will edit the article to reflect same. As an individual soldier I can tell you that my buddies and I thought that the worst had occured and watched with dread (much more so than the mortar, rocket, rpg, small arms fire, etc attacks we had seen before where we at least had a fighting chance) as that huge cloud came over the mountain ridge and headed toward Bagram. Never was in a real chemical attack (that I know of) and darn sure never want to be, can still remember that feeling in my gut like it was yesterday (by that time my buddies and I had been "in the shit" and seen combat for about a year so we were pretty salty by then but that clowd in that otherwise cloudless clear blue Afghan spring sky was darned ominous- and keep in mind- we all knew what was about to be going down over in Iraq in just a few days and thought maybe old Saddam was trying to get the first punch in). Just some info and a first hand account that I thought you might appreciate. By the way, I noticed alot of stuff missing here that occured in the Bagram area from about 8/02 thru 4/02 (rockets attacks on the airstrip, perimeter MP checkpoints taking fire at night pretty often, etc. if I can find verifiable info then I'll get that on here as well- I was there and know it happened).

Not to be confused with the 3000lb cluster bomb set off by several kids in September. I remember that day, it shook the walls of our QRF Hut on the Airfield, and it occured over a mile off Bagram.

Shouldn't this timeline be included on the Nation Building - Afghanistan page instead of as a separate article? --Notheruser 06:14 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I might use Nation Building - Afghanistan as a hub to different articles, such as leadership, finances, and so forth. But it is still early in the development. I have a great deal of timeline information I want to organize, and as it develops, I might find other uses for Nation Building - Afghanistan. Or, you may be right. But I want to take a week or so and work it out in my mind.-kingturtle ?? Mar 7, 2003

Kingturtle, you can use four tildes (~) to automatically sign your comments with your username and date if you are logged in. Also please see my comment on Talk:Nation Building - Afghanistan as it also regards the parent article to this talk page. --snoyes 06:54 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

The was was incorrectly capitalized before so I moved it per our capitalization naming convention. --mav 23:47 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

January 28th 2003

200 special forces is wrong, 1 ODA team (special forces, a CIA operative, and 2 platoons of Charlie Company 2-505th PIR, which later turned into operation mongoose in spin boldak http://milnewstbay.pbworks.com/w/page/20945377/OSINT-Spin-Boldak-Area http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/624/in1.htm , fyi i suck at wiki coding Fortybam (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse order?

Would it make more sense to have the beginning of the month at the top of the page? – Gurch 17:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC

Help this article out with CITES

Merge tags have been on related timeline articles for 2001 in Afghanistan / 2002 in Afghanistan and 2003 in Afghanistanfor some time. I have now merged these many articles, into three distinct years. Once these are tidy, i will move onto 2004 in Afghanistan / 2005 in Afghanistan / 2006 in Afghanistan / 2007 in Afghanistan / 2008 in Afghanistan / 2009 in Afghanistan.. However WE NEED HELP! Not one item is cited. Some of the info is very petty. Please help clean these articles up Jez t e C 08:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of wounded soldier stories / rockets fired at base, no injuries or damage, so am going to do a big edit and remove these. Jez t e C 08:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some time in August, 10th Mountain took over operations in Afghanistan. Not sure exactly what day, but I arrived around the 10th, and we were the last unit to arrive. There were a number of Operations that occured in 2003 as well:

Operation Warrior Sweep

Operation Mountain Resolve

Operation Ring Road (Which was the Ring Road Opening Ceremony)

Operation Frozen Cudgel (10th Mountain Clears the city of Sarobi)

Everthing else I rememer is either still classified or occured in 2004, after the extension. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cull overlinking

One reason that this article has got way too big is overlinking. I'm not sure that Afghanistan needs linking more than once in this article - certainly no more than once per screen, and most of the links that look like they might be useful aren't - refugee being linked to the word rather than an article on refugees bening a prime example. I've sliced out a few hundred bites but this will be a big job. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size split?

Support - Article is over 275 kB long, and therefore should be split into months or quarters. Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously merged from separate months. See start of talk page above. Try other techniques before splitting. Op47 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page split discussion

This has been mentioned twice in the past, but I think it would be best to get rid of the less notable events and condense all notable events into one page. I think January 2003 in Afghanistan and February 2003 in Afghanistan should be watered down and merged here; I don't know of any other chronicle article that has been split into individual months, and those pages could easily be condensed. Many of the events listed here, tragic as they might be, are simply not noteworthy. I understand that the article is currently listed under AfD, but if the decision is keep, let's please sort out this unorganized mess once and for all. As of this post, I will begin the long process of deleting events and sourcing others. Thoughts? TCMemoire (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have determined that we wish to keep this article, we need to determine whether we have 1 article or we split out into months. I don't think keeping this halfway state is really an option. Since the article has previously been split and remerged, I don't think it would be right to unilaterally remerge (or split). Instead, I have started an RfC in the hope that the matter can be determined once and for all so that the matter no longer interferes with tidying up the article. Op47 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: page splitting/merging

CLOSED

Split by month

The following discussion 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.

Do we wish to split this article by month or do we wish to have a single article. Op47 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Please indicate your preference in 1 of the sections below. Please do not hold discussions in this section, instead use the section "Threaded discussion" below.

Split by month

Support a split of the article by months. January 2003 and February 2003 already have their own pages; the rest of the months need to also. Maybe someone could compile a brief summary of each month to remain on this page. There could also be a "See also" link in each month's section to redirect the reader to the month's specific page for a more in depth read. If the page is to keep as a single article, I think it too long and thus becomes more difficult to navigate through. Meatsgains (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Meatsgains: Since my post above, I've changed my opinion. Many of these events are notable, and during research, I found even more to add (that I didn't because the page was already far too long). So that the page is not left empty, I say we find the 5-10 most notable events per month and list them, and leave a hatnote at the beginning of each section linking to the individual month articles. I have already deleted some of the lesser-noteworthy ones, but if need be, I can easily retrieve those from the archived versions. TCMemoire (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we should merge it as two months per article making a total of six articles. There isn't enough information to make a good article for one month but it sounds good if it was two months per article. Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If TCMemoire has found more events to add to each month I support separating this topic by month. However if there are a significant gaps (3 or 4 months maybe?) without any relevant information, I agree with Leoesb1032 that the information should be merged into "two months per article." Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this page has gotten way too long especially with several months already removed. Swordman97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single article

Threaded discussion

If this RfC closes to split (as it appears to be going), I am willing to carry out the split, if the closing admin would be kind enough to let me know. If I did carry out the splitting then I would strongly prefer to do a month per article because I can make a neater job of the links etc. Op47 (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I closed the discussion per advice on WP:ANRFC because the concensus seemed clear. If there are any objections then I will happily refer to WP:ANRFC. Thankyou everyone for your time. Op47 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The text has now been restored to the version prior to split. All "Month 2003 in Afghanistan" articles were deleted following a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2006 in Malaysia and Singapore. Currently, the page is similar to other Year in Afghanistan pages. Problems of sourcing, verifiability or non-notable occurrences remain to be addressed. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2003 in Afghanistan. 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://archive.is/20031025050033/http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3197426 to http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3197426

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) 06:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronco company email

Afghanistan Kandahar 23.88.195.99 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronco

Ronco company Afghanistan Kandahar 23.88.195.99 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]