Talk:Second Anglo-Afghan War

92nd Highlanders

They seem to be in the picture, and the war is in their honours, but they don't seem to be in the order of battle. 174.112.18.193 (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghan victory?

Why an Afghan victory? Just asking, as it's in the box, but nothing I know (and nothing in the text), really supports such a one-sided summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.90 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Belligerent - 'Unite Kingdom'

The second and third Anglo-Afghan wars were fought between the Afghans and the British Empire - not the UK - all articles on the subject need correcting. Temperamental1 (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Captured British Soldiers

The British officer John Masters recorded in his autobiography that Afghan women in the North-West Frontier Province (1901–1955) of British India during the Second Anglo-Afghan War would castrate and urinate non-Muslim soldiers who were captured, like British and Sikhs. ; But this claim is incredible, because Pathans do not allow their women to look at their close relatives. How is it possible to let them urinate in others moths.Pathans urinated into prisoner's mouths. Captured British soldiers were spread out and fastened with restraints to the ground, then a stick, or a piece of wood was used to keep their mouth open to prevent swallowing. Pathan then squatted and urinated directly into the mouth of the man until he drowned in the urine, taking turns one at a time.

Not complete by far

Not a single word about the British duplicity, incompetence and brutality. No word of Auckland, Elphinstone, McNaughten, Burnes, Sale and a host of other British. No word of the Russians either, nor of their Polish unofficial envoy whose simple presence started the entire Anglo-Afghan disaster. This article is too brief for such a huge and important topic whose ramifications continue to this day. You could start by reading "The Return of the King" by William Dalrymple, and follow his key references.Historygypsy (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a page for the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-80), you're talking about the First Afghan War (1839-42) which is the one 'Return of the King' deals with. Of course, the second war was influenced by the first, but the Fist Afghan War page can be referenced for that history. Tybaltstone (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gladstone condemned the invasion on moral grounds and reversed it after winning the 1880 election.

From his Midlothian campaign: Remember the rights of the savage, as we call him. Remember that the happiness of his humble home, remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God, as can be your own. Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williameg150999.html

The Wiki conveniently ignores this... it is a thoroughly jingoistic version of history.

Another point that needs recalling is that Roberts was able to easily march to Kandahar in 1880 because he was doing so to withdraw and return to India. The Amir sent emissaries to the tribes urging them not to create any problems for his exit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.232.183 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

British victory

Not an English victory by any means. The british just signed a treaty to stop Afghans from pestering them, that's a loss not a win. Akmal94 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

While I would like to agree with you, the war is arguably a British victory/inconclusive, the British had met and ascertained some of their goals but were forced to Withdraw from Afghanistan and established a protected state, they used Afghanistan as a buffer. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Masters Book

Cureel has come forward and stated that Master's book does not mention the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War, that the alleged incidents were not about the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war. That does not look like vandalism, it looks like an informed position. Masters was writing some decades after his experience near, not in, Afghanistan and otherwise wrote popular fiction. Unless there is a positive discussion about the exact location and time that Masters is writing about and a defence of this author as a credible source, I wish to remove discussion of his comments from this entry. Brunswicknic (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

Multiple IP users that keeps making recent changes needs to discuss here - it is becoming an edit war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

protectorate or protected state?

protectorate or protected state?because wikipedia clearly differentiate between "protectorate" and "protected state". please change the war result imformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.22.22 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed to protectorate state, multiple sources coincide with it as well. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong information

It should be "both sides claim victory" not "british victory" as both sides couldn't reach their objectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E08A:BD25:357C:3C8C (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please state your sources. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Afganistan is a protected state of British and not a protectorate of British, there is difference between protectorate and protected state, The word protectorate is not appropriate as it refers to countries which were formally part of British empire, Afganistan was never formally part of British empire.

The source attached to the sentence of "british protectorate over afganistan" in the table doesnt even mention the word "protectorate" its obvious that afganistan is a protected state. Definition of protectorate:- British protectorates were protectorates under the jurisdiction of the British government. (Afganistan was not under jurisdication of Britian nor was it formally part of british empire) Protected states:-the following states were never officially part of the British Empire and retained near-total control over internal affairs; however, the British controlled their foreign policy. Their status was rarely advertised while it was in effect, it becoming clear only after it was lifted. ( Since afganistan had full control over its internal administration and britian only covered its foreign policy afanistan is a protected state and not a protectoeate of British) and all of these are mentioned in British protectorate wikipedia page.

O really? From the second cited source: "In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919." Now whether that source is reliable or not is another story, but what you're claiming is certainly wrong. Again, we don't base articles of other articles. And might it be that it's different in other articles because you are changing it :P? [1] --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

there are differences between the two possibilities but the goal of a protected state is that the Afghan state has full control over their internal affairs and that the English promise to protect them against enemy invaders and to pay the king each year it was the term of the treaty of Gandamak of the English with the emir Abdur Rahman Khan but they are deprived of their foreign business and also no British flag appearing in the Afghan flag and the afghan had not adopted the British money nor their anthem is exactly the aim of a protected state if you read the article on British protectorate now a protectorate where a country promises its protectorate to protect it and to pay all their military and administrative expenses in return for the country placed. under the protectorate will have to adopt the anthem of the country which placed it under its protectorate as a national anthem will have to accept the money as national money and will have to adopt a small flag of the country above their flag exactly like the French protectorate of Morocco AfghansPashtun (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

and also I had forgotten to specify that afghanistan was never part of the British empire because it was a protected state while Morocco was officially part of the French colonial empire during its protectorate AfghansPashtun (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

AfghansPashtun We can see there are deep feelings about this issue. Unfortunately, using wikipedia as a source for itself is not allowed. The sources that people are quoting to discuss the state of British control over Afghanistan at this time are using the word protectorate. Please, a reminder, words have more than one meaning (if they are not completely boring), and the word protectorate is not defined merely by a wikipedia article. A suggestion: there is a lot of energy going into changing one word, that should be spent finding reliable sources that discuss Afghanistan at the time and address the issue in the text, showing the nuances of British influence/control, &c. If one word keeps being changed without any reference backing this up, then other editors, in the good practice of requiring reliable sources, will revert the edit. Another suggestion: Google Scholar is one possible source of references, but please people need to look at the WP guidelines on editing and sources. I do thank you for your energy and enthusiasm to make WP a better thing. Brunswicknic (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference clearly states: “In this treaty, the Amir of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919.”

So you have to stick to reference as proof. As far as links on other articles on Wikipedia, those are not reliable just like Wikipedia states that it’s articles can be plain wrong or vandalized especially since anyone can edit at any time.

Bottom line, information should be what the reference states. HaughtonBrit (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources stick to the fact that it is a protected state, the ones that state protectorate seem to be confused with the two, and also in turn omit the result by saying effectivally and essentially, hence the case. Multiple sources including James onley's state that Afghanistan was a british protected state, while the sources provided by you are through interesting verifiability. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Can you also revert the change back to British Protectorate in the infobox as that is what it originally was before the other editor changed it? I don't have access to change it. That will be helpful. Thank you. 199.82.243.85 (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

182.185.114.99 (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan Victory 1st and 2nd war

 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. Cannolis (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan Protectorate State

[2] Reference states: According to a large number of previous studies, Afghanistan was fixed as a buffer state between Russia and British India as a result of the war and the Gandamak Treaty, which was concluded between Amīr Ya‘qūb Khān and the British on 26 May 1879, substantially as proof of the surrender of the Afghan side. In this treaty, the Amīr of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919. Source confirms it. 199.82.243.102 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This is..incorrect as multiple other sources state that Afghanistan was not a British protectorate. Your source only says “virtually a british protectorate” not confirming it in anyway sort of form, it is not included apart of British India as well. You can read sources provided including from James Onely. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources state that during the Treaty of Gandamak, the Emir of Afghanistan signed the British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. The source on the article has no mention about the treaty or the details about the treaty. By the way virtually means in essence, or for all intents and purposes. But regardless, there are numerous articles and books by academic scholars where Afghanistan has been considered British Protectorate as signed by the Emir during the treaty of Gandamak.
Reference 1, [3] states Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate. Following the Peace of Gandamak, the Amir of Afghanistan agreed to leave the control of his foreign relations to the British Government....Afghanistan's status as a PROTECTORATE was recognized in the Anglo Russian Agreement of 1907.

Reference 2, [4]. Reference states that 1879, May 26 - Peace of Gandamak. Afghanistan became, in effect, a protectorate of Great Britain.

Reference 3, [5] Reference states that At the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE and Kabul was opened up to a British mission, something Afghans still consider to be an appalling loss of face.

Reference 4, [6] Reference states The following year, Anglo Indian troops invaded Afghanistan and imposed, through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass....

Reference 5, [7] Reference states In 1878, the Second Anglo-Afghan war broke out. It ended two years later with the Treaty of Gandamak, which effectively made Afghanistan a PROTECTORATE of Britain.

Reference 6 [8] Reference states Afghanistan was technically a PROTECTORATE of the British Empire since the treaty of Gandamak of 1879 and reinforced in the Durand line accord of 1893.

All the sources confirms Afghanistan as a British PROTECTORATE state as per the treaty of Gandamak. 199.82.243.102 (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference 7 [9] Reference states by the treaty of Gandamak of May 1879, Afghanistan, in effect, became a British PROTECTORATE and gave British control of the Khyber Pass to ensure easy entry by the British troops. 199.82.243.102 (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Protectorate and Protected State are not the same thing, most modern sources acclaim Protectorate or Protected state, in this case with the sources you provided of Protectorate because it was called a protectorate, including how protected states were still referred to as "Protected States", all the articles you have provided also recognize that Afghanistan was essentially independent in all but foreign affairs access granted to the british. Hence why it is acclaimed as a PROTECTED STATE, because that is what it is, The British had no exertive control over Afghanistan nor was it considered a domain of the British Raj, it remained as a ostensible independent state, you can read that through essentially your own sources. This can be confirmed in "Entangling Relations", "Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy". Your other sources including "Peacemakers in Action" also regard it essentially as a protected state after talking about the protectorate part on page 386. Other sources including from James Onley confirms this with "Onley, James. (2007), "The Arabian Frontier of the British Raj: Merchants, Rulers, and the British in the Nineteenth-Century Gulf" Oxford University Press. p. 24", "Barthorp, Michael (2002). Afghan Wars and the North-West Frontier 1839–1947. London: Cassell." and the Raj reconsidered. A lot of your sources also seem to be confused on the topic of Protectorate v Protected state, since they try to omit the result and say technically or effectivally, etc. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Some of the books also provided in their comments also reside as "unreliable" or false. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Also read on Wikipedia Verifiability please, none of the sources provided with their authors seem to be experts in the field or history of the region, I also quote "His Highness the Amir of Afghanistan and its depen-dencies engages, on the exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty, to publish a full and complete amnesty, absolving all his subjects from any responsibility for intercourse with the British forces during the war, and to guarantee and protect all persons of whatever degree from any punishment or molestation on that account. His Highness the Amir of Afghanistan and its depen-dencies agrees to conduct his relations with Foreign States in accordance with the advice and wishes of the British Government. His Highness the Amir will enter into no engagements with Foreign States, and will not take up arms against any Foreign State, except with the concurrence of the British Government. On these conditions the British Government will support the Amir against any foreign aggression with money, arms, or troops, to be employed in whatsoever manner the British Government may judge best for this purpose. Should British troops at any time enter Afghanistan for the purpose of repelling foreign aggression, they will return to their stations in British territory as soon as the object for which they entered has been accomplished." —First section of the treaty of Gandamak. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to ask @FDW777 for his opinion on the matter since he seems to generally also know about Afghanistan. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• All the above sources are by academic scholars with expertise in the area. There are no other references that provide the information that Afghanistan was a protected state. All of them state that Afghanistan was a PROTECTORATE state. Even the one by James Onley doesn't mention the treaty or what the agreement was behind the treaty and his reference is weak and unreliable when it comes to the discussion about Treaty of Gandamak. And Wikipedia isn't a source of reference. The only credible references are the information provide by the scholars and the expertise which has been provided up and for everyone to read and consider. Also below information from the historical association site by Faiz Ahmed who is a historian of the late Ottoman Empire, Afghanistan, and modern Middle East from Brown University [10]. Here is his article on Afghanistan as British Protectorate. [11]. Here is what he states in his article:

When the 26-year-old Amanullah ascended the Kabul throne in February 1919, Great Britain retained control over Afghanistan’s foreign affairs, rendering the country a British PROTECTORATE.

Overall Afghanistan was a British Protectorate. Above link and all the references provided even before that detail the same information. @Eastfarthingan and @FDW777 as well as @RegentsPark, @TrangaBellam, @Cinderella157, please provide your opinion about all the references provided above which states that Afghanistan was a PROTECTORATE state. 199.82.243.92 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

as response under oxford reference, protected state means "A state that, although nominally sovereign, is under the protection of another state. Usually the protected state allows the protector full control over its external affairs but retains control over its internal affairs.", while protectorate means "a state that is controlled and protected by another." Afghanistan was again not controlled by the British empire, the sources provided by you also say that in reference Afghanistan was essentially independent and the british exercised foreign rights access only, I quoted that which you didnt reply to and ignored. [12] also has no mention of protectorate, with also disdains of the AMIR Abdul Rahman infact being disloyal to the british, slaughtering pashtuns who had assisted the british in their campaigns as forwarded under the Command of Abdur Rahman.

You claim there are no other sources then James, when there are multiple, this one is another one, as your conclusion of Protected state and protectorate seem to be varingly confused, especially since the ARTICLES provided only talk about EXERCISED FOREIGN RIGHTS access, which in term means only it is a protected state with definitions provided of course above, not controlled by the british empire which in turn WOULD MEAN protectorate if they did. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If you believe it is a protectorate, I wish for you to provide a source where it says that the British had CONTROL over afghanistan as a result of the treaty of gandamak, as that is what the meaning of protectorate is. while protected state would be, as you know, " "A state that, although nominally sovereign, is under the protection of another state. Usually the protected state allows the protector full control over its external affairs but retains control over its internal affairs."" Noorullah21 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to quote here from oxford that Protected State is also sometimes referred to as a protectorate @199.82.243.92 [13], and the definition is also included, I hope this clears up your argument. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you should leave others to look at the references and make their decision because its very clear that Afghanistan was PROTECTORATE state. I have provided all the information and it has all the details and I am not going to repeat myself. All information is above where you can go in and read through it. And its not about the definition here but what the Treaty of Gandamak stated which needs to go into the infobox of the article that British Protectorate State over Afghanistan. Even if you want to consider the definition from Oxford, you shouldn't have any issue of changing protected to protectorate either. There is a reason that all academic scholars are using the term Protectorate for Afghanistan and not protected. 199.82.243.94 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The term protectorate is still varyingly different from protected state, hence why it is protected state, you arent repeating the details because there is no curtailing reference that states Afghanistan was ruled by the British or Raj, you seem to ignore how your own sources also stated the opposite and you still ignored them after I brought it up. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason academic scholars use it today is because it was firstly read as a protectorate, none of the treaty terms enstate it as a protectorate and it is a protected state by DEFINITION. The Admins on British protectorate page also agreed with me and you also ignore that. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Admins agreed with you? On British protectorate? No they didn't. That is not reference or source. You are continuously ignoring the fact about what the scholars have stated and indulging in discussion about the definition and how protected and protectorate differentiate. BUT discussion here is about what the Treaty of Gandamak was about, which was that Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE state. You choose to ignore the information that all academic scholars have stated in their articles and books. Wikipedia asks for reference to back the statement added on the article and so far all the references I provided support that. So its better to leave it on others to decide so that they can review the references and judge for themselves. 199.82.243.95 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

But I haven’t ignored your references? I explained through them in priorly which you still ignored and claim I am ignoring the references. The Treaty of Gandamak didn’t enstate Afghanistan as a protectorate, it is a defacto protected state by all means, I also asked for source on how the british ruled the government and you ignored that, hence it is a protected state as sources provided EVEN YOURS fufillingly said so that the british only had inclusion of foreign affairs and the afghans had complete independence in their own affairs, read your own sources properly please.

I will leave this to the rest because you keep claiming I am ignoring all the sources you have provided when I clearly regarded them. Noorullah21 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Also infact, yes they did hence they reverted your edits, (for the admin part). I’m not using that as a source but they recognize that I was also in the right on that case. Noorullah21 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Revert wasn't about whether who was right or wrong about the case. That wasn't the reason for revert. Treaty of Gandamak did enstate Afghanistan as Protectorate. Infact, in 1907 at the ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONVENTION OF 1907, following was the agreement reached between the British and Russians about the influences on Afghanistan. The agreement on Afghanistan, where the two powers had a longer history of rivalry and conflict, was more complex; in essence it was a victory for Britain. The British government declared that it had no intention of changing the political status of Afghanistan and that it would exercise its “influence in Afghanistan only in a pacific sense,” and would neither “take, nor encourage Afghanistan to take, any measures threatening Russia.” The Russian government declared in return that it recognized “Afghanistan as outside the sphere of Russian influence,” and engaged to conduct all its relations with Afghanistan “through the intermediary of His Britannic Majesty’s Government.” Furthermore, Russia would not send agents into Afghanistan (text of the convention in J. C. Hurewitz, ed., The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics, New Haven, 1975, I, pp. 538-41). The British promised not to annex any Afghan territory “or to interfere in the internal administration of the country, provided that the Ameer fulfills the engagements already contracted by him towards His Britannic Majesty’s Government . . . . ” So this is obvious that Afghanistan was British Protectorate as per the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 which is what all the scholars and references are pointing to. Either way, anyone else have any thoughts or opinions, please provide your opinion. Thanks. 199.82.243.108 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, a state with the british only keeping foreign rights access is called a PROTECTED STATE, included by oxford, if the British were direct in internal affairs of Afghanistan, then it’d be considered a protectorate because that is the full definition and meaning. Noorullah21 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

And by fufill for the Amir, that would mean recognizing the Durand line and keeping ahead with its forwarding off British protected state status, in exchange of course would be the subsidies etc. Noorullah21 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Protectorate is also again also referred as a second hand choice instead of PROTECTED STATE, this was mentioned before as well, and the definition of protectorate does not match with what the British had in Afghanistan, the British had a state which allowed them foreign rights access in exchange secluding them and not intefering in foreign affairs. A Protectorate is both. I can see the confusion and why most sources include Protectorate, mostly from the fact that both words are used, and the pure definition of protectorate does not align with what it was.

I hope you understand the clear definition of Protectorate and Protected State, as former user on the British protectorate also told you, from Kaut: Protectorate and Protected State are quite similar, only specialists can tell the difference, and the difference being that a protectorate is of course includes both access and control over the nation with its foreign affairs and internal. While a protected state is just foreign affairs.

I hope this clears up and this argument once and for all because you seem to not understand the two differences. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree to Disagree as you don't seem to understand the events or the definitions and continuously ignoring each and every detail that has been provided. And assumption is not a source either. It has been very clear that British were involved in the internal Administration as its revealed in the pact/peace treaty of Anglo-Russian. British were also involved since Second Anglo-Afghan war in appointing Emirs with increasing British interference in Afghan affairs that aimed at establishing embryonic forms of colonial rule along Afghanistan's borderlands. Also as one of the references states earlier that through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass. Thus British Protectorate over Afghanistan. Like I said earlier, leave it on other to decide. 199.82.243.108 (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, it is not a protectorate, for example, a protectorate would need permission to declare war and to be forwarded by the British government, this was not the case for the Afghans under Abdur Rahman fighting northward states, or even the hazara uprisings where the British did not help because they are not a protectorate because they dont deal with FOREIGN affairs. You can search the hazaran uprisings. I also did not assume anything I said whatsoever lol I mentioned the definitions of both protectorate and protected state which you seem to fail to define and even see in. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You keeping changing your statements. Also you are copying other editor's comments and pasting here "only specialists can tell the difference". And if you at first consider Protected and Protectorate similar, then you shouldn't have had problem changing the infobox with Protectorate which is a more common terminology used when it comes to British Protectorate of Afghanistan. Also why would you try to change Protectorate to Protected on Afghan Independence Day page in that case? Once as your user Noorullah21 and then with your IP?
23:09, 18 September 2021‎ Noorullah21 talk contribs‎ 5,974 bytes +16‎ Protected state not protectorate.
08:56, 19 September 2021‎ 2a01:cb15:300:3000:ccd8:437f:f3ad:1b66 talk‎ 5,974 bytes +16‎
And these changes were reverted. 199.82.243.108 (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Great! Now you changed the statement again. Back to differences. 199.82.243.108 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

editing on my phone logs me out, so my apologies for that. Anyway, the reason it is not protectorate is because protectorate and protected state still have different meanings, I explained this multiple times. Which you again, ignore.

I have stated this multiple times, that a protectorate is a state which a greater power has control over both in internal and foreign affairs. While a protected state essentially the same thing but only with FOREIGN affairs. Putting it as protectorate would be false information as stated, your sources EVEN SAY THEMSELVES that they include the fact that Afghanistan was only controlled by foreign affair rights for the British.

Also " Also you are copying other editor's comments and pasting here "only specialists can tell the difference"", I clearly stated that " as former user on the British protectorate also told you, from Kaut", not copying, I am stating what others said as well in reference to your changes. Please don't twist my words in wake of this to make your argument seem better.

I will be repeating this again because you seem to ignore this occasionally: the Reason it is being changed to Protected State is because that is the appropriate definition, and protectorate is not. It is similar, but putting it as protectorate would be false information and you get the point. You clearly know the two definitions from points provided MULTIPLE times.

Your sources as well say the same thing.

"Great! Now you changed the statement again. Back to differences." I have no idea what you meant here. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Also yes an admin did support me in this case on the British protectorate page with your revert! [14] Noorullah21 (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia quite well tells you to login or to edit without logging in. So no need to play a victim card here. Also no, the admin didn't support your change. He just reverted the change of the blocked user. That is what they are required to do. The admin didn't state that he agreed with you or that is why he is reverting so you need to stop using that as your back up support level to prove the point your cannot make. You have time and again changed statements and lost the credibility of making your point. That is why I am insisting others to provide their opinion. You have no intention to change the protected state to protectorate and that is pretty clear and will come with any sort of excuse, even going against the information provided in the references by the academic scholars, as far as even claiming them to be wrong. And using the statement by other editor isn't a word written on stone. That is not a reference. Wikipedia asks sources and references. And PROTECTORATE is the common used terminology such as British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. Protected has no relevance when it comes to the treaty of Gandamak and British providing the Emir British military assistance and aid to help him curb to any domestic and foreign pressure. Overall, like I said earlier, British PROTECTORATE is what the article needs to state which is what it was originally there. If reference states, protectorate, article should state protectorate. That is how clear it is. And also I said before that leave the discussion and opinions for others to provide because you have lost all credibility with your own conflicting statements. 199.82.243.108 (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no sense of playing victim card here, it is a simple mistake.

“You have time and again changed statements” No I have not, I have not changed my statements whatsoever, protectorate and protected state are completely different things. You have ignored every argument put up by me including your OWN SOURCES being against you claiming I am calling them wrong and incorrect. You are claiming I am losing my credibility because you cannot prove your point whatsoever, you are trying to implicate false information on the Wikipedia as apart of “Protectorate” when multiple points proven, that YOU ignore, state it as a protected state and you have literally no response to it whatsoever. The British had never helped the Emir in ANY of his multiple wars after the Second Anglo Afghan war. Not with Military aid either. You are losing the credibility of your arguments by ignoring what other people put up as points. You cannot prove your own point hence you call upon others to support you in your case. The term Protected State and Protectorate are different and you completely ignore that, as a result the credibility of your arguments are varing. I’ve also explained why British protectorate is used as a term OVER protected State. Can you guess why you didn’t catch on? You ignored all points provided and it has been proven.

You have no consideration for what other people put up as points and my above statement had proven it, including YOUR OWN sources being against you, so again, your credibility and debate form is really in question here. I rest my case and will not be responding further because you seem to not understand and ignore all points given. I will not bother reading your replies at this point because if I try to respond you will completely ignore them. There is a reason why you are blocked from editing for disruptive editing.

Also regarding the Admin case, technically yes, he did infact support me. You are a blocked user trying to make these jarring edits and the Admin noticed as well that you were not only a blocked user, but making false edits. The Admin of course would have removed the content and edits I made if they believed it was not true, but you also ignore that.

Aside from that I rest my case, don’t bother responding because your lack of eligibility to notice my points provided and your complete ignoring of your sources against you. Don’t try to bother replying to this as I won’t read it, the credibility of your arguments has been shattered due to the fact that you care not to see anybody’s points. You completely ignored them and I proved it in the statements above on why scholars refer it off to Protectorate V Protected state. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Just because a source says it does not mean its true, there is conflicting sources and context to said source, including your protectorate issue as again, YOUR OWN SOURCES FROM REGARDING PROTECTORATE ALSO DESCRIBE IT AS A PROTECTED STATE IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES AFTER. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleting the discussion isn't going to help you hide the information provided in this discussion. You make absolutely no sense in the comments you made. British PROTECTORATE, case and point made and I made it very clear with strong references. So let others provide their opinion. Do not to need to delete this discussion as it has the information with reference and sources for other editors to look at and consider. Deleting this won't help you. Again, let others comment. 199.82.243.108 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Readded page, was removing due to you being a blocked user. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

“ A protected state has a form of protection where it continues to retain an "international personality" and enjoys an agreed amount of independence in conducting its foreign policy.[9][12] For political and pragmatic reasons, the relationship of protection is not usually advertised, but described in euphemisms such as "an independent state with special treaty relations" with the protecting state.[13] A protected state appears on world maps just as any other independent state.[a]” quoted directly from Protectorate page. Was afghanistan considered apart of the british empire and not shown on maps? No, it was shown on maps and was not considered apart of the British empire. Sources include protectorate in your case because protectorate MEANS protected state essentially just with varying terms. In this case, protectorate means a nation who is protected, controlled in some form, and the lower nation also relies on their said greater power protector to help them in Military wars. This was of course not the case for Afghanistan.

A protected state is you already know, I won’t repeat it. Noorullah21 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect. Protectorate in sources is exactly what Protectorate is defined as, otherwise there is no reason for academic scholars to use such terminology. Therefore, British Protectorate of Afghanistan. British selected Amirs and these Amirs ratified the Treaty of Gandamak and helped British achieve all their geopolitical ambitions in the region including internal administration. Amirs fulfilled the engagements towards their Britannic Majesty’s Government. Protected has no relevance when it comes to the treaty of Gandamak and British provided the Amirs British military assistance and aid to help curb to any domestic and foreign pressure. PROTECTORATE is the common used terminology such as British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. There is no reason for you to discuss this with me anymore. I would prefer to hear from other users. 199.82.243.88 (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Correct, there is no reason for you to talk to me anymore, you have standstill constantly ignoring every point brought up and your own sources even providing the fact that it is a protected state.

I already regarded why most sources used protectorate, but guess what? You refuse to read any point brought up, hence theres no point arguing with you because your credibility and refusing to listen to other peoples points. Noorullah21 (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What part of "You do not need to discuss with me anymore" didn't you understand? You have blunt out your own conflicting statements, illogical theories and even disregarded the sources by the academic scholars that state British PROTECTORATE over Afghanistan. So such "other" (only you) people have no credibility. Therefore, I already made it clear earlier that there is no point for you to discuss with me anymore. 199.82.243.88 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Again ignorance and completely ignoring your own sources being against you again. Great. Noorullah21 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems like you don't want to stop. Personal views are not required and sources are put well forth for everyone to see and decide. Thank you very much. 199.82.243.88 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Then do not edit the page until a clear opinion is put forward, you should have used a third opinion rather then placating multiple people, it seems you are efforting a RFC or consensus. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Also as I am recommended to let you know: I have put in a third opinion request. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Here from 3rd Opinion. I lean towards calling it protectorate, but before casting my !vote, I would like to ask both of you to provide the three best sources supporting your point. Pls do not merely provide a link, but use the "cite book" template (it is easier for others to check various reliability factors-publisher, author etc). I haven't noticed any RS claiming that it was not a Protectorate State" or "it was SomethingElse". Please ping me. Cinadon36 07:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: - Here are some of the references. The article originally had Protectorate but it was changed recently without any third opinion. Anyways here are some cite books with all information I have provided:

Lake, David A. (July 21, 2020). Entangling Relations American Foreign Policy in Its Century. Princeton University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780691216119.

Willoughby, Westel Woodbury; Fenwick, Charles Ghequiere (1919). Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 14.. About Charles Ghequiere Willoughby [15]

Little, David (January 8, 2007). Peacemakers in Action. Cambridge University Press. p. 385. ISBN 9780521853583.. About David Little [16]

Schull, Kent F.; Can, Lale; Low, Michael Christopher; Zens, Robert (2020). The Subjects of Ottoman International Law. Indiana University Press. p. 163. ISBN 9780253056634.. About Kent F. Schull [17], Lale Can [18], Michael Christopher Low [19], Robert Zens [20].

Inglis, Lucy (February 5, 2019). Milk of Paradise: A History of Opium. Pegasus Books. p. 272. ISBN 9781643130958.. About Lucy Inglis [21]

Joseph, Paul (June 15, 2016). The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives. SAGE Publications. p. 9. ISBN 9781483359885.. About Paul Joseph [22]

Furnia, Arthur Homer (1978). Afghanistan. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Office of International Health, Division of Program Analysis. p. 126.. 199.82.243.110 (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will wait to see the counter-RS a couple of days or a week max. Cinadon36 19:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but none of the sources provided by the IP are primarily concerned with the subject of the discussion, ie Afghanistan under British influence... The version presented by these sources is, of necessity, simplified and cannot be considered conclusive. It's particularly telling that mnay of these sources use a qualifier, ie that Afghanistan was "virtually" or "effectively" a protectorate, thereby implying that the term was not accurate, at least officially. If you look at a more detailed analysis of the inner workings of the British Empire, such as Onley, James (March 2009), "The Raj Reconsidered: British India's Informal Empire and Spheres of Influence in Asia and Africa" (PDF), Asian Affairs, 11 (1), a difference is clearly stated between protectorates, that were officially part of the British Empire, and protected states, that were not. This same difference is also described in Wolfheze, Alexander (2021). A Traditionalist History of the Great War, Book II. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781527565142., in which the author states "these were protected states rather than protectorates of the British Indian Empire", "of these Afghanistan was a protected state in name only, it was de facto indepedent, allowing it to remain neutral during the Great War". In practice protected states and protectorates might function in a similar way, which is why some publications use the term protectorate as it is more commonly used, and more readily identified by audiences. However, wikipedia should be as accurate as possible, and protected state is the correct terminology in this case. --RD47 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That is what I am saying and he does not understand, HIS OWN SOURCES contradict him as well as in the FOLLOWING Pages as well for a lot of his sources, they mention the direct term of protected state ie the british only have foreign affair access. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Raoulduke47: Thank you for showing sudden interest. Point of the discussion is outcome of the Second Anglo-Afghan war and the treaty of Gandamak in 1879 that the Emir was made to agree to, which was that Afghanistan would be a British Protectorate. Wikipedia needs proof of terminology that the reference states about the outcome of the war. Not the definitions. The discussion you are trying to have is a different subject matter because different events are involved. Such as in 1907, treaty was reformed at the Anglo-Russian COnvention - "The agreement on Afghanistan, where the two powers had a longer history of rivalry and conflict, was more complex; in essence it was a victory for Britain. The British government declared that it had no intention of changing the political status of Afghanistan and that it would exercise its “influence in Afghanistan only in a pacific sense,” and would neither “take, nor encourage Afghanistan to take, any measures threatening Russia.” The Russian government declared in return that it recognized “Afghanistan as outside the sphere of Russian influence,” and engaged to conduct all its relations with Afghanistan “through the intermediary of His Britannic Majesty’s Government.” Furthermore, Russia would not send agents into Afghanistan (text of the convention in J. C. Hurewitz, ed., The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics, New Haven, 1975, I, pp. 538-41). The British promised not to annex any Afghan territory “or to interfere in the internal administration of the country, provided that the Ameer fulfills the engagements already contracted by him towards His Britannic Majesty’s Government . . . . ” Then again in 1919, another treaty was signed where Afghanistan was given independence but British Government would still continue to maintain some influence over the state. Even in 1947, according to Susan Loughhead (seconded to NATO's headquarters in Afghanistan), she stated that Britain had unparalleled influence over Afghan policies and international relations. But the focal point here is Second Anglo-Afghan War of 1879 with Treaty Of Gandamak that led to British Protectorate over Afghanistan. And all acclaimed historians used that term because that is exactly what it became from the outcome of the war and treaty. Now, to imply that historians used such term for different reason or meaning just becomes a personal opinion and view. And that is not helpful here on Wikipedia. If you add a comment "Richard was a King of England", the reference should say exactly that to support the comment. James Onley isn't referencing war or the Treaty Of Gandamak. So his information cannot be considered conclusive nor can be that of Alexander Wolfheze who doesn't imply that after the result of what treaty he came up with that conclusion. Also he doesn't have the expertise in the subject matter. He has experience in the fields of Assyriology and Cultural Anthropology. Please read the sources I provided again clearly especially the one by Westel Woodbury Willoughby in his book from 1919. Anyways, its upto counter RS to provide three sources where it states that after the Treaty of Gandamak, Afghanistan became a British protected state. But if these are the only two sources you can provide on behalf of Noorullah21, then 3rd Opinion can make the final decision. 199.82.243.83 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Cinadon - Looks like counter RS have come up with above 2 references. A pdf link and a Cite book. Your decision now. 199.82.243.83 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

After the Third Anglo Afghan war, the british did not have much/at all projected influence in Afghanistan, this is even stated by your own sources after the third anglo afghan war in the Sage[23]. Your talk about Alexander wolfheze and claiming he has no experience makes no sense as well, he has other books on different topics including acertaining World war 1, so you are incorrect in that case. The Treaty of Gandamak has no part that states Afghanistan is an official protectorate, while your sources are very focal and disputing by claiming it is a virtual or "effectivelly" a protectorate. Your statement for the Anglo Russian Convention only confirms the British had foreign affair rights/access, which they did as was agreed in the treaty, but there is no form or way that it was declared a protectorate, especially since the two meanings are varingly different, the British did not have control OVER afghanistan. All historians use the term protectorate because it is essentially the same thing as acclaimed, your previously provided sources also recognized this. The terminology and definition of both are very different, and my point of putting protectorate would be plain wrong, because some of those conditions do not apply to Afghanistan in the treaty of gandamak, as shown in your sources provided back then in [24], where it mentions the british had foreign right access essentially only, [25] as well. and [26]. This also shows that the historians use the term protectorate rather then protected state back then.

James onley not referencing the treaty of gandamak doesn't matter though, it still shows a map in the 1880's/1890's, where it puts Afghanistan under the british sphere as a protected state.

A protectorate in meaning as well would mean Afghanistan would have to be supported by the british in future wars, which of course did not occur, including during what seemed to be included in multiple of Afghanistan's wars during that time period. The Emir was also not loyal to the british and promptly dispained pashtuns who had joined the side of the British as well, in an old source I provided.

If it was a protectorate, clearly the SOURCES provided back then would state that what HAD come with the status of being a protectorate, but it only talks about the exact defenition of what a protected state is rather then a protectorate. Your sources are only stating in name a protectorate, while it is in fact a protected state as shown in your OWN provided sources. Noorullah21 (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

also referencing to British protectorate page Noorullah21 (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources provided that also talk about the british having foreign right access. [27] [28] [29] [30] The treaty of gandamak as well does not state Afghanistan as a protectorate, and only mentions that it gave over foreign affair grants to the British. Noorullah21 (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

also included in source [31], by the national army museum which talks about foreign affair grant. [32] (more) Noorullah21 (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

All of my references state, Treaty of Gandamak as well as British Protectorate/English Protectorate state by acclaimed scholars. Your opinion about my references make no sense. All you were asked by 3rd opinion is to provide your best 3 references in a cite book template which shows publisher, author etc. to make it easier to lookout and whether it was British Protected state as the outcome of the Second Anglo Afghan war. Seems like you are just throwing out links of sites such as RadioFreeEuropeRadioliberty (refrl.org), historians.org and others which don't go through anything about British protected state because if it was just about getting information about British Protectorate on random sites, I have many of them. But regardless, atleast provide the 3rd opinion what is asked. Best 3 references with cite book template. That's all. And then leave the rest on 3rd opinion where references of both can be evaluated to make a final decision. 199.82.243.84 (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and its been explained why it was called a protectorare which you again ignore, that also includes me posting the actual book sources that you did which claim it as an elgish protectorate, but then describe it as a protected state, you have constantly ignored other peoples arguments and purposely leave bits out to not reply toward. Noorullah21 (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

All your sources have pointed toward being undefined and confirming that Afghanistan only had relinquished foreign right affairs to the british, oxford also quotes the difference between the both, and so does James Onley. Noorullah21 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

No need for your personal opinions and disregard for the sources provided by acclaimed historians. You do not need to repeat your opinion again and again when all you were asked was to provide 3 best references with cite book template. Even after looking at your links, 3rd opinion has made the final decision of calling it Protectorate. So the article needs to reverted back to its original content of British Protectorate State instead of British Protected State that you changed to without any 3rd opinion before. End of discussion and I hope you make the change right away. 199.82.243.85 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Need third opinion to state here for the change, this is not personal opinion as well, you disregarded Alexander as a historian and claimed he has no experience in the field, completely ignorant of all sources against you including your own. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I also provided said websites as a back up source, I used your own sources priorly given to describe the protected state status, stop being so ignorant of that including the inclusion of your own sources provided above. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Makes no sense. This is what 3rd opinion said on the [33], Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC). So you can make the change now. Or if there is any other user who have access, please do. 199.82.243.85 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have to be more clear then I have to be. You disregarded sources brought up and then talk about said website rather then book sources, including your own sources acclaiming for foreign rights access and just ignoring the book sources, if you cannot understand that and claim it makes no sense, then there is no argument here. And again, the user has to state it here to be clear, we don't know if that was final decision or not, since they clearly haven't stated such. I will also again go over what the inclusion of protected state is. [34] (your own source you provided claiming Afghanistan had foreign rights acess given to the british only, nothing else. this is also in [35] and [36], a source you completely disregarded and IGNORED and just went straight to "Seems like you are just throwing out links of sites such as RadioFreeEuropeRadioliberty (refrl.org), historians.org and others which don't go through anything about British protected state because if it was just about getting information about British Protectorate on random sites" when I did clearly provide them, this is probably your 11th conduct of ignoring other peoples statements on a talk page. And shows you are unwilling to co-operate and are ignorant of what other people bring up in source. And yes, the sites do go through protected state essentially, they are describing the terms of the treaty which are in for, FOREIGN rights access given to the british, nothing else, but you claim they are a protectorate, a whole nother meaning to the term. Including what oxford states as a protected state v protectorate and James only. [37] (James onley) [38] (difference between protectorate and protected state) [39] and protected state meaning.

I also quote this from the british protectorate differentiating term page. [British protectorate] "British law makes a distinction between a protectorate and a protected state. Constitutionally the two are of similar status, in which Britain provides controlled defence and external relations. However, a protectorate has an internal government established, while a protected state establishes a form of local internal self-government based on the already existing one." [40]

I don't know why its so hard for you to understand the difference of protectorate v protected state, your own sources claim protectorate but then go on to explain the definitive meaning of protected state, and it is scholarly explained why it is called a protectorate in your sources you completely ignore.

This is also my official response, since I didn;t give one to the third opinion with these sources in total, toward a contributing argument on what the meaning of protected state is, and how it applies to what it means against protectorate. @Cinadon36 Look into the meanings between the two and understand the jarring difference, they are very different, as shown in oxford references. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

putting a protectorate in the infobox would be completely false information, and you IP user seem to also know that but ignore it, you seem to know that these terms of protectorate clearly dont apply to what Afghanistan was by the British, but are implying the use of false information in this specification, so I will be challenging these claims of course. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You are just stuck in a repeat cycle where you are trying to push how you personally like it suitable but that is not how it works here. You have ONLY provided your own personal opinion about everything and nothing to support what the topic of discussion was about. You need to just stop. References speak here. And now even after requesting for 3rd opinion and getting one, you are not respecting the decision just because its not in your favor. That is going against Wikipedia policy. You have to abide by the decision and make the change. That is all being asked. 199.82.243.96 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The person did not officially state the third opinion here, stop ignoring it, you are also ignoring the complete point that I didn’t even respond to the third opinion in my own case. It is not personal opinion and putting up sources completely against you which you are ignorant of. Noorullah21 (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: It seems I didnt help much so I suggest you follow other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution pathways. Cinadon36 10:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: You did help. But the other editor just chooses to ignore your opinion because its not in his favor. He is not abiding by it. But your opinion is enough for the change to British Protectorate. The other editor can take it to Dispute Resolution for further discussion. As far as your opinion is concerned, this disagreement is a closure for me. Thank you for taking time in looking at all the references including counter references. 199.82.243.110 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, ignorance prevails, thank you IP user for ignoring multiple statements that has been provided in an argument against you, despite being disproven you disregard all points and nitpick or goo of topic toward something else, claiming it is personal opinion, ignoring oxford referendes, James onely, etc. Noorullah21 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

also will be doing this on dispute resolution Noorullah21 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No comments. Thank you. 199.82.243.93 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems like all Anglo-Afghan wars have been topics of dispute and edit warring from what I have noticed. This is going to be never ending dispute which can be resolved with a neutral solution. I would suggest and highly recommend for both IP 199* and Noorullah21 is to remove the line from the infobox. Matter of fact, keeping WP:MILMOS into consideration, remove all lines except for "British Victory" and "Treaty of Gandamak" with wiki link. This is the best solution in resolving the dispute once and for all. IP 199* and Noorullah21, On Third Anglo-Afghan War, once again, keeping WP:MILMOS into consideration and keeping any disputes neutral, remove all lines except for Treaty of Rawalpindi with wiki link. One of you should make above changes on both pages to end the disputes between you both or any other editors in the future. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose, if the IP user agrees with this mediation, then I will enact it. Noorullah21 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC) @Noorullah21: I am ok with the change on both Second and Third Anglo Afghan war as a resolution to resolves the dispute on both pages as recommended by IP 134.195.198.201. Thank you. 192.189.187.117 (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@192.189.187.117 Done, I have added the changes. Noorullah21 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, its best that we end this argument through this mediation, I’ll add/change it when I get on my PC (if I remember hopefully) Noorullah21 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

The war did not result in complete British victory as the Afghans had their Tactical Victory, after achieving the prevention of a British residence in Kabul and British military withdrawal. Although it is true there was British Strategic Victory, after achieving most desired goals (controlling Afghanistan’s foreign policy on the condition of subsidies paid to the Afghans, North-West Frontier province annexed to British India). The result of this war however should be the treaty, not a side being victorious. 168.4.124.75 (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 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. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources

@Eastfarthingan Abdur Rahman Khan was neither with Ayub Khan (or Sher Ali), and instead came out from exile in Turkistan to lay his own claim for government. That is appropriate for a 3rd belligerent in the infobox because he also made conquests.

Specifically invading Badakhshan, and then seizing all of Afghan Turkestan. (Lee 376-377).

While the British were also looking for suitable candidate Amirs that could be allies for them, they scouted Abdur Rahman Khan and invited him to take the throne (which he was hesitant to do because he was a British opponent per the sources, with many of his own men wishing for war against them). (Lee 378-379).

Lee also explains the outcome of the war. (381-383) And its aftermath including Abdur Rahman Khan's often hostility towards the British, by violating many agreements and even calling for war against them. (384-397). Noorullah (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Lee also states that Abdur Rahman Khan was the real winner of the war.

I quote from page 383:

"Britain had been fortunate to escape the ‘rat trap’ without suffering the kind of humiliation that it experienced in the First Afghan War. Even so, the invasion was hardly a resounding success. Cavagnari and three other British officials along with their escort had been slaughtered, and the raising of the siege of Sherpur had been touch and go. The defeat at Maiwand and the siege of Kandahar were further dents to British military prestige. The intervention was the death knell for Forward Policy supporters and cost Disraeli an election, Lytton his Viceroyship and the British Exchequer £17 million, three times the original estimate. General Roberts eventually emerged as a British hero, but the real winner was ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan, who finally won the struggle for the throne that had begun with the death of Dost Muhammad Khan nearly two decades before" Noorullah (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

To conclude from this, due to a dispute of content for the result (especially since many sources vary), I think doing a See outcome option solely (and with a link to the treaty of Gandamak as it currently is) is appropriate per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. As well as adding Abdur Rahman Khan as a third belligerent.

Also you removed the ceded part on the grounds of it being "status quo", but the issue was the British attempted to annex it and keep it under an Afghan governor (detailed in the outcome and aftermath section I added). Noorullah (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The issues here are the sources and citations which have been completely removed for no reason whatsoever. The recent additions on Abdur Rahman Khan makes it look like the article is about him and not the war and so most should be on his page instead. It's wrong to assume that Rahman was a combatant since he was in exile and was never at war with the British regardless of what he and his men thought about them. The conquests he made were not against the British. It doesn't make any sense and confuses the reader when agreements were made and Rahman stuck with the treaty of Gandamak after Ayub Khan's defeat at Kandahar. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The main content (and citations) that were removed were ones that contradicted sources.

For ex one of the ones I removed stated that the British obtained every objective they wished for in the war, but this principally contradicts what we saw from numerous sources stating that the British were unable to keep a resident in Afghanistan (as this was one of their main objectives pre war and during the war).

Abdur Rahman can appropriately be considered a candidate because the conquests he made were against Yaqub Khans government, which would thus be appropriate to wager him as a third candidate (as it wouldnt be appropriate to group him in the infobox of the same people he was fighting against).

Indeed, you're right about the conquests not being against the British, but he sure was prepared for conflict against the British per Lee, including taking closer positions to Kabul, but the above part should surely wager him as a 3rd belligerent, no?

Rahman did agree with Gandamak, but did not entirely follow it, if not whatsoever (suggesting you to read Lee's source), will show some below:

"Lepel Griffin heard by telegram about the disaster at Maiwand the following day and he called an urgent meeting with ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan to discuss an immediate handover of power and the relief of Kandahar, which was now being besieged by ‘Ayub Khan. Griffin, however, had no authorization to negotiate a treaty or to agree to recognize ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan as Amir of Kabul and Kandahar. Instead, he presented the Amir with a Memorandum of Obligation drawn up by Sir Alfred Lyall, India’s Foreign Secretary. Known as the Lyall Agreement, this document became the foundation of all Anglo-Afghan relations during the reign of Amir ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan. The memorandum was remarkable for the concessions Britain made. The precondition of a permanent British officer stationed in Afghanistan was dropped and Britain committed itself to provide the Amir military aid in the event of unprovoked aggression by another nation and to pay him an annual subsidy. These were very similar to the terms Sher ‘Ali Khan had asked for at Umballa and Simla, and had the British government agreed to these terms then, there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan and both Britain and Afghanistan would have avoided the expense of going to war." Noorullah (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

'he sure was prepared for conflict against the British' - see there is the problem, he didn't, so therefore there should be no 3rd combatant. Also Rahman agreed to there being a resident along as they were Indian Muslim which was easily agreed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean he didn't? Lee describes him as a British opponent (and so do many other sources). He also fought against the main Afghan government for his own claim to the throne distinguishing him as a 3rd party belligerent. What you're suggesting would remove him from being in the infobox entirely.

Also can you please source him agreeing to there being a resident? @Eastfarthingan Noorullah (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

An opponent the British wanted as Emir? That means he's on their side allied to fight against the Mohammad Yaqub Khan and got rid of him in the end. That's the point.

Here's a source 'The Emergence of Modern Afhanistan: Politics of Modernization, 1880-1930 - Vartan Gregorian. Page 250 - Until 1919 , only a Muslim national from India represented the British Government at Kabul. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"An opponent the British wanted as Emir? That means he's on their side allied to fight against the Mohammad Yaqub Khan and got rid of him in the end. That's the point."

Abdur Rahman Khan was an opponent of the British, but they were looking for viable candidates to look after Yaqub Khan was imprisoned and abdicated. As a result, they began negotiating with Abdur Rahman (please read the source by Lee, its well dived into there).

Also, I checked the source, and cannot seem to find it. [41], what link did you use? Noorullah (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan (pinging to above reply). Noorullah (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes @Noorullah they began negotiating with Abdur Rahman - that means they didn't fight him, which was my point.

Interesting appears on page 125 on that one, rather than page 250... Hope that helps? Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the negotiating part, but considering how he still fought against the main Afghan government, I believe that is well distinguishable as a third candidate. Alongside this, Maimana also declared independence during Sher Ali's reign, so a third belligerent area could include outerlying states and other claimants (notably Abdur Rahman, and even Ayub Khan could be moved there).

Also thanks for the page number. Though on page 156-157, it still illustrates that Abdur Rahman Khan held the de-facto independence of his Kingdom. [42]. This seems to be a source/content dispute, with one source saying x, and the other source saying the other opinion, which is why I believe the option for a see outcome solution would be best per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, as it can very clearly state the opinions of different scholars. Noorullah (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Other sources also disagree with the upkeep of a residence in Kabul, saying the British dropped it during negotiations as seen here:

[43] [44] Noorullah (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but in return for Muslims instead. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan ? Noorullah (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The only change was that a British national, Christian European or Hindu resident was dropped but British Indian muslim would be accepted. Hope that helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there additional sources to add on for that?

Also do you agree with the change?

I intend to change the infobox as aforementioned to the "See outcome" method, and am wondering if you think adding the third belligerents is fine (with my idea of it including outlying states, and Afghan claimants like Abdur Rahman, and Ayub Khan).

I also intend to re-add the "Kandahar ceded to Afghanistan" part because across plenty sources, including some of the more well known scholars such as Robson Brian state that this was the case from the British attempting to annex Kandahar, before ceding it back to Afghanistan in a ceremony in 1881. Noorullah (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure - here's a couple more:

• Connecting Histories in Afghanistan by Shah Hanifi - page 154, 'As per terms of the agreement... the latter received a Muslim Indian as the representative of the British Government to his court'.
• On Afghanistan's Plains The Story of Britain's Afghan Wars, by Jules Stewart. page 186 'there would be no British resident at Kabul though by mutual accord a Muslim agent would reside at the capital'.

I think we need a consensus before changing, as this article has been subject to much debate. The same goes for Kandahar being 'ceded' since it was never British in the first place. As for adding Rahman as a combatant I think is wrong since he never went to war with British despite his indifference towards them. 'Annexing' Kandahar too?? the wording is wrong, holding something that far away from Indian border would be just suicide. Perhaps the region it's in would be more likely? Although I cant find any sources to back this up. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources state that the British intended to keep Kandahar under them with an Afghan governor named Sher Ali Khan (not to be confused with the Afghan king lol..)

Heres the sources: Lee page 378. Page 265 on "The road to Kabul : the second Afghan War, 1878-1881" shows the intention of the British to annex Kandahar and vying the different pathes (ie handing it back to Abdur Rahman), p 273 mentioning it as well where the British wished to retain Kandahar.

Rahman still fought against the Afghan government, and hes one of the main arguable figures during the conflict, so I still believe it'd be appropriate to add him in the third belligerent category.

Also I can ping other editors to weigh in their opinion. @Eastfarthingan Noorullah (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging some other editors that have edited on this page on a short tldr:

Me and @Eastfarthingan are establishing a consensus on the infobox and content of this article.

We are intending to change the articles infobox per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX to a See outcome section (it is currently named aftermath in the article), and that will serve as it (with some additions to make as established here on the talk page discussion). This is due to sources weighing on the war being a British victory or hardly even "justified" given the cost, especially since what Abdur Rahman Khan did in the aftermath of the war (see aftermath section if you are interested, lees source dives into it quite a lot).

A third belligerent section is also intended to be added for other Afghan claimants and independent states atp (such as the Maimana Khanate that declared independence against Sher Ali, and Ayub Khan), while me and him are still discussing on where to add Abdur Rahman Khan.

Please weigh in your opinions below on what you think can be improved, added or removed.

@Arjayay

@HistoryofIran

@PadFoot2008

@Derim Hunt Noorullah (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not qualified to add something useful to the discussion. Derim Hunt (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah you have added content without consensus. The addtion of a 3rd combatant in the infobox is now more confusing and inchorent to what is being said in the article - there are names/factions not even mentioned. The changes I made beforehand was to combine and condense the content you have added to make it flow and make it more comprehesenable. It's best we reach a consensus before adding/changing more content as agreed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan See this revision. [45], there was a lot more content I added then just to the infobox, but to the first phase section diving into the conflict further on the different factions, and declaration of independence from states such as Maimana and Sar-I-Pul. Please review the full revisions before concluding that it didn't account for what was in the infobox. -- Actually I forgot to add parts relating to Maimana and Sar-I-Pul, nevermind for that.

Here is what was added:

With Sher Ali's death, a tumultuous period began over his succession. One of his sons, Muhammad Ali Khan, attempted to seize Takhtapul, however the garrison mutinied, forcing him to move south towards Dai Zangi, where he began assembling an army against Yaqub Khan.

Yaqub Khan was declared the new Amir, with many sardars that were thought to have ties with the Afzalid faction were imprisoned. In Mazar-I-Sharif, Yaqub Khan's son, Muhammad Musa, assembled a force and seized Takhtapul, sending the leader of the mutineers to Kabul, where he was executed. Ayub Khan, supporting his brother's succession, did not oppose him. However, much of the military forces and officers in Balkh and Herat instead supported the Afzalids. Ayub Khan, facing anarchy in Herat, sending numerous requests to Mazar-I-Sharif, imminently requesting aid in cash. Despite receiving funds, the troops began rioting, and were turned away by Ayub Khan towards Yaqub Khan, stating he would be capable of paying them. Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to account for Maimana and Sar-I-Pul, so that will be added. Noorullah (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies I have restored the content in the article. Hopefully other users will come to a conclusion on this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan Not seeing any response thus far :/

If you agree on the proposal, I'm sure thats enough for the consensus of two editors, it can be brought up again if users wish to dispute it. Noorullah (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is as it should be - there should be no need for adding a 3rd combatant to the infobox as discussed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? There were numerous independent states that declared independence and fought against the Afghans themselves, where would you categorize it..? Noorullah (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan --? Noorullah (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the the Second Anglo-Afghan war. By adding these so called 'indepedent states' confuses the reader. If that should be argued then the artcile might as well be renamed. Going off an a tangent by adding different warring factions should not be pursued any further. There isn't this problem in any of the 1st or 3rd Anglo-Afghan wars or Soviet war articles. So why should this one be different, which for 20 years has not been an issue? Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In the first Anglo-Afghan War, there were numerous third party participants who fought for their own gains as claimants, the article hasn't been expanded as a result so stating that this isn't a problem in that war makes no sense. The Third Anglo-Afghan War did not see any third combatants.

Also how would it confuse the reader? The point of the third combatant section is for other Afghan claimants who fought against the Afghan government and the British. (Ayub Khan), or Abdur Rahman Khan, who was a claimant. As well as adding independent states who fought against the Afghan government for their own interests.. ie the Maimana Khanate. (The British also post-war encouraged the Afghan government to take down these states).

If this change was made arguing for the renaming of the article doesn't make sense due to WP:RS categorizing these events as the Second-Anglo Afghan War. Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like an article needs to be created - 'Afghan faction wars' which is where most of this detail should belong. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree, this is content relevant to the wars and making an entirely unnecessary spinoff page towards it for compositely two different wars (the first and second anglo afghan war) is completely un=needed. Plus WP:RS all state these to be apart of the wars. @Eastfarthingan Noorullah (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Well then we're at loggerheads. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan Still seems to be no response on the see outcome section additions, want to add those? Then get possibly a dispute resolution / 3rd opinion on adding a 3rd combatant section for the infobox. Noorullah (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have stated, the infobox should stay as is. It's up to you if want a 3rd opinion and/a 3rd combatant. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan Since there is no response from other users pinged other then Hunt who was unable to give his opinion, I'll ask for third opinion. Noorullah (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

After evaluating the sources thorougly, here are my findings. Abdur Rahman was not part of Second Anglo-Afghan war. He sure benefitted from it after British defeated Ayub Khan and he returned back with both him and the British party made a resolution or agreement I must say, where the British would concede Abdur Rahman as the new king or emir, in return for him to take in admission of the British right to control his foreign relations. Infobox should not have any third party clutter. RangersRus (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@RangersRus Thanks for your input, and what about a see outcome section to be changed to? It provides much more insight/context and is an option per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX.

Heres the revision of what it would look like excluding the third parties: [46]. Noorullah (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For any insight, reader can expand the outcome or aftermath segment of the page just like every other pages on battle. The infobox is already cluttered as is and I do not see the motive behind adding "See Outcome" when the result is clear. May this help. Cheers. RangersRus (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The point of a see outcome section would be to de-clutter the infobox such as with the removal of the *'s and expand on the outcome of the war since it is clearly disputed in motives (per the above discussions). Noorullah (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

The name Gazi Mohammad Jan Khan Wardak can be hyperlinked to the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scijewel19 Scijewel19 (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 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. Charliehdb (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 (2)

Scijewel19 (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 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. Charliehdb (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)