Talk:Third Anglo-Afghan War

Changing the results

The third Anglo-Afghan result must change because it's wrong since the British won militarily and I can provide sources for what I'm saying. Panekasos (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion here in October. Happy to reopen if there are reliable sources. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

OK I will provide my sources and discuss Panekasos (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

As a gentle reminder, ONUS is on you Panekasos to obtain consensus once content you’re adding gets disputed per WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

what's onus? Panekasos (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This. WP:ONUS Noorullah (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If I provide sources that prove what I calim I can then change the results? Panekasos (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Claim* Panekasos (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Well it’s not that simple. First you need to send the sources here. Then a discussion needs to happen. We need to analyze the sources you will provide, in order to make sure it’s reliable and accurate(preferably something that’s as reputable as iranica). ONUS is on you, so you’re the one who needs to gain consensus first. Basically you can’t add disputed content without attaining consensus first on the talk page. So you need to come to some sort of agreement with the users participating here(unless many others are willing to participate as well).

I do want to point out that you have a single purpose account. Wikipedia:Single-purpose account

For that I think you should focus on familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia first before continuing this conversation(maybe edit articles on different topics). I definitely think there is at least a neutrality concern since your only purpose here so far has been to change the result of the first and third Anglo afghan wars.

Im just offering advice so you can avoid scrutiny in the future. Because I guarantee these concerns will probably eventually be brought up by another user. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.helion.co.uk/conflicts/third-anglo-afghan-war.php this source tells that British were victorious with a minor strategic victory also the article in Wikipedia says that the afghan invasion failed and the British beat the afghans and kept the durand line. So it's contradicting so the right thing to do is change the result because the British were more successful in this war and the afghan invasion failed. Panekasos (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.forcesnews.com/operations/afghanistan/forgotten-third-afghan-war-when-afghanistan-invaded-british-india?utm_source=chatgpt.com another one Panekasos (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.gale.com/binaries/content/assets/gale-us-en/primary-sources/archives-unbound/primary-sources_archives-unbound_afghanistan-in-1919_the-third-anglo-afghan-war Panekasos (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/third-afghan-war-and-revolt-waziristan? Panekasos (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I sent many sources that prove what I said also as I said earlier the article in Wikipedia itself says that the British repelled the afghans so the afghan invasion failed Panekasos (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Well again, I’d recommend you edit on other topics first because at the moment, your running a single purpose account. Nonetheless, I’ve went over the sources and here are my findings. I’m not going in order.

1. The national army museum source doesn’t say the British won.

“ Amanullah Khan ordered a ceasefire on 3 June 1919. His ambitious plans to reclaim Peshawar and throw the British out of India had failed.

But the Treaty of Rawalpindi (8 August 1919) that brought the war to an end did recognise full Afghan independence and finally gave the Afghans the right to conduct their own foreign affairs. This had probably been Amanullah’s real goal.”

Thats pretty much what we’ve been saying. Every other goal was secondary to achieving Afghan independence. And this source doesn’t claim that the British “won”.

[2]

It also states right at the end that the outcome of the war was a contentious topic. “The outcome of the war remains contentious”

(Also why is there ChatGPT at the end of the source there? Is that where you’ve been looking this content up)?

For this source, it just says that the British “claimed” victory(both sides did) but than goes onto say that the situation didn’t actually end their troubles as they thought, and that the Afghans actually achieved a “diplomatic” victory.

“ the Government of India muddled the campaign and muddled the peace.”

So again, this doesn’t imply that the British won. Just that they claimed victory despite that not being the case. It goes on to make the claim that the Afghans achieved a diplomatic victory because they gained their foreign policy back.

I can’t see the gale source. It just says search not found when I click the link. So can’t make any comment on that until you fix it.

[3]

This is the closest you’ve got to anything so far. Just because it mentions an actual authors name. But the issue is that Michael barthorps claim is contradicted by a far more reliable source(Iranica), and the article was updated back in 2011 which makes it more up to date. It was also written by a historian that specializes in this field (unlike Barthorp, Ludwig W. Adamec is actually an expert on Afghanistan it appears).

Also the source doesn’t say that the British outright won, just that they achieved a minor strategic victory. Regardless, other more reliable sources have differing views.

Anyway, most of these sources don’t actually claim the British won. And other issues were addressed by me as well. Right now, I’d seriously recommend that you edit in other areas on wiki. Otherwise it just seems like your here to push your own viewpoint onto the article, because that’s the only thing you’ve been editing about so far. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for answering . Secondly,there is a problem though claiming that the afghans won when militarily lost the war and both sides achived some type of victory . Its wrong to outright say it's an Afghan victory because it's not. That confuses the readers when they read the rest of the article on Wikipedia and they realise that British repelled the afghans and kept the durand line which is a strategic victory for them. So please change this because it's wrong and misleading because as I and the Wikipedia article say the afghans lost militarily(they were repelled by the British and their invasion failed). Despite their independence they didn't win the war they lost it militarily. Both sides gained something.I think you should change it to British strategic victory and afghan diplomatic one(I've seen some articles do that kind of thing on Wikipedia). In conclusion, please think about it because it's wrong and misleading to say afghan victory because it's NOT. Panekasos (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

And all of this I base them on the article sources mind you not mine. So it's contradicting and I am asking you to change the result to what I said above Panekasos (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Brittanica says the result was Inconclusive Panekasos (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

https://exhibits.library.duke.edu/exhibits/show/holmes/third-anglo-afghan-war these sources I sent you prove that the war result Inconclusive it was NOT an Afghan victory . And I have more sources that prove that but first answer for the Britannica and this one here Panekasos (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

can you reply please I will Cite more sources Panekasos (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand. At the moment your still using a single purpose account. Your entire purpose on this project so far has been to change the result of the Anglo Afghan wars. This is against policy around here.

“Wikipedia:Single-purpose account”

“ This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed.”

Again, I’d encourage you to stop POV pushing and edit in other topics on wiki.

Nonetheless, your goal here is a little confusing. At first you were explaining that the sources pointed towards a British victory. Now however, you seem to be focusing on the results supposed “Inconclusiveness”. So which one is it? Did the British win or was the conflict a stalemate? Majority of the sources you’ve cited, don’t point towards a British victory.

And furthermore, reliable secondary sources are preferable to Britannica. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and WP:BRITANNICA.

“ can you reply please I will Cite more sources”

well outside of the fact that majority of the sources you’ve cited don’t point towards a British victory, we already have great sources in the infobox. It’s not about quantity, it’s about quality. You can find sources for many different viewpoints, including ones that claim the Afghans won. But we are looking for people who specialize in Afghan history, so that doesn’t matter. Ludwig is actually an expert on Afghanistan and it’s past. The iranica encyclopedia is quite renowned for its reliability. You haven’t sent a subject expert yet.

Im just gonna give it to you bluntly. Your not going to be able to change the article if you continue to do this. For one, you need consensus prior to adding disputed content(see WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS), which hasn’t happened here. In fact we had already attained it previously for adding “Afghan victory” onto the article so that is the current consensus. And to make things worse, your using a single purpose account. Evidentially from this conversation, there is a lot about this project(Wikipedia) that you don’t have a good grasp of yet. It’s okay, obviously your new. But this just proves that you obviously need more time familiarizing yourself with rules, policies, and how this project works. Other problems aside, what your doing isn’t allowed. To be specific, I mean that there is obviously some POV issues since your entire purpose on this site has been to change the result for the Anglo afghan wars. I don’t know how I can make this more clear to you, because so far you’ve ignored this fact every time I brought it up. This simply isn’t allowed on the site. You need to move on to other topics and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before you try to make controversial changes like this.

So please, edit elsewhere and learn what you can before continuing this conversation. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Please, I would like to continue this conversation here first, and then move on. Also, the war was Inconclusive because both sides gained something according to some sources. Allow me to continue the conversation and I will send you sources to prove my claim. Also, the article is contradicting because from a reader's point of view the afghan invasion failed and British kept the durand line scoring a strategic victory in that part. Readers may find this contradicting and misleading so that's another thing except the sources. Finally, please just let me have this conversation and then I will move on to other articles Panekasos (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/third-afghan-war-and-revolt-waziristan

https://www.forcesnews.com/operations/afghanistan/forgotten-third-afghan-war-when-afghanistan-invaded-british-india

Reading these two you can understand that both sides gained something thus, the war was Inconclusive Panekasos (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.forcesnews.com/operations/afghanistan/forgotten-third-afghan-war-when-afghanistan-invaded-british-india

https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/third-afghan-war-and-revolt-waziristan Panekasos (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

And the national army museum is reliable source I think Panekasos (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

And again please give me achance ti discuss this with sources of course Panekasos (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I restored the last stable version. Panekasos is correct. We cannot state this was Afghanistan's victory because the war was inconclusive. Section should be used when there are multiple outcomes. @Cinderella157: kindly share your views here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I should let folks know that I blocked User:Panekasos indefinitely this morning. My block was about continued disruptive behavior. I have no interest in a particular outcome about what should be done here. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

No.

Consensus was already made [4] Noorullah (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

(referring to Ratnahastin) here. Noorullah (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:CCC, You are pushing an Afghan nationalist POV here, this war is considered as "the war of independence" in Afghanistan, although no scholar treats it as such. The consensus is clear among academic sources that this war did not result in a victory for the Afghans but was inconclusive.

• Fremont-Barnes, Gregory (2014-06-06). "PART III The Third Anglo-Afghan War, 1919". The Anglo-Afghan Wars 1839–1919. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-4728-1008-3. On the following day, 2 June, Dyer launched an offensive to the west. But at this point, Nadir Khan sent forward an envoy bearing a flag of truce and requesting a ceasefire. As his troops were already fully committed to the fight, Dyer resumed the attack, but before making contact, the Afghans withdrew westwards, with armored cars, aircraft, and cavalry in pursuit. Both sides concluded an armistice on 3 June.....The peace conference opened at Rawalpindi in July. The Afghans were in no mood to be conciliated, despite the fact that they had been evicted from Indian soil. After heated discussions, a treaty was hammered out and signed on 8 August, with the Afghans achieving their principal aim: the right to conduct their own foreign affairs. Both sides reaffirmed the Durand Line as the border, and the Afghans made an important pledge not to interfere in the political affairs of the tribes along the North-West Frontier.
• Roy, Kaushik (2015-01-12). "Chapter 2: British Indian Empire and Warfare in Afghanistan: 1810– 1947". War and Society in Afghanistan: From the Mughals to the Americans, 1500–2013. Oxford University Press. p. 127. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198099109.003.0002. ISBN 978-0-19-809910-9. The total casualties suffered by the army in India from all causes due to the war in 1919 numbered to 1,751, including 182 British officers and men. The Third Afghan War came to an end on 8 August 1919 with the signing of the Peace Treaty at Rawalpindi between the representatives of the amir of Afghanistan and the GOI. However, troubles continued in Waziristan
• Richards, Donald Sydney (1990). "Abdul Ghaffar Khan". The Savage Frontier. London: Macmillan. p. 167-8. ISBN 978-0-333-52557-9. The peace initiative from the Amir came not a moment too soon for the government of India. ... The Peace Conference assembled at Rawalpindi on 27 July was notable for its degree of acrimony. The Afghan Army had been driven from the British side of the Durand Line, but its delegates were determined not to return to Afghanistan without first having obtained total independence for their country. Several times the talks almost foundered. All that Sir Hamilton Grant, the British delegate, would concede was a recognition that Afghanistan's foreign policy was a matter for the Afghans, and finally on 1 August Grant presented the Afghan delegates with an ultimatum. Either they make peace or the British would resume hostilities. Reluctantly the Afghans reaffirmed the Durand Line as being the political boundary, and on 8 August the Treaty of Rawalpindi was formally concluded. Amanullah was delighted that he had won the right to conduct foreign affairs without interference, but Sir Hamilton Grant, perhaps believing that this developing nation would experience teething problems, added a note to his communi-cation to Lord Chelmsford. 'Liberty is a new toy to the Afghan government. Later on if we handle them well, they will come to us to mend their new toy when it gets chipped or broken.' He had sadly misjudged the mood of the Afghans. The withdrawal of the militias from Waziristan had been interpreted as a sign of weakness by the tribes, and when rumours spread that the territory was to be ceded to the Amir, grievances stirred up by the late war multiplied. Smarting from their recent reverses, the Mahsuds and Wazirs soon discovered a common unity in disorder and tumult.
• Drephal, Maximilian (2019-09-25). "The Remaking of Anglo-Afghan Relations". Afghanistan and the Coloniality of Diplomacy. Cambridge Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies Series. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 48-50. ISBN 978-3-030-23960-2. On 24 May 1919, Amanullah Khan began negotiations for peace. On 3 June 1919, the Government of India agreed to the ceasefire. In retrospect, a border clash became the Third Anglo-Afghan War that had no winners. In Ludwig W. Adamec's words: "Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated. But this war did result in an end to Britain's suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans – even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action." This was the Afghan War of Independence . It failed to convert the forces that later fuelled the Khilafat movement into a widespread uprising against the colonial state, but it served to enhance the cause of Amanullah Khan's rule as a unifying undertaking both at home and abroad. ... An armistice was agreed in June 1919. It was followed by negotiations for a peace treaty in Rawalpindi in Punjab, which began in July. A peace treaty was signed in August 1919, whose terms did not explicitly recognise Afghan independence but ended the practice of subsidising Afghan rulers.
• P. Barua, Pradeep, ed. (2011-12-09). "Anglo-Afghan Wars (1839–1842, 1878–1881, 1919)". The Encyclopedia of War. Wiley. p. 63-64. doi:10.1002/9781444338232.wbeow018. ISBN 978-1-4051-9037-4. On May 23 the Afghans renewed their offensive from Khost and, with the help of the rebellious Waziristan tribes, were able to put considerable pressure on the British garrison at Thal. A relief mission under Brigadier Reginald Dyer, which set out from the Khyber Pass supported by aircraft, armored cars, and cavalry, forced the Afghans back, and on June 3 an armistice was signed. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you he kept doing that all the time . Biased 94.71.186.197 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"Read WP:CCC, You are pushing an Afghan nationalist POV here, this war is considered as "the war of independence" in Afghanistan, although no scholar treats it as such. The consensus is clear among academic sources that this war did not result in a victory for the Afghans but was inconclusive."

...Except it does? Your own sources say so, are you even reading the sources you cited?

From the first source you cited..: "After heated discussions, a treaty was hammered out and signed on 8 August, with the Afghans achieving their principal aim:" - This is showing the Afghans achieved their goal from the war...

From your third source... "Amanullah was delighted that he had won the right to conduct foreign affairs without interference,"

Your fourth citation literally still calls it an Afghan victory in line with the content we currently have in the article, and refers to it as a war of independence.

"But this war did result in an end to Britain's suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans – even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action." This was the Afghan War of Independence."

Moreover.. from iranica..

"This was an undeclared war that lasted from 4 May to 3 June and resulted in Afghanistan’s winning complete independence. Amir Amānallāh (1919-29) ascended the Afghan throne on 25 February after the assassination of Amir Ḥabīballāh (r. 1319-37/1901-19)" [5]

"One of Amanullah's first actions was to launch a surprise attack on the British in what became the third Anglo-Afghan war (1919). An Afghan victory forced the British to end their formal enroachments on Afghanistan's sovereignty..." ["Afghan+victory"+"Third"+1919&pg=PA150&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="Afghan%20victory"%20"Third"%201919&f=false]

Your own sources that you cited refer to it was a war of independence, and even an Afghan victory. Noorullah (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

You also, again, ignored the previous consensus made when I brought it up. [6] Noorullah (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

They are talking about the diplomatic gain, not the military victory, the result in this case was a stalemate or even a British tactical victory, you are emphasizing the diplomatic gain in the infobox to claim that Afghans won this military conflict! This is Afghan nationalist POV pushing I was talking about.

"Your fourth citation literally still calls it an Afghan victory in line with the content we currently have in the article, and refers to it as a war of independence."

Stop falsifying the source, the author is merely quoting another writer. Secondly it clearly states "Third Anglo-Afghan War that had no winners" - Ratnahastin (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin "They are talking about the diplomatic gain, not the military victory, the result in this case was a stalemate or even a British tactical victory, you are emphasizing the diplomatic gain in the infobox to claim that Afghans won this military conflict! This is Afghan nationalist POV pushing I was talking about."

..No we have sources that clearly define the war as an Afghan victory because they obtained their objectives. That's not POV pushing when a consensus was established that eventually agreed on that.

""Your fourth citation literally still calls it an Afghan victory in line with the content we currently have in the article, and refers to it as a war of independence."

Stop falsifying the source, the author is merely quoting another writer. Secondly it clearly states "Third Anglo-Afghan War that had no winners"" -- What about the other points, did you just blatantly ignore them? Moving on to this... The source calls it an Afghan victory in the field of diplomacy. Ludwig is a renowned Academic who states this. The source even still referred to it as... "This was the Afghan War of Independence." Noorullah (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"No we have sources that clearly define the war as an Afghan victory because they obtained their objectives"

Yeah, diplomatic objectives. There's more to this war than just that, you know that, don't you?

"What about the other points, did you just blatantly ignore them? Moving on to this" - I already addressed them when I said they were talking about diplomatic Ludvig himself states "Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated" - essentially a military stalemate, as I noted earlier. - Ratnahastin (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Let me give my two cents.

“ In Ludwig W. Adamec's words: "Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated. But this war did result in an end to Britain's suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans – even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action."

We had also cited Ludwig in the article previously. he clearly stated that one can justly say that the Afghans won the war, even if it was done diplomatically in this case. This just seems to be proving our point no?

Majority of the sources you cited, don’t really appear to have showcased a winner? I get that it’s probably not your goal. Your just trying to remove “Afghan victory”. But if certain experts like Ludwig claim an Afghan victory, than what’s the issue? From what I’m getting from these sources, most or all don’t really contradict what Ludwig has claimed.

“ After heated discussions, a treaty was hammered out and signed on 8 August, with the Afghans achieving their principal aim: the right to conduct their own foreign affairs.”

How does this refute Ludwigs interpretation for example? Does this not directly state that the Afghans achieved their principle main goal(only way to win a war is to achieve your goals). So what’s the contradiction here?

From Roy “ The total casualties suffered by the army in India from all causes due to the war in 1919 numbered to 1,751, including 182 British officers and men. The Third Afghan War came to an end on 8 August 1919 with the signing of the Peace Treaty at Rawalpindi between the representatives of the amir of Afghanistan and the GOI. However, troubles continued in Waziristan”

Again, how does this contradict Ludwig? There’s hardly any information here about the outcome.

I pretty much have the same issue with all these other sources cited. There doesn’t seem to be any contradiction. Most of these are just general overviews of what happened near the end. I can point out the rest, but they all follow the same format. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

My point is that current infobox result is POV and does not reflect the actual result of the war. It places singular focus on diplomatic gain, the long standing version of infobox (before Noorullah edited this page) was far more accurate on what actually happened[7], ever since then this article has been undergoing major nationalistic POV changes, having reached the point where now it only states "Afghan victory"! - Ratnahastin (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin Because that's what sources say, are you blatantly ignoring Iranica and other sources cited that call this an Afghan victory? We went through the talk page and established consensus for these changes.

Not only that, but the proposal [8] you just mentioned violates WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Noorullah (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Also instead of objectively replying to @Someguywhosbored's points.. you just threw up what your goal for the page was, stating that the page is now littered with "major nationalistic POV changes" (ignoring the consensus). Noorullah (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

“They are talking about the diplomatic gain, not the military victory, the result in this case was a stalemate”.

“But this war did result in an end to Britain's suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans – even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action."

How does this being won through diplomatic means, change anything? Plenty of nations have lost wars politically, even if they didn’t lose militarily. It doesn’t change the end result. And Ludwig is making himself perfectly clear here. The war, according to him, can be justly seen as a victorious war for the Afghans because they gained independence.

“ Stop falsifying the source, the author is merely quoting another writer”

I mean…sure but the entire quote that he cited only states that the Afghans won and that’s it. If he’s quoting that particular line, than I doubt that he’s in disagreement.

” My point is that current infobox result is POV and does not reflect the actual result of the war. It places singular focus on diplomatic gain”

I understand, but that “Diplomatic gain”(independence) was the main reason they invaded British India. It’s why the war had begun. And as we’ve been over before, wars can be won politically.

I got respect for both users here. So I hope this argument doesn’t get heated. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"How does this being won through diplomatic change anything? Plenty of nations have lost wars politically, rather than militarily. It doesn’t change the end result. "

It does, this is a military conflict, and the result should explain what the result of armed confrontation was, just highlighting diplomatic victory is not enough. The very fact that Ludvig states this, he implies that war was not a military success for the Afghans.

"And Ludwig is making himself perfectly clear here. The war, according to him, can be justly seen as a victorious war for the Afghans because they gained independence."

Yes, " for the Afghans", not for the Wikipedia or its readers. Ludvig is also not the sole person writing about this conflict, so makes no sense to value his opinion over those of other scholars.

" doubt that he’s in disagreement."

Perhaps you should read what the author said just right before that quote "In retrospect, a border clash became the Third Anglo-Afghan War that had no winners. ".

" I understand, but that “Diplomatic gain”(independence) was the main reason they invaded British India"

So? They failed militarily in achieving a victory. - Ratnahastin (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

“It does, this is a military conflict, and the result should explain what the result of armed confrontation was, just highlighting diplomatic victory is not enough. The very fact that Ludvig states this, he implies that war was not a military success for the Afghans.”

The principle point of a war is to achieve one’s political aims/goals. You’ve stated yourself that the war concluded in a military stalemate. If it was a stalemate on the battlefield,

but the Afghans still managed to make big gains politically (independence), than how is this not a victory for them? An example of this is the French war in Algeria, where it ended in a military stalemate but due to the Algerians success in achieving their political aims(independence), it’s considered a victory for Algeria.

“Perhaps you should read what the author said just right before that quote "In retrospect, a border clash became the Third Anglo-Afghan War that had no winners.”

I did read that. In fact that was the point I was responding to.

“So? They failed militarily in achieving a victory”

This quote makes it seem like the British won militarily. Neither side won a military victory. You said it yourself. If the British and Afghans fought to a standstill on the battlefield, but the Afghans won politically, then how am I supposed to not view this as a victory for them? Militarily = stalemate, politically = Afghan victory. Clearly this means that the Afghans won the conflict because they achieved their political aims which as I’ve already explained is the primary reason a state or entity goes to war in the first place.

“Yes, " for the Afghans", not for the Wikipedia or its readers. Ludvig is also not the sole person writing about this conflict, so makes no sense to value his opinion over those of other scholars.”

My problem is that you mostly sent me a bunch of general info that gave very vague or simply unhelpful information in this context because majority of them don’t declare a winner, loser, or even a stalemate(except one short line). Ludwig makes it clear that the Afghans won. Also this quote “Yes, for the Afghans”. He wrote that the war was “justly” claimed as a victory by the Afghans. What do you think the word “justly” means in this context? Also this doesn’t matter because on Iranica, he clearly wrote that the Afghans won their independence by force.

“It was therefore not surprising that Amānallāh seized the unique opportunity to win by force what Britain was unwilling to give its ally: Afghanistan’s internal and external independence.” Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"but the Afghans still managed to make big gains politically (independence), than how is this not a victory for them?" - Where did I dispute the diplomatic victory? I have stated it clearly that this war had no definite winners, militarily it was a stalemate and Amanullah had to sue for ceasefire, showcasing that British had an upper hand in the war. The infobox needs to highlight this, as it currently only reflects a single nationalist POV .

"I did read that. In fact that was the point I was responding to."

The author was implying that this war had no definite winner, he then uses Ludwig's quote to collaborate that, in fact Ludvig himself agrees that this war was a military stalemate "Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated", the only gain Afghans made from this war was diplomatic, nothing else.

"This quote makes it seem like the British won militarily"

British did had an upper hand in the war, and Amanullah himself had to pursue ceasefire. Infact upon further reviewing some sources. It seems British had soundly defeated the Afghans on the battlefield.

• Fremont-Barnes, Gregory (2012-11-20). "Background to war". The Soviet–Afghan War 1979–89. Osprey Publishing. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-84908-805-3. OCLC 801606510. until 1919, when Afghan troops crossed into India and tried to foment an insurrection along the frontier – a matter settled in the very brief Third Anglo-Afghan War (May–August 1919) in which Britain ejected the invaders before agreeing to forswear all control over Afghan foreign policy and thus signifying the country's status as a genuinely sovereign state.
• Lee, Jonathan L. (2019-01-15). Afghanistan. London: Reaktion Books. p. 459,497. ISBN 978-1-78914-010-1. The Third Anglo-Afghan War lasted exactly one month, though desultory fighting continued until the Armistice was signed in August. Despite subsequent propaganda by the Afghan government, its army had been soundly defeated on two fronts, while Spin Baldak was occupied by British forces. The war had been brief, but it had also been bloody. ..... The decision to agree to a ceasefire was not welcomed by religious and tribal leaders who were eager to continue the jihad, while Nadir Khan continued to covertly support the revolt in Waziristan. 'Abd al-Quddus Khan wished for the war to be perpetuated too, for he had yet to fire a shot in anger. In order to justify the Amir's decision to order a ceasefire, government propaganda claimed that Afghan victories had forced Britain to the negotiating table..... King 'Aman Allah Khan was no general and he had played no active military role in the Third AngloAfghan War. The Afghan army was barely fit for purpose, being defeated not just by the superior technology and discipline of the British army, but by lightly armed and untrained tribal levies.

"don’t declare a winner, loser" - Because this war didn't have them, this is something sources themselves acknowledge and that's the reason why the infobox is POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"The infobox needs to highlight this, as it currently only reflects a single nationalist POV." - Yet again, violating WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Noorullah (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

What you're asking for is already highlighted in the aftermath section. Noorullah (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed." My edit was completely in compliance with the guideline. Since the result is contentious, it is better to change to "See aftermath" as even you agreed that "it is already highlighted in the aftermath section", infobox is meant for summarising the article, if the content is already in the article then it should be summarised while keeping WP:NPOV in mind in the infobox. Therefore "Afghan victory" is POV pushing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No you tried to cite the version where it said "British tactical victory, Afghan diplomatic victory", which is against the MOS, you're trying to switch it up now by saying it should be shifted to a "See aftermath".

"Therefore "Afghan victory" is POV pushing" - Again, sources say the war was an Afghan victory :/ Noorullah (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"No you tried to cite the version where it said "British tactical victory, Afghan diplomatic victory", which is against the MOS, you're trying to switch it up now by saying it should be shifted to a "See aftermath"

Check my edits on the article. I was saying that result reflected better summary of what actually happened. You should stop misrepresenting my position when it was made clear in the reply right above.

"Again, sources say the war was an Afghan victory :/ " - No, they don't, there's more nuance to this, if the results are contentious,( which they are), the guideline itself favours my edit. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No, but you still pointed out a version you wished to revert to being a version that was against the MOS.. But since you've further clarified..

You wished to now revert it to a "See outcome", we had a consensus to change it to Afghan victory, furthermore most academics point to the fact that the Afghans achieved their main aim of the war, thus designating it an Afghan victory. "No, they don't, there's more nuance to this," -- So why have the sources you yourself cited even pointed out designating it as an Afghan victory, or clearly stating they achieved their aims. Noorullah (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"designating it as an Afghan victory, or clearly stating they achieved their aims"

Where did they do that? Most did not identify a victor in the war, while acknowledging that Afghans achieved a diplomatic gain, you are misrepresenting them to say that Afghans won the war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

“Where did I dispute the diplomatic victory? I have stated it clearly that this war had no definite winners, militarily it was a stalemate and Amanullah had to sue for ceasefire, showcasing that British had an upper hand in the war. The infobox needs to highlight this, as it currently only reflects a single nationalist POV.”

If you don’t have a problem with agreeing that the Afghans won politically, than you should have no problem with “Afghan victory” on the infobox. I dont mind if you want to add something like “military stalemate” right below it as a compromise. It worked on the Algerian war of independence page. Also upper hand? That’s a bit of a wild thing to say when they gave up their foreign policy. One of of the reasons the British accepted peace anyway was because they were worried about a Afghan/Pashtun tribal revolt within their borders. Amanullah won what he had set out to achieve(Afghan independence). So I fail to see how they achieved the upper hand here.

“British did had an upper hand in the war, and Amanullah himself had to pursue ceasefire. Infact upon further reviewing some sources. It seems British had soundly defeated the Afghans on the battlefield.”

It looks like there must be some dispute on that from. Per iranica.

“ Hostilities began on 4 May 1919, when Afghan troops cut the water supply to Landī Kōtal on the Indian side of the border, and Britain retaliated by closing the Khyber Pass. It appears that the Afghans planned a concerted attack, but the forces of Ṣāleḥ Moḥammad were prematurely engaged. British forces had some successes, but these were neutralized when Nāder Khan established a new front in the southeast and attacked the British base at Thal. On 24 May Amānallāh responded to British feelers, and a ceasefire was called on 3 June 1919. Peace between Afghanistan and Britain was finally restored after a series of negotiations at Rawalpindi (8 August 1919), Mussoorie (1 8 July 1920), and Kabul (2 December 1921).”

This doesn’t seem to imply a British military victory at all. From what I’ve read, most sources generally view the military side of things ending in a stalemate, but politically Amanullah khan won. They may have been ejected from the territory but like the Iran Iraq war and Korean War, they ended in military stalemates. it’s more accurate to say that military operations were inconclusive as a result of the armistice. Difference in this case though was the political gains.

“the only gain Afghans made from this war was diplomatic, nothing else.”

Your acting like this is some minor achievement/gain when this was the whole reason Amanullah khan went to war. Afghanistan gained its independence. Your actively downplaying the importance of it here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"I dont mind if you want to add something like “military stalemate” right below it as a compromise. It worked on the Algerian war of independence page. Also upper hand? That’s a bit of a wild thing to say when they gave up their foreign policy. "

"See outcome" is better, as the result is contentious among sources. Lee for one thinks that this was a military failure for the Afghanistan.

"This doesn’t seem to imply a British military victory at all. From what I’ve read, most sources generally view the military side of things ending in a stalemate, but politically Amanullah khan won."

Again, you are only proving my point that result is contentious among sources, in fact by arguing for "Afghan victory" here despite acknowledging the contentious nature of the result, it should be obvious to you that you are simply pushing a POV here.

"Your acting like this is some minor achievement/gain when this was the whole reason Amanullah khan went to war. Afghanistan gained its independence. Your actively downplaying the importance of it here. "

This is was a minor conflict, almost all sources acknowledge this. The view that this conflict was significant because "Afghanistan won independence" hints at a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop accusing of POV-Pushing, that's seriously starting to become Uncivil, especially when you're throwing around the word simply because the two of us disagree with you.

The more clear stance on this is actually WP:ICANTHEARYOU, where the consensus has long been past (since two editors, i.e me, and @Someguywhosbored) clearly disagree with you.

Responding to your actual points.. ""See outcome" is better, as the result is contentious among sources. Lee for one thinks that this was a military failure for the Afghanistan." No it isn't, academics state the Afghans achieved their principle aim and thus won the war due to it. We've already cited all that above so no reason to repaste it here again... But that goes from Iranica, Ludwig, and more.

"This is was a minor conflict, almost all sources acknowledge this. The view that this conflict was significant because "Afghanistan won independence" hints at a POV." ... That's not what he's saying. The wargoal was to achieve independence, you're ignoring this and then accused him of POV pushing for saying that? Noorullah (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"when you're throwing around the word simply because the two of us disagree with you"

For the longest time, this article did not say that Afghans won this military confrontation. Only now it says that, therefore POV pushing is apparent.

" (since two editors, i.e me, and @Someguywhosbored) clearly disagree with you."

You clearly do not understand how consensus works on Wikipedia. Another editor reverted you as well, clearly the content is disputed and there is no consensus.

"No it isn't, academics state the Afghans achieved their principle aim and thus won the war due to it. "

Academics also say that this war was a military stalemate or even a military failure for the Afghans. Secondly, pushing Afghan victory just because they managed to end British meddling in their foreign affairs is not reflective of the academic discourse about the result of this military conflict which states that Afghans failed militarily.

• Roy, Olivier (1990-11-22). "The origins of Afghan fundamentalism and popular movements up to 1947". Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 63. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511563553.005. ISBN 978-0-521-39700-1. The new king, Amanullah, made a unilateral proclamation of his country's independence. He then declared war against the British, which led to a military defeat but a political victory in 1919.
• Barfield, Thomas (2010-03-29). Afghanistan. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-4008-3453-2. The army attacked British positions in three places across the frontier, but with the exception of Nadir Khan's short occupation of Tank, they were unsuccessful and the Afghans asked for an armistice in May. Under continuing pressure from the jihadist revolts in the tribal areas and wearied by the Great War, the British were also kcen to seck a solution despite their victories against regular Afghan forces, which included the first aerial bombing of the country.
• Hyman, Anthony (2002). "Nationalism in Afghanistan". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 34 (2). Cambridge University Press: 299–315. ISSN 0020-7438. JSTOR 3879829. Retrieved 2025-02-05. The third Anglo-Afghan war was fought in the spring of 1919, after World War I, and lasted barely one month. The new Afghan ruler King Amanullah ordered Afghan forces to advance into British Indian territory in the Khyber Pass area while an abortive Afghan attempt was made to start an uprising in Peshawar city, capital of NorthWest Frontier province. Afghan attacks along the borders were quickly checked by British Indian troops, and a British air attack on Kabul damaged Afghan morale and helped convince Amanullah to request an armistice...

"The wargoal was to achieve independence, you're ignoring this and then accused him of POV pushing for saying that?"

There's more nuance to this.

• Stein, Mark L. (2023). "The Last Muslim Conquest: The Ottoman Empire and Its Wars in Europe By Gabor Agoston. pp. xv, 664. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2021". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 33 (1): 259–262. doi:10.1017/S1356186321000845. ISSN 1356-1863. Discussing the Third Afghan War in 1919, Lee emphatically disputes the usual suggestion that Aman Allah launched it for Afghanistan's independence, asserting that Aman Allah "had already declared Afghanistan independent and he knew that Britain was not in a position to do anything about it" (p. 455). Thus, it was certainly a "jihad",as Aman Allah and his religious supporters termed it.

- Ratnahastin (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"You clearly do not understand how consensus works on Wikipedia. Another editor reverted you as well, clearly the content is disputed and there is no consensus."

Again, referring to the consensus made ... four months ago between three editors. [9]

"Academics also say that this war was a military stalemate or even a military failure for the Afghans. Secondly, pushing Afghan victory just because they managed to end British meddling in their foreign affairs is not reflective of the academic discourse about the result of this military conflict."

- But that's the focal point of the war. The goal of the war was Afghanistan's independence (which the Afghans achieved), the Afghans may have been bested tactically, but they still in end, reached their goals. You seem to be bringing up their tactical defeat, or even stalemate, a lot, and I want to emphasize that this dispute isn't about the war tactically, there's no dispute about the result of it, but rather the result of the war since it was won diplomatically.

"There's more nuance to this."

I'm sorry but that seems more like a WP:FRINGE theory, the vast, and I mean vast majority of sources clearly define it as a war of independence (that the Afghans intended to seize the right to their own foreign affairs/independence)

Citing your own sources..

"In Ludwig W. Adamec's words: "Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated. But this war did result in an end to Britain's suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans – even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action." This was the Afghan War of Independence." [10] (Here's Ludwig) [11]

"...a treaty was hammered out and signed on 8 August, with the Afghans achieving their principal aim: the right to conduct their own foreign affairs." [12]

"...but its delegates were determined not to return to Afghanistan without first having obtained total independence for their country." [13]

Citing other sources...

Irancia: "However, recent research has shown that Amānallāh resorted to war to safeguard Afghanistan’s independence, which had been unofficially secured at the end of World War I. He feared that British duplicity would deprive him of the reward he expected for Afghanistan’s neutrality and bring about the return of pre-war British hegemony." [14]

"An Afghan victory forced the British to end their formal enroachments on Afghanistan's sovereignty..." "Afghan+victory"+"Third"+1919&source=gbs_navlinks_s

"Ali Ahmad made it quite clear, however, that the Afghans would not continue the previous arrangements and would insist on Afghanistan’s complete internal and external independence.”" [15] "The Viceroy also felt that the time for concessions had come. He reported to London that the Afghans were adamant in their insistence on independence and were unwilling to go home without having it confirmed." [16] Noorullah (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"But that's the focal point of the war. The goal of the war was Afghanistan's independence (which the Afghans achieved), the Afghans may have been bested tactically, but they still in end, reached their goals"

So? This article is primarily about the military conflict, if Afghans were defeated or did not succeed in their military ambitions then this has to be reflected. You are pushing for Afghan victory when sources clearly make a distinction between the battlefield reality and diplomatic goal.

"Again, referring to the consensus made ... four months ago between three editors. [8]"

4 months old is nothing compared to the age of this article and that "consensus" is not binding when the issue is still under dispute.

""Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated. But this war did result in an end to Britain's suzerainty over Afghanistan"" - Clearly he is referring to the military situation being a stalemate hence supporting my view. Diplomatic victory is one thing, military victory is another (which Afghans didn't achieve )

"I'm sorry but that seems more like a WP:FRINGE theory"

No, the fact that Amanullah waged Jihad against the British is a well known fact, he did this to rally clergy support for his war. Infact, most sources acknowledge this. Secondly, Lee is merely pointing out that Amanullah had declared Afghanistan as independent from the colonial rule before he even started the war, so Lee is not wrong here. See Barfield, Thomas (2010) "He named his father-in-law Mahmud Tarzi Foreign minister, a provocation since Britain had forbidden Afghanistan from establishing any direct relations with foreign states."

"An Afghan victory forced the British to end their formal enroachments on Afghanistan's sovereignty"

Again,this only points out that result of the war is contentious, so "see outcome" is the only way to summarise the result in the infobox, see the three sources I quoted in my earlier reply that talk about Afghan military failure.

"Ali Ahmad made it quite clear, however, that the Afghans would not continue the previous arrangements and would insist on Afghanistan’s complete internal and external independence.”" [14] "The Viceroy also felt that the time for concessions had come. He reported to London that the Afghans were adamant in their insistence on independence and were unwilling to go home without having it confirmed."

Yeah they wanted independence and they got it through diplomacy, but they failed to achieve a military victory which is relevant to this conflict. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"So? This article is primarily about the military conflict, if Afghans were defeated or did not succeed in their military ambitions then this has to be reflected. You are pushing for Afghan victory when sources clearly make a distinction between the battlefield reality and diplomatic goal."

I'm sorry, what? It already is reflected in the article. Have you not read the article at all? Moreover, you're now trying to phrase this as "Since it's a military conflict, and in the conflict, the British were more successful tactically, we should ignore the scholars phrasing this as an Afghan victory because they got what they wanted in the end simply because the British were more victorious in battle". - Simply ridiculous.

"and that "consensus" is not binding when the issue is still under dispute." The only one disputing this is you.. and a now blocked editor for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry.

"military victory is another (which Afghans didn't achieve)" -- Except that wars aren't always won via a military victory? You're ignoring the sources that state the war WAS an Afghan victory because they achieved their aims diplomatically. See again, Ludwig. "But this war did result in an end to Britain's suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans – even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action.""

"No, the fact that Amanullah waged Jihad against the British is a well known fact," - The point of the war was mainly a war of independence, as is corroborated by every source cited above, it's already mentioned in article about the intention for Jihad (and the end result).

"Again,this only points out that result of the war is contentious, so "see outcome" is the only way to summarise the result in the infobox, see the three sources I quoted in my earlier reply that talk about Afghan military failure."

The quote literally says It's an Afghan victory, where is the contention..? You're starting to exhibit WP:ICANTHEARYOU. ""An Afghan victory forced the British to end their formal enroachments on Afghanistan's sovereignty""

"Yeah they wanted independence and they got it through diplomacy, but they failed to achieve a military victory which is relevant to this conflict." - So.....they still got what they wanted from the war which thus constitutes their aim/victory? Noorullah (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, what? It already is reflected in the article. Have you not read the article at all?" Have you ever read WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE? If the content is in the article then why does this infobox push Afghan victory when Afghans failed at achieving their military ambitions, British having defeated them?

"Since it's a military conflict, and in the conflict, the British were more successful tactically, we should ignore the scholars phrasing this as an Afghan victory because they got what they wanted in the end simply because the British were more victorious in battle" Source do not treat it is as a military victory, this "victory" was achieved through diplomacy not on the battlefield.

"The only one disputing this is you"

Did you forget the user who reverted you?

Read Ludvig, again " the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action", Ludvig does not contradict me infact he makes a clear distinction between diplomacy and military action like I'm doing here.

"The quote literally says It's an Afghan victory, where is the contention..? You're starting to exhibit WP:ICANTHEARYOU. ""An Afghan victory forced the British to end their formal enroachments on Afghanistan's sovereignty"""

That's only a single source and even then it doesn't specify whether this was in the realm of military or diplomacy, the three sources I quoted clearly acknowledge the military failure of Afghans, even then I'm not pushing for a "British tactical victory " here , I only want the infobox result to be changed to "See outcome".

"You're starting to exhibit WP:ICANTHEARYOU."

Perhaps you should give it a read, you are continuing to push for Afghan victory when sources clearly state that militarily it was a defeat.

"So.....they still got what they wanted from the war which thus constitutes their aim/victory?"

That's merely your POV and WP:OR, Wikipedia is supposed to summarise what reliable sources say and they clearly emphasize the military defeat of Afghans! - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"Did you forget the user who reverted you?" - They reverted because they believed it wasn't disruptive on my edit summary, not that they partook in the discussion.

I'm sorry but you're just blatantly starting to ignore the sources that clearly state why the war was a victory (because of Afghan gains diplomatically), the result -- and most scholars agree on, was that it was a clear Afghan victory.

I see no reason to continue this discussion because you're repeating yourself over and over on stuff that has been addressed. I see this as WP:ICANTHEARYOU. "That's merely your POV and WP:OR, Wikipedia is supposed to summarise what reliable sources say and they clearly emphasize the military defeat of Afghans! -" -- And all the academics that say the end result of the war was an Afghan victory...? Noorullah (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"I'm sorry but you're just blatantly starting to ignore the sources that clearly state why the war was a victory"

I have clearly addressed them. They are merely talking about diplomatic victory while also making the distinction between it and the military failure of the Afghans.

"I see no reason to continue this discussion because you're repeating yourself over and over on stuff that has been addressed"

Because that's something you're doing by repeatedly ignoring my sources that claim that this war was a military failure. Why don't you address them? Why haven't you addressed Roy, Olivier, Barfield, Thomas, Hyman, Anthony whom I have quoted above? - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Quoting from what I said earlier (you completely ignored this)...

"You seem to be bringing up their tactical defeat, or even stalemate, a lot, and I want to emphasize that this dispute isn't about the war tactically, there's no dispute about the result of it, but rather the result of the war since it was won diplomatically."

This dispute is about the infobox.

The infobox is meant to represent the end result.

The end result was that the Afghans won.. as clearly stated from sources. Noorullah (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Also ... There's some sources that simply state it was a military stalemate.. (Some even cited by you!) Noorullah (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah they do, which only collaborates my point that the result of this war is contentious among scholars! Therefore the best solution is to simply state "See outcome" in the infobox because the guidance itself tells us to do that when results are unclear and when there is no academic consensus. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

But there is an academic consensus.

The academic consensus is that while the Afghans may not have been successful militarily, (since it was either a stalemate, or a defeat), the Afghans still won the war (from diplomatic aims) by achieving Independence -- the main point of the war. Noorullah (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Afghans did not win this war. Stop repeating this false claim and look at the scholarly sources above. Capitals00 (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

See response on the break by the admin. Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• I had reverted the infobox edit because this war was not an Afghan victory. If anything, Afghans failed militarily on the battlefield while some say that it ended in a stalemate. While it is known that Afghans did achieve independence, it doesn't mean that we should call it a military victory for Afghanistan. Furthermore, see Template:Infobox_military_conflict. The use of infobox to state a non-existing victory is only misleading the readers. Capitals00 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• (Pinged to this discussion) Per MOS:INFOBUXPORPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. We are also guided by WP:RESULT and the template documentation. The aftermath section (in this case, the outcome section) is the place to summarise the result that will be represented in the infobox. The infobox is also a suppliment to the lead and not a replacement - ie the "result" should reflect the lead as well as the body of the article. Having read the article, the Afghans advanced across the border to seize the old Afghan provinces but ultimately, were beaten back to the border. The war was not fought to a conclusion by which either party were forced to accept terms but entered into a mutually agreeable treaty by which the British no longer paid for something the Afghans were no longer prepared to provide (a quid pro quo). Neither the body of the article nor the lead declare that there was a clear victor in this war. The parties in this discussion offer a range of sources to support their views. Unfortunately, much of the referenced material is not presented in the body of the article. The article would clearly be improved by adding such material to the outcome section and the effort expended in arguing over the "result" would better be expended in improving the article. Having considered the article and these additional references, the conclusions reached and the reasoning given in the sources, it is clear that there is nuance and detail to the "result". The infobox is a blunt instrument unsuitable and incapable of capturing nuance and detail. This is reflected in the guidance at WP:RESULT and Template: Infobox military conflict. It is clear to me that there is no consensus in sources that this can simply be represented as X victory and consequently, the see aftermath (see outcome section) option is most consistent with the prevailing guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking time and providing an informed opinion on this. The article clearly needs improvement from the sources I have cited here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Coming back on this, I can see the uproar that the result is causing, which I knew it would. If only this was the case when I had to agree to a consensus back in September last year - when the result was changed. I was the only one FOR #See Aftermath in the consesus (as the article had been) that was asked. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well, if consensus changes I don’t mind. But I can’t say I really agree

  “ Coming back on this, I can see the uproar that the result is causing, which I knew it would. If only this was the case when I had to agree to a consensus back in September last year - when the result was changed. I was the only one FOR #See Aftermath in the consesus (as the article had been) that was asked.”

  Fair enough but I think we should wait until more people voice their opinions here.

  ” Having read the article, the Afghans advanced across the border to seize the old Afghan provinces but ultimately, were beaten back to the border. The war was not fought to a conclusion by which either party were forced to accept terms but entered into a mutually agreeable treaty by which the British no longer paid for something the Afghans were no longer prepared to provide (a quid pro quo). Neither the”

  I think the ultimate issue that nobody really seems to be acknowledging is that the Afghans achieved their main objective here, which was to gain independence. The vast majority of sources appear to have acknowledged this(we’ve discussed this a lot in the past). Wars are typically won by achieving one’s political aims. British no longer paid subsidies sure, but I fail to see why that matters. I’m sure the Afghans knew the consequences of invading British India. Their main goal was independence. Everything else hardly mattered in comparison, at least to them.

  “ One of Amanullah's first actions was to launch a surprise attack on the British in what became the third Anglo-Afghan war (1919). An Afghan victory forced the British to end their formal enroachments on Afghanistan's sovereignty...

  [17]

  Ratnahastin has stated that the Afghans didn’t win militarily. But as we’ve repeated many times, I don’t think that’s the point. Nobody won militarily. Military operations ended inconclusively. Regardless, the Afghans still achieved their political aims.

  “ Roy, Olivier, Barfield, Thomas, Hyman, Anthony “

  Did any of them directly contradict the point that the Afghans achieved their political aims? Most of these sources didn’t even point towards a victor or a stalemate. I personally don’t think there is enough information there for the outcome. I know your gonna say “but that’s why it’s very contentious” which is completely fair. However, we also go by what the sources say. There’s very little info there that contradicts the fact that the Afghans won.

• “Again, you are only proving my point that result is contentious among sources, in fact by arguing for "Afghan victory" here despite acknowledging the contentious nature of the result, it should be obvious to you that you are simply pushing a POV here.”

  The contentious issue is just the military side of things, which was a stalemate. The Afghans clearly won politically, and that’s undeniable.

  “ This is was a minor conflict, almost all sources acknowledge this. The view that this conflict was significant because "Afghanistan won independence"”

  I didn’t say this wasn’t a “minor conflict”. That’s not my point. My point was in the context of achieving Afghan independence, the Afghans can justly be seen as victorious because that was main reason they invaded. From their perspective, it was obviously something major because they gained independence. I didn’t say this was some major world changing event.

• How do you think wars are won? By achieving one’s political goals.

  I briefly touched this but it sort of reminds me of the French occupation of Algeria. The French obviously didn’t lose militarily, but they lost politically(Algerias independence). From the military side of things, it was a stalemate. Same issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

arbitrary break

This thread was way too long without some break, especially since the OP is now indefinitely blocked. Please don't let me interrupt you, except to thank you for continuing to talk as opposed to edit warring in live pagespace. Please put posts under this break. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Capitals00

But this article doesn't declare it was a military victory for Afghanistan, nobody here has implied that. All the sources agree that the war was militarially, a stalemate or Afghan defeat. But principally, the sources say that the Afghans won the war because of diplomatic end. (Where they achieved their aims). You said read the sources, but I've cited a significant amount of them that allude to this, so I'm not sure where you wanted to go with that.

The lede summarizes... "Initial victories saw the Afghans invade across the border, defeating the British and occupying Bagh. The British retaliated, leading a counterattack that routed the Afghans. Conflict continued in Kurram, which saw the British overwhelmed. Taking their own initiative, the British seized Spin Boldak in the south, while an Afghan offensive in Thal was contained, with the British occupying Dacca in turn by the end of May." - That very well already shows Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Responding to your point, my main concern was when you said this... "The infobox is also a suppliment to the lead and not a replacement - ie the "result" should reflect the lead as well as the body of the article. Having read the article, the Afghans advanced across the border to seize the old Afghan provinces but ultimately, were beaten back to the border."

-

From what I've cited earlier in this discussion (although I don't blame you if you haven't fully read it, because this discussion is effectively a wall of text), the main intent of war for the Afghans was to seize Independence, this was even corroborated with @Eastfarthingan in our former consensus. [18] The intention to seize the "old Afghan provinces" was provisionally, a minor objective in the face of the actual result of the war which most* scholars are consistent with, that it was a war intent on seizing Independence. (Which is why they cite the war as an Afghan victory). Such as one of the leading authorities, Ludwig,

-- "The Third Afghan War was not won by the British. Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated. But this war did result in an end to Britain’s suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans—even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action." [19]

-

This does reflect nuance in a convoluted/complicated topic, but the discourse of Academic opinion is pretty clear on that the Afghans were in the end, able to achieve their principle aim which is why scholars constitute it as an Afghan victory. Noorullah (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Though of course, this shows the article is not fleshed out enough (and needs to be expanded). Noorullah (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"the main intent of war for the Afghans was to seize Independence, this was even corroborated "

This is incorrect.

"Amir ’Aman Allah Khan did not have to go to war to secure independence, since he had already declared Afghanistan independent and he knew Britain was not in a position to do anything about it. The Amir, however, needed to legitimize his invasion of India by securing a fatwa and to this end state propaganda portrayed the war as in defence of Islam and persecuted Muslims. Once he secured this decree, however, ’Aman Allah Khan played the ethno-nationalist card, appealing to Pushtuns on both sides of the Durand Line to rise up and expel the British from the Punjab." - Jonathan Lee

Scholars also agree that this "Jihad" was waged against British India in order to distract people away from the previous coup d’état, not because Amanullah wanted independence.

Even the article itself states:

"By April 1919, Amanullah realised that if he could not find a way to placate the conservatives, he would be unlikely to maintain his hold on power. Looking for a diversion from the internal strife in the Afghan court and sensing advantage in the rising civil unrest in India following the Amritsar massacre,[19][c] Amanullah decided to invade British India."

So this is also contentious among sources. Therefore your attempts at justifying the Afghan victory result in the infobox appear nothing more than POV pushing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You've only cited Lee, again ignoring every other source that says otherwise! @Ratnahastin Noorullah (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

(You've only been relying on Lee to cite this point, while every other source said so otherwise). Noorullah (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

(The article is citing Lee in this regard! (as well), while Independence was seen as the main objective, as viewed by the academics.) Noorullah (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"The Afghan government had effectively capitulated and all they had to show for their meeting was a letter addressed personally to the Amir, which indirectly recognized the country’s independence. Government propaganda continued to claim it had won the war and made much of the fact that Britain had tacitly recognized Afghanistan’s independence. To commemorate this ‘victory’, 18 August was declared Afghan Independence Day, even though formal recognition of Afghanistan’s independence by treaty did not take place until 1922. So successful was the government in concealing the real terms of the Rawalpindi Agreement that Amir ’Aman Allah Khan was hailed as a hero by Muslims from India to the Middle East and some, including the Hazrat of Shor Bazaar, even called for him to become the new Caliph." - Jonathan Lee

"A peace treaty was signed in August 1919, whose terms did not explicitly recognise Afghan independence but ended the practice of subsidising Afghan rulers." - Drephal, Maximilian

Even this result that you wish to push for is contentious. - Ratnahastin (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the ultimate point is that the Afghans achieved their principle objective no? I mean sure militarily, there was no clear winner, but they still achieved their aims, being independence. If one side achieved their political objectives, is that not a win? Did the French not lose in Algeria? Or the Americans in Vietnam? Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"The Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1921 was a face-saving exercise by both sides and, given the circumstances, it was the best either party could have expected. The treaty was little more than another memorandum or aide-memoire, but even so it was a landmark in Afghanistan’s history since Britain formally recognized the country’s independence and agreed to refer to the Amir as His Majesty in all official communications." - Jonathan Lee pg 468

Complete Afghan independence was not recognised until the treaty of 1921, far from being the immediate result of this war. The claim that Afghan state had won the war diplomatically because it achieved independence through the peace treaty is pseudohistorical. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"The claim that Afghan state had won the war diplomatically because it achieved independence through the peace treaty is pseudohistorical."

Now you're arguing against every academic who states otherwise. I'm sorry but that statement is just nonsense. Noorullah (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, why are you citing sources that blatantly contradict one side of your argument, and mask it to hide another? Drephal literally calls it a "war of Independence" "This was the Afghan War of Independence". (This is in response to you claiming Independence was not a goal at all, which is nonsense). Noorullah (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Let’s go through this quote for a second. Lee stated himself that this view is in stark contrast to the one held by majority of historians.

“Afghan and Western historians represent the Third Anglo-Afghan War primarily as a War of Independence” but lee than contends with this by saying that it was a jihad. So don’t say “scholars agree”, this is a view held primarily by Lee. And he himself admits this to be the case. I mean look at any other source we have here and I’m sure majority of them would mention that the Afghans invaded primarily for their independence.

But okay, let’s for the sake of argument say that Lee is correct here. That instead of invading British India for independence, I guess Amanullah invaded to “legitimize” his rule(this is left a little vague). Even if this was true, does Lee not say that he succeeded in doing this?

“To memorate this ‘victory’, 18 August was declared Afghan Independence Day, even though formal recognition of Afghanistan’s independence by treaty did not take place until 1922. So successful was the government in concealing the real terms of the Rawalpindi Agreement that Amir Aman Allah Khan was hailed as a hero by Muslims from India to the Middle East and some, including the Hazrat of Shor Bazaar, even called for him to become the new Caliph.”

It seems that your argument is that Amanullah didn’t legitimize his rule even though it seems that he did.

To recap, Lee clearly states that most Afghan and western historians view this as as a war of independence. Even if you want to go down this route, than Amanullah still succeeded in achieving his political objectives either way. Whether it be to legitimize his rule or obtain afghan independence.

“ Complete Afghan independence was not recognised until the treaty of 1921, far from being the immediate result of this war.

I can’t see how you came to that conclusion. Firstly that treaty your talking about is actually just an amendment of the 1919 Rawalpindi treaty. Which means, yes the treaty was the direct result of the war. Why else would they amend a 1919 armistice which was signed to end the war? Secondly while not in the clause, Britain indirectly did recognize Afghanistan independence, as the title of the document was literally “Independent Afghan government” per Lee. The 1921 treaty was just reaffirming what both sides knew had already happened.

It seems that you initially agreed with me on the point that the Afghans achieved their political goals. I’m not sure why that’s being Backpedaled now. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Lee stating this is almost a complete WP:FRINGE theory, all academics clearly define it as a war of Independence. Noorullah (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Noorullah replying to his own comments has made it harder to address his concerns properly. Anyway, the point is that the result you are pushing for has no consensus among scholars and appears to be nothing other than a flagrant reiteration of the Afghan government's narrative following the war. The infobox is meant to summarize the body, and the result parameter has clear-cut guidelines on how it should be used. The result of this war is contentious among scholars, and the guideline clearly tells us to exclude the result, keep it blank, or use "See aftermath" (or whatever the name of the section is) in cases where there is more nuance to the aftermath that cannot fit into a narrow category. Your repeated attempts to push for an Afghan victory betray the academic view of this war. Secondly, the Treaty of Rawalpindi only recognized the Afghan government as independent, not the state or the nation. It took until 1921 for the treaty to be renegotiated with Dobbs mission to Kabul for the British to actually recognize "Afghan independence" in its true sense. This fact has been made clear in the article now. "This was the Afghan War of Independence" - that is one of the alternative names for the war, consider reading the efn note in the starting statement in lede. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"and appears to be nothing other than a flagrant reiteration of the Afghan government's narrative following the war." -- No, you've just ignored literally every other source and have only followed Lee's opinion.

See Iranica, Adamec, and more. They all define it as a war of independence.

The result of the war state that Afghanistan won a political and diplomatic victory.

"It took until 1921 for the treaty to be renegotiated" - I'm sorry but this is almost irrelevant and flawed, it's like saying that because Germany lost World War I, their loss has to be discredited because the treaty of versailles took until 1919 to create (and ratify). Noorullah (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I recently wrote my response to this. Feel free to check it out. I know your responding to two different people right now so it’s not that easy.

“ This was the Afghan War of Independence" is one of the alternative names for the war”

Just to be clear, I briefly touched over this in my previous comment but Lee clearly states that Afghan and western historians agree on referring it as “The Afghan war of independence”. The only person who’s in disagreement is lee, and he acknowledges this.

“ Your repeated attempts to push for an Afghan victory betray the academic view of this war”

But we’ve already cited several sources that agree with us on this fact. Most of the sources you cited don’t really go into too much detail as to what the result of the conflict was. I understand that you think it’s because the result is contentious. But if we have plenty of sources referring to this as an Afghan victory, almost none referring to this as a British victory or even stalemate, than why exactly should we change the result?

Anyway whenever you get time, respond to the other post I made because I think a lot of important information is there. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Noorullah21@Ratnahastin

Also could you guys wait until discussions conclude before making any changes to the article? Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably the best choice... But it is actually better to see the article being expanded tbh. This is what some of the other editors wanted in the discussion (specifically @Cinderella157) Noorullah (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I think I got what you were concerned with here. [20] I replaced the source with one that does call it a British tactical victory, I'm saying the conflict wasn't a british victory. That opinion is very clear across many sources. Noorullah (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You have misidentified my concern. Anyway, I have added the correct citation. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Noorullah21 All right but I’d recommend keeping it at a minimum for now. Someguywhosbored (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a wall of text. Yes I have read through this. No, I did not miss that this is sometimes referred to as the Afghan War of Independence but only to a very small extent compared with Third Anglo-Afghan War (see here). I will try not to repeat too much of what I previously said. I note some reference in talk to the 1921 treaty. I don't see a WP article on the treaty nor do I see it mentioned in this article - again, something to remedy. The Afghans received was a release from the former treaty to conduct their own dealings in foreign affairs. This is equated here to independence.

The article does mention independence: Lee states that Afghan historians typically represent the Third Anglo-Afghan War as a war of independence, while in reality, it was a Jihad." The article goes on: However, numerous [emphasis added] scholars state otherwise, defining the war as a war of independence, especially as Amanullah launched the war to safeguard Afghanistan's independence, but citing only one source. This is editorialising and certainly needs to be addressed by directly stating the views of several authors, not simply stacking up multiple citations. The article tells us that Afghanistan was effectively independent prior to the war and this was not simply a war of independence or even that it was a substantial aim at the onset.

This passage from the article reasonably summarises the outcome:

Although the war did not proceed as the Afghans had wished, by the end of the war the Afghans had diplomatically secured their independence. Ludwig states that the British did not win the war as both sides had controlled enemy territory, and no decisive battles had occurred to establish that anybody was decisively defeated. In repulsing the invasion, the British were considered either tactically victorious, or having stalemated [inconclusive] the war, while the Afghans had won a political and diplomatic victory by asserting their main goal, independence, and the right to conduct their own foreign affairs [emphasis and annotation added].

Whether independence was their main goal is not clearly established by the article. Futhermore, the treaty itself did not formally acknowledge independence. The treaty was a mutually agreeable quid pro quo and by that, both sides won and lost things. The Afghans won something they effectively already had and it wasn't so much won as exchanged. Some would argue that because the Afghans won something, this equates to an Afghan victory. However, ascribing this as a victory ipso facto implies a British defeat where this was not the case. The body of the article and the sources cited therein are telling us that there is nuance and detail to the outcome of this war. As I have said before, because of the nuance and detail, the result cannot reasonably be pigeon-holed as X victory. In determining the infobox result, we cannot ignore the military result and favour the political result. Per WP:RESULT, the guidance is quite clear that in such a case we should use the see aftermath option or in this case see Outcome.

If the opposing parties in this argument cannot agree on what the article, the sources cited therein and the pertinent guidance is telling us, then continuing to argue the matter further is not going to achieve anything but pointlessly kill more electrons. The only way forward would be to have an RfC with the options per WP:RESULT of: Afghan victory or see Outcome as the two options unless someone would propose an additional option. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, if there needs to be an RFC, that can happen.

I do want to mention that most of these points were probably already recently addressed.

“ Futhermore, the treaty itself did not formally acknowledge independence”

The official title of the document was “independent Afghan government”. Admittedly this wasn’t in the 1919 clause, but this was further reaffirmed in the 1921 treaty, which did include it, “officially” recognizing Afghan independence.

“In determining the infobox result, we cannot ignore the military result and favour the political result”

I suggested writing something like “military stalemate” right below the Afghan victory line. I know other content is irrelevant, but it worked for the war in Algeria page. Obviously there are wars that are won due to the political settlements, rather than military might. War in Algeria is a perfect example.

“ The body of the article and the sources cited therein are telling us that there is nuance and detail to the outcome of this war. I have said before, because of the nuance and detail, the result cannot reasonably be pigeon-holed as X victory”

I guess that’s fair, but we did already cite plenty of sources that do suggest the war ended in an Afghan victory. The rest don’t seem to contradict it.

Im not sure if there was anything else important that I missed regarding this but feel free to let me know.

Honestly you are right in that we probably shouldnt continue arguing about this anymore. Because ultimately if we can’t agree than there’s no point. If there needs to be some sort of other action done here than I’m all for it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"I suggested writing something like “military stalemate” "

No need, not only is it against the guideline, it is also contradictory as many sources claim that Afghans were defeated militarily. We can't have three contradictory dotted results in the infobox, therefore "See outcome" is the best way forward and is in compliance with the guideline. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose we can hold off on writing military stalemate if it goes against guidelines. Maybe it can be written in the body instead. Or simply not.

Anyway continuing to argue about this is pointless as Cinderella mentioned. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

That passage has been updated to reflect the outcome of Afghan military action. I have fixed the weasel issues with the prose you highlighted. I agree that infobox result should be changed to See outcome as the result is not only contentious but there's nuance to it as many of the cited sources do not even name a victor only stating what Afghans gained(which they apparently already had, as war tired Britain could do little about his declaration of independence) while British also gained from the war e.i reaffirmation of Durand line. Infobox cannot capture all this, therefore the long standing status quo version before the previous make believe "consensus" should be restored . - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there are some problems with the passage that I might fix later when I have time.

“many of the cited sources do not even name a victor only stating what Afghans gained”

I don’t really see that as a contradiction to the ones that do claim it was an Afghan victory. I’m sure not every source written on the war is going to give you a direct answer on “who won”. But the problem is that we do have sources that claim the war was an Afghan victory from many scholars. And the rest hardly contradict that.

I think where I disagree here is that the Afghans did achieve their main goals of this conflict, whether that be Afghan independence(the most common answer) or supposedly legitimizing Amanullah khans rule(Lees claim). Plenty of conflicts have been won by political settlement(Algeria).

I don’t think there is really much else to argue at this point. It doesn’t seem like we will agree anytime soon. Either we do what Cinderella suggested or find some other solution. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Possible Proposal? + Discussion about RFC (Per Cinderella's suggestion)

Infobox should be left as is, the content for the outcome has already been significantly expanded.

"...as the result is not only contentious"

I still haven't seen the proper case for this.

The majority sources simply go over this view...: That the Afghans were unsuccessful militarily, but since they were able to score victories politically and diplomatically (by asserting their independence, and the right to control their own foreign affairs), the end result was that the Afghans had achieved their principle aim and goal (and that is why sources, such as Ludwig, say the Afghans won the war).

-

You're arguing it's contentious because the British were successful militarily, but that doesn't mean they won the war (or bring a contentious/convoluted result), as per Ludwig's explanation. -- The "war tired" Britain had given concessions to the Afghans.

-

So here's my proposal.

Simply keep it as "Afghan victory", and then link to a 'See outcome" section.

This still accurately describes how the end result of the war was, while linking to a see outcome to further explain the result, I've seen this on other pages as well. See Russian Civil War, See World War II, See Battle of Bakhmut, etc. @Ratnahastin Noorullah (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Your proposal is a violation of the guideline and is POV pushing when the Outcome section has made it clear that results are far more nuanced.

"I still haven't seen the proper case for this." - The case has been made and included in the article, your denial will not work.

"The majority sources simply go over this view...: .. " - No, they don't, and that has been abundantly made clear in the article. You are merely synthesizing them.

"as per Ludwig's explanation. -- The "war tired" Britain had given concessions to the Afghans." - And Afghans re-affirmed the Durand line which benefited the British, there's no case for Afghan victory here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Again this arguing is relatively pointless. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If you think arguing is pointless then you are free to leave the discussion, repeatedly posting below everyone's responses that it is pointless to discuss will not dissuade anyone from it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I went over why the result is not contentious .. multiple times.

The majority of sources clearly define that, what sources are you otherwise looking at? Lol?

"And Afghans re-affirmed the Durand line which benefited the British," - So they reaffirmed their border, yes... And? Noorullah (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157@BusterD@Someguywhosbored (Also going to ping the person who said they'll drop their own opinion on this). @MBlaze Lightning

Interested on your thoughts for the above Proposal (In the bold text one). Ratnahastin disagrees with it.

I don't think it violates the MOS, it still clearly states the victor and then links to a see Aftermath/Outcome, which we've seen across numerous pages such as in the linked examples. (Battle of Bakhmut, Russian Civil War)

It'll simply state

"Afghan victory – See Outcome"

All in all, the sources have corroborated the war was a tactical Afghan defeat, but a diplomatic and political victory for the fact that they were able to achieve independence - and the right to conduct their own foreign affairs, (and thus why they won the war, such as according to Ludwig). The lede summarizes them being contained militarily, while the link to the outcome will further dive into the results on how scholars proceed with terming the war, the treaty.

Otherwise other proposals would go forward with a See outcome standalone (which I don't see the reason for...) Because the majority of academic sources we've cited in this talkpage cite the end result of the war as an Afghan victory for the aforementioned reason(s). Noorullah (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"they were able to achieve independence " - they achieved something they already had unofficially, therefore your restoration of contentious result completely betrays the nuance this conflict had and is an egregious violation of WP:RESULT, you must self revert now, atleast 4 editors have opposed your edits. - Ratnahastin (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"they achieved something they already had unofficially," - No, you're only citing Lee for this as I said, you've used Lee almost entirely in that regard while numerous sources say otherwise and Iranica clearly defines it as a war to safeguard Afghanistan's independence.

"therefore your restoration of contentious result completely betrays the nuance this conflict had and is an egregious violation of WP:RESULT, you must self revert now, atleast 4 editors have opposed your edits." - The editors have expressed their concern over a See outcome possibility.

I'm giving a proposal.

You're also referring to the edit where the individual reverted on the basis that they wished for the page to wait until a consensus was established for either side, I'm assuming thus they didn't realize there was a former consensus in October (as noted by their edit summary) "leave it out until a consensus for either of the proposed wordings" Noorullah (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There are a total of 5 editors now who are in support of omitting "Afghan victory" from infobox, while there are only 2 editors including you and Someguywhosbored who oppose it. You should stick to the recent development. Afghans militarily lost this war, thus it is misleading to claim "victory" in the first place. Capitals00 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"you're only citing Lee for this as I said," You sure about that? - "Amānallāh resorted to war to safeguard Afghanistan's independence, which had been unofficially secured at the end of World War I."

Sources agree that Afghanistan was declared "independent" well before this war was started, both Habibullah and Amanullah had repeatedly claimed that theirs was a free and independent country, British had only controlled the foreign affairs of the country.

"I'm giving a proposal." - and your proposal violates it. Done and dusted.

"a former consensus in October (as noted by their edit summary)" - Read WP:STONEWALLING and WP:CCC, there was no real opposition to the systematic POV pushing back then as it does now. - Ratnahastin (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"You sure about that?" Yes, you were only citing Lee, your quote now for Iranica leaves out these parts:

"...He feared that British duplicity would deprive him of the reward he expected for Afghanistan’s neutrality and bring about the return of pre-war British hegemony."

"It was therefore not surprising that Amānallāh seized the unique opportunity to win by force what Britain was unwilling to give its ally: Afghanistan’s internal and external independence."

"The Afghan ruler feared that Afghanistan would loose both its independence and the reward for its neutrality during the war."

"Sources agree that Afghanistan was declared "independent" well before this war was started, both Habibullah and Amanullah had repeatedly claimed that theirs was a free and independent country, British had only controlled the foreign affairs of the country."

-

Except that the Afghan ruler feared the British would again try to take away this independence (as implied by Iranica in above quotes), Britain controlled the foreign affairs of the country (which is what I've also cited as a result, and combines with Ludwig)

"and your proposal violates it" - Violates what? It fits within the guideline of WP:MOS#INFOBOX and it's been used on other pages. Could you elaborate?

For Stonewalling; "Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior that is characterized by the use of tactics which obstruct, delay, prolong, or distract discussion from reaching consensus," - I just gave a proposal (to others involved in the discussion) to see their opinions. Not for you to try and shutdown the result with no explanation on why the Proposal violates anything. (See WP:CONDD)

Capital is also adamantly stuck on the point that a military defeat results in a loss of the conflict, which doesn't make sense. There's plenty of ahistorical examples that contradict the former.

Honestly, I'm more inclined to host an RFC as per @Cinderella157's suggestion (which I only read now). Noorullah (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 But nonetheless, would like to see your thoughts on my proposal -- Said above.

Otherwise, I think we should do an RFC because this is otherwise, leading to back and forth arguing with zero real conclusion. Noorullah (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"Except that the Afghan ruler feared the British would again try to take away this independence" - You agree that Afghanistan was independent before the war, what their fears were is immaterial as sources also state that this war was a mere diversion created by Amir to distract people away from the popular suspicion at the time that Amanullah had assassinated his father. Therefore you cannot use this justification to push for an Afghan victory in the infobox.

" Violates what?" - WP:RESULT as the results are contentious and outcomes nuanced, something that infobox by definition (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) is incapable of reflecting.

"Capital is also adamantly stuck on the point that a military defeat results in a loss of the conflict, which doesn't make sense. " - It doesnt result in victory either, and cannot be reflected in the infobox per WP:RESULT. - Ratnahastin (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

“This war was a mere diversion created by Amir to distract people away from the popular suspicion at the time that Amanullah had assassinated his father. Therefore you cannot use this justification to push for an Afghan victory”

I thought I already addressed this? The quote you sent from Lee seemed to imply that amanullah invaded primarily to legitimize his rule. Now just to be clear, Lee admits that this isn’t a view held by Western or Afghan historians, who refer to the conflict as a war of Independence. Nonetheless, even lee states that Amanullah was relatively successful in this regard.

“To commemorate this ‘victory’, 18 August was declared Afghan Independence Day, even though formal recognition of Afghanistan’s independence by treaty did not take place until 1922. So successful was the government in concealing the real terms of the Rawalpindi Agreement that Amir Aman Allah Khan was hailed as a hero by Muslims from India to the Middle East and some, including the Hazrat of Shor Bazaar, even called for him to become the new Caliph.”

Whether that goal was to legitimize himself or win Afghan independence, either way he succeeded. But I just want to make it very clear that this is more of a fringe view held by Lee. He admits that Afghan and Western historians categorizes it much differently. I’m not sure why your still using this explanation for that reason.

“ It doesnt result in victory either, and cannot be reflected in the infobox per”

Actually plenty of wars have been won politically. Take algeria(an example that you haven’t addressed). Or Vietnam. I also would say it’s more accurate to categorize the military side of things as ending inconclusively(per Ludwig). But even if that’s the route you wanna go, I’ll repeat that wars have been won politically.

” as the results are contentious and outcomes nuanced, something that infobox by definition”

I suppose my issue is we do have plenty of sources that suggest an Afghan victory. I’m sure anyone can find info on almost any conflict that provides nuance without naming a victor. I don’t see how that contradicts Ludwig, or the rest of the sources that claim Afghan victory. Someguywhosbored (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"I thought I already addressed this?" - You did not. This quote is not from Lee or even the argument is not from Lee.

"win Afghan independence, either way he succeeded"- Afghanistan was already independent before the war, British only managed it's foreign affairs. You should read the discussion and more importantly read the sources.

" I’m not sure why your still using this explanation for that reason" - Again this is what happens when you don't read the discussion, I've clearly quoted Adamec in the note.

"I’ll repeat that wars have been won politically." - Read WP:BLUDGEON and we have already read your opinions on how wars are won multiple times already.

"Claim Afghan victory" - No they don't, most only mention the political gains by Afghanistan , same can be argued for Britain as well, as they had gained something from the war (re-affirmation of Durand line) (quid pro quo), and not only that the peace treaty itself was dictated by the British , so Afghans didn't win their "independence" (which is something they already had anyway), British only gave up their right to manage Afghan foreign policy and British handed it over willingly despite winning militarily. - Ratnahastin (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

So now instead of Lees intepretation, your going by a completely different one even though we’ve already been over the fact that majority of scholars including western and Afghan historians share a different opinion?

Can you just make it clear as to what the goals of the Afghans were here? Because you’ve so far changed this multiple times, from independence, to Lees interpretation, to this. What was their goal? I know your using Adamecs interpretation now. So could you just be very clear as to why Amanullah invaded. Was it because of his fathers death like you said earlier despite previous statements contradicting that? Please define the Afghan objectives here. It just keeps changing.

“already independent before the war, British only managed it's foreign affairs”

Its a bit ironic how you say this but earlier you were talking about how the Afghans didn’t officially gain independence until 1921. So again which is it? The obvious answer is that while already de facto independent, they wanted official recognition and right to their own foreign affairs, and so other nations wouldn’t see them as under the influence of Britian(meaning they couldn’t establish diplomatic ties due to the foreign policy).

“ we have already read your opinions on how wars are won multiple times already.”

And yet you’ve never responded to this point. Your whole claim is that a political victory doesn’t constitute a “win”. But obviously looking at historical examples, such as Vietnam or Algeria, this isn’t the case. I wouldn’t repeat myself if you bothered addressing it.

“ British only gave up their right to manage Afghan foreign policy and British handed it over willingly despite winning militarily.”

So either way they achieved their political goals. Also this whole “British won militarily” is a bit hypocritical if your argument is that there is a lot of nuance, so we shouldn’t have “Afghan victory” in the outcome. Plenty of sources state that combat operations ended inconclusively no?(see Ludwig). So if this is really the argument you want to go by, than saying it was a military victory is also off the table based on your definition.

“peace treaty itself was dictated by the British”

And yet they made major concessions like giving up Afghan foreign policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

"why Amanullah invaded" - Because he attempted to divert the attention away from the strife as it was a popular suspicion that he was behind the assassination plot, for this reason he invaded British India, the traditional target of the Afghanistan, while there were fears that Britain could revive it's forward policy and subjugate the entire islamic world, citing these fears and the unrest in India at the time, He tried to rally the tribesmen around the north west frontier to wage a jihad against India and also because he wanted formal recognition of Afghanistan's independence, even though it was already independent, this was made evidently clear with his letters to Viceroy stating that Afghanistan was an independent and free country.

"Its a bit ironic how you say this but earlier you were talking about how the Afghans didn’t officially gain independence until 1921"

- The formal independence of Afghanistan was not recognised until 1921, this means that Amanullah failed to achieve one of the goals for the invasion. That's why Lee states that he tried to hide the terms of the peace treaty and even concealed the letter that indirectly recognised Afghanistan's independence as it was not what they wanted and went against their propaganda that they had completely defeated the British.

"So either way they achieved their political goals"

They achieved only one, that is "the right to their own foreign affairs" that's it. While they completely failed in getting official recognition of their independence. Their jihad also failed, as well as their territorial ambitions.

"And yet they made major concessions like giving up Afghan foreign policy"

You clearly don't understand nuance, British gave up Afghanistan's foreign policy control because:

• Marsh, Brandon (2015). Ramparts of Empire. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 37. doi:10.1057/9781137374011. ISBN 978-1-349-47678-7. Grant believed that Britain's control over Afghanistan's foreign policy was in fact a sham and needed to end. He was right; the free reign given to German and Turkish agents in Afghanistan during the Great War revealed the real limits of Britain's management of Kabul's foreign policy. To London's chagrin, Grant decided to end this charade." The Government of India, however, was keen to end the conflict as soon as possible and supported Grant's move. India's internal situation was getting worse every day.

- Ratnahastin (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Responding to comments since my last post: WP:RESULT gives voice to the documentation for the result parameter at Template: Infobox military conflict. An extract of the infobox per this version of 27 March 2021 is shown here. The lead also contained the following:

Third Anglo-Afghan War
Date 6 May – 8 August 1919 Location North-West Frontier of the British India and Afghanistan Result Treaty of Rawalpindi British tactical victory British strategic victory with the reaffirmation of the Durand Line as a border Afghan diplomatic victory and Afghan independence with full sovereignty in foreign affairs.

According to British author Michael Barthorp, it was also a strategic victory for the British because the Durand Line was reaffirmed as the border between Afghanistan and the British Raj, and the Afghans agreed not to foment trouble on the British side.

The infobox exampled is clearly contrary to the guidance: Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". The suggestion “military stalemate” right below the Afghan victory line does not comply with the guidance either. The result shown in this earlier infobox shows that the result is more complex than can be simplistically represented by saying X victory. It affirms my previously stated view regarding the quid pro quo nature of the 1919 treaty in that both sides won things and both sides lost things. It would not be WP:BALANCED to report a victory for one side and favour a nationalistic POV when the sources and article are telling us it is not that simple and that both sides achieved victory to some degree. Per the guidance: In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). This is clearly a case where See Outcome section (the appropriate section in this case) best conforms to the guidance.

The guidance also says: The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. It was in the 1921 treaty and not the 1919 treaty that Britain recognised Afghanistan as an independent state. Telling the Afghans that the 1919 treaty did this was an effective political con job by the amir. While the 1919 treaty can be viewed as an immediate outcome of the war, formal British recognition of Afghanistan as an independent state occurred two years later and was not an "immediate" outcome of the conflict.

While the British were war weary and the war was not fought to a military conclusion because of the treaty. Grant sent a final ultimatum on 1 August, or hostilities would resume. The Afghans reluctantly agreed ... - ie the British were prepared to fight this to a military conclusion and the Afghans acceded to the terms of the treaty.

Regarding the proposal Afghan victory, see Outcome section, and examples given (Battle of Bakhmut, World War II and Russian Civil War), these examples are not directly comparable. In each case, the victor achieved a military victory. In Bakhmut, the Russians captured the town at a high cost in casualties that had been referred to as pyrrhic but as we don't use such qualifiers (per WP:RESULT the Russian victory, see Aftermath tells the reader that although it was a Russian military victory it is somehow qualified. In the Russian Civil War, the main conflict was between the reds and the whites in which the reds clearly defeated the whites. There was also secondary fighting with parts of the former empire seeking their own independence or to rejoin existing countries from which they had been separated. Some were successful. Some were not. While it was overall a red victory, there is detail for which the infobox is not suited. World War II was clearly an Allied victory. The (see also Aftermath of World War II) was added here without discussion. There is no good reason for it. I have removed it. I raise the result used in Battle of Coral Sea, which uses the see Aftermath option. The battle is seen as a tactical victory for the Japanese because they inflicted more damage than they sustained; however, it is also seen as a strategic victory for the Allies because the Japanese losses were not sustainable. The template guidance was designed to deal with precisely the type of situation that we are dealing with here. Where we do not have a clear victory in the conventional sense but are arguing over semantics, the guidance tells us to use the see Aftermath option alone rather than X victory. I think that those arguing otherwise are simply pushing shit up hill with a pointy stick given the prevailing guidance and that an RfC outcome will coincide with the prevailing guidance.

In terms of an RfC, I see there are three substantive options presented: Afghan victory; Afghan victory (see Outcome section); or, see Outcome section? I can draft an RfC in these terms. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You are indeed correct that the 2021 infobox violated the guideline, but surely it provided a nuanced summary of the actual result of the war, although infobox is incapable of reflecting nuance as it only serves to identify the key facts of the article, contradictory and differing results or outcomes are therefore not key facts as such that infobox result was rightly discarded and since then the result parameter only directed readers to the #Outcome section. It is only in last 4 months, the nationalist POV that Afghans won this conflict has made its way into the infobox which was until recently completely contradicted by the body of the article itself and still is.

"Afghan victory; Afghan victory (see Outcome section); or, see Outcome section? I can draft an RfC in these terms"

I see that no one other Noorullah has agreed with "Afghan victory (see Outcome section)" so it doesn't make sense to give it equal credibility. The RfC should in my opinion be only limited to two standard options (A) "Afghan victory" B) "see Outcome section") per Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters - "Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result" as this so called "victory" was not immediate result and is only aimed at concealing the ambiguity of the result (which has been thoroughly demonstrated in the appropriate section) while still pushing POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Except that Cinderella just did propose also using "Afghan victory (see Outcome section)", meaning there is somebody that supports its inclusion in the RFC.

The only people who have opposed it is you, and presumably @Capitals00.

I think @Someguywhosbored can also weigh in his opinion on whether it should be included or not.

Also yes, I think @Cinderella157 should draft the RFC. Noorullah (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 In your paragraph, you mentioned after the ultimatum "ie the British were prepared to fight this to a military conclusion and the Afghans acceded to the terms of the treaty."

Ludwig argues otherwise - He states that Grant was given permission to use the Ultimatum but in reality to not break the armistice. In reality, the British were adamant on making peace as is emphasized by Ludwig throughout pages. Specific highlights... "He said he wanted to make use of this ultimatum only in connection with the terms of the treaty and not in response to local breaches of the armistice.”"[21]

"The Viceroy was impressed by the need for establishing an immediate peace and wanted to leave the more difficult task of obtaining an acceptable treaty for future negotiations. Lord Chelmsford saw the crux of the matter in the problem of British control over Afghanistan’s foreign relations. He recognized that there were profound changes in the political outlook of the Middle East which were caused by “general unrest, awakened national aspirations, the pronouncements of President Wilson, and Bolshevik catchwords.”" [22] - It infact, seems per the second Paragraph that the British were completely adamant on breaking an initial peace (due to fear of unrest). Noorullah (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Since we can't stop editing the live page

I've chosen to fully protect this page for two days, while you folks keep sorting this out. Given the vast volume of material above, I suspect this needs to go to dispute resolution. BusterD (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD We're recently discussing about holding an RFC, hopefully that'll clear up this in the end. Noorullah (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It is very difficult to follow the thread above because nobody seems to be even attempting brevity. I'm happy you folks are still talking, but nobody here should be editing the main page at all. BusterD (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I do want to state that I don’t think capital should have reverted until consensus was actually reached. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, previous content is retained.

(just to be clear it wasn’t 5 editors that agreed with him. Discounting the sockpuppet it’s 3 including him). Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You are counting it wrong. 5 of those editors include me, Capitals00, Cinderella157, MBlaze Lightning and Eastfarthingan. They are in support of keeping "See outcome section" at the result parameter. - Ratnahastin (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning didn't say anything about supporting you, they just reverted because they thought it was the former consensus (and to wait for a new consensus to emerge).

Cinderella suggests RFC optimally to conclude this discussion. @Ratnahastin Noorullah (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD Likewise agree with @Someguywhosbored here. The page should be reverted to the previous consensus.

The article was edited to expand the content significantly, which was actually good, but it shouldn't have tampered with the result parameter until we actually came to a close here.

And right now, I very well see RFC as possibly the only option here. Noorullah (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Didn’t see anything to do with MBLAZE. The rest is kind of fair but given that there is still a major disagreement here, I don’t think consensus has been attained. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

So make sure to setup your RFC in a way that you can incorporate what you've learned into a proper question. Workshopping the question here on talk will help you define the issues at stake. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur - an RFC is the best way forward. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC on result in the infobox

Considering the prevailing guidance at MOS:INFOBOX, WP:RESULT and the documentation at Template: Infobox military conflict should the result in the infobox be:

1. Afghan victory;
2. Afghan victory, see Outcome and negotiation; or,
3. See Outcome and negotiation.

Where Outcome and negotiation is the section in the article (equivalent to an Aftermath section) where the result of the war is discussed. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Note the preceeding discussion at #Changing the results per WP:RFCBEFORE. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's see how many more harmless eloctrons we can murder trying to resolve this. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• See Outcome and negotiation - if the results are contentious and that is reflected in the body then it is better to leave them out of the infobox. Per MOS:MILRESULT "The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed" , an infobox by definition is incapable of reflecting nuance. Per Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters result is optional and is limited to ""the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say." and "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section")" and "Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result", " Afghan victory (See Outcome and negotiation)" is inappropriate as this so called "victory" was not the immediate result of the war and adding such note is only aimed at concealing the ambiguity of the result (which has been thoroughly demonstrated in the appropriate section) while still pushing ahistorical nationalist POV of Afghan victory.
• I will further explain why neither of the two options satisfies any of these requirements: When results are contentious or when the sources differ on the outcome of the war , it is preferred that either the result be entirely omitted as the parameter is optional or direct the reader to the appropriate section where differing opinions of sources are summarised. The result of the war is rather contentious and nuanced, as reading the relevant passage makes it clear.

• Ludwig states that the British did not win the war as both sides had controlled enemy territory, and no decisive battles had occurred to establish that anybody was decisively defeated. In repulsing the invasion, the British were considered either tactically victorious,[82][83] or having stalemated the war,[84] while the Afghans had suffered a military defeat[85][86][87] but won a political[87] and diplomatic victory[88] by asserting their main goal, independence,[89] and the right to conduct their own foreign affairs.[90][91][92]

• These differing results prove that there is great nuance to this conflict, secondly the last part of the passage states that Afghans had gained the right to conduct their own foreign affairs which is a very nuanced outcome, so is the claim that they achieved a "victory" solely by asserting their independence and these cannot not be reflected in the infobox , therefore the best course of action is to direct the reader to the relevant section where an in-depth, background, description and summary of the outcome is given. Also the "immediate" result of war was a peace treaty following a ceasefire and not a "clear" and unambiguous victory for any side as the first paragraph of the section proves.
• Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE , the purpose of an infobox is summarizing key facts of an article, the guideline informs us that "an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored" and that "the less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" - An infobox should only summarise key facts of the article for readers, "Afghan victory" (and "Afghan victory (See Outcome and negotiation)") is not a key fact as the section and above quoted passage shows that it was not the sole result of the war and scholars differ, while many don't explicitly identify a clear victor with one saying that war had no winners this is because the war led to a ceasefire and then to a treaty, alot of them only report what concessions Britain had to make for peace in the Treaty of Rawalpindi, the section also lists out concessions made by Afghanistan to Britain, as it was a quid pro quo agreement. Secondly, it has been demonstrated on the talkpage, that Afghanistan was already independent before the war even began, theories also differ on why King Amanullah invaded British India with some saying that he wanted to divert the attention away from internal political strife in Afghanistan at the time and the popular suspicion that he was behind the assassination plot that killed his father and that he waged Jihad because of the fears that Britain would resume it's forward policy and conquest of the Islamic world. It is also known that like his father he had declared his country Independent and wanted formal recognition of its independence by the British. By the way, Britain did not formally recognise Afghanistan's independence until 1921, so this purported formal "independence" was not even the "immediate result" of the 1919 war (as results are required to be per Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters) as such cannot be included in the infobox. Portraying the result as an Afghan victory only because they gained something(as in freedom to conduct their own foreign relations as the immediate result of the war) "ipso facto implies a British defeat where this was not the case"[23]. In fact, Britain had militarily defeated Afghanistan through their superior technology, firepower and by aerial bombings, (refer to the outcome section) while others have noted the military conflict as a stalemate, and British victory (tactical) leading to a ceasefire requested by King Amanullah. Few sources claim that this was a political and diplomatic victory for Afghanistan, the other ones only state that Afghanistan gained one of the things they wanted from the war (Britain ceasing to manage their foreign affairs) in the peace treaty but as I stated above the outcomes are nuanced as Britain gained from the peace treaty as well. Lastly, Britain giving up the control of Afghan foreign policy cannot be considered as a victory, because even the Afghan government was disappointed by this result and had attempted to conceal the terms of the treaty, and instead spread propaganda that they had completely defeated the British and won their "independence" and Grant Hamilton (who concluded the peace treaty with Afghans) believed that British control over Afghan foreign policy was a sham and he wanted an end to "this charade".The peace treaty also nullified any previous agreements Britain had with Afghanistan including the Treaty of Gandamak which allowed British to manage Afghan foreign policy in the first place.
• In short, this was not a clear Afghan victory nor was it a clear British victory, both sides agreed to making some concessions for peace, Afghanistan did not achieve formal recognition of independence (which was not recognised until 1922, so this was no immediate result of the war.) as was wanted by the Amir nor did they succeed in their Jihad against India, their military ambitions also failed. This establishes that there is a great deal of nuance to the conflict that cannot be reflected in infobox, therefore "See Outcome and negotiation" is the only viable solution grounded in both policy and real history.

- Ratnahastin (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support See Outcome and negotiation Per MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. The infobox is unsuited to capturing detail or nuance. WP:RESULT gives voice to the documentation at Template: Infobox military conflict. The guidance is quite clear: In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). There is detail and nuance to the result of this war and the guidance directs us to use the "See the Aftermath section" option in such a case. It requires prose for explanation. Suggesting this is an Afghan victory in any conventional sense of the term (ie militarily) per the other two options would be a misleading over-simplification and a mis-representation. I have given a fuller rationale and rebuttal in my comments above.[24][25][26] These should be considered part of my comment here. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  Comment :@Cinderella157 "Suggesting this is an Afghan victory in any conventional sense of the term (ie militarily) per the other two options would be a misleading over-simplification and a mis-representation." - Hm, but why? We have sources that call the war a Strategic British defeat (because they suffered nearly twice the Afghan casualties) - Other sources characterize the tactical side of the conflict either a British success, or simply being inconclusive/nobody had won since there was no decisive victories (pointed out in my RFC reply).

  Citing Iranica in this affair: ""There was a short conflict with the British in India, known as the Third Anglo-Afghan War (q.v.). Neither side could claim military victory, but Afghanistan achieved a resounding diplomatic success in the form of a peace treaty which cancelled all previous treaties between the two countries and put an end to British control of Afghanistan’s foreign affairs."" [27]

  -

  With an Afghan diplomatic, political, and strategic victory, but a contentious tactical result? This war seems evidentially like an Afghan victory, they had achieved their main goals for why they invaded. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  I can only see a snippet view of Steele p. 111 and would be interested in reading at least the full sentence "... tactical British victory" and perhaps the full sentence following, though I get the gist. Steele presents yet another detailed and nuanced assessment of the result where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, thereby affirming that See Outcome and negotiation is the most appropriate result per the prevailing guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157 The quote specifically. "While the war ended in a tactical victory for the British, the fact that their troops were twice those of the Afghans suggested it as a strategic defeat. They forced the Afghans to accept the so-called Durand Line as the de facto frontier between Afghanistan and British India, though to this day no Afghan government has acknowledged it as their country's southern border in international law. In return the British abandoned control of Afghan foreign policy at last. Afghanistan was recognized as an independent state with the right to conduct its own foreign affairs."

  "standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, thereby affirming that See Outcome and negotiation is the most appropriate result per the prevailing guidance."

  Well I'm seeing it like this.. clearly the political settlements, diplomatic, and strategic all are put in favor of the Afghans. The tactical settlement is of contention only, which is why I see "Afghan victory - See outcome" as the best option. The lede already expands on the military perspective, and the outcome area does as well. All sources very clearly point out that the war in the end benefitted Afghanistan by giving it its independence and right to conduct its own foreign affairs and sources ascribe the Afghans with a diplomatic, political, and even strategic victory. Ludwig's words summarize it the best which is why I cite him so often in the regard:

  "The Third Afghan War was not won by the British. Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated. But this war did result in an end to Britain’s suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans—even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action.""[28] Noorullah (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the complete quote but I had already gleaned as much from the snippet - ie it only confirms what I already understood to have been written. I understand the argument you are making but I do not agree. In effect, you are making an argument about which side won or by how much [per template doc] and reaching a conclusion in favour of Afghanistan. It only affirms that See Outcome and negotiation is the most appropriate result per the prevailing guidance. Omitting the result would also be an alternative per the guidance, though I foresee that would perpetuate ongoing disruption, in that drive-by editors are going to persist in populating the parameter in the mistaken belief that its omission is a deficiency rather than deliberate. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  But what sources call the conflict a British victory? There's very few to make it almost a complete WP:FRINGE theory, the leading authorities/scholars clearly dismiss that (Ludwig).

  Are we purely disputing the conflict's actual result because some sources say the result was a British tactical victory or a stalemate? Because that otherwise seems like WP:OR. @Ratnahastin Exceedingly cites arguments from Lee but has been oblivious to every other scholar cited infront of them that clearly disagrees, such as implying the war wasn't even launched for Independence in the first place (Which Lee seems to think).

  In my most recent post, it very clearly goes over a myriad of sources that define the war as an Afghan victory, even tactically referring to it as rather a stalemate in some of the sources. [29] Noorullah (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment The inclusion of a result is optional but if we do include we have the option of "X victory" or "Inconclusive" and these must relate to the immediate result.

From my reading it would be stretching things too far to say that there was a definitive victory at any point and so we can only opt for inconclusive.

As we don't have this option in the RfC I have to say we should omit the result from the infobox Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"Inconclusive" is not accurate as the war led to a peace treaty where both agreed to make important concessions. Secondly MOS:MILRESULT states that "The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath"" meaning that " See Outcome and negotiations" is a completely fine option, although you are correct that result parameter itself is entirely optional. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support: See Outcome and negotiation. If we are going to talk only about the military conflict then it would be best to state "British victory", however, out of the available options I would go with stating no victor on the result parameter. Capitals00 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support # See Outcome and negotiation. The article reads like it was this way. Both sides got what they wanted from the treaty, without any repercussions. Someone compared this conflict to the Algerian war, which is unfair as that was on another scale to this! In terms of the Afghans winning independence - the British did have total rule over them, foreign affairs yes but with a subsidy which meant it was merely a Protectorate; a buffer with Tsarist Russia. Since the Great Game was well and truly over did Britain need to pay the Afghans that subsidy? No. However seeing that Afghans were up against the might of the British and Indian Raj one would assume they came off best politically. Their militarily performance however, not so much - they didn't really stand a chance against modern warfare. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  Comment"Both sides got what they wanted from the treaty," - "Both sides got what they wanted from the treaty, without any repercussions.", well no, we can clearly see the invasion triggered the numerous Waziristan uprisings (2), there was a ton of reprisals.

  Your argument also seems to more be based off the military side of the argument ... "Their militarily performance however, not so much - they didn't really stand a chance against modern warfare." which as stated, was a strategic British defeat (in my response below) per the sources. The British were either considered tactically victorious, or unsuccessful, and even strategically defeated. The nuance of the military conflict is also dabbled into the article already. But all in all, the sources point toward an Afghan diplomatic, political, and strategic victory, with the tactical part being of contention. Noorullah (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support Afghan victory, see Outcome and negotiation; The conflict is argued as contentious and the result nuanced. But citing Ludwig, who summarizes the war as an Afghan victory due to... "The Third Afghan War was not won by the British. Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated. But this war did result in an end to Britain’s suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans—even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action." [30] - Tactically, it's not of contention. The sources dictate the Afghans as unsuccessful (or nobody) won the war tactically, but the resulting treaty is why scholars consider the war an Afghan victory, because of a political, diplomatic, and strategic Afghan victory. They had achieved independence and the right to control their own foreign affairs. (Political and Diplomatic),[31] (pg 63.)[32] while strategically, the British had twice the casualties of the Afghans.[33] (pg.111)

In many of the above vote concerns, they cite that putting an Afghan victory in the infobox might be seen as misleading, since the Afghans didn't win tactically -- First of all, the article clearly elaborates on the military portion of the conflict, which is why we also have the see outcome result option. Secondly, not all wars or conflicts are decided tactically, especially in the case of this, where the result of the war was an armistice, peace treaty (in 1919) and then a final peace treaty a few years later which the British recognized Afghanistan's official independence. Scholars clearly state the war was a Political, Strategic, and Diplomatic Afghan victory -- So what's the source of contention here? The Nuanced result because it was possibly a tactical British victory? Both sides made concessions, but the Afghans far achieved their main goals for the war, which was Independence and foreign affair control. Not only that, but citing Iranica...: "There was a short conflict with the British in India, known as the Third Anglo-Afghan War (q.v.). Neither side could claim military victory, but Afghanistan achieved a resounding diplomatic success in the form of a peace treaty which cancelled all previous treaties between the two countries and put an end to British control of Afghanistan’s foreign affairs." [34]

We can clearly see this was the main objective of the war, independence, and foreign affairs, citing Iranica again...: "However, recent research has shown that Amānallāh resorted to war to safeguard Afghanistan’s independence, which had been unofficially secured at the end of World War I." "But there were other factors that convinced the Afghan ruler to resort to war: Lord Chelmsford, the viceroy of India, refused to conclude a new treaty with Amānallāh, in spite of Britain’s insistence after the death of Amir ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān that the agreements were between the British government and the person of the amir, and therefore subject to renegotiation with each successor. In correspondence between the two states, Britain merely acknowledged Amānallāh’s election as amir “by the populace of Kabul and its surroundings,” further implying that he was not in complete control of his country. Amir Amānallāh’s new envoy to India was snubbed at the border when he was asked “what amir” he represented. Finally, the subsidy was halted. Britain could not both insist that no new agreements were needed and refuse to acknowledge Amānallāh as the new ruler of Afghanistan. The Afghan ruler feared that Afghanistan would loose both its independence and the reward for its neutrality during the war. " [35] Noorullah (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157@Eastfarthingan Your replies were very much centered around the military, so inviting you to read the above where some sources clearly call the war a strategic Afghan victory (because of twice the casualties). Noorullah (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"The Third Afghan War was not won by the British. Both the Afghans and the British held enemy territory, and no decisive battles were fought and no one was definitely defeated. " - [STALEMATE].

"But this war did result in an end to Britain’s suzerainty over Afghanistan and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans—even though the victory was finally won in the field of diplomacy rather than the field of military action." - justly called a victorious war by the Afghans, finally won in the field of diplomacy, yes by Afghans, this is Wikipedia not Afghanpedia, Ludvig is merely saying that Afghan narrative may have a point.

why scholars consider the war an Afghan victory - They don't read, my comment, placing a victory "won" in the field of diplomacy in the infobox implies that British lost which is nonsense and gross misrepresentation of the entire conflict and Anglo-Afghan relations before and after the war.

"was Independence and foreign affair control. " - Incorrect, they were already independent. The only thing they "succeeded" in was getting the treaty of Gandamak revoked giving them the option to manage their foreign policy again, but British also forced them to recognise the Durand line which was always a point of contention between the two countries. The control over foreign policy was also a mutually beneficial agreement as Afghans got heavy subsidies that literally kept their country upfloat and was referred to as "Money from god" there. Lastly Afghanistan was not a colony of the empire, therefore it was always independent as such the claim that Afghans won "independence" is pseudohistory. Britain anyway handed over the control of foreign policy as they realised why it was not worth it anymore given how difficult it was to actually control a sovereign state's foreign policy in the world war I (Afghans maintained neutrality in the war and literally allowed the German, Turkish and Russian diplomatic missions to Kabul, showing that any control the British had over their foreign policy was very little.) Now tell me, how in the world can you reflect all this in the infobox and do you know what the purpose of an infobox is? - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

"and for this reason is justly called a victorious war by the Afghans" - I don't know if you know but justly means hes framing it in his own opinion too.

"why scholars consider the war an Afghan victory - They don't read, my comment, placing a victory "won" in the field of diplomacy in the infobox implies that British lost which is nonsense and gross misrepresentation of the entire conflict and Anglo-Afghan relations before and after the war." - So... are we blatantly ignoring the sources now?

[36] "One of Amanullah's first actions was to launch a surprise attack on the British in what became the third Anglo-Afghan war (1919). An Afghan victory forced the British to end their formal enroachments on Afghanistan's sovereignty..."

[37] - "...after the Afghan victory in the Third Anglo-Afghan War"

[38] "Neither side could claim military victory, but Afghanistan achieved a resounding diplomatic success in the form of a peace treaty which cancelled all previous treaties between the two countries and put an end to British control of Afghanistan’s foreign affairs."

[39] "This was an undeclared war that lasted from 4 May to 3 June and resulted in Afghanistan’s winning complete independence."

[40] - "After victory in the third war..."

In your 3rd paragraph, you said Afghanistan was already independent -- but again, they launched the war to safeguard their independence (and for their foreign affairs), see Iranica...: "However, recent research has shown that Amānallāh resorted to war to safeguard Afghanistan’s independence, which had been unofficially secured at the end of World War I. He feared that British duplicity would deprive him of the reward he expected for Afghanistan’s neutrality and bring about the return of pre-war British hegemony." [41]

"Lastly Afghanistan was not a colony of the empire, therefore it was always independent as such the claim that Afghans won "independence" is pseudohistory." - Now you're arguing against the sources, which is WP:OR.

[42] "The war-weary British, however, soon gave in to Afghan demands for full independence."

[43] - "This Afghan king won his independence."

Again; Iranica; [44] ""This was an undeclared war that lasted from 4 May to 3 June and resulted in Afghanistan’s winning complete independence."" - "It was therefore not surprising that Amānallāh seized the unique opportunity to win by force what Britain was unwilling to give its ally: Afghanistan’s internal and external independence."

[45] - "More importantly, article 5 of the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1919, on the basis of which Afghanistan reclaimed its independence..."

[46] "But the key point appeared in a letter attached to the treaty, where Grant acknowledged Afghanistan’s independence, stating that “. . . the said Treaty and this letter leave Afghanistan officially free and independent in its internal and external affairs”"

Barthorp, one of the most leading authorities next to Ludwig clearly states: "...but in the end a treaty was signed on 8 August, the most important clause of which gave the Afghans what they most wanted, and could have probably gained without a war -- the right to conduct their own foreign affairs as a fully independent state."

[47]

Moreover, to your former argument that "it took two years for the British to really recognize Afghan independence" - It's because the treaty was so exceedingly long and difficult to hash out, see Meredith. [48]

@Ratnahastin Noorullah (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Support Afghan victory, see Outcome and negotiation - Per Noorullah. Koopinator (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)