Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

Statistics Needed

The most frequent facts people will be looking for are:

• 1. the number of invading Americans killed, by year. Possibly broken out by soldier/contractor.
• 2. the number of people from other invading countries killed.
• 3. the number of Afghan/Taliban resistance killed
• 4. the number of Afghan civilians killed. Possibly broken out by culprit though that number is probably meaningless.

Obviously such numbers are disputed, but a range would be nice. RoedyG —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

How could the Northern Alliance invade their own country?

The article posits that Afghanistan was invaded. Technically the foreign powers chose to intervene on behalf of the insurgent party of a very, very long civil war. Labeling the 2001 action as a foreign invasion is non-factual and leading to a biased conclusion about intervening in an existing situation.

ANSWER: First, the Northern Alliance would not have succeeded in re-conquering the North, nor would the south been taken by President Karzai and Gul Agha Sherzai, had there been no overwhelming US air support, Special Forces, CIA operatives who bought the loyalty of various commanders who defected, a time-honoured Afghan tradition. For more on this see Sarah Chayes: the Punishment of Virtue. Second, what is "factual" is the motivation for the invasion of Afghanistan, which was due to the inability of the Taliban government to hand over Osama Bin Laden to US authorities, as outlined by President Bush in which he said: "The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/post911/attacks/afghanistan/metimes_taliban_defies_bush.htm) Third, if it was not an invasion, then wouldn't have been a steadily increasing occupying force of ISAF soldiers and the growing control over the country. --Finally, I am not against ISAF in Afghanistan, in fact I served there myself, but let's call it what it was: an invasion and occupation.

Iranian participation

Currently source #2 claims that Iranian SF forces fought side by side with American SF forces during the invasion. Considering that the same source also claims that the American casulties of Op Eagle Claw were caused by an Iranian ambush, I'm going to go out on a limb here and just remove it as soon as I've finished writing this. Pavuvu (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words in opening section

"In 2010, the War in Afghanistan became the United States' second longest continuous military conflict. Only the Vietnam War (1959–1975) lasted longer." This is just a blatant attempt to compare the WiA to vietnam. When in reality the longest armed conflict the US has been involved in was the Philippines that lasted from the late 1800's all the way into the 40's. It went hot and cold several times but hostilities remained constant. This paragraph should be updated.

Lets change it out. Also:

Weasel out image.

U.S. Marines in Southern Afghanistan-A ...(Special Operations Capable) ...

Please change the photo the green camuflage on desert palete looks very poor.

• 1. to evade an obligation, duty,
• 2. to use weasel words; be ambiguous; mislead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The photo op picture is weasel lame too. Why they walking by plain to sky terain with the hevy stuf ? In Background is a chopter, if landed closer to camera they will have shorter way. What is the sense to back pack mule having parked by truck to use ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ahmad Zia Massoud.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Front lines? Territory under control?

Article suffers from a lack of information regarding who has control of what areas. It appears that the govt/NATO now only control most of Kabul, while most of the rest of the country is controlled by the Taliban. How true is this? How have the 'front lines' changed over the last 11 years? Perhaps some sort of map/graphic would be useful if there's one around (I can't find one, nor any info re areas controlled)? 82.44.28.101 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Maoist involvement?

The Maoist party was formed to fight the American invasion in 2004, but it isn't meantioned in this article. They might be a minor group but surely they warrant a meantion in the "insurgent group" section for being an insurgent group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.4.156 (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam comparison

There's an ongoing edit war over the start year of the Vietnam war, and thus whether this war is longer. There are edits (e.g. one, two) saying the war started in 1959. Others then revert (e.g. one, two), saying the war started in 1965.

Of course, this dispute is not confined to this page, as it's debated in its own right. Since we're comparing for the purposes of understanding the duration of U.S. involvement, does it make sense to use the DoD's definition? As described at Richard B. Fitzgibbon, Jr., that's 1955. Superm401 - Talk 02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo of a deceased victim?

Excuse me but I just want to point out that there is a photo of maywand district killer posing with the dead body of its victim.....Posting such a photo seems to be deeply immoral in nature - it is the lack of respect for the victim.....Such a photo -if I understand it correctly -should be removed.....immediately..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.0.13 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sections "US troops urinating on Taliban fighters" and "U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts"

Hello. Sometimes I make contributions to topics I'm interested in. One of these topics is the ongoing War in Afghanistan. Over the course of the last days I made contributions with respect to US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts in order to showcase a deterioration in Afghan-American relations and the reasons therof. The sections dealing with US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts however have been ereased. Could me someone please explain why? Because I'm only a part time contributor could me someone also say what I can do so that the sections remain in the article after their restorement? Thanks. Orion 91.42.34.23 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There are some other potential issues with your entries but the specific reason it was reverted this time by Darkness Shines seems to be that thinks you are a sockpuppet. If you're not a sock puppet than I'm sure he'd clear up any misunderstanding if you were to ask him about it on his talk page. If you do so and you still feel you're being treated unfairly bring it up here again and someone will steer you in the right direction. If you need help with translation we have plenty of German speakers who could help you as well. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why[1] If I am wrong feel free to revert me once the SPI has concluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for update of U.S.-Afghan strategic partnership section

Hello. User:MuZemike has me directed to this page for my rquest to update U.S.-Afghan strategic partnership section. I have two requests for this section:

1.) After the sentence "According to the document, the US will continue to provide logistical support for 12 months and a joint US-Afghan commission will decide on any detainee releases until a more permanent pact is adopted."[303] please the following source code add:

The United States signed in March 2012 with Afghanistan an memorandum of understanding which shifts the responsibiliy for all detention facilities in the country to the Afghanistan.

2.) To add at the bottom of the section:

After more than a year and a half of negotiations Afghanistan and America finalized on April 22, 2012 the draft text for the US Afghan strategic partnership, which will be reviewed by both countries governments before it becomes final after the Afghan and American president signed it. The agreement has a duration of at least 10 years, lays out the framework for a future U.S. role in Afghanistan, including aid assistance and governance advice, and covers the areas of social and economic development, institution building, regional cooperation and security. The status of U.S. troops and the details of their operations after the 2014 withdrawl of NATO forces is not included in the partnership, but shall be covered in in a separate status of forces agreement. Obstacles on the way to the agreement of the draft text were the issues of night raids conducted by U.S. troops and the operation of detention facilities by the United States. The New York Times reported in this context in April 2012: "In March the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding shifting responsibility for all detention facilities in the country to the Afghans, and earlier this month they handed final authority for night raids to Afghan security forces, who are now carrying out all raids unless American assistance is requested. With those two issues resolved, the strategic partnership was quickly completed."

Could someplease do these changes? Thanks in advance. Orion 91.42.23.40 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Update by Orion on 91.42.23.40 (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox

I've just removed the casualty figure for "Taliban and insurgents" from the infobox. This figure was unreferenced, and appears to be someone's calculation of the totals from the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. According to the BBC's Defence correspondent (circa 2010), "there are no reliable or verifiable source figures available" for Taliban deaths, and the BBC has a policy of not reporting them as a result. As such, our figure was both obvious original research and certain to be wrong. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did you re-add it then? There's no reliable source for this figure, and its certain to be wrong. I've just re-removed it from the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nick, attempting to add up Taliban casualties from news reports doesn't seem valid. As such unless a reliable source can be found it is best left blank. Such figures are not routinely published by many coalition forces anyway so any figure wiki editors come up with using this methodology is going to be incorrect, not to mention OR. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. There needs to be some indication of the amount of taliban killed and this is not unreliable source but actually every single thing is sourced on this page so put the old casualty figures for this which was an accumulated death toll of hundreds of sourced figures. Just because the BBC doesn't report it doesn't mean you get rid of the accumulated death toll created from multiple other sources like NATO.

The figure is totally uncited, and is an example of original research. I've looked, but have been unable to find any reliable online source which provides an estimate of total insurgent/Taliban casualties, so this doesn't seem to be something which editors can sensibly add up from themselves from the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan, which is bound to contain major inaccuracies and omissions given that it's a collection of random news reports various editors (many of them actually sock puppets of a banned editor with a habit of making up figures for casualties from ongoing wars) have added over the years. If anyone can find a reliable source which provides a total estimate of insurgent/Taliban casualties that would be fantastic, as without it we can't include a figure that doesn't mislead our readers. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Fog of war. We won't know how many Taliban died until the historians tell us, some day ... and their number will be a wild guess, but we'll print it because it's their number. As long as reliable sources are saying there's no number (and they're right), there's no number. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan this death toll figure is probably the one of the most accurate death tolls for an insurgency group of any war. Most death toll figures are estimates like on the WW2 page. These are not 100% accurate but they are still there whereas with Taliban fatality page, each fatality report is well sourced and then the accumulated figure is by fact a minimum death toll for the Taliban so it should be there at least for the minimum. If Wikipedia conflict pages required 100% factual casualty figures, there would be nothing under casualties for nearly all wars so well sourced minimum or estimates for casualties should be added to give some sort of sense of the brutality or nature of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit of a flawed argument: we have lots of reliable sources on the total casualties of World War II (including differing estimates for some countries), and the World War II casualties article does a good job of discussing this. Conversely, we have no reliable sources at all on the total Taliban/insurgent casualties in this war, despite this being an obvious thing for academics, think tanks, media organisations, etc, to attempt to measure. The fact that these experts aren't (as far as I'm aware, and can find) using measures of total casualties from news reports strongly indicates that this is not considered a credible method, as indicated by the reference I've provided above to the BBC's defence correspondent's article on this topic. Again, if anyone can provide a reliable source on total Taliban/insurgent casualties or other topics relevant to this discussion that would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

By adding up casualty reports given in reliable sources, we can establish an approximate minimum number for Taliban casualties. You say its an "obvious thing" for them to measure, but I don't see why. Its really a rather trivial thing, it doesn't impact NATO or the current Afghan government's goals in the war all that much, since they're focused on establishing a stable and strong government. After the initial invasion, the goal wasn't to destroy an enemy military - so how many Taliban loyalists were killed after that became unimportant. If you look here: http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/Report_Final_SecDef_04_27_12.pdf, particularly in the "Insurgency Severely Degraded" section, success is being measured by number of enemy attacks overall (which have been declining) and the Afghan response to them, not in terms of numbers of enemies destroyed.

Plus, compiling all the casualty reports is a huge job - most news organizations probably don't have the manpower, time, or incentive for it. We can provide them with a decent minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X Nilloc X (talk • contribs)

We don't do original research, and that reference I provided above discusses the issues you raise with NATO not tracking Taliban casualties as part of its argument that there aren't reliable figures on this topic, so this actually works against your position. The figure you've just edit warred back into the article isn't even close to being the sum of the reports in the other article anyway, which indicates the kind of major problems with this approach. I just added up all the figures in that article (using the lowest figures where there was a range given and the figures for periods where these existed), and came up with 37,658. Which is also uncited, unreliable and almost certainly totally wrong. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, why did you completely change your position from your original post, and delete this post? (diff). Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

X Nilloc X, pls read wikipedia's policy on original research - the addition of such information seems a fairly clear violation of this to me. You have admitted that the total casualty figure is not available in reliable sources and that it has been derived by adding up the casualties from an incomplete list published on wikipedia (which is not a reliable source). As such this does not meet the required standard. Anotherclown (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not original research, its simple math - reliable sources give those casualty figures. Adding them up, we get a minimum, nobody's saying its the exact number - didn't you notice the "+" beside it? By your logic, we should delete everything on Wikipedia, since there's no reliable source that contains the exact text of any article. X Nilloc X (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a rather weak argument: we can easily provide direct references for most facts included in articles, and there's obviously no need to cite individual words! There is no reference for this figure you keep edit warring back into the article despite the majority view here (not to mention Anotherclown's clear explanation of the problems with this), and it's not even close to being the sum of the lowest estimates of casualty reports in the other anyway. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Then fix the number, don't remove the whole thing. And that's exactly my point: we have a list of reliable, sources Taliban fatality reports. There's no need to cite a total for the minimum because the page already has that. X Nilloc X (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. That is exactly what is required under the relevant policy (which has been cited repeatedly above). Anotherclown (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said? We have a reliably cited minimum number of Taliban casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X Nilloc X (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As myself and others keep pointing out, we actually don't. That article doesn't even contain any of the numbers of total casualties you keep edit warring into the article, much less a reliable source for these totals. Nick-D (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Here, I'll spell it out real clear for you:

1. The article lists reliably sourced casualties. 2. Those figures are all acceptable by Wikipedia standards. 3. So, by the basic laws of math, the total is acceptable by Wikipedia standards as a minimum.

Which of those do you disagree with? X Nilloc X (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

All three. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And what rational reason can you give for that? X Nilloc X (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This was brought up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#War in Afghanistan (2001-Present). You can look there for the details, but the bottom line is that adding up the fatality figures is not allowed under Wikipedia's standards. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it most certainly is, WP:CALC allows it!

Edit request on 1 May 2012

This article is ridiculous and insulting. It doesn't even mention that Canada was part of this war. I and the many Canadians who fought and died in the killing fields of Kandahar/Panwajii District would, I'm sure, appreciate acknowledgement of boots on the ground. If you need a source that articulates the nature and extent of our combat operations, you can find this below.

Please edit both the table outlining 'belligerents' to include Canada, consider including some more pics of Canadian soldiers in action, acknowledge our involvement in Kandahar, and reflect our contributions in the text (s) describing the progression of the war.

Regards,

Chris Cudahy Ph.D. Candidate Department of Communication Texas A&M University

Canada has sacrificed a disproportionate number of lives to the war in Afghanistan compared to other NATO and coalition countries, including the U.S. itself, both on the basis of lives lost per domestic capita and on the basis of casualty rate of troops in Afghanistan.[109][110][111][112][113]

By as early as the end of summer 2006, Canadians were bearing the brunt of coalition casualties in Afghanistan.[107][112][114][115] A study by defence researchers found that:[107][112]

   * A Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar was six times more likely to be killed by a hostile attack than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq.
   * Canadians accounted for 43% of all coalition military deaths from February to September 2006 (not including 5 deaths from accidents).
   * Canada had suffered more deaths from hostile action in Afghanistan than any other U.S. ally, with two in five of the non-U.S. deaths.
   * A Canadian soldier in Kandahar was three times more likely to be killed in hostile action than a British soldier in Afghanistan.
   * A Canadian soldier in Kandahar was 4.5 times more likely to be killed in hostile action than an American soldier in Afghanistan.

In September 2006, UK statistician Sheila M. Bird, vice-president of Britain's Royal Statistical Society and author of a similar risk assessment study, noted that Canadian soldiers were facing twice possibly four times the risk of death that British soldiers faced in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She emphasized that the risk Canadians face in Kandahar is "absolutely" riskier than what Americans face in Iraq and stated that what the Canadians are confronting is "as dangerous as what the Russians were facing 20 years ago." The Russians left Afghanistan in defeat in 1989 after a nine-year campaign.[115][107][116]

A study by Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire stated that the lower level of lethality for U.S. troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq, as well as its decline between 2005 and 2006, were primarily because the United States had "successfully "convinced" NATO member countries (especially Canada and Britain) to increasingly bear the brunt of the combat in southern Afghanistan, experiencing far greater lethality ratios."[117]

Table: Lethality ratios in Afghanistan, 2006 (soldiers killed in-theater / 1,000 troop level in-theater)[117] Country Deaths per 1,000 troops Canada 14.4 United Kingdom 6.3 - 9.8 NATO 5.0 United States 4.45 Soviet Union (1980s) 12.5

An analysis in October 2007 by Professor Sheila Bird of Cambridge University for Danish newspaper Politiken continued to show a Canadian casualty rate disproportionately higher than those of other countries: For the period from May 2006 to about October 2007, Canada's casualty rate was 17 per 1,000 troops, while Britain's was 9 per 1,000 troops, and Denmark's was 7 per 1,000 troops.[118]

A 2007 study by the Department of National Defence also found that Canadian soldiers operating in Kandahar were at significantly higher risk of dying compared to their British and American counterparts.[119]

Canada's disproportionately high casualty rates, the highest of all NATO and coalition countries as a proportion of troops in Afghanistan, have also been noted by the government-commissioned Manley panel report released in February 2008, as well as by other observers.[109][110][119][120]

Subsequent to March 2008, only one other country has lost more lives on a per domestic capita basis than Canada. (Denmark, with a population of only 5.5 million people, lost a 13th soldier in Afghanistan in March 2008 when Canada's toll was at 78).

A February 2009 comparison of troop deaths relative to domestic population size showed that Canada had 3.2 soldiers killed per million population, far ahead of the United Kingdom at 2.3 per million, and the United States at 2.1 per million population. Other major European NATO countries such as France, Germany, and Italy were entirely out of the top 10.[111][121][122]

Table: Canadian deaths per capita compared to the U.S. and U.K. (as of February 2009) Country Deaths per million capita Canada 3.2 United Kingdom 2.3 United States 2.1

NATO officials have also reported that Canadians have suffered more deaths per capita than any other foreign contingent serving in Afghanistan.[123]

In April 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated:

“

"Canada has had, per capita, by far the highest casualties in Afghanistan." ”

— Prime Minister Stephen Harper, April 2, 2009 interview on Britain's Sky TV[124][125]

Again in October 2009, the CBC reported that "the Afghan mission is taking a much bigger toll on Canadian forces, proportionately speaking, than the other major coalition nations." Analysis from the U.K. Medical Research Council's Biostatistics Unit showed Canadian troops consistently being killed at a higher rate than American and British troops in the three year period from May 2006 to May 2009.[126][127]

Table: Canadian deaths compared to the U.S. and U.K. (May 2006 - May 2009)[127]) Country Deaths per 1,000 personnel years May 1, 2006 - November 11, 2007 Deaths per 1,000 personnel years November 12, 2007 - May 17, 2009 Canada 15.7 12.2 United Kingdom 8.9 6.5 United States 4.9 4.1

The disproportionate toll paid in Canadian lives is reflected in public opinion regarding Canada's share of the burden.

Cudahychris (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not done, your references in the above content are just numbers. Are they existing references from the article? Canada is linked in from the info box[2] And they pulled out in 2011. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please suggest some specific changes to the article? This would be more helpful than a general complaint in addressing your concerns. Please also note that we do have a Canada's role in the Afghanistan War article. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Report at Dispute resolution noticeboard

X Nilloc X has started a discussion of the matters under discussion above at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#War in Afghanistan (2001-Present). Nick-D (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here; I am going to repeat what I wrote there: A reliable source ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/01/reporting_afghanistan_casualti.html ) says:

"In our coverage of Afghanistan, we at BBC News do not generally report the numbers of Taliban or insurgent casualties and fatalities, because there are no reliable or verifiable source figures available."

Wikipedia must report what the sources say, and the sources say that there are no reliable or verifiable figures for Taliban casualties. End of subject unless someone finds a reliable source that directly contradicts the above-quoted source. Counting the numbers in another Wikipedia article is WP:SYNTHESIS and the numbers you get cannot be used to replace a direct statement by a reliable source.

In addition, there is a statistical fallacy in play when you count the numbers and add them up. If we assume that the individual sources cited in List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan tried to be accurate (a questionable assumption -- news agencies make money by attempting to panic the readers -- but let's accept it for the sake of argument) then some will be too high and some will be too low. The problem is that there is a limit on being too low (nobody reports a negative number of fatalities) but there is no limit on being too high. This makes the basic idea of adding them up statistically invalid. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Several reliable sources have made estimates and recording such estimates is both appropriate and policy compaint, as long as they are notated as estimates. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If references to reliable sources are provided for such estimates then absolutely yes include them, if not they have to go. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be making up information, only citing what already exists. Anotherclown (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

TomPointTwo, which sources are you talking about here? I've been unable to find any reliable sources which provide an estimate of total casualties for the Taliban forces, and no-one else has been able to point one out. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would note that any answer would have to cite a source that explicitly states an estimate for total casualties. Citing multiple sources and adding them together violates WP:SYNTHESIS, which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)