Jump to content

Talk:2021 Kabul airlift

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move to "Kabul Airlift"?

[edit]
Weaveravel (talk · contribs) seems to have moved discussion to the heading that started 2 September, boldly collapsing because it tripped up another editor and I. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neutral and formal word, less vague than "evacuation", and doesn't exclude for example fleeing Afghans themvelves. (The only evacuation is by air from the airport, so "airlift" is perfect). Plus many major reliable media outlets are using the term airlift about this situation:

As you will see at WT:MILHIST, both Nick-D and I wanted to avoid this because then it rules out coverage which may appear of land escapes. Also, be more careful, please: I specifically set this article up as 'Western' originally rather than NATO because Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Indonesia, India, etc are *not* part of NATO!! Buckshot06 (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However there doesn't seem to be land escapes, other than local Afghans? All the focus is on the airport and the airport is the only way foreigners are able to get out. There is no land route at all. The media are also calling it the airlift. --Weaveravel (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, what information is available to the Western media in the last five minutes *does not* equal what is going on!! Unless you think you have solid, reliable sources covering all the land borders, the answer remains *we don't know what is going on regarding land evacuations* and both u:Nick-D and I feel it best to remain with an article title that allows land escapes to be added to this article, rather than have yet another long, semi-inconclusive argument about *another* article renaming!! This is only one of the articles, which I found in five seconds, about Afghan refugees crossing the border into Iran. When the title 'Western' was removed from the article, the scope implicitly extended itself to Afghans leaving as well. But yes, most of the public focus is an airlift, as far as we know right now, and if you wish to set up some redirects for 2021 Kabul airlift or suchlike (not capitalized, in line with MOS:TITLES) feel free..
I agree to move. There are Indian and Arab operations as well as Afghan Air force fleeing to neighboring countries. Sgnpkd (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support moving this page to "Kabul airlift" or "2021 Kabul airlift". If not, rename this page that. RopeTricks (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (and Comment) I believe a better title would be Kabul Airlift (2021) in order to differentiate it from the 1928-1929 page.180app (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@180app: The current discussion is under “Requested move 2 September 2021”. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Discuss-Dubious: Thank you! I had not noticed.180app (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over 150,000 people have been airlifted abroad???

[edit]

The infobox has it as 150,000 (while its reference that was published before the end of the operations said 114,000). The lede has a different reference that was published after the end of the operations with the number of 122,000. If there is no better references, we should then change the number in the infobox to 122,000. Z22 (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Taliban in "Executed By" list?

[edit]

Should the Taliban be included in the executed by list as we already in the body of the article has multiple sources mentioning what was effectively active co-operation between them and foreign governments in getting citizens to the airport and maintaining order outside of it? Apache287 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Kabul Airlift (2021). – wbm1058 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 evacuation from Afghanistan → Kabul airlift – (or 2021 Kabul airlift with the year). It's a neutral and formal word, less vague than "evacuation", and doesn't exclude for example Afghan civilians at the airport themvelves. This event is an airlift and evacuation only done by air, so it's perfect; other Afghans fleeing by land are not part of the "evacuation", hence this is strictly an airlift). Plus a large number of major reliable media outlets are using the term airlift about this situation, for example:

When you have all of these well known media using airlift, there is no doubt whatsoever that it is also the WP:COMMONNAME. It is also much simpler than the long "2021 evacuation from Afghanistan" --WR 16:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move per OP as a more precise title.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The original intent of this page was to cover the exodus of Western and other allied associated people from Afghanistan from July-August 2021. It was not just about flights. Evacuations can be done by any means, for example the Dunkirk evacuation of 300,000+ by sea in 1940. As you will see at WT:MILHIST, both Nick-D and I wanted to avoid 'airlift' because then it rules out coverage of land escapes. Robertsky then collected a whole lot of sources about people leaving the country by land:
  • In July 2021, at least 30,000 Afghan refugees crossed land borders, mostly illegally every week. Many trekked through Iran to enter Turkey, however border guards at Turkey are preventing entry into the country.[1]
  • Iran had set up camps in bracing themselves for the influx of refugees from Afghanistan.[2]
  • Pakistan has been preventing entry of Afghan through land border checkpoints, and has largely fenced up the 2,600km land border between the two countries.[3]
  • Tajikistan and Uzbekistan had a couple of thousand Afghans crossing their borders. Some are Afghan army soldiers.[4]
  • Talibans are letting those with valid visas to use the official border crossings.[4]

This page should stay at the original title because the journalists which WP's reliability rules are most attuned to were focused on the high publicity events at Kabul Airport, which they could get much easier access to. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that the actual content of this article is devoted to the evacuation organized by the U.S. military through Hamid Karzai International Airport, not the broader topic of Afghan refugees and asylum seekers attempting to escape by other means.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As TheTimesAreAChanging has already said, this article is already predominantly about the current air evacuation, not Afghans fleeing. There doesn't need to be an article about refugees fleeing but the Airlift definitely deserves its own article at the very least because of the significance of this event as an airlift. Look at 2021 Taliban offensive: there already is an Aftermath > Civilian exodus section there, and that covers the overall refugees. --WR 20:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the original title is perfectly adequate. Though I do agree that the article needs expansions, I think changing it to Kabul airlift or 2021 Kabul airlift is the wrong direction to go in; non-airlift content should be added to this article first. The evacuation from Kabul's airport and the evacuation from greater Afghanistan are too related to make separate articles, at least at this moment. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 10:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already a dedicated section for civilian refugees related to this year's events in 2021 Taliban offensive (Aftermath > Civilian exodus). --WR 14:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goldbaum, Christina; Faizi, Fatima (2021-07-31). "As Fears Grip Afghanistan, Hundreds of Thousands Flee". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-08-28.
  2. ^ "Tehran Prepares For Refugee Influx As Afghans In Iran Protest". Iran International. 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-28.
  3. ^ "Pakistan shuts door to further Afghan refugees". Nikkei Asia. Retrieved 2021-08-28.
  4. ^ a b "Afghanistan: Where will refugees go after Taliban takeover?". BBC News. 2021-08-27. Retrieved 2021-08-28.
  • Oppose: Common name status of “airlift” is also in doubt-

As far as your argument that “evacuation” excluded Afghans goes, many sources use the term “evacuation” to describe Afghan civilians: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/02/afghan-evacuation-war-by-numbers/ https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/first-evacuated-afghan-refugees-arrive-in-arizona-for-resettlement https://news.yahoo.com/afghan-refugees-arrive-dulles-airport-181000304.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/afghan-evacuees-resettlement-us/2021/09/01/c68b6a42-0b4e-11ec-a256-709238a1404d_story.html https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-delta-pilot-who-flew-an-evacuation-plane-ferrying-afghan-refugees-out-of-germany-is-the-son-of-a-holocaust-survivor-i-was-able-to-put-myself-in-their-position/ar-AANOzuw https://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/2021/08/27/new-york-afghan-refugee-resettlement/5616129001/ https://mynorthwest.com/3110987/inslee-biden-letter-encourages-evacuation-efforts-afghanistan/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fort-mccoy-houses-around-3000-afghan-refugees-as-evacuation-ends/ar-AANUQUV https://people.com/politics/george-w-and-laura-bush-urge-evacuation-of-afghan-refugees/ https://www.itv.com/news/2021-08-26/afghan-refugees-land-at-heathrow-after-evacuation-im-so-happythank-you

If I pulled all the sources that say “evacuation” without “airlift”, it would overtake the sources that say “airlift”. As per Buckshot06, it’s a good idea to keep things open out of interest for coverage of land escapes. The US is reported to be planning to use land routes to allow people to escape. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-looking-at-land-routes-to-continue-afghanistan-evacuations/ar-AANZVLa Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. --WR 14:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a support or oppose? --WR 14:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think some further discussion and opinions are needed so I'd like this request to remain for a while more. --WR 14:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose→ Minor support I think evacuation is much more wider concept, because many Afghan refugee also used land route to escape their country. Airlift can narrow the whole situation. -- Wendylove (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC) I agree that this article is mainly focused on airlift operation, so it might be necessary to move this article to Kabul Airlift. However, 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan should be saved and be differed from Kabul Airlift, because the Kabul Airlift cannot explain whole situation of current evacuation. -- Wendylove (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@웬디러비: Have you seen 2021 Taliban offensive (Aftermath > Civilian exodus, section)? That part covers everything about the refugees and those who fled by land. This article is just for the airlift. --WR 23:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article focuses on the airlift operations and evacuee shuttle flights conducted by nations at the Kabul airport. "Kabul airlift" is more specific. RopeTricks (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that the airlifts are one component of the evacuations taken place so the article title should not be changed to "Kabul airlift" or something similar to it. However, I have a comment about the current title. Is it considered to be just the one singular "evacuation"? I would think that there are multiple evacuations so it would instead need to be plural in my view. -boldblazer 01:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Boldblazer: I disagree as essentially the airlift was the predominant event and it is the one thing that will likely go in history books. What other "evacuations" were there then? Only Afghan refugees who traveled by land to e.g. Pakistan but that is already rightfully covered in 2021 Taliban offensive (Aftermath > Civilian exodus). This was otherwise an air evacuation and its notability means it is right for it to be its own article. --WR 23:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed?

[edit]

Is the discussion on move proposal closed? The page has been moved to a new title. Z22 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infoxbox template change

[edit]

I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the infobox for this article should change to Template:Infobox military conflict. I have tried to do it myself to no avail. The reason for this is that a) there were opponents to this operation from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province and b) this event is regularly compared to Operation Frequent Wind which uses an infobox military conflict.ElderZamzam (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting insight although I am not convinced that the infobox should change to that. I don't see this as a military conflict at the end of the day, it was an operation that happened to have an attack with deaths. --WR 20:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus

[edit]

"Evacuation" is for a dozen people. "Exodus" is more appropriate to describe this reality.--2601:C4:C380:49E0:55AA:1FCB:5D12:C5D7 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During the drone strike in Kabul civilian casualties were there

[edit]

Source https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/28/asia/afghanistan-us-airstrike-evacuation-mission-intl/index.html also The New York Times on Youtube have a Visual Investigations video which can be referenced.

157.41.135.102 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 October 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page Moved to 2021 Kabul airlift per consensus. (non-admin closure) signed, Iflaq (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


2021 Kabul Airlift → 2021 Kabul airlift – Excessive capitalization. The previous move closed at Kabul Airlift (2021), with "Kabul Airlift" a proper noun. As "2021 Kabul Airlift", "airlift" is a descriptive word and not a proper noun. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs end result

[edit]

The article is mostly a day ba day account. It needs a final balance of all nations involved:

  • How many planes and individual flights were provided by each nation?
  • How many persons were transported by each nation in total?

--2A02:8109:BD40:65C4:0:0:0:8E6F (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian: UK secretly deported 100 Nepali guards who protected staff in Kabul

[edit]

Not sure how to include this, its new information

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Kabul_airlift&oldid=1215039322"