Jump to content

Talk:Fall of Kabul (2021)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Notability

This fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL.

In all probabilities, it will be a (not anti-climatic) surrender with some kind of transitional government. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

So if it's just some peaceful surrender, how come the source you removed referred to 'heavy assaults' and a citywide blackout?
Even if it is an anti-climatic surrender, it's still a major point in the conflict and should probably have an article of its own. The Fall of Saigon took all of one day, yet it still has an article dedicated to it and it has more than enough sources to back it up. NHCLS (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
In that case, it will still not be a battle and a title like Fall of Kabul (2021) will be more appropriate. But currently even that title is not appropriate, per WP:CRYSTAL. 176.62.32.5 (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:CRYSTAL: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." I think there's a good argument that the Battle/Fall of Kabul (you're probably right about needing to rename it "Fall") meets both criteria - there are verifiable sources about what's occurring and it's definitely of sufficiently wide interest for its own article. NHCLS (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
A battle using lots of explosives would be anticlimatic - and the massive arrival of US aircraft for the evacuation could also be argued as anticlimatic, with a high carbon footprint. A nearly bloodless surrender, which seems likely since Ghani has already flown out of Afghanistan and left the other politicians to negotiate the power transfer, could rather be seen as pro-climatic. Boud (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
NHCLS, the only source to mention of "city-wide blackout" and "heavy assaults" is a private security firm who has no repute for journalism (of any kind) and is yet to be cited by any MSM across the entire Afghan Conflict. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2021

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: Preliminary WP:SNOW consensus for Fall of Kabul (2021), which is a much stronger consensus than that for the current title. Editors also noted the current title is misleading and there is an immediate concern with Wikipedia spreading the idea of a fictional battle. Discussions may continue to find more suitable titles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Kabul (2021) → Fall of Kabul (2021) – Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change. Saqib (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Battle observably inaccurate since there is no report of meaningful clashes. Rapid renaming in "Siege" ? Yug (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Kabul (2021) → Fall of Kabul (2021) – Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change. Saqib (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Battle observably inaccurate since there is no report of meaningful clashes. Rapid renaming in "Siege" ? Yug (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Is it really a siege, though? From what I've seen, the biggest obstacle the Taliban's encountered in taking over the city is traffic jams caused by evacuees. Juxlos (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • President has fleed, he is then no more in charge. Who is ? Without formal-public agreement we don't know yet, we must assume some central government representative is still negociating. Yug (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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.

C class

Hi! I'm a relatively new editor and while I do agree this is a C-class article I'm wondering if there would be some kind of wait until the referencing and content sections of the B-criteria could be properly assessed. Like how would that process go? Especially since I doubt there will be academic articles until some weeks in the future.A. C. Santacruz (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It can be assessed at any time - realistically for this article, wait a few more days until events have settled down and editors have had time to update. Juxlos (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Add Lord Miles Routledge, British, to the 'Commanders and leaders' section. AdamCF101 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Update "status" in Infobox. Gani was ultimately in UAE, as prove by the Foreign Ministry 219.78.191.212 (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Translated bold names for the lead

It may be wise of us to see if there are Dari or Arabic names for the events that are unfolding. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

So far it looks like Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia are both currently going with "Fall", at least according to Google Translate. --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
There isn't a proper name for this in English yet, so thinking about other languages is rather premature. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody know how many hours it took for city to fall?

Does anybody know how many hours it took for city to fall?

Between https://twitter.com/AlArabiya_Brk/status/1426881306693095426

" الداخلية الأفغانية: نشر قوات أمن خاصة في كابل لتأمينها "

Afghan Interior: Deploying special security forces in Kabul to secure it 5:19 AM · Aug 15, 2021·Alarabiya Social Media Poster

to https://twitter.com/AJABreaking/status/1426974367230185477?s=20

" الداخلية الأفغانية: نشر قوات أمن خاصة في كابل لتأمينها "

Urgent | Taliban militants remove the Afghan flag from inside the presidential palace in Kabul 11:29 AM · Aug 15, 2021·AJAEditorialApp

So it took around 6 hours 10 minutes Randoperson1 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Are there other sources beside twitter to confirm the amount of time for the city to fall? To be fair, it does not appear that the major news networks have talked about the timeframe. The only reference I could find was it took about a week for the country to fall.See https://www.ksl.com/article/50223558/taliban-sweep-into-afghan-capital-after-government-collapses Jurisdicta (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Kabul was a done deal once the Taliban was at the gates, it took no time, no resistance essentially, they drove right in. --Kathy262 (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

CH-46 N38TU (BuNo 154038)

On the 15th, a photograph was published by the AP https://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Afghanistan/e08a5d9334c14988954b2d1afb0669d4/24/0 of a Dep't of State Air Wing CH-46 N38TU (BuNo 154038) flying over Kabul - evacuating the US Embassy

It was noticed that 154038 was actually also photographed long ago on the deck of USS Hancock during Frequent Wind, during the evacuation of Saigon.

https://twitter.com/whatismoo/status/1426939056970244103

https://www.helis.com/database/cn/8983/

Seems like a direct comparison to The Fall of Saigon...

History doesn't repeat....though it does echo....doktorb wordsdeeds 05:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Move subsection?

I wanted to boldy move the "Fall of Saigon comparisons" subsection to the "Kabul Airport evacuation" section, considering the specific subject matter of each section is directly related. But I acknowledge one is more of a chronicle while the other is more about peoples' observations on the subject. Should the Saigon comparisons section remain as-is under "Reactions", or should it be moved to A) part of the "Kabul Airport evacuation" section or B) Given its own main section or C) Added to a new "Analysis" or "Evaluations" section above the Reactions section? RopeTricks (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd be most in favour of moving it to a sub-section of an new "Analysis"/"Evaluations" sections - the "Evacuation" section, I think it best left for chronicling what was happening in the city. And I think there is a difference between "Reactions" and "Evaluations" - reactions is more for the immediate expressions of relevant/prominent people/organisations/governments and immediate changes in policies and stuff (there should also probably be an "Aftermath" section at some point for longer-term changes) but evaluations is more of reflecting afterwards on the fact and trying to decide what went wrong, where it fits in history, future academic writings on the topic, etc... I don't know if those distinctions make sense? NHCLS (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. I'll create an analysis section, as I tend to agree with that as well. RopeTricks (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Change name to Fall of Kabul

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: not moved, per the snowball clause. (non-admin closure) Muhibm0307 (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Fall of Kabul (2021) → Fall of Kabul – Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change. Salamun44 (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - The page Fall of Kabul gives link to two articles named Siege of Kabul and Battle of Kabul, none of them are actually labelled as "Fall of Kabul". Also Fall of Kabul is now seen as official name used for this event. Kettleonwater has listed more than twenty sources that officially call this event "Fall of Kabul" and the other two articles Siege of Kabul is never called Fall of Kabul neither the Battle of Kabul is called Fall of Kabul. This 2021, Talibani capture is the event called Fall of Kabul. Salamun44 10:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Support, but keep disambiguation for the other events. Reasons given in section directly above. Kettleonwater (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose no urgent need for the change, while 'Fall of Kabul' is currently becoming the commonname, there is no reason to believe that it has yet become the recognised name among readers. Maintaining the year is a useful and 'low cost' clarifier until names have settled. God forbid what may happen in the coming days and weeks, but I'm old enough to remember when all media referred to the Fall of Srebrenica. Pincrete (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Agreeing with the sentiment above, the year reduces confusion. Once the event has concluded and a common name of the event has been decided in the public arena, the article should be changed to reflect. Deathstar3548 (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Pincrete, the year clarification is helpful while events are still unfolding. Readers might not know that the event has an "official" name yet. Niftysquirrel (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, not the only fall of Kabul - one in 2001 and one in 1996. No evidence presented this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose No need to remove the year. Since Kabul was sieged multiple times, after fall of Najibullah government in 1992, after seize of Kabul by Taliban militants in 1996, and now. The current title makes the event very clear. I think that media sources won't always use the year, because they publish current news, which is in fact happening in 2021. Also, it may save them time. Whereas Wikipedia articles are current, as well as have historical values. Few years from now, the title will make obvious sense to the readers, like the other articles Afghan Civil War (1992–1996), Afghan Civil War (1989–1992) etc. SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 13:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - even if the name "fall of Kabul" becomes the common name for the event, it will still require disambiguation as Kabul has fallen multiple times - including once before to the Taliban - thus the year should be maintained. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment - Most of the people are saying there have been multiple sieges of Kabul, for which I have created an article. Constantinople was also sieged many times, but there is only one article, Fall of Constantinople with an article for multiple sieges of Constantinople, in the same sense, there should be one page for Fall of Kabul with a link to multiple sieges of Kabul. Salamun44 15:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
History has had time to settle down and establish only one event as the Fall of Constantinople, that MAY WELL happen here, but it hasn't happened yet. Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, would support SNOW too - To early to tell what WP:RSes settle on as WP:COMMONNAME, no indication that consensus has settled on this particular fall of Kabul being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Keeping WP:NODEADLINE in mind, this request seems like a clear cut case of WP:RECENTISM. Melmann 16:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Support, there is currently no conflict to move the article. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Given the NODEADLINE, switch to Oppose per reasoning directly above. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Not the only fall of Kabul. Needs the 2021 in the name.Pyramids09 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Constantinople has also fallen many times, yet there is only one article named Fall of Constantinople with no 1453 written after it. That's not really a strong oppose.Salamun44 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Per reasoning above, Kabul has "fallen" (i.e. switched hands) several times in the past decades. Even if the other articles have names such as 'Battle' or 'Siege', this article needs the year to differentiate it as the outcome was the same, at least until the 'Fall of Kabul' definitively enters common usage as referring to the 2021 event. --Leviavery (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment - Most people are saying there have been multiple Kabul has fallen multiple times so 2021 should be after it. Constantinople has also fallen many times. Yet there is only one page for it with no 1453 named after it. In the same sense, there should be one page for Fall of Kabul with no year after it. The other two pages Siege of Kabul, is not even notable, it has only two sources, while there is less info about the "fall of Kabul" in the Battle of Kabul (1992–1996) article. This article is only about the Fall of Kabul. Second thing, some people are saying is "Fall of Kabul" is not the official term. Well, the page is already named Fall of Kabul so there is no point of that argument. Also, if you search Fall of Kabul, only this 2021 event will come. If you disagree or want to object on my opinions, you can reply Salamun44 21:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
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.

Titles of News articles not lining up with Titles in refs

Numerous titles in refs don't line up with the titles of the articles that they link to. Could I get some help in correcting this? One such example is the link from the ref to the article "Biden to address nation on deadly chaos in Afghanistan" by AP News. This is also true for the archive link. Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Image for infobox conflict?

Does anyone have the picture of Kabul citizens running trying to flee their home because of taliban arrival? link like this? and this? linkMhatopzz (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe use this picture? Mhatopzz (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyrighted images cannot be used. I suggest checking FlickR. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Commons has https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taliban-office.jpg but it is up for deletion. --Kathy262 (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Best shot is probably public domain .gov or .mil - and I doubt there will be much media published by the US military/Dept of State regarding the evac. Juxlos (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/ghani-leaves-afghanistan-taliban-enter-kabul-set-take-control
https://www.voanews.com/us-afghanistan-troop-withdrawal/civilians-diplomats-seek-evacuation-chaotic-kabul-airport
How about this? this picture is from voa Mhatopzz (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I dunno if Al Jazeera is on the ground there but I think it was Selfstudier who said they sometimes release their own images under CC licenses. If they have their own images from the area then it could be worth shooting them an email. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Be careful with VOA images. While content produced exclusively by VOA is in the public domain, they also host content that is not. For example, the lead images in the above 2 links are AP and AFP as per the watermarks. Also I wouldn't be so sure about there being no photos from the US military, it depends a lot what the photo shows. I personally suspect the widely shared photo of 600+ evacuees within the cargo plane came from the US military in some fashion although unfortunately the details don't seem to be clear so we can't use it yet. Nil Einne (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I've found an image. Zoozaz1 talk 23:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)?
Image 1
Image 2
And I found another image (the one Nil Einne mentioned above). Which of the two should we put in the infobox? Zoozaz1 talk 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence should not present the title of the article as if it were the established name of the event. It is not, and that would be misleading. Nothing is gained by forcing the article title into the lead sentence; see WP:AVOIDBOLD and WP:REDUNDANCY. The article title is not in the lead sentence of 2021 Taliban offensive either. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

A massive amount of sources are making reference to the Fall of Saigon in comparison (not to mention a very similar picture taken with the choppers), and as so it is being called the Fall of Kabul. Just Google searching it shows so many articles with that name. I think it's for certain that it will become the established name of the event, if it hasn't already. Here are some articles with the name: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Kettleonwater (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
There was no battle in the end, and journalists all over are using Fall. --Kathy262 (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: There is a difference between "fall of Kabul", which is what sources are using, and "Fall of Kabul", which a proper noun which they are not using. "Fall of Saigon" has become a proper noun in sources (though not close to universally, from my searches) over time, and Wikipedia should not force "Fall of Kabul" to be a capitalized, proper name until the sources do that. Keep the lead without bold text. — Goszei (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
There is no need to wait for "Fall of Kabul" to become a proper noun, it already has become one. Refer again to "Fall of Saigon": sometimes referred to as "the fall of Saigon" in passing: does not mean the proper name is not "Fall of Saigon". Eight of the 10 articles I linked use the direct phrase "the fall of Kabul", and 5 directly capitalise "Fall of Kabul" as such. Here are some additional articles that capitalise "Fall of Kabul" exactly: [1][2][3][4][5] Kettleonwater (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Corrected opening line as before. Don't want to escalate further, but this name is backed by articles. Sources won't refer to it in a different name in the future. Kettleonwater (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
That is disingenuous. The first four of those capitalize "Fall" because it is the first word in the title; none of them capitalize it in mid-sentence, and two expressly use lower case in mid-sentence. The fifth is in all-caps. Surtsicna (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't see the point in your argument. It's a noun regardless (why do you think four out of five of those don't start with "the"?). Will wait until further sources develop. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
They do not start with "the" because articles are usually left out of headlines. "Fall" is indeed a noun, but not all nouns are capitalized in English. The point in my argument is that the sources you cited do not use "Fall of Kabul" as a proper name. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
How is it not a proper name? There are numerous articles which refer to Fall of Saigon as "the fall of Saigon" both in headlines and paragraph text. [1][2][3] [4][5][6] There are certainly also numerous articles that capitalise Fall of Saigon as the start of their article headlines, too, and you also ignored my earlier sources which do capitalise Fall of Kabul later on in their article headlines. [1][2 (uses lowercase beforehand)] How is this not a noun? Kettleonwater (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Again, "fall" is a noun. And again, not all nouns need to be capitalized. Wikipedia uses sentence case; see WP:SENTENCECASE. The articles you cited are in headline case: all major words are capitalized. I am sorry that I have to be blunt, but all you are proving is your inability to comprehend basic grammar and orthography. Surtsicna (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Nice deflection. You're not understanding my argument: that "Fall of Kabul" is a name. You just said not all nouns need to be capitalised: therefore you no longer have any argument that "the fall of Kabul", or otherwise, "Fall of Kabul" is not the established name of the event, as you stated first. Kettleonwater (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
You do not have any argument that it is. The articles you cited prove absolutely nothing as they do not treat it as a proper name. Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Article 1: "The fall of Kabul". (in addition, an album that says "The fall of Kabul - in pictures" referring to it as an event. Article 2: "whether Fall of Kabul is his Saigon moment", Article 3: "In pictures: The fall of Kabul", Article 4: "The Fall of Kabul" (inspected for case), Article 5: "Fall of Kabul brings shame to the West", Article 7: "With The Rapid Fall Of Kabul"..., Article 8: "The West Prepares for the Fall of Kabul", Video: "Fall of Kabul: Rhea Chakraborty says 'smash the..." Article 12: "Fall of Kabul: Westerners rush to..." Article 14: "GOP Rep. McCaul: Fall Of Kabul Is "An Unmitigated Disaster Of Epic Proportions", Metro headline: "THE FALL OF KABUL"
These are all examples of articles treating the EVENT as a name in different tenses before and after it happened: whether "the fall of Kabul", "the Fall of Kabul", "Fall of Kabul" or otherwise. This argument is WP:LAME. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
If it's in-line paragraph text you want referencing the name, then Articles 3, 5, 7 and 8 all call the event "the fall of Kabul" in their article content. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting again. Article 4 does not refer to "the Fall of Kabul" but to "THE FALL OF KABUL" (all-caps). Others capitalize it as the first word. You have not proven that capitalization choices point to it being the established name. The "fall of Kabul" is one of the many descriptive terms, others including "seizure", "takeover", and "capture". None of them is a proper name. Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
You are glossing over my points again. Article 4 uses all caps for its CSS, and when inspecting element, the pure text is "The Fall of Kabul", I even labelled this for you, and you can see some sources do not capitalise it as the first word. We are going around in circles. Historical context usually assigns "Fall of X" to these events (please search Wikipedia) and "Fall of Kabul" is by far WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to this. You haven't even sourced your descriptive terms, while "Fall of Kabul" HAS been capitalised as I've shown. In addition, your argument earlier stated that event names do not need to be capitalised nouns to be viewed as names. You are contradicting yourself. Do you believe that when people say "the fall of Saigon", that that is not the name of the event? Kettleonwater (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
You still do not appreciate the difference between sentence case and headline case. You have not compared "Fall of Kabul" to other descriptive terms so it has not been shown to be the most common name; and in any case, it would still be merely a descriptive term rather than a proper name. You have not shown fall of Kabul to be capitalized in sentence case. I am not contradicting myself; you are failing to understand what we are writing about here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Answer my question. Are articles using "the fall of Saigon" not the name of the event? Because there are just as much using that case as in this case. Kettleonwater (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You have not shown me a single source to argue an alternative name, just a petty capitalisation argument, and I have shown you twenty one. Since there's nothing useful coming from this discussion, I'm taking to WP:CON. The lead-in has been changed by others anyway, it is obvious that this is the name for the event. Kettleonwater (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
None of your sources have shown that "fall of Kabul" is a proper name for the event. There is obviously no consensus that "Fall of Kabul" is a proper name, as is plain from Talk:Fall_of_Kabul_(2021)#Change_name_to_Fall_of_Kabul as well. As Goszei has argued, the overwhelming (if not exclusive) use of lower case points to "fall of Kabul" not being a proper name. Wikipedia should not mislead readers into thinking that the event has a proper name. Surtsicna (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Ghani in exile

Is Ashraf Ghani literally in exile, as the infobox says? --Mhhossein talk 14:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like he's personally in exile, nor his government (per his Facebook post). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, yeah, I would presume that in exile would imply that he is not allowed or unable to return. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The definition of exile according to https://www.merriam-webster.com/ is "the state or a period of forced absence from one's country or home". Given the events in Afghanistan, it is unlikely that his government will continue to be in power nor would he be recognized at home. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
He just fled, abandoned the country and did not indicate an intention to act as a part of a supposed government in exile. Not sure if that qualifies as being "in exile". Related discussion: Talk:Islamic Republic of Afghanistan#Government in exile? 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I had removed "exile" from the lead but someone has reinstated that despite the fact that it is disputed. --Mhhossein talk 14:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

We need to go by the sources, but plenty of people are in exile without being part of a government in exile. And precisely what will happen to these people if they return is not always clear. We even have a list of former leaders in exile, List of heads of state or government who have been in exile, many of these are/were not part of any government in exile. Yahya Jammeh is one example I believe, their article even has an exile section but there's no mention of them trying to act as government since they fled. And it was only in 2020 that they were warned not to return, in 2017 it was claimed they were free to return. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You said "We need to go by the sources". Does it mean there are sources saying Ghani is in exile now? --Mhhossein talk 05:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Sources call it exile [1][2]. Fearing you'll be killed if you return is a state of exile. --Kathy262 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
For clarity I have no idea what sources say beyond that now shown by Kathy262. My point of the comment was firstly to point out that while editor's are welcome to their opinions on what exile means, ultimately these are irrelevant since we need to go by whether sources say Ashraf Ghani is in exile. And then secondly, to point out since the previous discussion had all been basically personal opinions of what in exile means, my personal opinion a number of these points aren't very well supported by how the term is used since there's no requirement that it needs to be clear a person cannot return or was forced to leave, nor do they need to run a government in exile, to be "in exile". Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Reactions

Can we please get rid of the bullet-point reactions? Wikipedia is not meant to be a spokesperson for the world's governments which wish to express concern. A fourth of the article should not consist of such tripe. An encyclopedia is supposed to distill and summarize. The subject is the capture of the capital city of Afghanistan, and readers are not aided in understanding it by being told how "deeply worried" the Irish prime minister is. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support moving the bulk of the section to a separate article (along the lines of Reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden or Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests) and leaving a smaller, more condensed "Reactions" section with a Main template NHCLS (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I do not see why it needs to be on Wikipedia at all. Are all these reactions notable? Do they pass the general notability guideline? Wikipedia is not news. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why they shouldn't be notable - how the world (and note that it's not just governments chronicled in the section) reacts to a significant event is often significant on its own and it definitely passes GNG. Per What Wiki Is Not: "Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest," which arguably this could fall under. NHCLS (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I certainly concur with Surtsicna that the reaction of non-involved nations should not be in THIS article. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Pincrete, do you agree that reactions such as expressions of concern need not be in any article? The Swedish foreign's minister comment that the fall went "much faster than anyone had expected", for example, is hardly something that will go into history books. I do not see it as more relevant than the tweets of Bollywood celebrities. There is room in this article for all the reactions that affect the understanding of the topic. Surtsicna (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
If not in this article, I do think it belongs in a Reactions to the Fall of Kabul (2021) or similar article. Such reactions aid the reader in understanding how the world reacts to or feels about an event, which is the entire purpose of such articles. - Aoidh (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I see no point whatsoever in the 'reactions' of uninvolved parties, such as Surtsicna identified. These contain no political or other analysis and are probably drafted by aides anyhow. Even the reactions of 'heavily involved states' (UK + US + Afghanistan's neighbours + UN + ??) are not THAT informative at present. BUT I have no objection to these reactions being on a 'reactions to' page. Some editors seem to like these and who am I to object? Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Aoidha rando 01:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I've moved the bulk of the section to a separate page -Reactions to the 2021 Fall of Kabul. I've tried to keep only the most immediately relevant reactions on this page (countries that were directly involved in the fall/evacuations/UN Security Council permanent members/neighbours of Afghanistan), but it could probably use a second look to trim a little further. NHCLS (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

One of the desperate passengers who clung to the plane and plunged to his death was on the youth national football team Zaki Anwari

>https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2021/aug/19/one-person-who-fell-from-us-air-force-plane-was-member-of-afghan-national-football-team-2347111.html > At least seven people, including three Afghan nationals who clung to a US Air Force plane to escape Taliban rule, died on Monday in a melee at the Kabul airport, as hundreds of people scrambled to board flights in a desperate bid to get out of Afghanistan, following the toppling of the government led by President Ashraf Ghani.

>https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1006435744&plink=INTEREST&cooper=SBSNEWSMAIN

>https://www.tellerreport.com/sports/2021-08-19-%22afghan-national-football-player-crashes-in-us-transport-plane-from-kabul-airport%22.rk-coMB2gF.html

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPY_vrravhM

>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/08/19/afghan-teen-killed-landing-gear-us-evacuation-flight-promising/

Reports that one of the boys who died while clinging outside the U.S. transport plane to escape the Kabul was identified as a player of the Afghan youth national football team. Citing Afghanistan's Ariana News Agency, Reuters reported yesterday (19th) that Afghan national football team player Zaki Anwari fell from a U.S. C-17 transport plane that took off from Kabul Airport on the 16th and died yesterday (19th). --93.211.223.158 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Targeted killings

> https://www.dw.com/de/taliban-t%C3%B6ten-angeh%C3%B6rigen-eines-dw-journalisten/a-58910077 "Taliban töten Angehörigen eines DW-Journalisten" → "Taliban kill relative of a Deutsche Welle journalist."

> https://www.dw.com/de/weiter-dramatische-szenen-am-flughafen-kabul/a-58911741 → "Die amerikanischen Soldaten lassen nur ihre Leute durch." → "The American soldiers only let their people through." --93.211.223.158 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

"although it appears unlikely"

Such language doesn't appear to be in the cited sources, and even if it were, there is no reason to take a position on the likely outcome before it has come out. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed after checking citations. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Prayagk101 Please do not restore this section as there are several issues with it. Your edit has been reverted by at least two other editors [3] [4], so please refrain from edit warring. Any information that is added must adhere to WP:NPOV, and be reliably sourced to a preponderance of sources which you haven't satisfied.

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS, where it states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

Several of your sources seem to be copy pasted from elsewhere and some of them were 2008/2009, which had nothing to do with the subject of the article. In addition, you've used a quotation sourced to Imran Khan where he supposedly comments on the Taliban takeover, yet the source mentioned nothing about his opinion on the Taliban, and was a speech he gave on (quote) "the launch of the first phase of the Single National Curriculum (SNC) for students of grades one to five", which some other tabloids seem to have picked up on. This quote doesn't satisfy WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Another statement you added, namely Shah Mahmood Qureshi rejected allegations of human rights violations by Taliban as false propaganda is a source misrepresentation. As per Dawn, Qureshi was commenting on whether Taliban had banned girls' education, which he noted they haven't yet. The source says nothing on alleged "Pakistani support" given to the Taliban, or what this had to do with the "role of Pakistan" in the "Causes for the fall of Kabul". Due to the problematic synthesis and improper use of source material, please read up on the Wikipedia editing policies linked. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Mar4d, Several of your sources seem to be copy pasted from elsewhere What is wrong with reusing sources? The rest of this post I can get behind if the sources don't line up.
@Prayagk101: Ping for notification Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Spin-off Kabul Airport Evacuations?

The section on the Kabul Airport evacuations is already pretty long and, as the situation is still ongoing, is probably only going to keep getting bigger - at what point would it become worth spinning-off the bulk of that section into its own article? NHCLS (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

NHCLS, I don't know. When it reaches 40% of the article's total length? Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

4. Impact on Civilians: To embed the now infamous video of civilians clinging onto a US Army transport or not?

It is the opinion of this editor that the now infamous (https://twitter.com/i/status/1427202927383379973) be at least considered as an additional embed in section 4: Impact on Civilians. I feel that this video accurately describes the Fall of Kabul - in particular the closing of Kabul Airport to civilians - and should be considered for addition. Penumbra (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It cannot be added as it is under copyright. Wikipedia only accepts free images, and this is unlikely to qualify for fair use at least at this time. Zoozaz1 talk 23:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Zoozaz1, Could we link to it instead? Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Tyrone Madera, Yes, using Template:External links Zoozaz1 talk 23:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Zoozaz1, I think that's a cleanup template. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
That is correct. I was looking for Template:External media. Zoozaz1 talk 23:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
As important as the video is, it's copyrighted so it cannot be used. RopeTricks (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
NDTV can be used: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIQPSgnG3T0 Videos: 2 Fall Off Plane, Some Huddled On Aircraft Wing In Kabul Mayhem, 1,409,594 views, Aug 16, 2021. --93.211.223.158 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
RopeTricks, Could we link to it instead, like the Saigon photo? Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you can use external links like the Saigon comparison photo, yes. RopeTricks (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This should be in lead and body

And I recommend it be restored to the lead, RopeTricks

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Kabul_(2021)&curid=68481047&diff=1039979598&oldid=1039977283

soibangla (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The lead should be about the Fall of the city specifically to the Taliban and the Taliban's consolidation of power. Your entry's fine, I just don't think there's an absolute need to mention intelligence assessments from specific countries in the intro to the article, whether they're part of the war effort or not. Don't clog the intro. Keep it about the city's capture, not specific Western Intelligence findings and reports about the city. Simple enough? RopeTricks (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The paragraph succinctly addresses key questions regarding events immediately prior to the fall. The first paragraph touches on the Afghanistan campaign that began months earlier, while the last paragraph touches on the immediate aftermath of the fall. The removed paragraph fills that gap. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Address the key questions in the body, not the lead, where the rest of the American intelligence community's opinions/assessments matter the most. For this specific article anyway. But that's my personal opinion. If you think the Intelligence community's opinions/findings must absolutely be in the lead, make it fit beautifully. RopeTricks (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Body follows lead and I think I did make it fit beautifully. soibangla (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected update request for UK embassy 125 guards

Someone please review this update & make the edit:

The UK and US embassy contractors were working for GardaWorld. Can you please update the article to state that the contractor is GardaWorld in Canada, and add a link to GardaWorld? This appears twice on this page, look for "125 guards" and "125 Afghan guards". I updated the GardaWorld page with the information from TheGuardian news article highlighting this fact. There is also similar information on the Embassy of the United Kingdom, Kabul wiki article, so you could like to that page too.

Full disclosure: I updated the GardaWorld wiki page with this information to raise awareness that those 160 people are being left behind in danger. It's the least I could do. I am just a nobody from Canada without a wikipedia account.

Thanks in advance!

Update: Here is my "semi-protected update request" below. In the section "Kabul Aipport evacuations", in the paragraph starting with "On 19 August", please change this sentence from:

That same day, The Guardian reported that the British government had informed the 125 Afghan guards who had been guarding the British embassy in Kabul that they would not be offered asylum in the UK.[82]

to:

That same day, The Guardian reported that the British government had informed the 125 Afghan guards who had been guarding the Embassy of the United Kingdom, Kabul that they would not be offered asylum in the UK.[82] They were told that they were not eligible because they were hired by the Canadian private security firm GardaWorld, and “were not directly employed by her majesty’s government”. Meanwhile, over 100 guards doing the same work for GardaWorld under a separate contract for the Embassy of the United States, Kabul have been evacuated by the US.

Thanks!

 Done, but shorter for due weight reasons. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Update 2: Thanks Ganbaruby for the edit! I hope they can be safe.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

"including Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands" (Denmark included in the paragraph "Kabul Airport evacuations"

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/denmark-help-allies-with-afghanistan-evacuation-2021-08-17/ Nick3333333 (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

End of war in infobox

In an analogy with the Fall of Saigon article, there should be "End of the War in Afghanistan" (linking to War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)) added under the "Status" in the infobox and perhaps "Status" should be changed to "Result" because the event has finished. 176.62.32.5 (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree and will get this done now. --Weaveravel (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions regarding the legitimacy of the name as "the fall(s)"

I don't understand why we should call such an event "the fall". The US military took over the country many years ago in the form of aggression as a foreign superpower, in which case Kabul has already fallen to the hands of the US. If we say a city, or a region, falls, it must be either conquered or forcefully occupied by an external force. For example, the fall of Shanghai during the WW2 occurred after the Japanese forces moved into the city. Where is the external force regarding this specific event? Shouldn't we call it some kind of a "restoration"?

But if we consider Taliban as one of the parties involved in a civil war, that's another story. But even in that case, the switch of actual territorial control from one party to another, like the subject event, should not be called a "fall". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.107.234 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't understand why it is so indisputable. In my opinion, the word "fall" is despective. And as I wrote in a thread above, it would be the opposite of "liberation". That is why I proposed to use "Capture of Kabul", what would be neutral.--Andres arg (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Because "Fall of Kabul" appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, and I would present an argument to that effect in any RM. However, there does seem to be a decent undercurrent, both here and in AfD, against such an argument, and it would be worth holding an RM to settle the matter, at least until academic sources on the matter come out in the years to come. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote Content

Where should the hatnote link to?

BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  • My personal preference is for one of the two "Falls", as the article is titled "Fall ...", and against the list, as it isn't as easy to navigate as a disambiguation page, but as the hat note has changed a few times recently, I thought I should hold a quick discussion rather than making a bold change. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2021

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: not moved RFZYNSPY talk 17:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

Fall of Kabul (2021) → Reclamation of Kabul (2021) – Using "Fall" to describe the change in occupation of Kabul from NATO forces to Taliban does not make sense. This event isn't akin to a village being overrun by unorganized looters, left to become a ghost town. This is a change in occupancy. I find the word "Reclamation" to be an apt replacement for "Fall" as reclamation acknowledges that: A. Kabul was Claimed by Taliban forces, not lost or fallen to Taliban forces (which would imply that the Taliban were an external aggressor in the conflict) and B. The Taliban were a force already present in Afghanistan and that the group has a history of occupancy in the region (hence, reclamation). Reclamation is, in my view, a completely neutral word. It succinctly tells readers that the city was claimed once more (by the Taliban), without implication for or against the change in governance.

I am not making this request to make light of a conflict or try to bias the article toward one political viewpoint. I sincerely believe that the moving of this article to "Reclamation of Kabul (2021)" or something other than "Fall of Kabul (2021) makes more sense and provides a clearer description of the event than the current title.

I am not an expert in linguistics or international policy! So I would appreciate discussion around this proposal. If anyone agrees that the name needs to be changed from "Fall" but that "Reclamation" is an inept replacement, feel free to argue your case here as well. RFZYNSPY talk 03:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I would strongly oppose "Reclamation" as a WP:NPOV violation; reclamation typically carries positive overtones, ones that are only apporpriate if the title is WP:COMMONNAME. I would also oppose a move in general, on the basis of COMMONNAME; it seems that at this time, the name most commonly used for the event is "Fall"[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. However, it is worth noting that use is not ubiqutous; Reuters appears to be avoiding the term, along with a few other agencies. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Fall of Kabul is better (dare i say WP:COMMONNAME at this point) because the city was seized by Taliban militants, resulting in the collapse of the Ashraf Ghani government, and disintegration of organized ANA resistance. What happened in Kabul on August 15 fits the historical definition of a city "falling" to an outside force, with "falling" usually meaning being seized/taken/captured by force or subversion by an entity not of the ruling incumbent government. Also, googling "Fall of Kabul" results in countless results from Reputable Sources, videos, blogs, news reports etc., all referring to the event as the "Fall of Kabul". Googling "Reclamation of Kabul" yields barely anything at all. So far I see zero reason why "Reclamation" is a better term than "Fall" whatsoever. Additionally, I see "reclamation" as far LESS neutral and objective than "Fall". RopeTricks (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I will admit that "Reclamation of Kabul" is not widely used by news articles. That doesn't mean, however, that we need to value a term's popularity over it's clarity and accuracy. I see the event as less of a city falling (implying collapse and disintegration, such as in the fall of Rome) and more of a filling of a power vacuum created by the exit of current occupying forces. It might be accurate to say that the Ashraf Ghani government fell to Taliban powers but to say the city itself "fell" when governance was changed, no matter how strong the conflict that changed the governance, is not wholly accurate. The city was claimed by other powers. Those other powers have governed the city before, hence my use of reclaimed. If this word is not perfect, I argue that it's surely more accurate than "Fall".
Speaking on "reclamation" being "far LESS neutral and objective than 'Fall'", I would appreciate some clarity on your point. How is the word "reclamation" less neutral? Do you think it describes the Taliban in a more positive light than the Ashraf Ghani? And do you think "Fall" might shine an equally positive light on the existing NATO occupying forces in Afghanistan? (Again, I'd like to clarify that I am not trying to promote this page move as a way to make the article more biased toward any of the political groups in Afghanistan). RFZYNSPY talk 04:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
"I see the event as less of a city falling...and more of a filling of a power vacuum created by the exit of current occupying forces" That's where we differ. I see Ghani's government collapsing as a form of the capital city "falling" to non-government, non-internationally recognized, un-elected militant forces. The city doesn't need to be physically ravaged and destroyed by the Taliban to be considered "fallen" to them. Also you referring to Ghani's government as simply an "occupying" entity, and that the Taliban are "reclaiming" it insinuates to a global audience that the Taliban's capture was simply them reclaiming what's rightfully or justifiably theres, which is not the case and is definitely not the attitudes of most people at the time of the event. That's why I see "reclamation" as far less accurate, it adds additional, unnecessary confusion to global readers and is likely a violation of WP:NPOV. This is a case where the most popular term IS the most accurate, for a reason. What's the reason? Most people agree with it. Why? Because its the most organic name for the event. Why is it the most organic? Because its the most apt description of the event, as agreed by an apparent consensus among not just editors, but the general public. RopeTricks (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Correction: Sorry I glossed over you referring to NATO as the occupying force, not the Ghani government. Disregard the "you referring to Ghani's government as simply an 'occupying' entity" section of my sentence above. RopeTricks (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 'oppose' using 'reclamation'. Commenting on the part about "Taliban were an external aggressor" and Taliban being already in Afghanistan, and giving some viewpoints to consider. 1) Since we're talking about the city, then it's technically true that an external party have come in to take over the city. If we were to call it 'Fall of Afghanistan', then maybe the argument that the Taliban isn't external would be a stronger argument. The soldiers came from outside the city and entered and took over Kabul. 2) If we are talking about the government, then the "Fall of Kabul government", or even "Fall of Afghan government" would make sense, since the government was taken over. 3) If we really want a NPOV term, how about "transfer of control of Kabul to the Taliban"? Strictly speaking, it's linguistically correct, without passing any judgement on whether the transfer is good or bad; or even the means of transfer. 4) Overall, I agree with the other commentator, historically, "Fall of ___" is the usual term used for when a city has been taken over. - Signed, I'm the same person as the one about the 125 GardaWorld guards in the talk above above.
  • Oppose because of Common Name Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per comments above and Fall of Kabul disamb. Aeonx (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. — Czello 07:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BilledMammal, RopeTricks, I'm the same person as the one about the 125 GardaWorld guards in the talk above above, Tyrone Madera, Aeonx and Czello. Would also support Fall of Kabul (2021) → Fall of Kabul as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with a hatnote directing users to See Siege of Kabul disambiguation page containing all the entries that also appear in the three-entry Fall of Kabul dab page which should be merged into the all-inclusive Siege of Kabul dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Reclamation" is unnatural and nonstandard and may mean "land reclamation". Also as per WP:COMMONNAMEHariboneagle927 (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent: @RFZYNSPY: you make a thoughtful point about what "fall" means, and it is valid to ask if there is a better way to word it. "Reclamation", however, feels like an odd word. "Fall" feels more commonplace. Also, while "Reclamation" might sound neutral to some, may sound non-neutral to some others. I appreciate the sentiment behind the proposal, but respectfully, I am not ready to support the specific proposal of "reclamation". Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I wonder if something like Taliban takeover of Kabul (2021) might work better? Al83tito (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • 'takeover': I agree this is more NPOV than 'fall'. This implies 1 force taking power away from another force against their will. And it solves the NPOV problem with using the words 'fall' or 'liberation'. Both fall & liberation are judgemental words written by the victors & losers in history. - Signed, I'm the same person as the one about the 125 GardaWorld guards in the talk above above.
  • Strong Oppose as others have already said why. The status quo is already the most ideal title.--Weaveravel (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input! It's clear that a consensus has been reached to not consider this move from "Fall of Kabul (2021)" to "Reclamation of Kabul (2021)". I still stand by my opinion that "Fall" could be replaced by a better word, but using the word "Reclamation" as a substitute is clearly a personal opinion that is not shared by others. I will be closing the discussion now. The argument that "Fall" could be replaced, however, may still be worth making in a new topic. Perhaps we could try to list some alternatives to "Fall" and rate them based on their prevalence, accuracy, NPOV, and succinctness.

Again, thank you for contributing to this discussion. Pinging @BilledMammal, RopeTricks, Roman Spinner, and Al83tito:

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.

Consensus whether "Fall of Kabul", "the fall of Kabul", etc. is the established name of the event

Given a back and forth with earlier discussion, can it be established that "Fall of Kabul", "fall of Kabul", "the fall of Kabul", or otherwise, is the established name of the event? I want to highlight the lead-in sentence with the bold name. Given past historical examples (Fall of Saigon, Fall of Constantinople, Fall of the Berlin Wall) which have absolutely no discussion about the established name of their events, I am surprised at the petty argument I am facing. Please give me a sanity check.

Here are twenty sources which refer to the event as "fall of Kabul", "the fall of Kabul", "Fall of Kabul" or otherwise: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].

Here are five more that capitalise it directly: [21][22][23][24][25]

This situation can especially be compared with the Fall of Saigon, and a lot of the historical context is paralleled, so it can be certain that this event would be called this way in the future. The argument is that a number of these articles "use headline case", or are capitalised at the beginning of a sentence, or use the phrase "the fall of Kabul" to name the event. However, articles describing the Fall of Saigon tend to use "the fall of Saigon", and the name is undisputed - similarly, other articles naming the event tend to use headline case or are capitalised at the beginning of a sentence: here are some [1][2][3] [4][5][6] There is also an argument that some articles describe the name differently, but there are no sources given and the number of sources I have given should win by WP:COMMONNAME default. Not to mention other historical examples which were once referred to "fall of kabul" at some point (see Fall of Kabul)

I have still given sources with the exact capitalisation Fall of Kabul not at the start of the article headline, where there are lowercase words beforehand, but the peer ignores these sources. Please give me some consensus on this. Thanks. Kettleonwater (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The sanity check says that a more appropriate name of the article should be "Liberation of Kabul (2021)". The NATO forces were occupiers, who participated in a war of aggression against Afghanistan and who set up their puppet phoney government of Afghanistan, which fell apart even before the occupiers' military forces fled the country. --78.98.75.232 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I won't remove this comment since someone else has referenced it, but a reminder that talk pages are not a forum for discussion of an article's subject. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Noticed that someone has changed the lead-in and cited eight sources. I expect it to be reverted by the peer but that's at least consensus that the name has stuck and all international sources are now using this name. Kettleonwater (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe "Fall of Kabul" is biased, like it would be ""Liberation of Kabul" as well. The ones who win would feel they are liberating the city, so in my opinion the word "capture" would be more neutral (Capture of Kabul). It is a capture, for some it is a "fall" and for others it is a "liberation". If we want to be neutral, then we don't have to take a side.--Andres arg (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Aoidh has reverted my change to the capitalization, saying that the "f" is usually capitalized, which I don't really see the evidence for. Of the first 20 sources cited:
  • Lowercase "f" when used outside a title-case or all-caps headline: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19
  • Ambiguous because it's only used in a title-case or all-caps headline: 4, 16, 20
  • Doesn't actually use the phrase: 6, 10, 18
Of the "five more that capitalise it directly":
  • Lowercase "f" when used outside a title-case or all-caps headline: 21
  • Ambiguous because it's only used in a title-case or all-caps headline: 22, 23, 34, 25
In other words, the "f" is not usually capitalized; all the cited sources establish is that it's capitalized in contexts where any word would be capitalized. Can we change this back to the correct capitalization backed up by RS? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Surtsicna and I argued the same point in the "Lead sentence" thread above that User:Tamzin makes now. The title of the article is descriptive, not proper, and so the lead sentence should (1) at the very least not have "Fall of Kabul", but rather "fall of Kabul", and (2) in my opinion, should have no bold and follow MOS:AVOIDBOLD for purely descriptive titles ("Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, (fell to/was captured by) Taliban..."). I believe there is a consensus. — Goszei (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I would also like to register my support with Andres arg's comment above about the POV expressed by "Fall of Kabul". Because we are making a descriptive title, it needs to be neutral -- I suggest "Capture of Kabul (2021)", akin to the descriptive title Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges or Capture of Malacca (1511). — Goszei (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I would also argue it should be "the fall of Kabul" and not "the Fall of Kabul", following the lead of reliable sources as demonstrated by Tamzin. Mz7 (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I also think it should, at the very least, be de-capped to "The fall of Kabul". I also agree that "fall" is too POV. There is no clear evidence of COMMONNAME and a COMMONNAME will not emerge for several years. In the meantime, I think we should change the title to Capture of Kabul (2021), which is just as good a candidate for COMMONNAME according to Google searches. The first sentence should begin with "The capture of Kabul by Taliban forces on 15 August 2021 was the culmination of a military offensive against the Afghan government that began in May 2021." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and WP:BOLDly modified it to the lowercase "the fall of Kabul" in light of the forgoing discussion. Mz7 (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
"Capture of Kabul" sounds good to me, especially with this page getting to WP:ITN now. >>BEANS X2t 17:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove from subsection "Ukraine", please

"The collapse has led to Joe Biden receiving immense criticism, and has challenged Biden's strategic policy of the US pro-activeness in aiding its allies". 89.8.109.198 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Why was evacuation so slow?

Has anyone seen any sources that address why the evacuation was so slow? I've seen some calculations that show no matter your starting assumptions for the operational details given that the US has 223 C-17s in inventory, they could have easily evacuated all 100,000+ people in 1-2 days. What I've seen so far is either not a quotable source or too vague. I know this would go in the reaction/criticism section. Greenbe (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Before we start this discussion, could you provide some sources that question why it was "so slow"? (Apologies for the quotes; I'm not sure I would agree it was slow, hence why I felt the need to quote rather than state it myself) BilledMammal (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

Please reformatting "15 August 2021" as (start date/df=y/2021/08/15). 114.125.62.223 (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks. Eevee01(talk) 11:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Stuart Scheller

Why was the LtCol Stu Scheller content deleted instead of merged as discussed?174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Comparisons

What is the point of so many comparisons?Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

07504186311

Sidra nzar sahib 31.25.139.13 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Fall of Kabul?

What an orientalist title. As if the rest of the world doesn’t see it as the fall of the US in Kabul. Should the naming scheme be so political, and so western. 39.41.182.27 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Not at all what it was, considering that America had a withdrawal from most of the country prior to this. Technically speaking this was a fight between Afghanistan and the Taliban. Therefore, its the fall of Kabul. Saying this is some how the "Fall of the US iN Kabul" is an extremely political title and pushes for a biased interpretation. Had the US never signed the 2020 deal with the Taliban and stopped supporting the Afghanistan government then there was no way for the taliban to win. Therefore, it wasn't the US falling to the taliban
Also not sure why you call it "orientalist title" which would mean its from the East, primarily Asia. But then at the end of your argument call it a western scheme. So which is it, Asian or Western? The Introvert Next To You (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

2400:C600:358C:DAC:1:0:1160:CF1C (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 Not done. You haven't specified what edit you want. Maproom (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

"The endeavor to evacuate all these civilians did not go uncontested, the Taliban did not comply with the airlift and tensions surrounding the airport were very high. On August 26, a suicide attack killed 13 US soldiers and 170 civilians at the international airport" -> "The endeavor to evacuate all these civilians did not go uncontested, the Taliban did not comply with the airlift and tensions surrounding the airport were very high. On August 26, a suicide ISIS bomber killed 13 US soldiers and 170 civilians at the international airport"

Rationale: this is misleading the readers due to the preceding sentence. At first, I thought the Taliban did the suicide attack, but it was actually ISIS. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:18F8:5192:898E:3E4E (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done with formatting change Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 02:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Title

Isn't a more neutral title "Capture of Kabul"? Definitely not a Taliban supporter, but "Fall" is definitely from side's perspective. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence of the paragraph needs to be qualified

The 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, described the execution of the withdrawal of troops as the greatest "humiliation" in the history of his country and stated that he would have first taken out the American civilians and diplomats, then their Afghan collaborators, all the advanced equipment of the Afghan National Army donated by the US army and in last place take out the military, all this with the condition that the Taliban complied with the US–Taliban deal. The former president is also against the interventionist policy of his country, describing it as a "horrible decision" to have intervened in the Middle East and that it has not improved the situation in the last 20 years.

Trump has not always been against "the interventionist policy of his country" and his position on the US led Invasion of Afghanistan has shifted several times.


Add this sentence: "President Trump has made various statements over the long period of US involvement in Afghanistan contradicting his sometimes stated position opposing US involvement. In 2015, he stated: “We made a mistake going into Iraq. I’ve never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan,”

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/politics/donald-trump-afghanistan-war-not-a-mistake/index.html Gelankin (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fall_of_Kabul_(2021)/Archive_1&oldid=1246748989"