From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Splitting proposal

I propose that the info about the 29 August drone strike in the section US airstrikes be split into a separate page called August 29, 2021 Kabul drone strike. The content of the current page has become too much about that particular drone strike (more than a third of the article by my estimate, 7 out of 20 paragraphs, which includes the lede but excluding small single sentence paras.) rather than the bombing. And there's sufficient information to create a new article with how the strike happened, the military's wrong claims being investigated, reactions to the strike, the military's own investigation. Even the Congress is going to establish multiple investigative committees to investigate it [1].

The strike is certainly notable on its own. Not just in the news but in the real word itself as politicians, human rights organisations, the White House, Congress, have come out about it. Besides the civilian ire which has also affected Biden's ratings. The article naming proposal might not seem suitable to some, so you are free to suggest your own name. Info about the strike can be retained here in brief. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 23:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose My judgement would be that AT PRESENT, it makes more sense to keep the drone strike within this attack article - to which the strike was after all an intended response. If coverage continues/increases that could change. Pincrete ( talk) 06:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply

The drone strike has had massive coverage and fallout. Probably nearly as much if not more than the attack. There's no sense in keeping these two together. While the attack did motivate the US to start conducting drone strikes against ISIS, that's the only connection. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 18:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Support as the strike has received significant media coverage, from across the political spectrum. We have articles on much smaller violent attacks, along with much less political fallout from this- I'm surprised there aren't is an article already. There would be enough sources to make an article on it even before it was confirmed that zero ISIS members were killed in the attack. HadesTTW (he/him •  talk) 14:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply

:support, as seen above. someone did try to write one about a month ago but it was declined: Draft:2021 drone strike against ISIS-K. i would've titled it 2021at Kabul drone strike and the year might be superfluous if there is no other Kabul drone strike article on Wikipedia. 74.46.254.44 ( talk) 21:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply

after thinking about it, as a tertiary source, the event can only be included here if the totally unbiased media gives it significant coverage. they don't seem to be doing so, so i've changed my mind but (fwiw) i don't think it's worth opposing. if it is written, it will be written. :) 74.46.254.44 ( talk) 21:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose The drone strike was a direct response to the article subject, so keeping it here is appropriate. Secondly, per WP:Splitting, the modest character count of this article (11,644) is not enough to consider a separate article at this time. However, in the future if the drone strike ever does expand to an article length subject, I would recommend simply calling it 2021 Kabul drone strike. I understand the reason for the clunky proposed title is the existence of another August 2021 drone strike in Kabul, but realise that the first one was not as notable, and hardly anyone would be looking for it anyway. Havradim ( talk) 01:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Deaths from US gunfire in the initial attack

Under the Attack section, it states "The Pentagon acknowledged the possibility of US responsibility for some deaths in a news conference on 28 August." and then sites a New York times article about a later airstrike. Is there a source for these deaths or can we qualify this sentence with the later denials by US Central Command? https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2022/02/04/investigation-finds-no-gunfire-injuries-followed-bombing-that-killed-13-us-troops-in-afghanistan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.119.135 ( talk) 21:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Type of bomb?

Why is there no information on the type of bomb used? Google search came up with nothing which seems strange. As far as I am aware this is the deadliest suicide bombing in human history committed by a single person, but there is very little information about it. Yodabyte ( talk) 05:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

AFAIK, such details never emerged, largely due to the chaotic circumstances surrounding the event. Pincrete ( talk) 06:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Several novels have been published following the dramatic US evacuation from the country. Those titles include: "Life and Death at Abbey Gate", "Saving Aziz", "Always Faithful", and "Kabul". [1] AfghanistanEducation ( talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: see WP:PRIMARY, need some reason to believe these books are notable Cannolis ( talk) 18:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

References

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Splitting proposal

I propose that the info about the 29 August drone strike in the section US airstrikes be split into a separate page called August 29, 2021 Kabul drone strike. The content of the current page has become too much about that particular drone strike (more than a third of the article by my estimate, 7 out of 20 paragraphs, which includes the lede but excluding small single sentence paras.) rather than the bombing. And there's sufficient information to create a new article with how the strike happened, the military's wrong claims being investigated, reactions to the strike, the military's own investigation. Even the Congress is going to establish multiple investigative committees to investigate it [1].

The strike is certainly notable on its own. Not just in the news but in the real word itself as politicians, human rights organisations, the White House, Congress, have come out about it. Besides the civilian ire which has also affected Biden's ratings. The article naming proposal might not seem suitable to some, so you are free to suggest your own name. Info about the strike can be retained here in brief. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 23:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose My judgement would be that AT PRESENT, it makes more sense to keep the drone strike within this attack article - to which the strike was after all an intended response. If coverage continues/increases that could change. Pincrete ( talk) 06:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply

The drone strike has had massive coverage and fallout. Probably nearly as much if not more than the attack. There's no sense in keeping these two together. While the attack did motivate the US to start conducting drone strikes against ISIS, that's the only connection. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 18:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Support as the strike has received significant media coverage, from across the political spectrum. We have articles on much smaller violent attacks, along with much less political fallout from this- I'm surprised there aren't is an article already. There would be enough sources to make an article on it even before it was confirmed that zero ISIS members were killed in the attack. HadesTTW (he/him •  talk) 14:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply

:support, as seen above. someone did try to write one about a month ago but it was declined: Draft:2021 drone strike against ISIS-K. i would've titled it 2021at Kabul drone strike and the year might be superfluous if there is no other Kabul drone strike article on Wikipedia. 74.46.254.44 ( talk) 21:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply

after thinking about it, as a tertiary source, the event can only be included here if the totally unbiased media gives it significant coverage. they don't seem to be doing so, so i've changed my mind but (fwiw) i don't think it's worth opposing. if it is written, it will be written. :) 74.46.254.44 ( talk) 21:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose The drone strike was a direct response to the article subject, so keeping it here is appropriate. Secondly, per WP:Splitting, the modest character count of this article (11,644) is not enough to consider a separate article at this time. However, in the future if the drone strike ever does expand to an article length subject, I would recommend simply calling it 2021 Kabul drone strike. I understand the reason for the clunky proposed title is the existence of another August 2021 drone strike in Kabul, but realise that the first one was not as notable, and hardly anyone would be looking for it anyway. Havradim ( talk) 01:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Deaths from US gunfire in the initial attack

Under the Attack section, it states "The Pentagon acknowledged the possibility of US responsibility for some deaths in a news conference on 28 August." and then sites a New York times article about a later airstrike. Is there a source for these deaths or can we qualify this sentence with the later denials by US Central Command? https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2022/02/04/investigation-finds-no-gunfire-injuries-followed-bombing-that-killed-13-us-troops-in-afghanistan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.119.135 ( talk) 21:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Type of bomb?

Why is there no information on the type of bomb used? Google search came up with nothing which seems strange. As far as I am aware this is the deadliest suicide bombing in human history committed by a single person, but there is very little information about it. Yodabyte ( talk) 05:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

AFAIK, such details never emerged, largely due to the chaotic circumstances surrounding the event. Pincrete ( talk) 06:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Several novels have been published following the dramatic US evacuation from the country. Those titles include: "Life and Death at Abbey Gate", "Saving Aziz", "Always Faithful", and "Kabul". [1] AfghanistanEducation ( talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: see WP:PRIMARY, need some reason to believe these books are notable Cannolis ( talk) 18:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

References


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook