Talk:Baghdad International Airport

Renaming the airport
I think we should be cautious about renaming the airport in the article. While I for one look forward to the day that Saddam is no longer the legal head of government, in strict international law he still is, for the time being. As such, to accept the renaming of an airport in a state by an external army who has conquered it, as opposed to using the official name as given by the still lawful (even if repulsive) government of Iraq, is highly POV, because it is accepting the validity of the US invasion, something which many states, many users and many lawyers say is wrong in international law. In one week or two perhaps, when Saddam is overthrown and is no longer the legal head of state, the article name should be changed. But to change it ahead of that is premature and in implicitly accepting the validity of the renaming, wikipedia is coming down on one side of a conflict. As an encyclopædia we should not be doing that, any more than we should say have renamed an article on the Falklands Islands the Malvinas after Argentina's capture of them, or accepted Iraqi renaming of Kuwait a decade ago. The best solution in these instances is to only change nomenclature when a legally authorised state makes the change and too many legal questions arise over the whole Iraq war. Caution is always the best approach. Perhaps the article should simply be called 'Baghdad Airport', stating that the Iraq government calls it 'X' while the Americans, who now have control, call it 'Y', and leaving it up to later developments before formally accepting the renaming. Saddam's fall is inevitable, but we still have to wait for it. Wiki is an encyclopædia, not a newspaper and we have to perform to encyclopædic standards, not the sort of POV editorialising that many papers follow, depending on their stance in the war, and whether the readership they sell to are pro- or anti-war. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:51 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

I've NPOVed the article over nomenclature by using both terms in the opening paragraph, used the neutral Baghdad airport (small 'a') in the body of the text, and at the end explained why there are now two names, one used by Iraq and one used by the Coalition forces, with the final decision on which name is ultimately used depending on the survival or otherwise of the Saddam regime. In that way, the article doesn't take sides on the issue of which is the right name, merely explains what is the current sitiuation from a coalition and arab perspective, while stating what will probably be the decider on which name survives. When Saddam falls and the coalition wins, their name by definition will then have international legitimacy and can be unambiguously used. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:13 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

After discussing it with Ed Poor (who initially changed the name) I have renamed the article Baghdad airport. The reasons are:


 * Technically the US does not have the legal authority to change the name;
 * There are now two rival names, one used by the Coalition, one by Arabs;
 * Baghdad airport (lowercase 'a') is the most neutral name as it doesn't pick one of the rival names, and describes in generic form what it is, ie an airport in Baghdad. Using lowercase 'airport' makes it clear this is not the name of the airport, just a description. When there is an outcome to the war, and a new Iraqi government with the legal authority to decide on the airport's name, the article can then be renamed. Doing it this way avoids making wiki appear biased in favour of either side, which is the very definition of NPOV. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:32 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

I'm curious: does the airport renaming meaning anything to anyone besides Wikipedians dilligently striving for neutrality? I feel like, if I were pro-Sadam, I might view the renaming not as a gross offsense, but rather as a bumbling error, by those "idiot invaders", who refuse to learn the "correct name". --Ryguasu 02:47 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * The question is not risking offence - the question is remaining NPOV. - Montréalais


 * I guess I should clarify: I'm not complaining about the change to the article. I'm asking, in idle curiosity, which citizens of the world are bothered by the name change, and why. --Ryguasu

It is a very clever propagandistic psychological move, one which many states follow in war situations. You seize a major place of importance and rename it - it is your way of sending the message 'you're no longer in control mate. Screw you'. Towards Saddam, it is sending the two-fingers. Towards the rest of Iraq who may hear about it on international radio broadcasts, it is a way of saying 'See. His days are numbered. His name is gone from the airport. It will be all gone soon.' To the rest of the world it is a way of saying - 'look at how much we control! We are winning this and are systematically stripping down his symbols.' It is like if the Russians invaded the US (OK - I know their army these days couldn't fight its way into a snickers bar) and renamed Ronald Reagan Airport. Imagine how that would be seen. Or when Argentina renamed the Falklands Islands, again to say 'fuck you, Britain. These are ours now.'

But it is all for show. The US has no legal right to name an Iraqi milk-churn, let alone an airport. Only an Iraqi government can do that. And Saddam for the time being is still running the Iraqi government. Wiki using what is not actually the real name but a propagandistic name would be decidedly POV. This deliberately factual name Baghdad+airport avoids problems with going back to Saddam International (which would produce a renaming war!) or of using a propagandistic US alternative. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:03 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Oy. I renamed without seeing the discussion. I'll redirect back to Baghdad airport. Sorry. -- Zoe

What do legalities, especially international law, have to do with anything? Wikipedia is about de facto (which is NPOV) not de jure (which is the legal POV). We are not an organ of the UN. Also, the airport is an international airport in any case. Does anyone here have any doubts that the airport will be Baghdad International Airport for some time? Is there any evidence Saddam is still running anything at this point? dml


 * Not true. De facto is irrelevent if at 4.17 the US claims authority and at 4.19 the Saddam regime claims authority. Balance requires following accuracy not instant 'this minute this it looks like this' reactions in terms of nomenclature.. The accurate fact is no-one but a state or its agents can rename an entity of a state such as an airport. The US renaming was a clever propagandistic stunt, no more. If (and though I am anti-war I do hope the it is a when now) Saddam is replaced, a new authority can and will decide the name of the airport. It isn't wikipedia's job to play a PR role for a clever US propaganda stunt. (And no, I'm not taking an anti-American pot-shot. If I was in their shoes, I would do just the same.) When a new name is chosen we can use it.


 * Just because an airport is international does not mean an airport has the word 'international' in the title. Heathrow is and doesn't. Charles de Gaulle is and doesn't. Dublin is and doesn't.


 * What the blazes has the UN to do with anything? This is standard procedure in using nomenclature. It has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the UN. I could turn around this minute and rename wikipedia Án Leabhar (gaelic for The Book). But it would be irrelevant, because I don't have ownership. The Iraqi state alone has ownership of the airport. Temporary possession is held by the US army. It can run it. It can paint it. It can dance the can-can down the runways if it wants to. But only the owners, whomever is the Iraqi government, can rename it. We have three choices; use the US propagandistic name (which is POV and therefore a non-runner), use the name given by the entity currently the Iraq government (Saddam's regime) (which is controversial) or a totally neutral generic name based on location+what it is. In a conflict situation, the least worst option is for the moment to use a neutral name pending an outcome to the war based on two facts; it is an airport, it is outside Baghdad, therefore it is Baghdad airport (with the 'a' in airport deliberately in lowercase because this does not claim to be the name, merely a descriptive reference. It is utterly irrelevant that Baghdad International Airport is the likely name in the future. The fact is it is not that now, which means we cannot use it unless we accept the claims of the US to be entitled to rename it, which runs contrary to international law and procedure, is not accepted by most in the middle east and would be seen, rightly, as expressing a POV on US claims, which no encyclopædia in wartime can do if it was to retain credibility as a NPOV publication. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:01 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

There are still substantial doubts in many quarters, and there is indeed evidence that Saddam is still running some things - Baghdad and the Iraqi army, most significantly. I believe this article should be left at its current "neutral" location; it can always be moved weeks or months from now, when the fighting is over and a clear authority has been determined. It's too early and uncertain right now to settle on anything, for all we know tomorrow the airport could be completely destroyed by some unexpected weapon of mass destruction rendering the naming issue entirely moot. Bryan

The April 4th event should be removed. One wouldn't want someone to look at this article later in the future and actually believe the the Iraqis were seriously planning a counter-attack on the airport. A counter-attack will never happen (at least not one significant enough that it can even be called an attack), and there is no need to just quote Iraqi propaganda (or US propaganda). If we quoted Iraqi propaganda every day, the articles would be a mess. Lets just report on the facts, not on speculation. The Iraqis have not coutner-attacked YET, so why mention that they SAY they are going to counter-attack. And by "they" I really only mean the information minister because he's the only one that says this ludicrous things. dave 07:05 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that the Iraqi information minister promised to re-take the airport. The article doesn't speculate on whether this promise will be fulfilled. A month down the line (assuming your predictions are correct) people may be interested in this as an example of Iraqi propaganda. We can report US propaganda in a similar way (arguably, we already do at possible death of Saddam Hussein). Martin


 * That's pretty bad reasoning. You're basically saying that anything the Iraqi information minister says can be placed on any article...  Because it is a "fact" that he said it?  What if a military analyst on TV says "the Iraqis (Ba'ath party supporters) will never take back Bahgdad airport.  I promise you."  Should we put that on the Baghdad airport page as well?  So it basically comes down to picking and choosing which sources you think are credible, or taking whatever "news" you happen to hear about Baghdad airpot on any given day.  I'm surprised that you find the Information Ministor of Iraq to be a credible source of information about the Baghdad airport.  The only place his comments belong is on an Iraqi propaganda page.  The comment tells us nothing about the Baghdad airport, nor does it tell us about actualy events taking place in the past or present of the Baghdad airport.  All it does is provide an example of Iraqi propganda (you said it yourself Martin). dave 16:06 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * happy to leave that sentence out of the article for the time being. After all, by then we'll know whether or not the Iraqis did counter-attack or not... :) Martin


 * ok, I think it is best to have it out for now. However I would accept that sentence in the article if it was made clear that this was said by the Information Minister (if in fact it was, I'm not sure), someone who is notorious for making outrageous statements, or if it was plainly stated that it was propoganda by definition (whatever the precise definition is, I don't know).  I belive the original sentence said "the Iraqies said..."  which is not entirely true.  I believe that it is possible to have that sentence back in the article, if it is re-worded, provided it remains NPOV, and provided it doesn't pretend to NOT be propaganda, nor pretend that a counter-attack is likely (which it isn't).  :-) dave 18:31 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

- Hey I just wanted to say Im happy to see everyone is reading the page I began writing. Thank you and God bless you all!

Antonio Loco en la Cabeza Martin

I don't care who owns what or who has the "right" to name something. Let's just write an article about the airport in question.

Sure, a controversy began in early April 2003 over the "real name" of Saddam International Airport, and I probably contributed more than my share to the fuss. But after thinking it over, I guess it doesn't matter what the article is called. It just has to mention both names and describe the controversy a bit.

So I vote to move the bulk of the April 8th version of this article to either:
 * Saddam International Airport with a redirect from Baghdad International Airport -- or
 * Baghdad International Airport with a redirect fromSaddam International Airport

In a few weeks or months, one side or another will win the war and the airport will either return to SIA or keep BIA. No biggie. --Uncle Ed 18:53 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to make the move now. The days of Saddam International Airport are numbered, but it still isn't Baghdad International Airport and won't be until a duly authorised authority formally names it that. There is talk that a new Iraqi authority or a UN mandate may not be in place until July. In such circumstances, calling this article Saddam. . . would look POV in still refusing to accept the war's outcome, while a proper new name probably won't come into formal being until then, though international usage may make BII acceptable quicker, or another name may come into being. My vote is to leave it here in neutral territory for now and let events pan out. Moving it now would be a mistake and whatever you pick you look POV. STÓD/ÉÍRE 19:21 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

How does someone "look point-of-view"? That makes no sense. I agree with your position, though. --The Cunctator

I think he meant "non-neutral", i.e., not from the NPOV. Several Wikipedians have adopted POV as an adjective, even though when you expand the abbreviation it sounds odd. Still, I prefer it to "non-NPOV" :-) --Uncle Ed


 * It's commonly used that way on talk pages, and Cuncator always pretends to not understand it. (Cunctator - for the hundredth time... To "write something NPOV" - means to write the article following the NPOV policy. To "write something POV" - means writing it with a point of view. )


 * Where were the first 99 times? (Yes, I'm pretending not to understand your exasperated hyperbole.) And it's impossible to write something without a point of view, which is the primary reason I question people's use of phrases like "you look POV" (the secondary reason being that such jargon is ugly and obfuscatory). --The Cunctator


 * One wonders if The Cunctator is pretending to be obtuse or if he really is, but I'm sure he knows what the phrase means. -- Zoe


 * Don't you mean you wonder? Don't be modest. The point is that "POV" as jargon doesn't mean anything specific, even less than "NPOV" does, when used to mean something other than "point of view", which is a horridly vague concept in itself. "POV" as Wikipedia-speak is in that class of words like "obscene", words which people avoid coming up with a clear definition but somehow "know" what they mean.
 * Frankly, I doubt you could come up with a coherent definition of what "POV" means in the phrase "you look POV". And if in that case "POV" means "partial", then, by gum, that's what should have been written. There's naught but ill to come of replacing good, specific words with vague catch-all neologisms. That is, Newspeak double-plus ungood, Oldspeak double-plus good. --The Cunctator


 * Seconded. "wikipedia looks biased" >>> "you look POV". Or "Wikipedia looks like it is endorsing US propaganda". Or ... :) Martin

Silly remark: the article, as such, supposed that the reader knew who Saddam Hussein was. While, currently, anybody who follows international news knows who he is (or was), in 10 years' time many people will perhaps not know who this mysterious Saddam is. David.Monniaux 12:10, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * One does hope that the article would be noticed before 10 years have passed... - Penta 04:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

News to merge in
BBC Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 19:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

"There are still renovations on-going throughout the airport to return it to its former self."

In what ways does renaming the airport, building burger kings and renaming the terminals contribute to returning the airport to its former self? I doubt that it's being returned to its former self (i.e. what it was when it was finished in 1982). That would mean changing the name back to Saddam International Airport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.49.226.61 (talk • contribs) 16:54, November 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I added that bit, I read on a news site of the US efforts to restore the airport to its former self by fixing parts of it, but obviously not as far as renaming it back to its former name and everything...

I guess I'm just plain lost--how is it that people who've never been there in recent times comment on it? It IS called BIAP. And anyone whos been there recently will tell you that the place is still trashed and smelly--although mostly due to its iraqi customers, (the smelly part). and to the nutsack that keeps deleting photos due to Title 8, go smoke a pole you looser...we've been dying for armchair warriors like you. If you don't like it, the try deleting on our doorsteps. Friggin intern flunkie--must be fresh out of college. REMF.

Air Canada and other former airlines
When did Air Canada ever fly to Baghdad? I don't think they ever flew to Middle Eastern destinations, except for Tel Aviv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.133.0 (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is a mess
This article is a mess... why the annual info on who started or didn't start what. If we want to speculate till the cows come home on every Wiki article like this one they would all be long winded with no fact. Can we leave new flight discussion to ones that are PURELY announced and end up on OAG and CRS systems? (e.g. not some marketing guy at Whatever Air taking about flying to Iraq next year to one blog guy)... e.g. PROPER reference able links or verifiable info. Some paper stating "a guy said this" isn't verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.247.149 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Stale info
Wow, a lot of stale info now with US pullout, any attempted changes get auto-reverted when I tried them last month... Anyone want to make an effort to help clean this up with those of us willing to put factual info together? --98.164.192.18 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Above Still true. Anyone who’s seen it knows there’s more there than this article. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)