Talk:Kunduz airlift

Untitled
Howdy all, this event was mentioned in passing in the main article on the 'War in Afghanistan', and, in my opinion, merits its own page. I wrote a quick summary, and added the relevant links from the existing page. More work is certainly needed to flesh out the details, likely by finding more recent sources. Supasheep (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Title of Page
To head off pre-emptory criticisms of the title, I will justify my choice. Simply put, this is the title that seems the most broadly used in the media. (based on a google search). As of Feb 15h, 2008, "Airlift of Evil" brings up 1670 hits, many of which are relevant, while "Kunduz Airlift" only finds 137, and "Operation Getaway" does not retrieve relavent results. (even if paired with keywords 'Afghanistan' and 'Kunduz.'

I readily admit that this title seems un-encyclopedic, but I think it merits consideration in terms of assisting navigation. (i.e. people will find this page if they are looking for the event in question) I would appreciate comments and suggestions. Supasheep (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Supasheep, I realize this response is a couple years late, but anyway. I would normally support whatever is the most used term to refer to a certain topic, even if it's something like an "operation" name that is obviously chosen by one side of a conflict. And you're right, if you do the Google searches, "Airlift of Evil" wins. But if we're looking at traditional reliable sources, it's a lot more murky. A Google News Archive search of "airlift of evil" gets 4 hits, only 2 of which are normal news sources. If you start searching combinations of terms like "2001", "kunduz", "airlift", "pakistan", "taliban", etc., it's clear that this event has been mentioned many times in the media without any reference to this title, which was apparently invented by the MSNBC writer from his sources' joke about "Operation Evil Airlift". Because this is so POV-loaded (even compared with many military operation names), and because it has been mentioned in reliable sources in more banal terms, I'd suggest a change to Kunduz airlift, and the lead could read something like "The Kunduz airlift, also referred to as the Airlift of Evil, was..." Joshdboz (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Per consensus below and per related arguments stated below. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to NPOV title
I propose the move to "Kunduz airlift" which is a neutral title as this article is not about the term rather the incident. The current title will still be mentioned in the lede as in its current attributed form. Remove the related tag when resolved. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree to move it to Kunduz airlift and mention that the airlift has been referred to as "Airlift of Evil". JCAla (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ per WP:BOLD and consensus from only other active editor. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed Rashid
On second thoughts.. look at the sentence... on one side we mention the US mil., Afghan officials and then "Ahmed Rashid" alone. I'm sure he's not as important as two nations. I suggest saying US military, Afghan officials and Afghanistan analysts (which is inclusive given Ahmed Rashid is included in citations). -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have replaced it with "in media reports". JCAla (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is ambiguous. See my edit (and edit summary) and comment on it. Also add the same at Taliban article instead of "media reports". -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think media reports is incorrect (saying 'through' would be kind of weaseling) as they are just the publishers and the real source is the US military. This change should be reflected on Taliban for correct attribution. Also, can you tell which sources mention that Afghan officials and Afghanistan analysts sharing this opinion? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree with the new proposal: "... dubbed the Airlift of Evil by US military forces around Kunduz which as a term was subsequently used in international media reports ..."? JCAla (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree... some what kills the debate. But there are minor redundancy or triviality issues. "... dubbed the Airlift of Evil by US military forces around Kunduz and subsequently used in media reports ..." -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
What was Pakistan's stance on this? How did Pakistan react to these statements? What does Pakistan have to say about this term being used? What were Pakistan's views on the airlift? All missing. The recent attribution by JCAla has improved the neutrality to some extent but this has to be added inline in a balanced form. Till then please don't remove the POV tag. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't see any Pakistan comments on the airlift. We can't keep the tag when Pakistan simply hasn't commented. But we can write that Pakistan hasn't commented. JCAla (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually we can not do that unless we have a source saying that Pakistan has not commented at all. Until then it is missing content. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Issue addressed although there are hardly any sources on Pakistan's position regarding this matter. JCAla (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly any online sources you can say (that too if you searched very thoroughly). But assuming the converse is incorrect. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Although this article has improved but it still needs some more balancing. All parties' perspective is given in equal weight in NPOV, here it isn't. Just a recent edit by you proved that there actually are citations. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't necessarily mean equal weight. It means appropriate weight. bobrayner (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I don't think appropriate weight is given. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think appropriate weight according to what is said in the sources is given. What kind of information do you envision, TopGun? JCAla (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's only an acknowledgement with a bare mention of the event. Usually details from both sides are given. Especially perspective is give in appropriate weight. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the Los Angeles Times reference, the citation by Ahmed Rashid also mentions Musharraf's position: "Musharraf said Pakistan needed to save its dignity and its valued people." This article reflects the weight given in reports about the airlift. This is appropriate. As I said before, it is difficult to find more Pakistani statements in this matter. If you do, share them with us. So long, I propose we either remove the tag or ask for other people's opinions. JCAla (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you proved your self wrong on the first case where you said that there are no opinions from Pakistan. I think this has more to it. About your asking other opinions... I've already taken a step further than that by adding the tag to ask for help from others. This tag is not other wise preventing any constructive contribution which you can continue to make. But I think it is appropriately placed some one who can find more information actually adds it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In the sources then used on the article, there were no comments from Pakistan. After some research, I found one. This tag is unnecessary because Pakistan's position is now in the article. Shall we ask other people's opinions on this matter or can we simply remove the tag? JCAla (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the fact that the current sources have only this information does not mean that more is not present (unless a source specifically states this). Thus the tag, which can not be removed till the issues fixed. If you aim to improve this situation I guess you will do better with finding volunteers to work on the article rather than comments on whether more work should be done or not. But please note WP:CANVASSING policy on this. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot tag an article then ask other editors to find sources which may not even exist, if you feel their are content missing you need to add it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The tag is not for the content that I added. It is for the content that is not present to give appropriate weight. And that is the exact purpose of this tag. Also, see WP:VOLUNTEER, I did what I could for the article... If you don't want to improve it, don't.. But then the tag is rightly placed for other editors to handle. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you may not tag an article for content which may or may not exist, if it is out there then add it. JCAla already searched and found one source, if you want more then go do it. Also see Stop quoting essays as policy Darkness Shines (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I quoted any essay as a policy... but then again, do you mean to dispute that we are hear as volunteers? That would be ridiculous. And no, not you and not JCAla has found a source that says that the content 'does not exist' or that 'Pakistan has not commented on the issue'. Infact opposite has already happened above. Also you need to watch your civility in edit summaries here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After some research, I found one. JCAla (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC) I said JCAla had found a source, I am going to remove your tag as you obviously cannot be bothered to look for the content you feel is missing. In fact I see three editors here saying you are wrong to have tagged the article in the first place. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think any one other than you or JCAla talked about removing the tag. You can not remove the tag until the article is balanced. I and this was quite good before you came in with your uncivil editsummaries. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(out)Sorry bobrayner mentioned giving appropriate weight. I take that as if there are not enough sources then due weight already exists and your tags are superfluous. He can of course correct me. I do not see my summaries as being uncivil. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked for sources, there are none to be had related to Pakistani reaction to the airlift. Your tag is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you can not find sources does not mean that they do not exist. This was previously explained to JCAla who did understand it and found a source. You should self revert the tag. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I took the time to look. This is more than you seem prepared to do. The tag is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no way I can tell that you looked for sources, and the reason of tag is to get editors to improve the article, You may not tell me to improve an article my self for pointing out that it lacks balance. You're simply opposing a tag to oppose me. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not be so bloody paranoid, I opposed the tag because it is not needed. If you are so sure there are more sources prove me wrong by finding them, I will happily self revert if proven wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that JCAla found a source already proves you wrong over there being no sources. Your continued uncivility will not be tolerated. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? The onus is on other people to provide sources which disprove your stance? That's not right. It should be the other way round. If you have good sources which you think should change the tone or content of the article, bring them. bobrayner (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would have been true if I was changing content. But I just tagged the article for improvement. This article has seen improvement very recently on similar tags. So saying that the tag is incorrect is completely wrong. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I understood when you said, the article was largely lacking Pakistan's position. (Although Ahmed Rashid mentioned it.) After some research, the one and only source I found (other than the Ahmed Rashid source already in the article) regarding this issue, I added to the article. Darkness Shines also looked for sources, but found no other than those already in the article. The article now has two sources which include the Pakistani position. The article also gives appropriate weight to Pakistan's position with regards to the sources available. A tag is pointless. If you personally feel, you need more about Pakistan in the article, go ahead and do some more research. JCAla (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I'll let it go since a tag is not a much big deal when in the end it might still be me who would need to add the information due to lack of good faith being assumed on my part. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
I don't think the military conflict infobox is suitable for this - no fighting took place. Since you made some effort putting it there, I thought suggesting a new one instead of simply removing would be a good idea. Check this out, seems closer to the situation Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Socks
The following IPs are not socks on proxys. user:115.248.114.51 &user:202.3.77.183 which is a school IP. Both have been checked and cleared by a proxy checker. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting that the IPs - for any one interested - are socks of each other in the very least, and probably some one with a user account, but that's not really clear according to an admin. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Further note, these IPs mentioned above are on entirely different continents. It is not possible for one to be a sock of the other. Possibly meat puppetry, but this has yet to be proven. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Biased and onesided article
It basically assumes that the airlift happened. It has not been confimed by Pakistani government sources nor by any offical statement in the west. It needs to refkect that. Have made changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.166.87 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are wrong so I reverted you. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)