This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Afghanistan C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / South Asia / Post-Cold War Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Post-Cold War task force Archives Index Archive 1 This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There was no battle in the end, and journalists all over are using Fall. --Kathy262 (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Copyrighted images cannot be used. I suggest checking FlickR. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've found an image. Zoozaz1 talk 23:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)?[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Doesn't seem like he's personally in exile, nor his government (per his Facebook post). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 _words^deeds 05:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree there is no point to have reactions on this wiki page. Randoperson1 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]