Talk:2021 Kabul airport attack

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2021 Kabul airport attack article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 2021 Kabul airport attack, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is of interest to multiple 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 Mid‑importance

	Afghanistan portal 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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation: Accidents C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death: Suicide C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Explosives C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives 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.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam C‑class Low‑importance

	Islam portal 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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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 articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Terrorism C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of 2021 Kabul airport attack be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Title

I'm not familiar with title naming conventions. It's confirmed that this is a suicide bombing. But should the title say "suicide attack" instead of bombing? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 14:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, suicide bombing is fine. Hazeledla (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the second bombing necessitate modifying the title? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 14:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The attack includes shooting, so the title should be 2021 Kabul airport attack. Also, this isn't the only suicide bombing in Kabul this month, let alone this year. It should only be plural if it's multiple attacks. Jim Michael (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is regarding multiple attacks, as confirmed by a second bombing. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 16:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source that ISIL is "suspected"?

I don't see any mention of ISIS in the news articles. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 14:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the ISIL-K suspicion as there exists a source now. Kellis7 16:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag salad, quotefarm "reactions" section

As you may know, many editors despise the use of flagicons with a list format of quotes in these reactions sections. The quotes are often little more than politicians giving lip service, and are often sourced to tweets or other primary sources. This reactions section should be trimmed or replaced with secondary analysis of the ramifications of the event. Abductive (reasoning) 21:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a common problem... since it's somewhat related, I wonder if the whole ISIL statement quote is WP:DUE. —Paleo Neonate – 22:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Republican Congressional reactions

@2602:306:BC74:6240:FDC4:E3B5:5C50:53F6

In order to avoid a edit war, I will bring it here for discussion. Should the reactions of Republican congressmen and women be included in the Reactions section?

"Republican members of the U.S. Congress criticized the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal of United States troops from the country, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who said Biden "must take decisive action to protect our troops".

^This is the section discussed Kellis7 21:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fox is a borderline source though, —Paleo Neonate – 22:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Connections of ISIL-KP with Taliban

According to BBC, [1], "there are strong links between Isis-K and the Haqqani network, which in turn is closely linked to the Taliban." "The man now in charge of security in Kabul is Khalil Haqqani", i.e. one of Taliban leaders who helped Isis-K to conduct previous terrorist attacks ("several major attacks between 2019 and 2021 involved collaboration between Isis-K, the Taliban's Haqqani network"). That should probably be noted on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is not explicitly stated in the source (I included only info that was explicitly stated), but it is significant because the initial USA operation in 2001 was launched to get rid of Al-Qaeda hosted by Taliban. And what is happening? Even before USA forces left, another terrorist organization (apparently collaborating with Taliban) already accomplished a terrorist attack on the USA forces, first time in a few years (their other recent attacks targeted Afghan people, not USA forces). My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Taliban. Is there some significance to you always omitting the the? Moncrief (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thank you for fixing this. My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the ISKP members being released is directly contradicted by this CNN article which says they escaped. BSMRD (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I usually read something like "Farooqi, last known as an emir in Is-K, as the group is known in Asia, was among 2,000 fighters released by the Taliban from prisons..." or "Thousands of prisoners who had been loyal to or were associates of Isis-Khorosan and other groups have been released" [2].My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - whatever Taliban say is irrelevant/can not be trusted. They said they have "reformed" and already prohibited any music in the country. But yes, one can include their statements about it of course. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This really feels like WP:CHERRYPICKING to somehow incriminate the Taliban in these attacks. Near every source used on this page lays sole responsibility at the feet of ISKP, and mentions the antagonistic relationship between the Taliban and ISKP. I would recommend deleting the content you have added, unless more context is included definitively stating the Taliban were not responsible, instead of the current content which implies Taliban involvement unqualified. BSMRD (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other recent RS (e.g. [4]) that describe collaboration of Haqqani network (this is now an integral part of the Taliban) and other terrorist organizations including this branch of ISIS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that has no bearing on if the Taliban was connected to this attack (which they weren't), but mentioning it without qualification implies they were connected. BSMRD (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source say: "The terror group behind the Kabul attacks has close ties to the Haqqani network [a part of Taliban]" and explains why. Is it important to notice on the page? Yes, because that is what sources do. How to phrase it may be debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters says "A Taliban official told Reuters the group arrested an ISIS fighter at the airport a few days ago and under interrogation he told them about plans for attacks. In response, the Taliban said it postponed gatherings in public places and advised its top leaders not to gather. … … ISIS-K is a sworn enemy of the Taliban. But U.S. intelligence officials believe the movement used the instability that led to the collapse of Afghanistan's Western-backed government this month to strengthen its position and step up recruitment of disenfranchised Taliban members." So the first part of this is implying that the US intelligence warnings BEFORE the attack might have come from the Taliban itself. I agree with BSMRD that we should be very cautious about this. Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather wait to see what else will happens in the airport and will be published. However, the source currently used in this para [5] say that USA provided a military support for the Taliban. Wow! Supporting the Afghan government and Taliban at the same time! This is straight from spy comedy Strike First Freddy. But perhaps this is not surprising, given that they also released thousands Taliban prisoners. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not as bizarre as you might think. Enemies routinely come to agreements which are in their mutual interest. I have no idea whether that is what happened here though. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Another blast occurred after the bombing"

What does this mean? How is a "blast" different from a bombing? Why are the two events now split up in the intro? It's confusing for readers who arrive here from Wikipedia's main page, as the "In the news" section there describes this as two bombings, but the first thing people read in the article is that there was one bombing followed by one, presumably insignificant by secondary placement and almost zero additional information, "blast." Moncrief (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This wording is no longer in the article. Moncrief (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

This edit request to 2021 Kabul airport attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Navy corpsman not navy medic. The US Army has medics. Navy corpsman serve with US Marines.^[1] 107.77.194.166 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Chris Rose 107.77.194.166 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good catch. BSMRD (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ wikipedia Navy hospital corpsman

NRF reaction

It's not a verified twitter account but a well-known one, and I haven't seen it mentioned in any news sites (maybe some not in English?) but from the NRF's spokesperson Ali Maisam Nazary:

The NRF condemns the terrorist attacks on HKIA today. This incident reinforces our argument that Int. terrorism is stronger than before in Afg & another 9/11 is possible. Afg must not be abandoned at this time of need and the NRF’s efforts against terrorism must be supported.

Juxlos (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be renamed as 2021 Hamid Karzai International Airport attacks

Giving the terrorist attack occured in near Hamid Karzai International Airport and not other Kabul airports as this airport is only international airport serving Kabul, should it be renamed as 2021 Hamid Karzai International Airport attacks or Hamid Karzai International Airport attacks? At least the link can become a redirect to current name if the article doesn't renamed? 114.125.230.56 (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul airport already redirects to Hamid Karzai, for good reason. Change is unnecessarily specific and overly wordy. BSMRD (talk)

No, definitely not. Too wordy and unnecessary. Also, the airport is unlikely to have that name for long, considering who controls the country now and who Hamid Karzai is. (Edit: I see he's not as militantly anti-Taliban as I assumed, but I still doubt that will be the longterm official airport name after this month.) Moncrief (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Kabul airport usually refers to this one & it makes no sense to lengthen the title. Jim Michael (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban casualties

The Taliban now claims that they haven't suffered any casualties as reported by the BBC. We should add that to the victims section Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can consider the Taliban a reliable source -- especially not compared to the BBC. — Czello 07:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it was an unidentified Taliban official that claimed the 28 deaths in the first place. But now the groups official spokesperson says that they didn't suffer casualties Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CBS deaths figures and second bomb

CBS appear to be reporting at least 170 dead, (inc the 13 US military), but all other sources are still saying 90 Afghan + 13 US = 103. I've restored the 103 figure as being the widest reported and with little obvious time-lag to explain the discrepancy. Also. according to BBC, Pentagon is now saying that there was NO second bomb, but I don't have time to sort that out. Pincrete (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is now saying that local sources say as many as 170 dead - they also confirm the NON-existence of the second bomb near the hotel.

Move back to 2021 Kabul airport attack

The attack included shooting as well as bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. It's more succinct and a more obvious search term, as well. A vote should probably be taken. Moncrief (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moncrief and Jim Michael: I've reverted the undiscussed move. I agree that an RM would be reasonable here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US or U.S.?

Just trying to see if there is a consensus before I make it consistent. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 16:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read MOS:US before doing anything, please. Moncrief (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump comments etc

Having noted that Donald Trump's comments were removed, I suggest that they should be reinstated. Trump was not just a former US president but also very much involved in the situation in Afghanistan. I'd also like to see some international responses like the former leader of the British Conservative Party who was very critical of Biden (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/27/bidens-colossal-mess-even-worse-thought/). Greenshed (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two reactions, firstly much of the UK coverage has been about reaction to the withdrawal/collapse, rather than specifically this attack, I can't read the Telegraph (££) so don't know if that is the case. Second reaction is that there has also been substantial UK coverage from former PMs (IDS was never a PM, and has never been 'Foreign Minister', though he is ex-army) inc May and Blair - as well as current MPs of all parties, of Raab's/Johnson's/British failings in this episode. So if we go in the direction you are suggesting, the need for a POLITICAL reactions page to the withdrawal would arise fairly quickly. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1983 Beirut barracks bombings

For reference, see this article from firstpost.com and this article from washingtonexaminer.com. It draws comparisons because both were suicide bombings which killed US troops at an airport. That may be where the similarities end. If others want to remove the link from the See Also section I will not contest it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, we don't link Columbine at Sandy Hook. The connection is tangential at best, and the similarities are very surface level. BSMRD (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, better to maybe wait and only re-add if the attack is shown to be modeled after the 1983 attack.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible pro-Taliban edits

"Security concerns grew after hundreds of members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) ~~escaped~~ from jails at Bagram and Pul-e-Charkhi." The followig ISIS-K terrorists didn't escape at the first place - they were systematically released by the Taliban. Its high time to get facts straightened out. -Hatchens (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reporting contradictory accounts on that, and other matters - so it probably isn't partisan editing. Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sentence smoothing

might the second sentence of the lead paragraph read better as

At least 185 people were killed in the attack,[3] including 13 members of the United States military,[12][4] the first American military casualties in Afghanistan since February 2020.[13] i.e. deleting the "who were"?Potholehotline (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number KIA in Each Branch of Service

Since there has not been any official identification (against DOD policy until 24 hours after next of kin are notified), should the count be removed until then? Everything there is speculative besides the DOD confirmed "13." The Army has only confirmed a single death from its branch of service. The Marine Corps has confirmed eleven. Both facts are contrary to what's reported in the article. GuyHimGuy (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the count is confirmed through reliable sources.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we are using speak of 12 Marines and one Navy medic (corpsman). The US Army obviously would not announce a death if it were not true, but the 'breakdown' is currently effectively unsourced. Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but what should we do with the standing citations since they're wrong? GuyHimGuy (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but the sources listed never confirmed any numbers. First of all, the first citation doesn't list the number of casualties from each branch of service, and I'm not seeing anything listing the number of soldiers killed in any of the articles (hence, the 2 vs 1 soldier discrepancy). Secondly, the editor who wrote the number of Marines KIA specifically cited quotes from the Department of Defense rather than facts reported by the news sources themselves. In other words, CNN is not reporting "10 Marines have died." They are relaying quotes from the DOD, which conflict with later statements. If we are considering these quotes to be reliable sources, we might as well consider the official press releases from the DOD reliable sources as well. Officially, the Department of Defense has confirmed the death of eleven Marines, one sailor, and a soldier (which I fixed a couple of hours ago). CNN, WSJ, and Al Jazeera have not confirmed anything here. GuyHimGuy (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. DOD has released names/branches of service. GuyHimGuy (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "IS following the fall of Kubul the day previous." to "IS following the fall of Kabul the day previous.". CaFRB (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Maybe it's just me, but those look exactly the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS-K claimed responsibility?

I couldn’t find that claim in source 16. The article said the US intelligence community is operating under the assumption it was ISIS-K, but had no specific intelligence to support that. 142.117.34.192 (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] wikipedia Navy hospital corpsman

[1]