Talk:2011 Afghanistan Boeing Chinook shootdown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New title[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion closed. This has had several proposed names and the article has been moved. That makes closing the discussion difficult. So for now, leave the article where it is. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

August 6, 2011 NATO helicopter crash2011 ISAF Boeing CH-47 Chinook crashRelisted again Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC). Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC) operation enduring freedom's intl forces are a part of ISAF, and if you want to get technical then its not ebven a NATPO chopper but an american one. further more this unilateral moving around violates MOSdates Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This badly needs a new title.-- (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

reverting back to 2011 ISAF Boeing CH-47 Chinook crash as operation enduring freedom's intl forces are a part of ISAF, and if you want to get technical then its not ebven a NATPO chopper but an american one.
I agree that this badly needs a new title, and I agree that it was an American helicopter and not a NATO one. However, Operation Enduring Freedom is most certainly not part of ISAF, so ISAF does not belong in the title.
- Taliban shoots down U.S. helicopter, killing dozens of U.S. soldiers
- US military helicopter crash in Afghanistan kills 38
- Crashed US helicopter shot down by Taleban: local official
- Taliban shot that brought down American Chinook killing 30 US commandos was 'lucky', officials believe
- Taliban shoot down US helicopter in Afghanistan; 38 killed
- Afghans down US helicopter, killing at least 30
- Taliban Claims Downing Of U.S. Helicopter That Killed 38
- US special forces Afghan helicopter downed 'by Taliban'
There were only Americans with just a few Afghans on board - 30-31 Americans and 7 Afghans to be exact, that's 80% American. There was zero participation from any NATO allies of the U.S. Trying to insert NATO or ISAF into the title of this subject is misleading propaganda that has no place on Wikipedia. I think the most appropriate title would be August 6, 2011 U.S. helicopter downing.
I think the word "downing" should be used instead of "crash" is because "crash" only describes the symptom of the event. The helicopter was shot down, it didn't just "crash" on its own. (Or to put it another way, it's not "Black Hawk Crash", it's "Black Hawk Down".) In the headlines above, the word crash apears once, while 'down' appears in the rest.
To give more context the location could be included in the title as well: August 6, 2011 U.S. helicopter downing in Wardak. (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support anything that removes "August 6" from the title, as that is overly precise. Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Graeme's suggestion of using the term shootdown is an excellent one, and is more true to the event than "crash" which connotes an accident. With respect to WPAviation naming guidelines, I think we get a little too caught up in process and bureaucratese, and lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia's purpose is to be an accessible information source for readers. The average person looking for information on this event is not going to know to search for 'NATO CH-47'. They're going to search for 'U.S.' 'helicopter' 'shot down'.
While there was aviation involved in this incident, it was not aviation that made it notable. Numerous other Chinooks and other helicopters and planes have gone down and they haven't deserved their own articles. What made this incident notable enough to have its own article was the unprecedented blow to the U.S. military in this war, and in particular to U.S. special forces. So I don't think the aviation project and WP:AVIMOS should take precedence in this article - again it's not primarily an aviation story. It should also be noted that the WP:AVIMOS article-naming guideline is meant for accidents, and this does not fall under that category.
The article should have a descriptive and accessible name: 2011 U.S. special forces helicopter shootdown
This name would be more consistent with other articles on notable shootdowns: Category:Aircraft shootdowns
1978 Iranian Chinook shootdown
1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident
1994 Iranian Air Force C-130 shootdown
2008 Georgian spy plane shootdowns
1991 Azerbaijani Mil Mi-8 shootdown
1992 Azerbaijani Mil Mi-8 shootdown
1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident
EC-121 shootdown incident
Occas (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: I've move-protected this for a week or until a stable title can be agreed upon. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well that was a terrible judgment on your part. You get to rename the article, you get to protect the article but you don't get to rename and then protect the article. The fact that the name you moved it to is bad takes back seat to your poorly thought out administrative action. "Special Forces" has a particular connetation in the US military, they have an actual unit called Special Forces. This helicopter didn't belong to them. They don't even have helicopters. There wasn't anyone from Special Forces on the helicopter. There was nothing wrong with following the general Aviation Project's guideline for the naming (Date/Place/Group/Aircraft). Please undo your changes and discuss future changes here before taking it upon yourself to edit protect your favored version. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the article history again and I was mistaken, you didn't make the move just the protection. I apologize. My reasoning for the rename needing to go remains unchanged, it isn't logical, it's title could cover more than just the event described. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries, we all mess up! Re the name, I just protected it as-is; see m:The Wrong Version. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
TomPointTwo, please notice that 'special forces' in the article title is not capitalized. If it were, then you perhaps you'd have an argument, but it's uncapitalized and as such represents common English usage. Notice as well that the Wikipedia article on special forces is called exactly that. It's named 'special forces' and not 'special operations forces' because 'special forces' is the more common English (and Wikipedia) usage.
The actual name of the American unit you refer to is "United States Army Special Forces", more commonly known as the Green Berets. The fact that some U.S.-military-insiders like to refer to that unit in short-hand as just 'Special Forces' - or as you put it, "has a particular connetation in the US military" - should not prevent non-U.S.-military-insiders, that is the rest of the world, from being able to use the common English phrase 'special forces'. Wikipedia is not a publication dedicated to the U.S. military forces and their particular vernacular.
Finally, Wikipedia articles should reflect the prevalent sources (see WP:WEIGHT, WP:VERIFIABILITY), and many of the sources cited by this article use exactly that phrase "special forces". Occas (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The preferred terminology in the US military (when not using the international generic as this is a US specific article) is "special operations forces". This specifically to avoid confusion with Special Forces. Your article name change also indicates that the helicopter belonged to a special operations unit which is unsubstantiated at best and actually incorrect at worst. Although not yet released the helo most likely belonged to the Nebraska National Guard. The most specific, confirmed and context specific article is the Date/Place/Group/Aircraft formatting most commonly used. In this case that would be 2011 Wardak Army Chinook shootdown or even just 2011 Wardak US Chinook shootdown. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yikes, "the preferred terminology of the US military" should definitely not take precedence over the English language, nor should it take precedence over how the sources reported on the event. This article on an internationally-reported event is not a "US specific article", nor is it an aviation-specific article. Are you going to rename "2008 Georgian spy plane shootdowns" because it might cause confusion with Georgia, the southern US state? Or rename the Wikipedia article "Special forces" to "Special operations forces" to further impose US military-speak on this global commons encyclopedia? There is no confusion, the "special forces" is in lower case, just like "spy" is in "2008 Georgian spy plane shootdowns". It doesn't refer to some U.S. military unit name that no one knows about, it refers to the fact that the helicopter was carrying special forces. And it corresponds to just how the event has been reported in the news, including these three sources cited by this article: US special forces Afghan helicopter downed 'by Taliban' / Special forces helicopter shot down in Afghanistan / Impact on special forces of Navy Seals helicopter loss. As far as confusion, your suggestions would lead the average person to ask who's the "Wardak Army"? And what's a "Wardak US Chinook"? (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Just because the media keep using an incorrect term doesn't mean an article intended as a reference should perpetuate their ignorance. It was a US operation, by Naval Special Warfare personnel, augmented by Afghan commandos, flown on a decidedly non-special operations helicopter, manned by a non-special operations aircrew. The Special forces article you linked to above is terribly written, but it does make a distinction between special forces and special operations forces, in context. Towards the end, it links to articles about specific countries, so the article about the British units is titled United Kingdom Special Forces, but the article about American units is titled United States special operations forces. Because those are the terms used by their respective countries. Nathanm mn (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
What you're saying goes directly counter to Wikipedia core content policies that cannot be superseded by editor consensus. You claim the media sources cited by the article are wrong and ignorant. Please read WP:VERIFIABILITY. The first line is: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.". See also WP:UNDUE: " Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." The specific terminology of a specific group from a specific country should not take precedence over the views of the wider public. The phrase "special forces" is an English-language phrase that is widely used and understood. The shorthand name "Special Forces" is only used and understood by those within the U.S. military community. (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

() The current title is excessively descriptive. Per the above articles listed, "2011 U.S. Chinook shootdown" is more than sufficient. Swarm u | t 21:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Swarm. I'm also not too fond of "shootdown." Sounds too casual IMO. WikifanBe nice 07:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment' Why are not fond with shootdown? Are you sad that the Taliban downed the helicopter? Or whatever... I'm going to stop using wikipedia, it is so NATO and Israel-biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talkcontribs) 15:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
No, shootdown just sounds excessively casual. Crash or incident are more formal terms. WikifanBe nice 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Since you brought it up, I agree. I'm fairly certain 'shootdown' is a colloquialism; an informal, unprofessional, and unencyclopedic term. While I'm not going to crusade to have it removed from every article, I wouldn't support expanding or promoting the usage of the term. Swarm u | t 02:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous articles in this category named this way. There is even a Wikipedia article entitled Shootdown which defines it as "the deliberate downing of an aircraft (either in flight or during the take-off/landing)". This is precsely what this article is about. "Excessively-descriptive"? "Too casual"? This over-obssession on form over substance is not good for Wikipedia. As a general comment, it would be better if more editors were adding substantive and informative content to articles rather than imposing questionable form at the expense of clarity. (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Er...I know, I acknowledged that in my previous comment. Have you seen the Wikipedia article for shootdown? LOL, perfect example of why you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a primary source of information. And "excessively descriptive" is a polite way of saying "TOO F-ING LONG". Good god. Swarm u | t 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
If you go with a title like "21st Century Aircraft Crash", then you've broadened the terminology to the point of communicating very little specific information. If instead, we identify the exact year, the exact vehicle, the reason why it crashed and the country it happened it, THEN we have a meaningful title that communicates effectively. When there is an event that causes loss of life, there is a huge difference when the cause was unintentional versus a deliberate action.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not necessary to include nationality or cause of the loss of the aircraft in the title, IMHO. Although the majority of the deceased aboard the aircraft were of a given nationality, that doesn't mean all of them were of a single nationality. Most article names regarding plane crashes don't include that nation which the aircraft was registered with in the article name. To keep neutrality in the name title it is best to remove the cause of the loss of the aircraft. Perhaps a name such as 2011 Wardak Chinook incident. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
either that or 2011 Afghanistan helicopter shootdown per precedences above and that this is neutral.Lihaas (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposals[edit]

Relisting again. The original proposal does not seem to have sufficient support above to move to it, but a move seems to have support. It's not clear what the new title should be, there are several suggestions. Do any of them have support? Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope everyone can agree with "2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan".
This is straightforward and accurate, without any ambiguity regarding what "Afghanistan helicopter" means. (Did the helicopter belong to Afghanistan? What kind of helicopter?) Above, Occas provided a list of titles from similar incidents. But it is important to note the difference between ownership versus location in selecting these titles.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That was definitely my bad. I edited the article title, and only afterward had the thought to check here to see what discussion might have been going on about it. When I saw here that not only was the topic being discussed, but there was a huge discussion about it - that's when I made my two posts here as a 'sales pitch', when I should also have addressed my own mistake. I apologize to all for me putting the cart before the horse.--05:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm... so where now? I've now disqualified myself from closing the RM and wouldn't do so yet anyway. I'm neutral on whether the current title 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan or 2011 Afghanistan helicopter shootdown is better, you obviously prefer the former. Are there any other serious contenders? Andrewa (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I almost reverted TD's move, but I do recognize his points about ambiguity, and I think they're correct, so I left it here. I'm satistified with the title as it is now. However, to be honest, there have been so many proposals made tht I don't know if there is one that will gain a broad coscensus. I'd support an indefinite page move protection to keep the article where it is now, at 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan, and prevent anymore moves until a more clear consesnus on a different name is reached in the furure, if it is ever reached. - BilCat (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Is it the largest US mil single loss of life since the Beirut barracks bombing?-- (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

i believe there was a non-hostile helicopter crash in Iraq in early '06 that killed 31. i do believe it is the single largest hostile loss of life for our military since Beirut though. User: 2:25, 7 August 2011

There has been no indication that this helicopter was an aviation asset of the 160th SOAR. Muledigger (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Up for deletion[edit]

I am confused. Why is this article up for deletion? Someone just reverted my deletion of the deletion tag. Theres also already a tag up about clarity and "confusion". --pastasauce (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone thought the article didn't belong here so the made a proposal to delete, and there is still ongoing discussion there... That's why it was restored. I understand your confusion though. =) Jesanj (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The AFD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 NATO helicopter crash. All AFD discussions take place on their own page. - BilCat (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This news report has the names and hometowns of the US Navy Seals killed in this incident, but US military says they haven't released that information yet. I'm confused about this, can we mention their names and hometowns in this article?--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mirwais, some names have been reported in the news, but I don't think the names of the individuals should be included in this article. It is not relevant to the topic in my opinion. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Aviation accidents and incidents in 2011 (2011) ·[edit]

Why is this article on the template for "Aviation accidents and incidents in 2011"? I was under the impression that deliberate downings of aircraft in time of war do not qualify (otherwise, the template for, say, 1944 wouldn't be big enough to include them all). Either there is a consistent policy for this - or there isn't. (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


Is it relevant to include that the letter from President Obama was signed with an electric pen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting the change about the supposed electric pen signing. I would appreciate it if it would discussed on the article talk page before any more reversions are done. The addition "believed by some to be" is more accurate. No one in the White House has stated that it was signed by a electric pen. The source cited is not even the primary article it is a condensation of a post from a highly partisan blog. The reliability of the source is highly questionable. As it stands now I question whether it is relevant and POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If you consider the source to be of questionable veracity then challenge the source's reliability. If you think it's not notable or POV then challenge its inclusion. But don't hedge with weasel words and phrases such as "some believe". It's poor form and undercuts the reliability of the article in general. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am new at this so I was not sure how to proceed. OK, the source is questionable. The White House has never verified that it is true. The reference quoted provided no expert substantiation. The reference was merely a condensation of a partisan blog. The sentence provides nothing to the actual facts of the article and at best seems to be an attempt to put a partisan talking point in the article. I think the whole sentence and reference should be deleted. (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Official confirmation or comment is not a litmus for reliability or the eligibility of material for inclusion here. The source seems pretty straight forward. Fox News is reporting that the parents of one of the DEVGRU guys got a stock form letter signed by machine. They say that follow up demonstrated other parents received the same. There are even pictures. Regardless of what you think of Fox News they're long considered to be a reliable source here, including their reporting in "blog format", like the countless other news organization which use the format. The way that it is included here, though, does seem out of place to the general flow of the article and gives the appearance of political sniping, regardless of whether or not that was the intent of the editor who added it. The problem I see is that there is no assertion of why these facts are notable to the subject at hand. Is it unusual? Were the parents upset and if so did this create additional discourse that could be considered a controversy? Have subject matter experts commented on this and found it to be notable? The best I can tell is that the source provided doesn't provide positive affirmation of any of these questions, only some insinuation. Without an assertion of notability I don't see why it should be included at all. If that changes then the subject can be revisited.
Since you're new to this I'd recommend you spend some time reviewing the core concepts of using reliable sources, verifiability, notability,neutrality and the often ignored but very important policy of how to be socially successful. There's also a tutorial which is of a reasonable of use. You can message me here for questions pertinent to this article or on my talk page for more general questions. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


Quote: "22 U.S. Navy personnel 15 of whom were from the Naval Special Warfare Development Group's (formerly known as SEAL Team Six) Gold Squadron." and thereafter quote: "Twenty of the Navy SEALs killed were members of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU), an elite, Tier-One unit of commandos formerly known as SEAL Team Six." So ... 15 or 20 killed DEVGRU members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's 15 DEVGRU members, 2 other Navy SEALs from another unit, 5 NSW support personnel. Time to clean that up, thank you. —  dain- talk   18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The other two SEALs who were killed were from Team 5 based out of Coronado.


While I have my doubts, I'd like to bring this up for inclusion, seems more like opinion reporting to me, but whatever. It especially is relevant if this is the cause of the investigation, as the article claims. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

request edit[edit]

There are no Black boxes on CH47D model chinooks. I have been maintaining CH47D helicopters for more than 8 years and there is no such thing as a black box or any sort of data recorder on this helicopter. The CH47F has a voice recorder and some data recording functions but I am not an expert on the F model chinook. Please review that information on the bottom of this article.

SSG Gaughan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Page Layout[edit]

Shouldn't "prelude" be before all other categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talkcontribs) 20:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with the above statement and reordered the article. This is an article about the event, but the servicemen are dead before we have any idea why or how (which is a bit close to NOTMEMORIAL - the deaths are not the focus; they're part of the event and make it notable after the fact, but this is not called "Deaths of servicemen in helicopter crash"). Therefore, I moved the prelude and event timeline first, so there is an understanding of what happened before one gets to the casualty details, outside accounts, and subsequent events. I moved one paragraph to subsequent events because it was better suited there. MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


There's a grave marked Extortion 17 at Arlington National Cemetery. Is this worth an explanation?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan2011 Afghanistan Boeing Chinook shootdown – This page's title sounds quite awkward. Wikipedia articles for non-numbered plane crashes typically follow the format "[Year] [Location or operator or both] [Aircraft name] crash" but this title sounds too casual. This has been mentioned before, but I am requesting a different title than what has been requested; that this page be moved to either 2011 Afghanistan Boeing Chinook shootdown or 2011 Afghanistan Boeing CH-47 shootdown. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 02:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Move to the Chinook version as it would better known to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and COMMONNAME (current name gets 327,000 hits on Google, proposed gets 2,480,000 hits, a huge margin.) -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • The first gets 2600 outside of Wikipedia, the second gets none, when the search terms are put in quotation marks as they need to be in order to get informative data. But this is a descriptive title in either event, so the applicable section is WP:NDESC, not WP:COMMONNAME. Dekimasuよ! 20:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.