 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThis article seems biased to me. Close it down.
- How do you figure? It's true that there's a fair amount of conjecture, but it's reported as such. The mention of 2 fatalities, out of dozens, seems peculiar. The article needs work, but what specifically seems biased? Martin.duke 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is an excellent article. That photograph of neat kerbs, lamp post and a Subway outlet (!) is one of the most striking and inspiring images I've seen. It just goes to show that Iraq can be transformed into a pleasant little Westernised client state if we really put the effort in. 80.47.61.189 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Except that photo is out of date. The curbs are cracked and being overrun by dirt. The lamp posts have no light bulbs or power run to them. The subway is still here but not at the theater. It's a nice image, but not the one that is actually here.214.13.149.10 (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Split proposal discussion
editSupport
editLSA Anaconda is a US Army base. Balad Air Base is USAF. I believe they should have their own articles. --JAYMEDINC 02:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
editThey're physically the same installation even if the services call them by different names. I'm not sure how you parse out the information between two articles, or if you end up having the same article twice. I also think it's confusing to readers. I do agree that adding some language about the two names, in addition to a redirect from "Balad Air Base", is in order. Martin.duke 19:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with what you said above. They are physically the same place and there is no clear distinction segregating one area from another. -- VegitaU 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Balad Air Base is ensconced within LSA Anaconda. It is an inseperable part of the installation. and secondary to it. Th USAF commander reports to the Army commander for all instalation related decisions, if I'm not mistaken. Aestiva 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been open for more than six months and is clearly weighed toward opposition. I got rid of the spilt tag. VegitaU 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Good call. The strategic purpose and mission of Balad/Anaconda is theatre logistics for the Iraq AOR. In that regard Balad AB is a support unit for LSA Anaconda. Functionally the Air Force operates somewhat on its own, but technically its day-to-day activities remain under the command of the CO, LSA Anaconda. Geeyore 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The REAL 'Mortaritaville'
editDue to the nature of this argument, I have removed the Wiki redirect link of Mortaritaville from LSA Anaconda and made it a separate article on Wikipedia since LSA Anaconda/Balad AB is not the Mortaritaville. I have also moved the discussion to the Mortaritaville discussion page. -Signaleer 08:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I was there for 6 months. I never once heard anyone call Anaconda/Balad "Mortaritaville", except in reference to having read it somewhere. Which is not to say we weren't mortared. We were, almost every day. Onesy-twosies, with the occasional targeted fusillade that was more apt to cause injury and/or death. In the year prior to my arrival (that is, mid-2004 - 2005) it was worse, with full-scale rocket attacks, some quite deadly. Geeyore 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am currently here now and all of the other airman and soldiers do in fact refer to it as Mortaritaville.~~SkipmCdiddler 10:17, 21 June 2008
- Let Me Reinforce This, Please...' There's no reason to start a war on this page too over this issue that can simply be removed to a non-definitive note referring to the other article where you all have been warring already... VigilancePrime 23:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Without a reference, this part of the article doesn't belong at all. Even with a reference, it probably doesn't and instead should just stay in the Mortatitaville page, where that heated debate can remain contained. The phrase (which was re-added and I'll next revert out) itself is Original Research-ish and POV-ish as well ("Although the soldiers stationed here like to refer to LSA Anaconda as Mortaritaville..."). It's just out of place entirely. Perhaps a link in a See Also to Mortaritaville would be the best way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction? That would allow for the inclusion of the information, though through a linked page, and prevent the "erroneous" statement that Anaconda is the "true" Mortaritaville. (Granted, there's no such thing as the "true" when we're talking about unofficial, colloquial terms like this anyway...) VigilancePrime 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
OPSEC?
editI would like to hear some opinions on this issue (especially from military users). As I understand, Operations security (OPSEC) is a method of identifying critical unclassified info and securing it to deny the enemy the ability to use it in operations against more sensitive operations. Basically, not allowing unclassified tidbits to add up to a bigger, more critical picture. That being said, are the expeditionary units stationed in Balad AB critical information? I ask this because the Air Force itself discloses the information on their Balad public site. If OPSEC applied in this case, wouldn't the Air Force's own website be the last place to find that information? -- VegitaU 05:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I would not speculate on how the Air Force handles that information, but in the Army, information such as that is considered critical. The Army view on where units in Iraq are is information not to be revealed in a public forum, and that is what I based that edit on.RFP15 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I wanted to see what the Army view was on this. -- VegitaU 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- The units listed that were there in the past, have nothing to do with violating OPSEC. Current units maybe? --JAYMEDINC 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, the units listed were not marked as units that have already been and gone, so I guess I made a judgment call.RFP15 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
OPSEC is a judgement call Vegeta, and you're correct in stating that it's a collection of "innocuous" facts that can aid the enemy. In the case of unit deployments, a determined enemy analyst could simply plug all past and present unit information into a database to develop a clearer picture of the mission of that base, along with many other speculations (I won't even say what those might be, in deference to OPSEC). It is always best to err on the side of deference, IMO. Don't confirm, deny, or propagate anything you believe could be misused. It's a balance. Geeyore 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There really isn't anything on this page that violates any rules of OPSEC, so you're good as they say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.29.176.60 (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the nefarious types understand how Wikipedia works and they view the history all the time. I'm sure they read talk pages to. It's not big brother that I'm worried about, it's the shadowy guy in the corner. If you see something that really concerns you talk to your CID or AFOSI] personnel. I'm sure they can track it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.29.176.60 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
New name
editJoint Base Balad is the new name replacing both Balad Air Base and LSA Anaconda, according to the AF at [1]. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Busiest Airfield DoD/2nd Busiest Airport?
editThe reference doesn't seem to be reliable source. A more reliable source would be to find a current traffic count total for the DoD. Secondly, I seriously doubt JBB is second busiest airport in the world. I'm a air traffic controller thats been to Balad twice and it's not busier then Hartfield, O'Hare, Dallas, or Denver. Once again, find the traffic count and compare to this link. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_traffic_movements Balad at peak times, 2005-2007, it might have made the upper twenties for air traffic operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.29.176.61 (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This claim, true or not, is now woefully out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.85.214.3 (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Balad Air Base. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.balad.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123240846
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Balad Air Base. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928011950/http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=24803&archive=true to http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=24803&archive=true
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928015019/http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=37883&archive=true to http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=37883&archive=true
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510182439/http://www.usar.army.mil/arweb/organization/commandstructure/USARC/OPS/377Sus/Commands/310ESC/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.usar.army.mil/arweb/organization/commandstructure/USARC/OPS/377Sus/Commands/310ESC/Pages/default.aspx
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) 21:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 9 December 2017
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: Not moved. Consensus was Keep current title Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 13:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC) (closed by page mover)
Balad Air Base → Joint Base Balad – It's mostly called Joint Base Balad. 199.80.250.133 (talk)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- @199.80.250.133 and Bradv: Comment: The lede says that it's now known as Balad Air Base, but the sources don't seem to say either way. May be worth having a discussion before moving this. Bradv 05:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I’m working on the base currently as a contractor. It’s Balad Air Base, and belongs to and is run by the Iraqi Air Force. I know that we aren’t supposed to use “personal knowledge” but I’ve been here three years now and that’s the fact. BoonDock (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Nominator provided no proof that the move is warranted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The previous names of the base are addressed in the article.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. The proposed title appears to still be what it's called (inaccurately) by those at the base itself (and probably within the USAF generally), but in the wider English-speaking community it's been known by the existing title since 2003 and still is. Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2017 (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.
Black jail site
edit- There is no direct evidence that this is in any way true BoonDock (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC) BoonDock (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The NYT cites (sorry I broke the url copying it from another article) say "Military officials said as recently as this summer that the Afghanistan jail and another like it at the Balad Air Base in Iraq were being used to interrogate high-value detainees." and "the military continues to operate the Special Operations camps, which it calls temporary screening sites, in Balad, Iraq, and Bagram, Afghanistan." Is that inadequate? The Guardian is reporting what is written in a recent UK parliamentary inquiry, who had access to a lot of the classified material, report. Using the term "black jail" is debatable, but that is the name of the WP article describing the non-CIA operated detention camp established. Rwendland (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)