Talk:Battle of Kunduz (2015)

Should we say a possible "baseline" for ANA casualties from a reliable source, unknown isn't very helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abattoir666 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

MSF Hospital Airstrike
This section needs its own article. It will rapidly become one of the worst war mishaps of modern times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwood0 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a report from MSF on the attack. Someone might include it in the article.


 * http://www.msf.org/article/afghanistan-%E2%80%9Ci-have-no-words-express-it-unspeakable%E2%80%9D Ich901 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis section bias
The analysis section is completely biased and uses dubious sources to suggest unsubstantiated claims about American involvement in Kunduz. Absolutelyignorant (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Add the Other Sides of Story
The quotation referred to, in the article (regarding US involvement in Kunduz battle) is based on afghan parliament member’s discussions and published in Afghan medias like: http://jomhornews.com/doc/news/fa/71284/ The same information can find in http://www.avapress.com/vdcbfzb88rhb88p.uiur.html and other afghan outlets. These are not analysis, but the news that can leads us to the analysis. Further, the other people can publish the other side of the story. Monday, October 5, 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.184.237.159 (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis
I removed the analysis section, which was promptly re-added several hours later. I personally do not think it is appropriate material for this article. I am open to discussion as to the value of this section. C628 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The bit about "The Iranian newspaper Javan Daily has connected the Kunduz Siege to the Russian decision..." is irrelevant. An Iranian newspaper's analysis is wholly unconnected to the event and trivial in any case. It only serves to introduce an unfounded bias.
 * "Javan Daily claims that NATO officials were aware of the security threats before Taliban assault." This is covered in detail in the timeline of the article, which describes the ongoing battle over the previous months.
 * The report simulate the Taliban overran of Kunduz to The suspicious fall of Mosul occurred between 4–10 June 2014." Again irrelevant, comparing a battle in a different country that involved different participants on both sides with only tangential connections.
 * "Evil America manage the war on both sides with aim of killing Muslims..." Unfounded speculation. There are 350 people in Afghanistan's parliament, just because this guy has an opinion does not make him relevant or correct.
 * "Moscow is considering deploying troops to the Tajik-Afghan..." Can fit into "Effects" section.
 * "Chief Executive Officer of Afghanistan, Abdullah Abdullah, on 5 October 2015 said that the fall of Kunduz..." Similarly a shortened and copy edited quote can fit into effects section.

Map
The map is at least 3 months out of date. Anyone have a more current one? Utahwriter14 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)