Talk:Operation Medusa

Present tense
"The insurgency is going through its bloodiest period since U.S.-backed forces overthrew a Taliban government in late 2001 after it refused to hand over Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. More than 2,000 people, most of them militants, along with scores of civilians and aid workers as well as hundreds of Afghan security personnel have been killed so far in 2006, while over 100 foreign troops have died, including those killed in the plane crash on September 2, 2006.[2][4]"

This piece may be accurate, but it reads like a news report, is completely out of date, and has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Please desist from including material like this in any future articles. 86.42.203.20 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
Two paragraphs were removed due to their being inept rewrites of an AP story which can be found at http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/09/03/ap2990613.html.

Eleland 19:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

New photo needed
The current (20:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)) picture shows US troops in Kunar Province on Aug 29, which isn't really relevant to a NATO operation in Kandahar Province launched in September.

Eleland 20:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * looks like someone has fixed this. - Cybergoth 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I suggest merging this to Taliban insurgency; both articles are rather poor and I think we could make one good article out of them. I'll continue to work on improving both articles, but if there are no serious objections I'll merge in a few days. --Guinnog 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Object While putting down the Taliban is part of this operation, the Taliban insurgency is a separate issue, merging these two subjects would be confusing, and the Taliban insurgency has been going on longer. This is a purely military operation, and the Taliban is part political, part military problem.Lan Di 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, same reason as above --Boris Johnson VC 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
Right now this is basically a bunch of long paragraphs dumped together with no overall structure. There is too much gnats-eye-view stuff, which, I'm pretty sure, was ripped off of the AP wire by anonymous editors. Most of it should be stripped out, or moved to a point-form timeline ("day 6: artillery strikes here", etc).

I would ask for a large scale narrative synthesizing what is really happening, but nobody seems to know what is really happening. (Maybe NATO, but they aren't telling.)

Eleland 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many sources available. Afghan News, for example, is giving a daily selection of article's published at different news channels and newspapers

Please Remove in "war box"
The war box under the info box contains "Veritas" and "Herrick"... the two do not belong in the box as they are the names of the overall missions that the British are involved in and not the operations which had the purpose of clearing areas, (the way anaconda was for clearing the valley, medusa for the panjwaii district, tora bora for the tora bora mountains) which is what the box is for.

.. Hellopple.. Oct 24

Results?
Pretty much all of the Afghanistan War battles are listed as ISAF victories. This view is unsupportable by evidence.

Battles are not competitions for body counts; they are fought to achieve larger strategic objectives. It is in no way clear that Operations Medusa, Mountain Thrust, Falcon Summit, etc have achieved their objectives. If Medusa was a victory, than why is the operation basically being re-run as Falcon Summit?

I believe the result should be something like "tactical NATO success; strategic results unclear". Eleland 15:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this article isn't on the war in afghanistan in general, it's on Operation Medusa. In that regard it is a coalition victory. Otherwise we could say the stategic results of the first Gulf War are still unclear. Any thoughts?--131.137.245.200 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a thought: KANDAHAR, Afghanistan–Over the past six weeks, the Taliban has driven government forces out of about half of a strategic area in southern Afghanistan that NATO officials declared a success story last fall in a campaign to clear out insurgents and make way for development programs, Afghan officials say. . Eleland 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry pal, but it will be a long time before we can declare strategic victory/defeat on this operation. One or two news articles won't cut it at this point, especially since NATO doesn't show any signs of being defeated on a strategic level.  I'm going to change the results to "strategic implications unclear, conflict ongiong".  Simply looking in the news today from canada.com, I can find a story that runs in the opposite direction, saying that Afghans are turning against the Taliban.  Let's wait until the press gets their story straight on this one...
 * . Japexican 22:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Single sourcing?
While the Legion article is quite detailed, don't know how comfortable I am with the text being the ONLY source of info. Yes, it's multi-sourced, but so are other documents (like the link I added from the Hamilton Spectator). Also, it would be nice to see some links to primary sources (I'm adding this one http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/opmedusa/index_e.asp for the Board of Inquiry looking into the friendly fire death that happened during OP Medusa).

Thanks for all the work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.249.251 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fratricide in intro?
Seems like that should be mentioned in the intro, especially as part of the casualty breakdown. 96.241.177.111 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)