 | A fact from Siege of Sangin appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Untitled
editArticle is still missing some information, like civilian casualties, coalition wounded, coalition commanders. Any help appreciated. Raoulduke47 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Biased
editThis article is very biased in favour of NATO forces and doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry, using words like Taliban "masacred 32 civilians" and implying that the Taliban are growing opium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdantaylor (talk • contribs) 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; both points have citations. - A UB student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.107.91 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Verifiability is not an alternative to neutrality. Moreover, the citation provided for the massacre claim was misinterpreted. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Armoured Column
editThe Guardian article does say 'armoured column' but the overall inference is that this means tanks. The Royal Marines do use armoured vehicles but these are not tanks, but a form of amphibious APC notably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BVS10. Perhaps that should be added something like 250 marines via 'armoured transports'...? Bunnyman78 (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)