:Talk:Operation Herrick

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=

{{WikiProject Afghanistan|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start

|

|B-Class-1=no

|B-Class-2=no

|B-Class-3=yes

|B-Class-4=yes

|B-Class-5=yes

|British-task-force=yes

}}

{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=mid}}

}}

Untitled

This article is absolutely not NPOV, because no mention is made of the very widespread opposition in Britain to the intervention i Afghanistan...Johncmullen1960 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

:Do you have any sources on this?

:Daft, 14 march 2007

::Yes, have added an appropriate external link Johncmullen1960 14:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Surely someone cares about Afghan casualties and can add some information Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Having read this page I am concerned with how minimally in general, although a good overview, it covers the topic area of Operation Herrick for the years 2002-start of 2006 and end of 2008-2009. It is heavy with references for 2006-2007 period which relates to when the page was started. I suggest this page needs an overhaul by military historians to start to make it cover the topic completely, adding casualty counts as per 2009 does not address this major deficit. There are also pages that deal with the public opinion of Afghanistan in more detail and I suggest that is where that type of information belongs, a cross reference is appropriate from this page to that information. If this document is aspiring to cover the ground truth facts of Operation Herrick then I suggest media coverage with all the opinion and errors that can occur should not be the principle references of a subject in which text books are still be written. There is no coverage of the Strategy or Rules of Engagement for Operation Herrick and this is also a major deficit. Obviously the Strategy for Operation Herrick will have changed over time with different Secretary of State for Defence, PMs and different Commanding Officers from 2002-present and will be quite a long section, most likely as long as the ground truth article this page is trying to be. There is a random page that should be considered for removal: Britain's role in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). All in all, my assessment is that the coverage of the topic is very poor and could be much better. --Bizzle1234 (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)