Talk:Tajbeg Palace assault

message: First three currently quoted internet sites (two of them are Russian language) are hardly reliable sources. I am looking in a book (a reliable secondary RS) by 
Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World, Basic Books (2005),   , pages 401-402. It provides a lot of detail, including the following. The palace was stormed by 700 members of Alpha and Zenith forces. Over 100 of special forces were killed and wounded, including the head of training school in Balashikha. Since so many people died, Andropov decided not to put their portraits on official display in a place of honor at the "Center", as usual. So, unless there are other secondary RS which dispute this version, let's consider this version the "majority view". My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now this is mostly based on the single primary source  published in "News of Russian Military Industrial Complex". My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Sure. There are numerous books, and they should be used. For example, according to this book , the palace was defended by more than 2,500 Afgan soldiers if I understand correctly. My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: They were run by different KGB directorates . My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Can't speak for the RU wiki but the sources here are solid. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Please check sources

message: Although currently nobody cares about expanding of the article, but if collaborative editors will come here some day in the future, they can use two sections “Background” and “Aftermath”, as well as some tweaks made by the edit [] (some of which are not easily recognized due to the stupid MediaWiki diff algorithm). All this was immediately and summarily twinkled [ on a false pretext]. 
Of course, there are many sources about Taraki and Babrak Karmal, but I am not interested in searches for English-language sources, nor am I not willing to provide Russian-language sources for an English-language article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added again the background section in order to make the article cleared to understand.--HCPUNXKID 16:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Background” and “Aftermath” sections 

message: As the above Wikipedians have noted, this entire article needs a dramatic revamping. I primarily make minor grammatical changes to articles (I'm just getting my feet wet as a Wikipedian), but I have no problem taking on more major edits. I want to do it the right way, however. That said, I concur that the following problems exist throughout the article: (1) insufficient, inaccurate, and unreliable sources, and (2) overall poor readability and grammatical usage. 
I initially started to fix just the latter, but quit after realizing the whole article needs such drastic revamping. --Percinr1819 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Article Needs Revamping 

message: Given the extensive documentation in the body of the article of organizational and executional failures in the operation, it seemed to me that describing the operation as "botched" had ample consensus. However,  disagrees. I'd like to discuss this here - is there general consensus that the word "botched" be added to the lede? 69.172.145.94 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Botched" in lede 

message: I added this tag as the references section needs some cleaning. Petra0922 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is removed. There was a bare URL but the issue is fixed. Petra0922 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bare URLs tag 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved as uncontroversial (non-admin closure) ExtorcDev (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Operation Storm-333 →  – Needs moving to a functional descriptive title, per WP:NCE, and away from the operational title name, per WP:MILMOS:  Iskandar323 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 May 2023 

message: The total casualties in the infobox are attributed to this Global Security report. Notwithstanding that GlobalSecurity.org is not a WP:RS (see WP:RSP), I am having difficulty seeing where the source supports the breakdown of casualties in each instance and the total? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties