Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:30, 26 November 2006

It has been suggested that this page be split into multiple pages. (discuss)

Military history: Aviation / European / French / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force European military history task force French military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Propaganda names as article titles are not encyclopedic and should be avoided wherever possible. Añoranza 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this move is inappropriate. --zero faults 04:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice a certain someone hasn't said anything about Operation Storm being a propaganda term...oh wait, that isn't a US or NATO operation name. It's the Croatian military's name. I guess it isn't propaganda. --Nobunaga24 03:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New name

Name changed in accordance to the guidelines--TheFEARgod 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You msut be kidding me. --VKokielov 15:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's work it out. --VKokielov 16:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You still have a chance of not descending to edit war :-) Please discuss first and then move. --Dijxtra 13:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved

I decided to move this article to Operation Deliberate Force title because in my opinion "NATO campaign against the Army of Republika Srpska" is a pro-Serb/pro-Srpska POV term. And the results of Google Search indicates that the term "Operation Deliberate Force" is much more common on the web that "NATO campaign against the Army of Republika Srpska", independent of the searching method used (specific term or sum of words) — see , , and , . -- MaGioZal 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So, how is a simple factual description pro-Serb? The only way that could be possible is if the reality is inherently pro-Serb. Furthermore, I fail to see how using a NATO propaganda name is any more impartial. --estavisti 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the history wasn't moved, this controversial move wasn't discussed etc. Reverting to old title for now. --estavisti 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but to o call the NATO code named “Operation Deliberate Force” as a “propaganda” term is Pro-Serb POV. Nobody outside Serbia and Srpska calls Operation Storm as “Croatian campaign against the Army of Serbian Krajina”. And as far as I can see here, many other people share the same opinion as mine. So I’m moving the article again.--MaGioZal 17:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a NATO term. Using NATO's terminology implies that it was legitimate (POV) and dresses it up as something it's not (Deliberate Force - doesn't that sound so nice and controlled?). Your example is not appropriate, because those who were ethnically cleansed in Storm generally accept that name for what was done to them. Another problem is that you're not moving the article correctly. If you want to move it to this title, first, make a poll as this is obviously controversial. Secondly, ask an administrator to move the article history. I don't know if what you're doing is considered vandalism, but it is considered to be inappropriate, abrasive, and bloody annoying. If there is a consensus for moving the aticle, it will be moved, no matter what I say. For now, before you take the appropriate steps to have the article moved, it stays at the current title. for more information, read Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Please do not presist without discussion and informing yourself on how Misplaced Pages operates. --estavisti 17:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So… the article was moved again.

.

Well, for now I give up.

But sincerelly talking, I see that here in the English language version of Misplaced Pages there’s a kind of “Serbian Guard Cabal” that tries to distort the facts known in all the Free World Developed Democratic Western World Media (BBC, The Economist, CNN, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, RTÉ, etc.) to the Milosevic/Karadzic propagandistic version of what happened: “Bosnian ‘turk’ mujahedins killed as much as Serbian defence forces”, “Arkan and Mladic are heroes of Serbia”, “1389 is today and Kosovo is the sacred perpetual heart of Serbianhood”, “The Srebrenica massacre didn’t happened”, and all that kind of delusions.

Thankgod, at least as of today, the orthodox-fundamentalist-slavic-nationalistic nightmare of Greater Serbia is over. But it’s still active, at least here in Misplaced Pages.

Sometimes all those things make me very sick and tired of all of this.

(just to remember: I am no racist. I’ve got nothing against Serbs per se — I’m just against ideas of authoritarian nationalistic expansionism and violent annexation)--MaGioZal 18:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

please stop trolling! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, let’s see what is trolling:

Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces.

So, I believe I am not trolling here. I’m just speaking freely about what I think about the subejct.--MaGioZal 17:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

yes you do, you're pushing out of the place discussion (example Kosovo), that's trolling and provocation.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t use the mentioning of Kosovo as a provocation, but just to illustrate my point of view about the matter of this article.--MaGioZal 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

ALSO: from WP:TROLL "Some trolls are critical of the project, its policies, its users, its administration, or its goals. Often, this criticism comes in the form of accusations of cabals, ilks, or campaigns, that are typically invested in a particular POV, invested in maligning a specific user, and other similar claims.". Your comments are trolling and should be treated as such. Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you are trolling, not me. Because I’ve already quitted to change the title to Operation Deliberate Force, as I explained above. And my mention of cabal wasn’t an accusation, but just an impression of mine regarding some articles in Misplaced Pages about Yugoslav Wars and their respective talk pages where any anti-Serb-nationalistic considerations are harshly supressed by one or two pro-Serb-nationalistic “guardians”. That’s it.

I, as anyone here in Misplaced Pages, got the right of freedom of expression. And for now I’m not persecuting anyone nor inciting for (or forgetting about) genocide or anything like that. So, you can think whatever you want, and even accusing me of throlling again and again and again just because I don’t believe in Srpska and expressed it here — you can even add again that accusatory pic don’t feed the trolls at the side of my writting if you want, and maybe after that I would add another one at the side of your writtings here, too — just to make things more balanced, you know…;-P

But anyway, I’m quitting this fruitless discussion (you will not change your point of view, and I will not change my point of view, too) here, once again. You can write anything you want, I won’t care anymore, and I’ll not add any new line of discussion on this. The readers of this article discussion are the witnesses, and they can browse through history to make up their minds.

Goodbye.

--MaGioZal 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah man, those damn Serbs! It's all their fault, the fuckers! --estavisti 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, man. It’s not the Serbs/Serbians peoples’ fault; it’s the Greater Serbia/Orthodox Christian Fundamentalist ideologies’ fault — and oportunistic people like Milosevic that used them for their own benefits. Due to these factors, sadly Serbia is still today one of the poorer and most isolated countries of Europe.--MaGioZal 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that military articles on Misplaced Pages overwhelmingly use the corresponding code-names (Just look at for a few examples). I'm sure this is partly because, just as the case is here, the code names are far more widely known and recognized than any possible "descriptive title". Say what you will; at the end of the day the history books still refer to this as Operation Deliberate Force. The argument that the code name is somehow POV doesn't tread water either: names like "Enduring Freedom" are far more POV but they still stand (One possible solution is revising the introduction to explicitly say that it is the NATO code name). On top of all of this, trying to demand a process to change the article title back to O.D.F. is just plain incredibly hypocritical, as that was the original article title before it was changed without any consultation with others. If anything, a process should be started to determine if the article really should (have) be(en) moved to "NATO Bombing Campaign... etc." (in the first place). Live Forever 03:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The current or the previous names partial or POV - I don't address this issue. But what concerns me is that talk page is redirecting to one name, while the article itself is named otherwise. This creates confusion. This is quite inadequate moving of pages. And now also the {{split-apart}} template doesn't work and it isn't comprehensible where and how this split was proposed to be done. :-( Just my 2 cents - or 2 pare. ;-) --Biblbroks's talk 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be under the Operation name, like Operation Barbarossa, Operation Neptune, and a number of other military operations best identified by the codename assigned them. I find this hilarious that the talk page is under a different title than the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Barbarossa and Neptune are parts of a war, like Operation Medusa etc. This was a war for itself by NATO, and I suggest the title 1995 NATO intervention in Bosnia, but not Deliberate Force, it's NATO-pov--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

see also:

• Operation Allied Force - NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
• Operation Litani - 1978 South Lebanon conflict
• Operation El Dorado Canyon - United States bombing of Libya

Operation names are not good as article names, especially as they give the name of the war by itself. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral name

So, let's focus on choosing a neutral name:

• 1995 NATO intervention in Bosnia
• 1995 NATO air campaign in Bosnia
• 1995 NATO-Serb conflict
• NATO bombing of Republika Srpska

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The third version is incorrect. The conflict was not with all Serbs, nor with all Bosnian Serbs, but with the RS. Four is OK with me, if "1995" is added to the beginning. One and two are OK if "and Herzegovina" is appended. However, it's not really clear to me why the current title ("NATO campaign against the Army of Republika Srpska") has to be replaced. // estavisti 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

let's say that we should change it if more people raise their voice against it. Sincerely, I think it wasn't only the Army that was taking hits. The fourth name doesn't need the year addded because there was only this NATO bombing of Republika Srpska --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"sources" for casus belli

please state exact page of where this is stated. // Laughing Man 22:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The contents of the documents linked says many things about the reason why of the correaltion between the Srebrenica and Markale massacres and the NATO’s reaction to them — the Operation Deliberate Force. Just read them and it’ll be there.--MaGioZal 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Operations involving special forces