Talk:Operation Deliberate Force/Archive 1

Name "Operation Deliberate 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 "NATO Bombardment of Bosnian Serbs"
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)

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

-- TheFE ARgod (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 -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 20:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Support
I support since all Military Operations should have their own article. Also, this talk page is mysteriously titled appropriately while the article main page isn't. --JAYMEDINC 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I support per Jaymedinc. Btw, the talk page seems.... messed up Oo. -- Esurnir 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal box
The merge proposal was removed from the article main page without any explanation. --JAYMEDINC 14:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

NATO bombings (disambiguation)
Hi, please tell me guys if this disambiguation (which I've just created) is ok (neutral, etc) thanks.-- Emperor Walter Humala  · ( talk? ·  help! ) 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

messed up info-box
someone seems to have messed with the info-box.

I have a hard time believing that noone was killed on the serbian side nor that the operation was a serbian strategic victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.192.147 (talk) 18:34, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg
Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving page to Operation Deliberate Force

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED to 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I'm posting here rather than being bold because there seems to have been discussion about the page name before. This article is mis-titled. There was not a single NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia in 1995. In addition to Operation Deliberate Force, NATO carried out multiple air strikes under Operation Deny Flight during 1995. The two fall into different categories and are clearly different issues, but this article's title would cover both of them. It should be titled Operation Deliberate Force (currently a redirect) as that is the true subject of the article, and the most accurate way of titling it. Cool3 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. look at 2003 Invasion of Iraq (Ok I know that covers to operations but so?), 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, United States invasion of Panama and United States invasion of the Dominican Republic. Operation Deny flight should really be titled 1993 NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina...-- Patton t / c 19:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Operation Deny Flight was not the 1993 bombing of Bosnia. It was the 1993-1995 no-fly zone over Bosnia, the 1994-95 NATO close air support for UNPROFOR, and the 1994-95 bombing of Serb targets in Bosnia.  Operation Deliberate Force was the August 30 -September 20 NATO bombing of targets in Bosnia, but that's a nasty name for an article.  NATO bombed Bosnia in July 95 and October 95 under Deny Flight (as well as many other times), so calling Deliberate Force the 1995 NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina is wrong.  If we really can't name this Operation Deliberate Force (and yes I am familiar with WP:MILMOS), then I must insist it be named the August-September NATO bombing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cool3 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose move to Operation Deliberate Force to I don't see a convincing argument to counter the rationale behind WP:MILMOS. Perhaps the current name is poor, but that doesn't mean we should use a name discouraged for reasons closely related to Wikipedia's five pillars (i.e. WP:NPOV), particularly when discussing a recent event in an area where there still exist striong points of view today. Presumably the fact that this article refers only to certain bombing operations in the area means that there was something distinctive about them; this distinctive feature might provide a less clumsy title. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the distinctive thing about these bombings is that they were part of a coordinated and preconceived campaign, rather than just the ad-hoc bombings that took place before and after. The other distinctive factor is that they operated solely under NATO authority, rather than under a joint UN-NATO command structure. I don't really know how to work that into a title, though. Any ideas? Cool3 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at your edit summary, I note you said "distinctive because they were single-key and large-scale". Now I'm not going to hold you to the contents of an edit summary, however these show promise; 1995 large-scale NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina seems plausible to me. It's not immediately clear to me what "single-key" means; it's probably too technical however a translation into terms more familiar to the general reader might throw something useful up. Another possibility might be 1995 independent NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina, "independent" meaning "without the UN". --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are some promising ideas. I do like the idea of adding some additional adjective to differentiate.  Perhaps, if we called it the 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina that would work.  As earlier operations were merely ad-hoc while this was a true, fully-developed bombing campaign.  Cool3 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better than either of my tentative suggestions. I fully support a move to 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sea Harrier shot down
I removed the shooting down of a Sea Harrier from the the infobox. Just to avoid ambiguity: I wrote "several months earlier" in the summary, but this incident took place on April 1994, so is well beyond the scope of this article.--Darius (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC) "The downed US pilot Scott O'Grady, who survived for six days in June before being rescued by helicopter at night by American marines, had signalled his position to search aircraft. He survived on rainwater, ants and grass." Then you should add F16C, as it is from the same source mentioned for Mirage 2000 and two pilots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.5.228 (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ECR in this context means what??
Unless I missed the full versions, the abbrevs. IDS and ECR applied to Tornado aircraft were unexplained. From another page, I deduced that IDS stands for "Interdictor/Strike" and took the liberty of inserting that.

My current acceptance, as the sceptic Charles H. Fort would have said, is that ECR might redundantly stand for "Euroradar CAPTOR Radar," but it might be "Euroradar CAPTOR Recon/Recce." I didn't change that, hoping that someone with more info would know for sure.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tornado ECR is a variant of the Panavia Tornado figther primarily used for SEAD missions and the ECR stands for Electronic Combat/Reconnaissance--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Result Question.
If this Bombing resulted in the end of Bosnia in September 1995, how come the other sources said that Bosnian Conflict ended in December? ZastavaSoldier12 (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)