Talk:Operation Grandslam

Assessment
Reassessed as C class since references 1,13 and 15 have no page numbers.--Catlemur (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that page numbers are not available for those eBooks. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One of those books is 392 pages long, where is the reader supposed to find the information?--Catlemur (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Short of getting a paper copy and figuring it out themselves I'm not sure, but I'm just saying that there's else nothing that can be done to improve those citations, except for getting the chapter names, which I can try but no success guaranteed. And how does the article have "an unclear citation style"? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - I mistakenly believed Meisler did not have page numbers. Turns out he did, so I just updated that citation accordingly. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update So for Dorn all the info came from Chapter 2, which was entitled "Peacekeepers in Combat: Fighter Jets and Bombers in the Congo, 1961–1963". For Othen I used Chapter 26, which was entitles "Katanga '63". Do you know how I would incorporate that info into the Harvard-style citations? Or would it go under the "References" section? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has an inconsistent citation style not an unclear one. The problem is that this loophole can be exploited by a person who intends to insert false information into articles. I think this is an issue worth discussing so I mentioned it here. Black Sea Raid has the same problem, I marked the citations with no page numbers. Feel free to undo my edits, until we see a consensus on this.--Catlemur (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've used "|loc=Chapter Blah" in the past, and it seems acceptable for e-Books. I've made this adjustment in the article. Feel free to revert if it doesn't suit your needs. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

CE
Did a cheeky little ce and have a question, can the UN forces involved be called peacekeepers if they were used for military operations? Keith-264 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copy edit. Check the A-class review under my response to HJ Mitchell to see discussion concerning the use of "peacekeepers". That gives all the historical context on the use. I used the word stylistically to give variety to the text and because it would automatically tie back to the UN (Ethiopian troops v Ethiopian peacekeepers, one you would assume is a part of ONUC, one is more ambiguous). -Indy beetle (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's nice to know that you took the trouble to question a label. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

New source
Pleasantly surprised to find this. It offers a link to this Wikipedia article! Must mean it's new, because I haven't seen it until a week or so ago. But the info is not WP:CIRC, because it's all veterans' testimony published by the Swedish government. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Belligerent listing
Just as any other UN-sanctioned conflict is listed, I feel the actual combatants involved in the battle should be represented, instead of listed under a broad spectrum with a footnote most viewers seem to ignore or just fail to see. To add the belligerents would clarify immediately to the viewer who was involved in the battle. I believe the, "clutter" on the page left over is self-perceived. If nothing else, a collapsible bullet list could be created for the combatants. What does everyone think, has there been a consensus on this topic yet? Haven't seen any in the talk page. Much obliged. MarkMcCain (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There a problem of misinforming and ambiguity in removing the footnote and replacing it with a list of flags. The Norwegians had the anti-aircraft battery present protecting a UN base, but it is not clear if it directly partook in any fighting (sources do not say, though I doubt that it did, considering what the ONUC Air Wing did to the Katangese air force). Mayalsia and Nigeria had UN peacekeepers present and fighting in Katanga, but is unclear whether they were doing so as part of Grandslam or just concurrent to the operation. Listing all their flags might give the wrong impression. Also, by removing the note, you're removing the info about the US providing logistical support for the operation - listing their flag as if they were a combatant though, would be inaccurate. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay - well there's an easy fix there. We could add the combatants that were confirmed to have taken direct part in the operation (India, Ireland, Sweden, etc.) and keep the same note only including context similar to what you just said to me. That way those involved are actually shown and those with unclear participation are noted but not listed. Win-win. MarkMcCain (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. Let's list Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Sweden, and Tunisia bulleted under the ONUC flag. I think we should retain the footnote in full though, as it explains all of the context. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made some of the editing–what do you think? And what should the flags for the commanders be? That was mentioned briefly earlier on the initial revert, but I forgot what was said about it. MarkMcCain (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems good. I'd generally opposed giving flags to the commanders. Flags are meant to display allegiance, not nationality. The Katangese commanders (Tshombe, Moke, and Puren) require none because the only belligerent listed in that column is Katanga, so there is no ambiuity about who they were serving for. Current consensus as I've encountered discourages the unnecessary use of flags and using them for the Katangese in this case would be considered superfluous. The ONUC commanders is a little more complicated, since Prem Chand and Noronha were attached to the peacekeeping force by the Indian government. Yet Prem Chand and Noronha, I think, could better be considered to be acting on behalf of ONUC (and directly they were, since it was Thant and not India that sanctioned Operation Grandslam). Thant was Burmese, but he was serving purely in his capacity as UN Secretary General and in no way acting on behalf of the Burmese government, with which he had complicated relations. As with the Katangese commanders, if Thant, Prem Chand, and Noronha were all acting on behalf of ONUC, the flags would also be unnecessary. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright then, that's fair enough from my perspective. A pleasure collaborating with you on this, take care. MarkMcCain (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

13.5mm Rockets
Under "Operation" and "First phase" the article states "Early on 29 December, the ONUC Air Division launched a surprise assault on the Kolwezi airfield. The J-29 fighter jets strafed with their 20mm cannons, as their 13.5mm rockets were inoperable in the overcast skies."

Swedish J-29 jets were never equiped with any 13.5mm rockets. This section should be removed or corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.183.141 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)