Talk:United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia

Change of the title
I would like to move this article to "United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia"

The proposed new title is the official title of the UN mission as indicated by numerous sources, such as
 * UNSC Resolution 981 establishing the mission
 * Sabrina P. Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005 at pages xx (introductory section, explicitly equating the UNCRO acronym to the proposed title), 455, and 813

I am aware that the most common form of reference to the mission is the acronym, but based on the UNTAES article talk the acronym would not be an acceptable title (except as a redirect). The proposed article title has an added virtue that it is not only official but also disambiguating. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per my comments at []. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

UN protected or not?
There is an overcited sentence within this article:

The UNCRO was initially deployed to the same areas as the UNPROFOR in Croatia, however the relevant UNSC documents no longer referred to them as UNPAs—applying designations of Sector East, West, North and South, or "areas under the control of the local Serb authorities" instead

This sentence concerns me because the readers could be mislead to believe that areas under protection of UN did not exist after establishment of the UNCRO although numerous sources, many of them authored and published by UN, actually do refer to this areas of Croatia as UN protected. The nominator and me have already discussed this issue at the Operation Flash talkpage (link) in March 2013. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus the nominator wrote above sentence according to his point of view which I believe is based on his interpretation of the primary sources (five UNSC resolutions are cited). I think that perhaps this might be a possible violation of WP:CFORK and WP:OR which should be taken care of. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The issues I raised have not been resolved. On the contrary.
 * The above mentioned sentence is still in the article.
 * In the meantime another sentence with the same issues (also based only on the nominator's interpretation, now of the secondary sources) has been added to the text of the article. (Some sources refer to the areas of UNCRO deployment as UNPAs, while others reflect the UNSC practice and omit the acronym.)
 * Also, unsourced "abolishment of UNPAs" assertion has been added, which additionally develops nominator's position.
 * None of the sources used to support the first or second sentence do not discuss the naming issue of this areas nor any of them assert they were not under protection of UN after establishment of the UNCRO. On the contrary. Numerous sources, including many published by the UN, clearly refer to this areas as UN protected. Unless nominator can provide sources for his position (without his interpretations of the sources) readers should not be mislead to believe that areas under protection of UN did not exist after establishment of the UNCRO.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)