Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence

Already presented evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Añoranza#Statement_by_A.C3.B1oranza and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults. Would prefer to improve the project rather than waste time copying evidence already presented again. Añoranza 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't then blame anyone but yourself for any (lack of) sanctions (on anyone) stemming from your lack of following of the standard requirements. NSLE 12:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly evidence but I would like to go on the record as stating that I agree that articles should be titled "Operation Desert Storm" for example, although the use of the word "propaganda" to describe them seems inappropriate. However, they are definitely part of the fact base of the various incidents and should exist as article redirects and should also exist within the article body. In some cases, the mention may be of minor interest, such as the title for the invasion of Grenada. In other cases, it may be a significant part of events (for example, the first Gulf War as divided into Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm). In the case of the current Iraq situation, it may be especially important to note when various phases of the operation receive different names as it reveals how the military is compartmentalizing aspects of the conflict. To wipe these terms out entirely would be ridiculous. Thatcher131 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I imperfectly recalled the complaints made on ANI about you removing the operation names not just from article titles but from other articles referring to the operation. My feeling is this is sometimes, but not always, appropriate. For example, with respect to General Schwartzkopf, [1] the Iraq war is a very broad term covering events from 2003-2006 and is ongoing, while his role as a military advisor may in fact be more limited to the events of Operation Iraqi Freedom (depending in part on how the military defines the term and whether that "operation" is considered ongoing or if newer phases have other operational names). On the other hand, there is no particular reason why the article on Get Fuzzy needs to use the operation name [2]. (I have no information on the alleged removal without discussion or other issues in this case.) Thatcher131 01:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have selected 2 other examples from the evidence offered on the main page. In the article on the AC-130 gunship, there seems to be no particular reason to refer to the invasion of Grenada as Operation Joint Fury, when "Invansion of Grenada" is more colloquial and avoids a term that is certainly of a specialist nature, regardless of whether it is "propaganda." [3] However, with respect to Operation Linebacker, this refers to a specific part of the air campaign in the Vietnam war lasting 6 months, with a specific beginning and ending date, and with specific operational objectives that distinguish it from other bombing campaigns during the war. A generic title, like "B-52 bombings of North Vietnam in 1972" [4] would actually introduce significant ambiguity. In short, there is no one size fits all answer to the issue of operational names. Judging purely based on its effect on the encyclopedia, Añoranza's approach seems nonselective, while each case needs to be decided on individual merit. Thatcher131 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have noted, as I completely agree, not all operational names need to be deleted everywhere. All I did at the Operation Linebacker article was to start a discussion whether the title is neutral. I did not try to move the page nor did I change any links to it. I cannot see what shall be "overly aggressive" in this. Añoranza 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am trying to suggest that there is a middle ground between Cyde (who stated in the RFAR, now moved to the talk page, that operation names should not be referred to at all) and Zer0 (who seems to want to keep them all in). A certain selectivity is required. For example, it may be the case that operation Iraqi Freedom, as defined by the US military, is not broadly synonymous with the War in Iraq, and the failure to make this clear indicates a defect with the article rather than inappropriate use of "propaganda" terms. As I said above, I agree with Anoranza on Get Fuzzy and Lockheed AC-130 but not on operation linebacker or general schwartzkopf. But as I said initially, that is more content related and it is unlikely that the ArbCom will deal with content issues directly. Thatcher131 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think they should all be kept in. I think this users actions are on par with censorship. I think pages relating to military personnel and government officials should use operation names for clarity as participation is based on operations, medals are sometimes even awarded by specific operational participation. As for operation names in titles, when the operation is the most popular name, or is used to distinguish between events, its best to use it. For instance renaming Operation Iraqi Freedom to Iraq War was just sloppy, there have been multiple wars in Iraq, 2 involving the US and 1 with Iran, that someone could be looking for when searching for Iraq War. Another issue is when the title reflects the operation solely. For instance Operation Restore Hope article only adresses the US involvement in the larger UN operation called UNOSOM II, therefore its appropriate. Calling it US xxxx in Somalia, would not be an effective differentiation, even using the (year) attachment would not differentiate it between possibly military operations etc that took place that year. I do not think creating long names is appropriate, such us "United States humanitarian operation on the eastern coast of somalia (year)." Especially when the operation may only be one, so it would have to be listed by months also etc. Basically, sorry for the run-on, I think its situational and should not be discounted so heavily as propaganda, I mean ... Operation Linebacker ... there is a point where it starts to seem as though someone is just attempting to remove US operation names from wikipedia. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]