Talk:Operation Deliberate Force
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Deliberate Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 30, 2011, August 30, 2013, August 30, 2015, and August 30, 2020. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
title 1995 NATO bombing (or air) campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina
editI'm sorry, but the current name is blatantly misleading. "Bombing Campaign" sounds like "strategic bombing." The events described in this article were anything but, and for that matter, didn't involve "bomber" type aircraft, but rather "attack" and "fighter" aircraft operating in two basic phases: fighter aircraft denying flight in a no fly-zone and then attack aircraft making directed attacks against specific military targets while being protected by fighter type aircraft. "1995 NATO Air Campaign in Bosnia" is most correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 15 August 2012
- Agree. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This article should have encyclopedic title, which is the only one - Operation Deliberate Force. All other are just POV and OR. Also Operation Desert Storm, Operation Allied Force and some others - basing on exactly same principles like in the cases Operation Overlord, Operation Barbarossa or Operation Torch. Yes, I know Military history#CODENAME, but this rule is senseless and should be changed. --Matrek (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The timeline is:
- 16:23, 14 March 2009 GTBacchus (talk · contribs) m . . (4,962 bytes) (0) . . (moved 1995 NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina to 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina: per move request; see talk page for discussion)
- 06:37, 16 August 2012 Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) m . . (23,308 bytes) (0) . . (Peacemaker67 moved page 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina to 1995 NATO air campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina: see talk)
- 25 January 2013 XXzoonamiXX (talk · contribs) m . . (15,108 bytes) (0) . . (XXzoonamiXX moved page 1995 NATO air campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina to 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina over redirect: Since NATO began bombing Bosnia, it should be renamed that way it was before. It wasn't like they cou...)
I don't see the full explanation of the last move for some reason, so I'm reverting this now until that is provided. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Actually, there isn't much more old consensus about the old title, either. Let's go with the newest suggestion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with this move. MILMOS should be followed where possible, and the air campaign version was a descriptive title intended to avoid the one-sided operation name and to accommodate the no-fly zone aspects as well. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's ambiguous - the other NATO operation was also an air campaign and it also involved bombing targets in BiH in 1995. There's also a cover article NATO intervention in Bosnia that would be the best target for these ambiguous redirects. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I don't quite see the one-sidedness problem with the operation name. Can you please explain? I saw one such comment in talk from 2006, but it was contested and wasn't explained, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I lost interest. The general rule in MILHIST is that we tend to try to avoid operation names as they reflect only one side of the equation, so are inherently not neutral. Personally I think the rule is honoured mostly in the breach, and there are occasions ehere the operation name better defines the topic. So disregard my objection, I withdraw. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I don't quite see the one-sidedness problem with the operation name. Can you please explain? I saw one such comment in talk from 2006, but it was contested and wasn't explained, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Background: After popular pressure ...
editAre there any proof or citation in regard of the popular pressure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.146.222 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The article was using a claim by the war criminal Mladič without attribution in the infobox
editUsing the reference saying, quite, "There is no reliable data on the number of civilian victims of NATO bombing, even 23 years after the war. There is a statement by General Mladić in which he speaks of the deaths of 152 civilians and 273 wounded, but it should be taken with great caution because there is no official document to support this claim." (Trans.)
I had it, of course, deleted. But is really no one ever checking the references at all? 94.246.147.217 (talk) 94.246.147.217 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)