Talk:Operation Harekate Yolo

Military history: European / German / Italian / Nordic / Spanish

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	Nordic military history task force
	Spanish military history task force

NATO (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles

Untitled

If the operation consisted of more Afghan troops than any other nation, and if the deputy commander was an Afghan, then clearly the Afghan flag should go second to the German operation leader. If you think this is not the case, please give a reason why. Chwyatt (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that, but you refuse to rearange the "Strength" section accordingly. 190.10.0.20 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a problem with that, why did you change it? Chwyatt (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just change all the box and save us all three precious time. Marvin Nash (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The box has been changed, why do you keep undoing it? Chwyatt (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what other reason is there for downplaying the Afghan involvement in this operation, if not racism? Chwyatt (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags should reflect the size of the contribution to this operation

The article says “900 members of the Afghan National Army, 260 Norwegian Army …, 300 German troops, several dozen Italian troops, and some Hungarian and Spanish troops.”

So clearly the flag order should be Afghanistan first, then Germany, then Norway, then the rest. As Germany was in command, then Germany could go first. It seems a Norwegian contributor to this article also wants to downplay the Afghan involvement as well. Now, there is no justification for someone putting the few dozen Italian or Hungarian troops ahead of the larger Afghan contribution. Chwyatt (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, all of these reverts were done by sockpuppets of Copperchair, who has a long history of vandalism on WoT-related articles. Downplaying the role of the ANA was one of his favourite obsessions. Raoulduke47 (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I’ve noticed on other articles that on occasion references to ANA troops involved in coalition operations have been deleted altogether. Chwyatt (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reflect that Germans in command, Afghans second in command (only German and Afghan commanders mentioned), and to have the same order (belligerents, commanders and stength), the order should logically go - Germans, Afghans, Norwegians. No reason why Italy or latvia should go before Afghanistan. Chwyatt (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes claims not supported by sources (# of EKIA) or with no sources at all. There is an isaf combat report that specifically covers this incident. However wikipedia won't let me link to it. Logging this comment to record that a better source exists. Blurfian (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]