Talk:Operation Joint Endeavor

Requested move

Operation Joint Endeavor →NATO deployment of forces in Bosnia Propaganda names should not be used as article titles. Añoranza 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as per above Añoranza 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as below discussion ← ΣcoPhreek _{Is Useless}^Nostalgia→ 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose move as per discussion we've had many times in many places. Johntex\^talk 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Johntex. Rangeley 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Johntex, Ecophreek, Rangeley, Zer0faults, Looper5920, The Wikipedia United States Military History Task Force.......--Nobunaga24 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion below--Looper5920 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I find it questionable to use a propaganda term as an article title. Can we find something neutral, please? Añoranza 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is neutral, its about the operation specifically ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the name of the Operation. --Looper5920 23:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the name of an operation, chosen for propaganda reasons. This is not neutral. Añoranza 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you do not have a concensus, please obey it, you cited 50% as adequate for one, please obey your own rulings. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please wait for a consensus. Añoranza 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the tag, it only stays up for a few days, its been 10, follow procedure please. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is now past the 10 days, please stop putting the tag back up. The time alloted for a decission has passed and there is clearly no concensus. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As the tag clearly says, remove it or ask for assistance. As I had forgotten to list it at requested moves the first time, I do so now, and you need to wait until this has been decided upon. Añoranza 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If no concensus is built in 3 days I will remove the tag again as per its own wording. This should prevent your constant revert warring. Good to know you failed to follow the guideline regarding listing moves. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also it says request further assistance if you need help moving the article. Please read more carefully. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that no one except you following me posts at this article's talk page I think that 3 for "a few days" is a very bad idea. Añoranza 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering 10 has already passed, I think 3 more is plenty. Your objection will be noted however. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as Operation Joint Endeavor--Looper5920 12:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Votes without explanation are useless. Añoranza 12:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm done trying to reason/discuss with you. I'm voting to keep and that's it. You have your ideas and they are not going to change. All I will do is oppose you everywhere I can. I prefer to spend my time creating articles and actually adding something to the project.--Looper5920 12:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely keep - This is an operational name about a specific deployment to the region. Whether or not someone feels that the name itself is a propaganda term is immaterial - since it is about the deployment of NATO troops, who went in using that name, it is the what this specific action is called. Otherwise, maybe the Operation Linebacker article should be renamed B-52 bombings of North Vietnam in 1972 since the Vietnamese didn't refer to it as "Linebacker." It's also much more neutral. Or maybe Cultural Revolution, short for "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," in which the word "revolution" has connotations of positive change (not neutral), can be changed to Mao-inspired period of cultural rethinking resulting is large-scale changes for China...oh wait, they aren't American. No need, then, to get rid of the propaganda terms. This is getting stupid. --Nobunaga24 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike in the case of cultural revolution, most readers won't have an idea what this name might refer to. Thank you for pointing out the linebacker case. Añoranza 12:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid that would happen if I did point out Linebacker....*sigh*. So you are the arbitrator of what people will or will not understand? I didn't realize there was such a position in wikipedia. How do I get nominated? If you truly were on a quest for neutrality, then you would be looking at more than just U.S. military operations. So how do you propose to distinguish between all the minor operations in Iraq if you don't want to use operation names? There are articles on each specific one, numbering about 20-30, using the operational names assigned by evil Americans. I won't provide links, I'll let you search. Let me know what you propose the rename them all. --Nobunaga24 13:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you show me any articles entitled with Saddam Hussein's or Milosevic's propaganda I will be glad to request moves. I never suggested to remove all operation names, just those that can be replaced by a neutral common or desciptive name, e. g. United States invasion of Panama. Añoranza 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as Operation Joint Endeavor. Removing operation names from Wikipedia is censorship. This is the 5th or so article this user has attempted to move ... Only US involved operations as well ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What is so "propaganda" about a term "Joint Endeavor" to describe.....a joint endeavor. --Mmx1 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Doublespeak Añoranza 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Current title is fine, there is no reason for a change. Johntex\^talk 20:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

May I move the votes to the top as suggested at Wikipedia:Requested moves? There it says a vote should be given 5 days and longer if no consensus can be found. Añoranza 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason to change it. Rangeley 16:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Result: No move

It is very obvious, no support for the move. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)