--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
We're not in the business of trying to impose our notion of NPOV on organizations whose very reason for being is to take a side.
Ironically, your usage of "offical" does just that.
Do you think we should retitle the articles on "Department of Defense", or "Planned Parenthood", or "Operation Save America..."
This argument is disingenous, if not entirely an appeal to ridicule. The context of this discussion is military terms, which, (according the Wikipedia article at least) are POV by their very nature. (Bill names represent particular documents - not events.)
We're not going to do a very good job of reporting other people's POVs if we insist on inventing our own terminology to use in lieu of theirs.
Nor are we doing a very good job of "reporting other people's POV" by deferring to the "official" POV of those with bigger guns. Guns and fancy names do not equate to objectivity (or legitimacy for that matter).
Many operation names get trumped by popular usage, which is as it should be. If there is not yet a clear popular usage, fall back to official names. Only if there are dueling official names, with no popular preference, does it make sense to invent a term. NPOV shouldn't even be a consideration, save it for the article.
Sometimes we have to make up our own names. I refer occasionally to the [[Iraq disarmament crisis]] - something coined by me. We could also do that in these cases, following established conventions for neologisms representing events. Naming is part of POV. Either we have a culture that respects NPOV or we do not.
-Stevertigo "There is only one man who can rid the politics of this State of the evil domination of Boss Jim Gettys. "
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com