On 7/13/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
It's quite another to assert that military operation names are unencyclopedic or so POV that they should not be used in the WP. The operation names are just designators for an event, and are often both the most common and only popularly known public label for those events (Desert Storm, for example).
Again "most common", "most known" etc. are not significant points. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq article for example, according to your view, should be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Actually, no. I think it should be called the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. You're overgeneralizing my position.
If the military operation name is the most common western, english language designation for an event ("Desert Storm") then it probably should be the article name.
If the military operation name is not the most common western, english language description for the event ("2003 Invasion of Iraq") then it should not use the military operation name. The military operation name should exist as a redirect to the event article, in that case.
It's a western-english-culture-centric approach, not a pro military or anti-military terminology approach. The article should be named the way "normal people" will most likely look for the article. In some cases that is, and in some cases that is not, the military operation name.
It is possible to take Robin Lakoff too seriously.
I dont read him/her.
Robin Lakoff is the wife of UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff; both of whom have been writing widely on linguistics of military and political actions, from a left-wing viewpoint, for about 20 years now. Your argument may be of independent origin but it's precisely some of their points. See [[George Lakoff]] on en.wikipedia
Its also possible to take the Pentagon too seriously too.
Of course.