--- George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, no. I think it should be called the 2003
Invasion of Iraq.
You're overgeneralizing my position.
Maybe. Is it also possible that I'm undergeneralising it?
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.
Ive never read a "probablility" clause in WP:NPOV.
(Maybe I should read it again...)
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.
Thats all nice and good, but what does "western-English-culture-centric"
nomenclature have to do with NPOV?
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
Sound like smart people.
Maybe they would agree with our NPOV policy.
Its also
possible to take the Pentagon too seriously too.
Of course.
I think I will put that CIRCA poster back up.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com