Talk:War in Somalia (1992–1993)

message: I am currently writing a research paper about U.S. interventions in Africa. After getting very confused about the various U.N. actions in Somalia from reading the wikipedia articles, I consulted professional sources and I believe that I can now explain...
*UNOSOM I was established in April 1992 to monitor the ceasefire in Mogadishu and escort deliveries of humanitarian supplies to distribution centres in the city.
*Operation Provide Relief fell under UNOSOM I. This took place in August 1992 pursuant to Security Council Resolution 751, to deliver relief supplies.
*UNITAF was the task force that responsible for Operation Restore Hope. This was a military deployment intended to create stability and ensure the proper distribution of relief, spearheaded by the US in December 1992 pursuant to Security Council Resolution 794.
*Both Provide Relief and Restore Hope were US led efforts that fell under UNOSOM I.
*UNOSOM II had a more expanded role than UNOSOM I, and was intended to continue what UNITAF had started. It received its mandate in March 1993 and took over command from UNITAF in early May 1993. UNOSOM II expanded beyond a humanitarian effort to include nation building actions. The force contained under UNOSOM II were under UN control (as opposed to UN backed) unlike the US led missions under UNOSOM I.
Please see the Frontline Timeline, UNOSOM I and UNOSOM II if you want further proof.
I intend to clean up these articles after I am finished writing my paper. --TuesdayMush 12:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Noting removal by anon 86.13.144.175 on the basis of Am. bias. Being Am. I don't see it.Mikereichold 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Private First Class|PFC]] [[Domingo Arroyo]] Jr 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~''
*Support as per above Añoranza 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It is very obvious, no support for the move. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result: No move

message: I find it quite provocative to repeatedly remove move requests after having been told that the reason for them to be there again is that the first time the articles had not been listed at the appropriate page and hardly anyone had participated in the discussion. Jayvdb had agreed with me about the move, let's wait what others say. Añoranza 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that an accusation? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please wikilink where you said they were not listed on this page. I am nto seeing it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I call that barefaced after your umpteenth reverts in the last seconds. Añoranza 12:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: There is definitely a problem with UNOSOM II redirecting to Operation Restore Hope. They are not the same thing, as others have noted. UNOSOM II was a UN-controlled mission that had a large (but progressively reduced US presence.) Restore Hope was the public code name used by the American administration and really began with UNITAF in December 1992, some months before UNOSOM II. Both topics are quite legitimate, but should be on separate pages.
In the last couple of days I have put some effort into the UNITAF and UNOSOM I pages as well as (UNAMIR). I’d be happy to do some cleaning up, but for me, it is quite wrong to have UNOSOM II lumped in with Restore Hope. --Affentitten 01:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above by Mathardy (and similar notes from Añoranza, Jayvdb and others). Namely, that "Operation Restore Hope" (ORH) should *not* be the main title of this article.  The opening paragraph quite obviously confirms that this article is mislabelled, and ORH is a subset of UNOSOM II. The article title should therefore be "UNOSOM II", and "Op Restore Hope" should EITHER be a redirect to this article, or it should be created as a redirect to UNOSOM II. (Not the other way around) Recommend reopening the move discussion. Guliolopez 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the name change, as a seeks to use Wikipedia for propaganda purposes to effect a name change in the operation.  Wikipedia reports facts, it doesn't make them.  Leave your soapboxing to the blog world.  Morton devonshire 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Morton devonshire. I'm afraid I don't understand your suggestion that the name change proposal constitutes a POV push. Can you elaborate? (The concern expressed by most of the proponents of the name change - as I understand it - is that the article is named "Operation Restore Hope", but deals with the broader UN "UNOSOM II" initiative. I'm not sure that this therefore is POV pushing.) Guliolopez 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. How is breaking the article into two properly named subsets "propaganda"? Whether you agree with how the Americans work or not, there was a legitimate entity called Operation Restore Hope. That was the official term used to describe the USA's contribution to the interventions in Somalia of UNITAF and UNOSOM II. You may as well just say that we can't used Operation Overlord to describe the Normandy invasion. I'm an Australian. Our contribution to Somalia was called Operation Iguana. (We're not quite so slick with the PR spin!) It would be sensless to have the UNOSOM II page redirect to a page called Operation Iguana. Just as it is to have UNOSOM II redirect to another national contingent's codename for their effort: Restore Hope. It's not propaganda, it's just classifying things in the correct hierarchy. --Affentitten 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: OK, I did it. There is now a seperate UNOSOM II article with the redirect to Operation Restore Hope removed. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - You may want to restructure the intro to this article ("Operation Restore Hope") to reflect change also.Guliolopez 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New UNOSOM II page

message: Operation Restore Hope ended in May 1993, by president Clinton and the UN.  Why does those this article discuss well everything but the mission??  I suggest splinting the article into parts if needed.  The content of the article should be focused on the military  mission "Operation Restore Hope", which was highly successful in providing humanitarian relief to millions of starving people.  If you wish to have background and a BRIEF section dealing with the decline of Somalia, military uprising, end of humanitarian aid, as of a result of UN and Clinton altering/terminating the operation that would be ok.  But so far nothing in this article explains what the mission was, it’s objectives, it’s accomplishments, it’s participants (size of force, military branches, non-military participation), the people who benefited and the public response.  The title is “Operation Restore Hope” that is what people who come to the page are looking for information on.  Why is there no information except the Date it began and ended?  I offer my services but I have no real personal knowledge of the operation.Mantion 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion? 

message: I suggest renaming to United Nations intervention in Somalia - better known by that name --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose You need to go through the proper channels to propose renaming an article. --JAYMEDINC 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Oppose because it should be known by its proper name: UNITAF. Once again, Restore Hope is just the American codename for the deployment of American forces to a UN sancioned mission. Even though the Americans were leading the mission, it was still a legally constituted UN entity. This Restore Hope article is really a duplication of the UNITAF one because as Mantion rightly says above, this article barely mentions the actual US deployment.--Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name 

message: :Image:Black hawk down poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Black hawk down poster.jpg

message: As far as I can tell, each one of the various articles on the 1992-1995 interventions in Somalia are filled with inaccuracies and sometimes are contradictory.  I've started work on this article - there is A LOT left to do.  If I have time, I will try to tackle each of these articles to try to make them more cohesive and factually accurate. 
:What are the factual inaccuracies that the UNITAF page is "filled with"? --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 23:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I wasn't clear what I meant by that.  Each of the articles seems to confuse the mandate and goals of each operational phase (UNOSOM I, UNITAF, UNOSOM II).  Each phase of the UN intervention did have very different goals, but in each of the entries, the lines between the three have been written in a generally inaccurate fashion.  There is really, really good info in each of the articles, but it gets diluted because of the blur in distinction between the three phases.  
That being said, we could also get into discussion about whether UNOSOM I and UNITAF are actually different phases... :)
BWH76 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not sure if you're joking or not here, but they are most definitely different. UNOSOM was a UN-led, Chapter VI intervention. UNITAF was a US-led intervention sanctioned by the SC under Chapter VII. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: United Nations Intervention in Somalia

message: Mathardy - you and I are on the same page.  I've gone through several different sources and have come up with a good framework from which we may add detail to this article.  I will try to get it online by the end of the week (I printed it all out so that I could compare it with other sources I have).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BWH76 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Write, Merge, All that Jazz 

message: Shouldn't Operation United Shield be included? It was the pull-out from Somalia of all U.N. and U.S. forces, and, for U.S. forces, it was considered to be one in the same with the earlier "interventions," including the rewarding of medals and such. Evets70 (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation United Shield?