Talk:Unified Task Force

message: I think that this needs to be merged with Operation Restore Hope, if for no other reason than to reduce the contradictory information in the two articles.
While Operation Restore Hope is not exactly the same as UNITAF, I think that Op. Re.Hope should be redirected to UNITAF's page (though all information needs to be merged).
I think that in the future, ALL pages on the 1992-1995 United Nations intervention in Somalia needs to be better cross-referenced and merged.  If I've the time, I'll start doing this myself.
BWH76 12:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have said as much on the Restore Hope page discussion. Restore Hope is just the American name for their contribution to UNITAF. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: Okay, I've finally gotten around to doing this (as per the talk on War in  Somalia.  It's going to take a bit to get everything meshed.  PLEASE, join in in making this article better!BWH76 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning of Merge

message: I would suggest that the picture of "Mike Durrant's helicopter" needs to be removed since it has nothing to do with UNITAF. The Blackhawk Down debacle occurred months after the end of UNITAF. The continual conflation of Blackhawk Down with anything else about the Somalia deployments is not helpful. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I think the casualty figures in the sidebar are bogus. I suspect that they are being rolled in with UNOSOM casualties. Also, I know for a fact that one Australian soldier was killed accidentally and that isn't in the figures shown. I will attempt to find a source and update them.--Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty figures

message: In the infobox, the result is stated as being a "success".  A success for who?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.248.182.72 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this was a mission of the United Nations and the article focuses on UN intervention, it is quite clear and factually accurate to say the mission was a success.  The article's focus is specific.  It is redundant to say that the "multinational force was successful" when the entire article is about the multinational force.BWH76 (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The success is easily measured in terms of the mission's mandate, which was to secure humanitarian distribution. What happened subsequent to UNITAF under UNSOM II does not detract from the success of the UNITAF mission. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite obviously the somali gangs won. They are now pirating ships all around the horm of Africa and the powerless pro-western gov't has just been blown to smitherers by an IED. Great coalition success... Why does Wikipedia make a fool of itself with ridiculous claims like UN success in Somalia? It's full-stop orwellian newspeak, no less! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Success for who? 

message: This is partly in response to the above comment by (talk) and partly in general.  I think that this infobox is relatively inaccurate.  First, the casualty figures are all over the place - I don't think that these numbers represent this phase of the UN intervention.  Second, I really don't think that it is accurate to say that Somalia was a combatant in this phase of the conflict.  If it is accurate to say this, then it would further be accurate to state that "Somalia" was on the UNITAF side as well.  
I haven't looked into it, but is there an infobox that is more appropriate than the one currently in the article?  Perhaps something for UN missions?BWH76 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answer is 'no'. There is no consistent approach to UN misison pages. Some have no infobox. Some have an infobox but it is used to provide links to other major pages covering the same conflict. eg. The page for UNAMIR has an infobox listing topics about the Rwandan Genocide.
The only consistency is that they do not treat the UN mission as a kind of war/battle like the infobox on this page does. I think the best idea is to keep the picture, keep the box but do away with the military style reporting of stats. Use the infobox to link to pages like Somali civil war and UNOSOM, the Security Council resolution and so on. As I have said earlier, the casualty figures especially are very misleading because they include numbers across the entire US deployment. I spent about about an hour looking one day for discrete UNITAF casualty figures and it was almost impossible to find them. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The assertion that UNOSOM 1 was suspended is not "false information" as implied by the edit of Melanie.lim91. When UNITAF came into being, the further reinforcement and direction of UNOSOM was left at "the discretion of the Secretary-General" (Resolution 794 para 6.) And using that discretion he made no authorised contributions to UNOSOM during the period of UNITAF. He therefore 'suspended' UNOSOM by putting it in a devlopmental stasis and it is for this reason that it is broken (even up by the UN themselves) into UNSOM I and II. To be 'suspended' doesn't always imply that there is a legal document involved making a formal retraction of something. It can just be a de facto freeze. --Mat Hardy (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspension

message: This user on Flickr served there and has some of his photos available under free license, suitable for upload to http://commons.wikimedia.com .  Not my area of interest, but folks looking for images usable here should take advantage of the opportunity.  T L Miles (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free images available 

message: Two users have been edit warring over some pictures I added earlier. Personally I don't think it was necessary to remove all of the pictures in the article and replace them with a single image of George Bush, and I don't see how pictures of the article's subject were "unrelated".  I will be putting them back unless there's some reason not to. A Werewolf (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree that the images show UTF personnel and are relevant to the article. A single user seems to disagree, and enjoys deleting instances of Somali-related images in Wikipedia without consensus. I would assume they are "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", but have not seen any evidence of a point. Please feel free to restore the images. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  06:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: WOnderful reasoning, except none of them were added by me, and none of them show Somalis. Other than that, iron-clad! Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  15:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Indeed Scoobycentric. See my post here for the lowdown. Middayexpress (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Not quite sure why these boxes have been added to the article without any accompanying reason here on the talk page. The user in question seem to have added these boxes to a wide variety of military history type articles en masse over the last couple of weeks. --Mat Hardy (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. I've removed them. Anotherclown (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy and dispute boxes

message: Is this part relevant for the article:
"CIA Paramilitary Officer Larry Freedman from their Special Activities Division was the first casualty of the conflict in Somalia. He had been inserted prior to the US invasion on a special reconnaissance mission. Freedman was a former Army Delta Force operator and Special Forces soldier and had served in every conflict that America was involved in both officially and unofficially since Vietnam. Freedman was awarded the Intelligence Star for extraordinary heroism."
It follows directly after the sentence: "President George H. W. Bush responded to this by initiating Operation Restore Hope on 4 December 1992, under which the United States would assume command in accordance with Resolution 794.[11]" and breaks the flow of the text.
Unless it had a major influence on the later outcome of the UN intervention, the death of Mr Freedman is not relevant for the conflict or the article and doesn't need to be here.130.63.82.105 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of CIA casualty

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Unified Task Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224071029/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/70509.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/70509.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511103540/http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-5-21/70884.html to http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-5-21/70884.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So I recently did a little clean-up on the Somali Civil War campaignbox, and just made a new one covering the UN intervention period (See right). While we have three separate articles covering this: United Nations Operation in Somalia I, Unified Task Force, and United Nations Operation in Somalia II, I think it's pretty obvious that we're talking about the same event, which gets renamed by the United Nations for administrative purposes. While it was occurring at the same time as the Somali Civil War, this is a pretty self-contained event, with a defined beginning and end, involving international peacekeepers fighting various Somali militias. I think a single article would help bring that into perspective. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I agree that it is necessary to make United Nations Intervention in Somalia (1992-1995), of course, because there should be cover-up article to explain entire United Nations intervention in Somalia during 1990s. However, I don't think we need to merge the articles because all three articles are operations for United Nations Intervention in Somalia. Rather, I think we can edit these articles like NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is covering overall operations of NATO in Bosnia but didn't merge sub-operation. -- Wendylove (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree, the material should show an overall list of joint interventions in Somalia. UNOSOM I, II, UNITAF, and post UNOSOM involvement by the US JackFailor (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger into [[United Nations Intervention in Somalia (1992-1995)]] 

message: The entire second paragraph of background makes unclear statements about the situation in 1992 Somalia as context to the UNITAF and the adaption of Resolution 794 that's only citation as proof is a primary source article *from the UN*, which is not even available to read anymore (although perhaps its blocked to England which is why I cannot read it and I have not tried using the way back machine yet). I believe this paragraph or article as a whole shows clear bias and relies too much on primary sources or just none at all. Rollingdowntown (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   in "background" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* GWB choc chip camo.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion