Template talk:Campaignbox Yugoslav Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This non-article page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
NA	Non-article pages do not require a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Considering the fact that Operation Deliberate Force was a part of Bosnian War and that Operation Allied Force was part of Kosovo War, I don’t see the necessity of putting these two operations as separate items from the main events on this box. So, I’m deleting these and changing for "Slovenia-Croatia-Bosnia-Kosovo-Macedonia", which is a more NPOV approach.--MaGioZal 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a NAVIGATION BOX, theres no harm in leaving more related articles in the box, they're in parenthesis next to what they're related with. // Laughing Man 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there’s harm, because there’s no reasons (but POV-pushing) to put the NATO actions as a separate items in the template. They were part of the Yugoslav Wars, as the same way as the Vukovar massacre, the Srebrenica Massacre and the Siege of Sarajevo. And if these three items doesn’t appear in the template, there is no reason to add the NATO bomings in Bosnia and Yugoslavia as separate items. So, I’m reverting again (bringing the template closer to its first form, which was NPOV).--MaGioZal 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't vandalise they were foreign interventions and thus different periods in the ongoing conflicts Like Afghan Civil War - US war in Afghanistan --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they weren’t “foreign interventions and thus different periods”, because they were a total part of the wars (even the infoboxes assure this), and happened in a period inside these wars. The Operation Deliberate Force was made to force Serbia and Srpska to sign the Dayton Agreement, and the Operation Allied Force caused Milosevic’s Serbia to back down and pull their troops and paramilitaries out of Kosovo and accept the UNMIK administration. Citing the NATO actions as separate events is like to try to separate and treat as a different event the so-called Great Patriotic War from World War II.--MaGioZal 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

see Template:Campaignbox Afghanistan I'm reverting it back --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it’s not the same thing. Let’s check the box.

v • d • e Civil war in Afghanistan Soviet involvement – Government collapse – Anarchy – Taliban control – US/NATO involvement

The box show distinct and non-overlapping fases of a long Afghan Civil War, compared with the Yugoslav Wars, wich has 5 distinct phases: the Ten-Day War, the Croatian War, tZhe Bosnian War, the Kosovo War and the 2001 Macedonia conflict. The current template is not NPOV, because it continues to imply NATO actions as separate distinct events from these five mentioned before, which is POV-pushing (something like “Hey look, Yugoslavia, Srpska, Serbia and the Serbs were the innocent victims of NATO imperialist attacks”).--MaGioZal 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again trolling, eh you're accusing falsely by giving this quote. Your reasoning is pure logical fallacy as was your statement on talk:NATO aggression on FR Yugoslavia that only Serbia was struck. Please, first inform yourself on the events and then discuss them. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I think am not doing this, and I am not accusing falsely anyone here. I’m just expressing my opinion. And the fact that you’ve wrote “NATO aggression on FR Yugoslavia” in place of the article titled “1999 NATO bombing in Yugoslavia” just shows your POV in this matter, to.--MaGioZal 11:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

again accusing. my POV is my business, however not expressed on the title change. Like you said "I’m just expressing my opinion", which is not better and neither worse from yours --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not our respective POVs, which are quite different. The problem is that the Tamplate, in my opinion, is somehow POV-flavored… to your POV. I think the template, in its original creation form, is the most NPOV possible form. I think as we see that our opinions are for now unreconciliable, I think it should be better to call the opinions of other users or maybe admins into this matter. Goodbye.--MaGioZal 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)