Talk:Operation Linebacker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Linebacker article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article 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 a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Military aviation task force United States military history task force

The title of this article is not neutral, it is in fact propaganda. Añoranza 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? You have something against football? This is just absurd. This was the most common name for it because, gasp, it's the most accurate way to refer to it. What would you prefer? [[U.S. bombing and interdiction campaing against North Vietnam (1972). Should we rename the Easter Offensive to March 1972 attempted North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam? Let's not be daft. --Mmx1 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you can't forget the South Vietnamese were involved. How about March 1972 attempted Democratic Republic of Vietnam's invasion of, and the Republic Of Vietnam's temporarily successful defense of the Republic Of Vietnam. That, my friend, takes into account both sides perspectives, thereby being more neutral. "Easter Offensive" is highly offensive because it is a propaganda term linking war to what some consider a holy day, thereby giving an impression of a just crusade on North Vietnam's part, and makes it appear as though South Vetnam laid back and helplessly took a beating. Likewise, it uses the proper names of the countries involved, not the colloquial American usage of North or South Vietnam.--Nobunaga24 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

whoops, sorry about that; got bit by the google/firefox thing. Uninstalling the former now.... eck. --Mmx1 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it is a propaganda name, thus not neutral and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Añoranza 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you sound like a broken radio. What do you propose as an alternative? The operational name is the most relevant, concise, and historically used one. --Mmx1 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems other disagree with you on the POV issue, perhaps a vote? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You know there is an ongoing discussion. Until consensus has been built, the POV-tag has to stay. Añoranza 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct hence the need for a vote. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion? You against the world? There is no ongoing discussion, just one individual. There is a consensus. You alone disagree. On page, after page, after page...... The tag here, and everywhere else, needs to go. --Nobunaga24 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• There's nothing "propoganda" about this title. We shold leave the name as it is. Johntex\^talk 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument is absurd. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to enable the user to find information on a topic--how can re-naming this article do anything to help this? The point of its title is that there are scores of books and articles out there that make reference to an operation named "Linebacker" and this article provides an easy-to-locate means to the information. You twice make the allegation of "propaganda" but fail to make even the slightest point in how so. Your "campaign" seems to be either an ego-trip or political, whereas the article, including its name, is neither.--Buckboard 07:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)