Talk:War in Somalia (1992–1993)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War in Somalia (1992–1993) article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This January 2007 is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Military history or the Military history Portal may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.

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.
  • 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)


Dispute: "The American Ranger and Delta force had to be rescued by UN troops, notably those of Malaysia and Pakistan" American Forces were rescued by elements of the 10th Mountain Division (LI), who were assisted by some Paki M-48s and some Malaysian Wheeled APCs, not by "UN Forces." The 10th MTN (LI) provided the majority of the relief convoy, NOT the Malaysians or Pakis. Tom 01:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Tommel

This article needs to be changed from being called RESTORE HOPE to being called UNOSOM II, with a seperate article about RESTORE HOPE. As it stands, it makes it seem as if the mission was entirely a US intervention sanctioned by the UN. In fact, it was a longstanding mission in which the US mission RESTORE HOPE was a small (yet, undoubtedly integral) part.

Contents

[edit] PFC Domingo Arroyo Jr

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)


This article is incorrect: RESTORE HOPE and PROVIDE RELIEF were not part of the UNOSOM mission but of UNITAF, separate from UNOSOM but also under the UN aegis. As it stands, this article largely ignores the mandate and duties of UNOSOM I and UNOSOM II and opts instead for a description of US actions solely. Earlier versions in the 'history' tab are more factually correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.66.149 (talk • contribs)


OP Restore Hope and UNOSOM II ARE NOT THE SAME THING. It is not political bias, but FACTUAL ERROR. This article is wrong.

The title must be changed. I altered the beginning of the article in the past few days to introduce it as an article about UNOSOM II, which I think it is intended to be. However, the title must certainly be changed to UNOSOM II. Also, I just added a page about UNOSOM I which was being confused with Operation Provide Relief, I think. The problem is that those two operations - Provide Relief and Restore Hope - were apparently part of the UNITAF mission. I think the 'Provide Relief' and the 'Restore Hope' articles should be incorporated into the (currently tiny) article about UNITAF (click last link), and this Provide Relief article should be edited to be an article about UNOSOM II.

[edit] Requested move

Operation Restore Hope → UNOSOM II Redirect currently the wrong way round. Propaganda names should not be used as article titles. Añoranza 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

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)
  • Oppose Rangeley 16:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose ← ΣcoPhreek Is UselessNostalgia→ 16:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Name of a specific military operation, at a specific location at a specific time with specific participants, not a propaganda term. Operations may have euphemistic names, but nonetheless they are names of military operations.--Nobunaga24 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments below. Johntex\talk 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Please let's choose something else. Añoranza 22:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I diagree with you, its fine here, the article is about the operation particularly, not a greater conflict. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Propaganda names should be avoided wherever possible. This could easily be renamed to something like UN intervention in Somalia. Añoranza 02:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is talking about an operation, its not just about general UN intervention, also that name would obviously be too broad for this article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The name UNOSOM II is the internationally recognised name for this international operation which include many other countries. UNOSOM includes UNOSOM II as the name of this article. I agree with Añoranza; I think the name should be changed once everyone has had a chance to comment. Jayvdb 02:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the US role in UNOSOM II, meaning their own specific operations. Its not about the general UN operation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a comment right above Anoranza's post stating this btw. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If this article lacks information about other participants than the US it should be added. This in no way justifies using a propaganda term as the title. Añoranza 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point, its solely about the US operation, its not about the larger operation. That is why its titled as it is. The article you want to move it to is about the UN as a wholes operation. I am not sure why you are failing to get this. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If anything a seperate article should be created about the UN as a whole's role in the operation. Feel free to begin it as I will be more then happy to assist. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didnt see the previous comments. I dont know much about the specifics, but I'm happy to help fill in a new article if it is required. Why is there a need to have an article for the American Operation as distinct from the UN operation? Will the contents differ greatly? Quite a lot of the current article is about UNOSOM II so if the article needs to be split, is there more information that can be filled in here?
Rather than quickly start a new article which may inflame the current situation, it would be a good idea to create new sections in this talk page as a dumping ground until the dust has settled. Jayvdb 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As UNOSOM II is already bolded, it is clear this article was not intended to be restricted to an US operation. Thus, the propaganda name can be removed from the title. Añoranza 04:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
How about you read the article and see the UNSOM 2 has a different article ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
UNOSOM II redirects here. It should be the other way round. Please do not remove suggestions made by others. Añoranza 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again.........--Looper5920 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Seriously right? UNOSOM II needs to be built into its own article then, perhaps since you are so concerned with the events you should write it. This article focuses on the US portion of the mission. Tags only stay up for a few days, its been 10. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the name as it is. Johntex\talk 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. I will remove the tag in 3 days if a concensus builds in either direction. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty complicated situation; I think both sides here are right in some ways. IMO, there should be an article at Operation Restore Hope, but it should be specifically about the U.S. military operation. There should be a more general article at something like 1992-93 Somalia intervention about the overall thing, including the political dimension (UN negotiations, etc.), the non-US components of the operation, and putting the US component in wider context. --Delirium 07:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the design as suggested at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please add your votes and a sentence for explanation at the section for it. Policy is to give 5 days for a vote and more time if no consensus can be found. Añoranza 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result: No move

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

[edit] Vandalism

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)

Is that an accusation? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I call that barefaced after your umpteenth reverts in the last seconds. Añoranza 12:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

OK, I have written/rewritten quite a substantial article on UNOSOM I. However, it would be wrong of me to over-write the current article on ORH. My new article mentions ORH, but only in terms of it being the American code name for their contribution. My article is wider, covering the immediate background to UNOSOM I, how it operated and how it ended. It is not American-centric (though of course American actions were pretty integral to UNOSOM I). What I really need is the redirect solved to give me a clean page called UNOSOM I. I'm not sure how to go about that though. Anyone? Once the two articles are differentiated, then a more distinct Wiki debate and editing process may be undertaken. At the moment we're arguing over who gets the twins, but with only one of them in the room. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New UNOSOM II page

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)

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)

[edit] Confusion?

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)

[edit] New name

I suggest renaming to United Nations intervention in Somalia - better known by that name --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose You need to go through the proper channels to propose renaming an article. --JAYMEDINC 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Black hawk down poster.jpg

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)

[edit] United Nations Intervention in Somalia

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)

BWH76 12:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)


I agree with you - the reason that I said that is that the UN seems to term it a phase of UNOSOM I despite the UNSEC Resolution in its official history. Perhaps more tellingly, UNITAF's budget is also listed under UNOSOM I - not as a separate budgetary operation. That being said, as you wrote, I don't think that there is any point for it to be folded into UNOSOM I. BWH76 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War in Somalia (1992-1993)

I found it unfair to have this limited to just an "operation". IMO it was a full-blown war, similar to the ongoing War in Somalia (2006-present). Also, Operation Restore Hope was the US name and we had Canadian and other names, so all should be included in this. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose I understand what you are saying, but I completely disagree. This article is about the UN intervention in Somalia, NOT the greater context of the Somali Civil War (which already has a Wiki entry). It should be merged under UNITAF, the UN name for the operation. It does not make sense to put it under a title such as "War in Somalia" as that is not a widely accepted term for this period in Somali history. In fact, "War in Somalia" is actually a misnomer as it separates this phase of the Somali Civil War and UN intervention from the general context.
OK, I suggest then the name Somali Civil War (1992-1993 period). Also, one suggestion: the name United Nations Operation in Somalia should hold together two articles United Nations Operation in Somalia I and United Nations Operation in Somalia II--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree all should be under the name UNITAF, as Unified Task Force cannot be the name of a military conflict. See WP:MILMOS#NAME. UNITAF is the name given by one side, I doubt the Somalis gave the name of their combat with the UN "UNITAF" (if they even used names..)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, now that I've gone back through the history of this page, it appears as if you made a similar move in the past - and that edit was reverted due to lack of consensus on that move.

BWH76 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

so what? it wasn't a wide consensus, not an argument for this discussion. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree all should be under the name UNITAF, as Unified Task Force cannot be the name of a military conflict

Why do we need to name it after a military conflict? UNITAF was a specific entity that was an actor in the Somali civil breakdown. They are not interchangeable. I agree that some of the pages on the interventions in Somalia are a mess. This largely stemmed from the complete incomprehension of some people that there was more to the topic than Operation Restore Hope. For a long time the ORH page didn't even really mention America anyway. And it got bogged in Blackhawk down, as if that was the be all and end all of the intervention. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 23:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I now really suggest United Nations intervention in the Somali Civil War - very descriptive name, specifies the main participant, the type of action and location. Also, it's more encyclopdic and objective than the name UNITAF, and, frankly, means the same in a more clarified way. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
also, the name UNITAF has no "Somalia" mentioned in it, that would be confusing to the reader.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


I think that you're much closer to the mark with that suggestion, but I do not believe UNOSOM I, UNITAF, and UNOSOM II should all be rolled up into one article. That would be a very long article with a vast amount of information. In other words, that would defeat the goals of Wiki Article length. As for confusion that readers may have in that "Somalia" is not mentioned in the article? I'm not swayed by the idea that some readers would be confused. If we are trying to make the entry accurate, we should specify the proper name - UNITAF. If you are still concerned, we can set up a redirect page from "United Nations Intervention in Somalia" to UNOSOM I, UNITAF, and UNITAF II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BWH76 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see the need to dumb things down by rolling it all up into one article just because some people can't be bothered to search properly or read past the first Google hit. Besides which, other UN mandated operations have their own pages. Go check out UNAMIR, MINURSO, UNTAET etc. That is consistent with the Wiki UN project. I repeat: UNITAF is an entity and as such is worthy of it's own page. It is not the same thing as "War in Somalia". FearGod, I think your suggestions are actually LESS encyclopaedic because you're basically just making up categories to replace proper names. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
go on with the merger, I will continue to discuss on the other page. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Write, Merge, All that Jazz

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)


I apologize - I haven't had a chance to clean this up yet. I'll try to get this done soon... BWH76 (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)