Talk:United Nations Protection Force

Reshaping this article Project

I'm adding raw informations while I'm going through the UN documentation about UNPROFOR and a few other sources. However, there will be a need to reshape this article in a better way. The problems I could enumerate right now are :

• The article tends to tell the story of the war in Bosnia. This is interesting but more centered on the whole war than on the UNPROFOR itself (always difficult when writing articles about big military units... same problem with the International Brigades, for instance)

Try not to duplicate too much from History of Bosnia and Herzegovina#Bosnian war. --Joy [shallot] 21:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There would be a need to enumerate the most proheminent war crimes, the incidents which most exasperated the Western public opinion (these obviously do not co-incidate), the effects on the public opinion, the societey, the political class... (but a "trivia" section seems somewhat improper to me...)
• Since I used to read and watch French news at the time, I might have a "franco-centrist" approach of the problem. Notably, France was at the time arguably the most "agressive" Western country, even though its relationships with the warring parties are somewhat complicated (notably the initial pro-Serb sentiment). So I might not render accurately the sentiments of the British party, and evenmore poorly the sentiments of the former Yugoslav parties.

Rama 16:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's fair, we can correct any eventual bias as we go. Thank you very much for being so straightforward about this, people don't tend to do this. --Joy [shallot] 21:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stub

Is this article still a stub? Should the message be removed? Blorg 15:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not is the sense that there are more than three lines in this article; but yes, because it was mainly based on a dicument of the UN which predates the incidents which occured at the end of the UNPROFOR mission (blue helmets taken hostages, etc...). We still have to :

- Complete the end of the article

- Document some things (the list of main officers is very incomplete , for instance)

- Make sure that the article does not duplicate the article on the war in Bosnia too much. That's always a problem with the history of a military unit, if you want to give some perspective, you end up re-writing the whole war :p

So I would keep the tag for now, sice there is no way that the article, in its present state, could be a candidate for a definitive article, and I wouldnt like people to be mislead into thinking it might be. But I'm confident it will swiflty converge to a nice article though. Thanks ! Rama 08:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yugovet:couple of points:the Croatia side is very incompete.air and sea units are not covered at all! and i think it needs to comment on all the GOOD WORK unprofor did-people fed,families re-unified,munitions destroyed,medical care,observation, i could go on and on.

Bihać enclave in late 1994

In October, the Bosnian Croat forces attacked the Bosnian Serb forces trapped in the Bihać pocket. The attack and the ensuing counter-attack by the Bosnian Serbs induced terror in the local population and another massive exodus of refugees. In deliberate contradiction with the "Safe Area" status of Bihać and the "No-flight" zones, Bosnian Serb airplanes made repeated attacks in the Bihać area, using cluster bombs and napalm.

Err, it was the Bosnian Croats and Muslims that were trapped in the Bihać enclave. Was this an attack by the few forces of the HVO in there, and did they attack the Serbs, or the rebel Bosniaks under Fikret Abdić, or both? Were they joined by Armija BiH (Bosniak government forces)? Perhaps I'm letting the first sentence confuse me too much... --Joy [shallot] 14:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 yugovet: both are correct. The first forces to attack where the bosnians-they had a complete breakout in the early stages. However,when the serb forces counter attacked,they recaptured everything and menced bihac. it was almost overrun. and yes, it was bombed and subjected to missile attacks.

Grammatical Errors

I’m not an expert at English so I’m not editing the questionable grammar mistakes but I think somebody qualified should have a look.

L:acking info

This article is lacking a lot of information. It doesn't even mention the Operation Medak pocket - and it only mentions some parts (like Operation Storm) making it seem rather insignificant to the actual development of events. At many points it's presenting anti-Serbian POV and at those where it talks about Croats as "bad guys", it's POV again. I think that this article should be greatly expanded and somewhat rewritten. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reading the book "Do something, general!" written from the belge commander lt gen Francis Briquemont. He took over command the 12. july 1993 and leaved the 24 january 1994. If you want to complet this on the article, you are free.

With 83.79.104.218 19:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)regards Lucas Caduff

Popular Perception

There should be a section about how UNPROFOR was popularly viewed, especially in the former Yugoslavia. It's important to note that many people were totally dissatisfied with it and thought it was an utter failure. The total apathy and naivette of some of the people higher up in the chain of command should be mentioned as well. GrimmC (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pocket badge

The pocket badge is actually that of a UN Military Observer, which were part of the mission, but the pocket badge displayed was not that of the whole force. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Casualty figures

Hi. I've started a discussion at Talk: Bosnian War about the number of casualties that UNPROFOR suffered. There seems to be some disagreement between sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Determining the non-copyvio part of a linked text re. organisational history

In this [1] earlier version, how many paragraphs or sentences or words into the text, is that section unequivocally, not a violation of copyrights?
(I am not sure if the question is simple enough; however, for the soliciting of other advice, notification of links to essays, etc. - I am reachable at my user talk page.) --Gazprompt (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Pincrete left those links on your page. You need to read them. We quote only when the context is required for meaning, and do so sparingly. Copying entire sections from an external report is a violation. Scr★pIron^IV 17:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Nations Protection 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.humanite.fr/journal/1995-05-30/1995-05-30-726395#prof
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.humanite.fr/journal/1995-05-30/1995-05-30-726408#prof
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pbpu.unlb.org/PBPU/Download.aspx?docid=339
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041117113322/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unprofor.htm to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unprofor.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131008123532/http://dutchbat1.nl to http://www.dutchbat1.nl
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041215132906/http://www.reseauvoltaire.net:80/article9988.html to http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article9988.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041215152018/http://www.reseauvoltaire.net:80/article9991.html to http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article9991.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

exations - a typo?

exations seems to be a typo but it is not obvious what it should be - can anyone figure out what it should be? (from Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click)