Talk:EUFOR

	European Union portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: National

This redirect 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force

Accuracy disputed[edit]

There are very serious problems with the accuracy of this article. It is not even certain that there is any permanent military force called EUFOR. As far as Bosnia is concerned, EUFOR is simply a replacement acronym for SFOR. The article implies that the Congo EUFOR is part of the same military force, but again it is a mission acronym. If both missions end, then there is no EUFOR.

The article states that "The EUFOR or European Union Force is an international military force under the supervision of the European Council." However the EUFOR-Bosnia website clearly indicates that its chain of command falls under NATO. It does not appear to be commanded by any EU body, and the EU has no powers to engage in military operations anyway.

The article also states that it is a 'purely European force', but then says it includes Canadian forces. All in all, the article conveys the sense of a nascent EU army. There is no such army, and currently no such project - it would strike at the heart of national sovereignty, and it would be the most controversial thing the EU had ever done.Paul111 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eufor handover.jpg[edit]

Image:Eufor handover.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 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name and description[edit]

It would appear to me that "EUFOR" can refer to use of certain types of force under the command of the European Union in any of a number of operations. The BiH operation seems to be called "EUFOR - Althea". Another operation was "EUFOR RD Congo". If this is true, the text could be changed to reflect that "EUFOR" is an umbrella term for several operations, or the article title could be changed to "EUFOR - Althea", though that might also require changes to the text. --Boson 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg[edit]

Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 09:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed split[edit]

It seems that there are three EUFORs with little commonality, resulting in this page being a mess. I propose the movement of content to EUFOR - Althea, EUFOR TCHAD/RCA and EUFOR - DR Congo. This page then become a disambiguation page or, if someone can figure out if there is an underlying structure, a description of that structure. Thoughts? - Banyan Tree 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've spun off EUFOR Althea, which was a preexisting article title. The underlying structure is actually the European Union Military Staff, and possibly the whole article needs to be wound up eventually and the remains put there, or at Military of the European Union. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've broken off subpages for the Chad/CAR and DR Congo missions. Arguably the DR Congo section was skimpy enough to keep merged in, but I lean towards allowing direct wikilinking rather than to sections. I'm prepared to be overruled though. Thanks, Banyan Tree 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]