Talk:Operation Power Pack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 Comments 2 Requested move 2.1 Survey 2.2 Discussion 2.3 Result: No move 3 Missing Quote

[edit] Comments

Just my 5 cents worth:

I was too young to remember what happened, but senior members of the family and friends were witnesses in those times. Far from just saving foreigners, US troops took part massively in the violent repression of the movement for restoration of the constitution.

Main activity reported to me from people who suffered it were massive artillery shelling of the poor residential neigboourhoods and shanty towns by the US troops. No fighting was taking part in these areas except for the shelling, but it forced the majority of the population to avoid taking part in the defence of their constitution. Undoubtedly, this was also the motive for these operations.

84.156.4.191 10:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

and compared to the commies who destroy societies? Ever think of that? Please show stats or other information of how this country was saved by the US in a violent manner from commie intrigues. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Requested move

Operation Power Pack → US intervention in the Dominican Republic – 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 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• OPPOSE as below along with everybody else ← ΣcoPhreek _{Is Useless}^Nostalgia→ 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rangeley 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think Power Pack is propoganda. TheronJ 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As per previously slated reasons many times over. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as numerous people have stated, there is nothing wrong with this title - this is the best title - and the article shold stay here. Johntex\^talk 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed title, "US intervention in the Dominican Republic" is more general than the original title, and is thus less informative: such an article could refer to economic or cultural influence/imposition, or any historical or future military intervention. Yet this article refers to a specific operation. Additionally, I don't see the propagandistic aspects of the current title --Erudy 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the US has had multiple interventions in the Dominican Republic. Most of these were a part of the Banana Wars. New title is vague and less informative.--Looper5920 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current title is accurate. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 12:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per all the above --Nobunaga24 00:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Please let's choose something different. Añoranza 23:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Get off your high horse. Where is the propoganda in "Power pack"?--Looper5920 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling yourself "power pack" is exactly the hybris you accuse me to have. Please be civil in the future. Añoranza 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wah--Looper5920 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote its fine, I think you lost concensus here. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are funny, a consensus build by you and one other guy. Añoranza 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

50% was your threshold, right now its at 66% against you. Follow your own rules. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the name as it currently is, is fine ← ΣcoPhreek _contribs^talk→ 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove a tag before a consensus has been found. A consensus is not build by two people against one. Añoranza 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag only stays for a few days, its been 10. Follow procedure please. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy says remove or ask for assistance. As I had forgotten to list it at requested moves the first time I place it there now. Añoranza 11:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It says to ask for asssitance if you cannot move it yourself. "If, a clear consensus for the page move has been reached" then do XYZ or ask for assistance. However a concensus was not reached in favor of the move. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How can a consensus be reached if there is no one to build one? Please try to see that it does not make sense to claim that there is no consensus on a page no one visited and wait if the listing helps. Añoranza 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The listing itself states, it stays for a few days, not that it stays until a concensus is built. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated I will leave it for 3 days as its already been 10 days, 13 days total is more then a few days as the template itself states. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

3 days is appopriate if in three days several users build a consensus. It is not appropriate if no one decides. Añoranza 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing with what the template says, if you would like to get a certain ammount of time added to it, I am not the one that can help you with that. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think the current title is the best one for the article. It is the most common name and it is the one we should use. Johntex\^talk 14:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I still (10 days later!) oppose a move. It currently sits at 1 for the move and 4 opposed! That's 80% against. ← ΣcoPhreek _OIF 01:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the design as suggested at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There it says a vote should last 5 days or longer if no consensus can be found. Añoranza 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Notified all interested parties who had already voted above, that it had to be done all official like. ← ΣcoPhreek _{Is Useless}^Nostalgia→ 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I just read the article on DR history, and it appears that Operation Power Pack is not the only US military intervention in the DR...there was one in the twenties, as well. This, I think, bolsters my comments above: going to the proposed title would change this from an article on the specific operation to American operations in the DR in general. If "Operation Power Pack" really is NPOV (which I still don't see) then we should change the title to US military intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965 which, I think it has to be admitted, is quite unwieldy --Erudy 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that there is now a very clear consensus to leave the article where it is, would you agree Anoranza? ←ΣcoPhreek→ 15:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result: No move

It is very obvious, no support for the move. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Quote

This paragraph (second from bottom) is missing a close quote:

At the end, US Senator, William Fulbright, said that the United Stated had displayed bad judgment and an "arrogance of power in interveining in interenal affairs of sovereign country.

Anyone know where the quote ends or have a source for it? Ryan Roos 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)