Talk:United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66)

message: * 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)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that ousting a democratically elected government, tearing up a constitution and installing a military dicatorship constituted saving something from "commie intrigues". LamontCranston (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of brutality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Add any additional comments
Please let's choose something different. Añoranza 23:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Wah--Looper5920 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote its fine, I think you lost concensus here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are funny, a consensus build by you and one other guy. Añoranza 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 50% was your threshold, right now its at 66% against you. Follow your own rules. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the name as it currently is, is fine ← ΣcoPhreek contribstalk→ 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The tag only stays for a few days, its been 10. Follow procedure please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Notified all interested parties who had already voted above, that it had to be done all official like. ← ΣcoPhreek Is UselessNostalgia→ 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
Please let's choose something different. Añoranza 23:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Wah--Looper5920 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote its fine, I think you lost concensus here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are funny, a consensus build by you and one other guy. Añoranza 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 50% was your threshold, right now its at 66% against you. Follow your own rules. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the name as it currently is, is fine ← ΣcoPhreek contribstalk→ 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The tag only stays for a few days, its been 10. Follow procedure please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Notified all interested parties who had already voted above, that it had to be done all official like. ← ΣcoPhreek Is UselessNostalgia→ 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It is very obvious, no support for the move. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result: No move

message: 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)
thread_title: Missing Quote

message: Make sound like the guerrilla simply gave up. They was a negotiation, and they were Dominican forces that was fighting on use side, remember it was a civil war. Avfnx 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It wasn't Decisive US victory. 

message: I added an NPOV tag to the US invasion section, mainly for these last two paragraphs:
::By May 14, the Americans resorted to a ruse: established a "safety corridor" connecting the San Isidro Air Base and the Duarte Bridge to the Embajador Hotel and United States Embassy in the center of Santo Domingo, essentially sealing off the Constitutionalist area of Santo Domingo. Road blocks were established and patrols ran continuously. Some 6,500 people from many nations were evacuated to safety. In addition, the US forces airlifted in large relief supplies for Dominican nationals. The fighting continued until 31 August 1965 when a truce was declared. Most American troops left shortly afterwards as policing and peacekeeping operations were turned over to Brazilian troops, but some U.S. military presence remained until September 1966.
::In 1966, former President Joaquín Balaguer (Trujillo's 4th puppet president) was elected over Juan Bosch--with the overt support of the US government.  Bosch would never regain power.  Relative political stability followed as the initially oppressive yet highly politically crafty Balaguer would go on to dominate Dominican politics for twenty-two years.
In particular the items which concern me are the unsubstantiated use of the word "ruse" in the first paragraph, and the phrase "initially oppressive yet highly politically crafty" in the second.  It's unclear how the items after the colon in the first sentence of the first paragraph constitute a "ruse".  Moreover it's a completely unreferenced statement.  The description of Bosch is obviously biased, just on the basis of the word "highly" alone.  But there's the question, really, of whether it's important to characterize the nature of his rule at all, at least in this article.  It would probably be just as well to say, "Relative political stability (insert reference of some kind) followed during Balaquer's twenty-two subsequent years at the center of Dominican politics."  Better still might be the complete excision of the sentence altogether. CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: A brother jarhead who was deployed to the Dominican Republic in 1965 always claimed they were issued no ammunition at all.  Nervous times for someone just coming from a shooting war in Vietnam. Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nightsticks or bayonets?

message: the article's header insinuates that Americans killed several thousand people (including "civilians") while losing 40. But the overall description of events sounds like a bloody civil war with a lot of the "civilians" actually fighting (and dying) as militants/gangs on behalf of one of the political parties. Meanwhile, there is no indication whatsoever of how much fighting was done by American and other peacekeepers and how many locals died as a direct result of the intervention. 64.9.233.26 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did those 3000 casualties happen from Americans or from civil war? 

message: It says "Medical Service officers conferring near Santo Domingo in early May ate pepes."
Is it supposed to be "at pepes"? Is "pepes" a place? If so it should be capitalized.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.248.6 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the caption under the photo mean? 

message: I propose that Dominican Civil War be merged into United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66), under the name of Dominican Civil War. The two articles pretty much describe a single conflict, additionally I am in the process of expanding the background section and adding references.Catlemur (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal