Talk:United States occupation of Veracruz

message: I am interested in the reference that Carranza was more favorable to the US than Huerta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da.brickbat (talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about reference

message: If anyone runs across a reference actually discussing the high number of medals of honor awarded by the us, I would be interested. I;m sure the recipients were heroic, but 56 seems excessive by modern standards. Student7 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medal of Honor

message: Please use footnotes. See WP:FOOT. Even if from the same source. The system allows for duplicate footnotes. The current article goes so long without inline footnotes, it sounds like someone is making it up as they go along. Student7 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: These sentences were re-inserted:
"There was no shortage of outstanding enlisted men among the Marine's ranks as well. Many of the finest and most legendary senior enlisted men of the era were present at this engagement including Gunnery Sergeant Daniel Daly, who would go on to receive a second Medal of Honor the following year,"
Problems: "No shortage of outstanding enlisted men" means that this was a piece of cake. That the operation had overqualified people and the medals of honor should probably not have been awarded.
Problem: The above is blantantly WP:POV
Problem: "Many of the finest and most legendary" again means that the battle was a piece of cake. No medals should have been awarded.
Problem: Wording is blantantly WP:POV
Problem: "Daly would go on to receive". Article is not supposed to be about Daly. It is supposed to be about the occupation of Veracruz.
Problem: We don't really care who is going on to do what. The admiral's nephew would "go on to help win the Battle of Midway" which BTW was rather vital to WWII. Unlike this battle which was important to nobody except the Mexicans!
Problem: If someone has a relative who participated in this battle, reinserting him in pov language is borderline WP:SPAM. People with close contact with articles topics maybe should be careful about editing or refrain from doing so. It would help the article's objectivity a lot more. 
Biggest problem: a person reading this is not going to believe it. Therefore it affects Wikipedia's credibilty. Overstating qualifications in a WP:POV manner is not helpful. It is harmful. Student7 (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hype-ing harmful to article credibility

message: This entry is in reply to the above critique.  The logic here is quite flawed.  Take for instance this quote from the above paragraph:
Problem: "Many of the finest and most legendary" again means that the battle was a piece of cake. No medals should have been awarded.
 
The point of any article, especially a reference related article on a topic, should be to provide as much pertinent and accurate information on the subject as possible for the reader.  The fact that many of the most prominent enlisted Marines of the era were present at this engagement namely states just that, that they were present and participated in the action.  Simply stating that fact in no way somehow implies that A) "the action was a piece of cake," B) "no medals should have been awarded," or C) that these men were "overqualified."  
The same applies to describing in the text why these individuals were significant.  It is obviously important to give the reader that information to make a better formed picture of the engagement as a whole by describing the attributes of it's leadership.  It is rediculous to say that stating how some of these individuals who already had Medals of Honor to their credit at the time or would recieve them later for completely different actions is "overstating qualifications."  It is simply stating facts which add to the historical accuracy and background of the text as it pertains to this engagement AND the people who fought in it. 
--SmedleyButler (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Firstly to clarify a few points. Everything is someone's point of view so i'm going to assume the contention is that the POV is not a neutral one. Correct me if i am wrong. Secondly i cannot see a citation for this info, where does it come from? If it is not sourced then it's an editor's original research (very peacocky too) and cannot possibly represent a NPOV and therefore should be removed. --neon white talk 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion by [[User:Neon white]] 

message: The article must not become a WP:COATRACK for Smedley-Butler. I left in the fact of his leading the marines. This should not be a minute-by-minute discussion of what went on. Just a summary. Okay for his award, but not here. Also, article winds up being very American-slanted when these details are included. Student7 (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Smedley-Butler issue

message: I'm surprised to only find one, brief mention of Macarthur's presence. And, given the interest in Medals of Honor, no discussion here of why he was not awarded one when so many others were. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Douglas Macarthur]]

message: How is the Mexican strength only "~200" when the minimum range of Mexican casualties is nearly double that amount?  Even if every participant was a casualty, the strength number doesn't make sense.  68.83.137.93 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican Strength/Casualties 

message: The picture indicated as "American ships at Veracruz." is actually a photograph taken of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, in ca. 1927.  This information is confirmed by:
"The History of Guantanamo Bay 1494-1964"
by M.E. Murphy, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy
originally published Jan. 5, 1953
This photo should be removed from this page, it does not indicate factual data.
208.254.142.5 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture titled :"American ships at Veracruz."  

message: I can't say it is Guantanamo or some other place but it sure doesn't look like Veracruz.  Thanks for the posting.
After a Google search, I found the same photo with what seems to be the proper heading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_fleet_at_Guantanamo_Bay_1927.jpg
I will proceed to delete the photo in error.
Cheers,  Wkboonec (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes; it doesn't seem to be Veracruz 

message: "The Leathernecks adapted to street fighting, which was a novelty to them"
Having clicked on the link I now know "leatherneck" is a US military slang for US Marines. I'm not sure it is a term that should be used in an article though as it's not going to be familiar to a lot of readers and makes the article sound like it is written from the US perspective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C1A0:4880:8700:C199:E52C:4189:D795 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of agree, but it is linked. If it were never linked, Leatherneck would be an orphan article and would have to be merged with two other articles, US Marine and British Marine. Student7 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Slang 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States occupation of Veracruz. 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060223085656/http://veteranmuseum.org:80/us-mexico.html to http://www.veteranmuseum.org/us-mexico.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't the sections of the article on Background and Aftermath have more historical context on the Mexican revolution? I know it is mentioned, but wouldn't it be worth explaining how the Zapatista army's control of central Mexico played arguably a more important role in prompting Huerta's resignation than the peace treaty signed at Niagra falls? Furthermore, would it not serve the article well to mention Huerta's general unpopularity within Mexico or cite from a couple more Mexican sources? No disrespect to the article though: it is well written and informative, I just feel that Mexican context would provide a fuller picture.
I would like to help improve the article in this way (it is for a school project) and if anyone else is open to helping, as it is my first time editing on Wikipedia it would be greatly appreciated. 
I have put an example source I would be open to using below. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.13732091  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey 977 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broader Context concerning the Mexican revolution