Talk:Operation Golden Pheasant

Requested move

Operation Golden Pheasant → US intervention in Honduras Propaganda names should not be used as article titles. Añoranza 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as per above. Añoranza 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, not a correct name for this event ("US intervention in Honduras" is generally associated with the 1911–12 or 1919–22 actions; and the US intervention in the 80's is a much broader topic than this particular operation). Kirill Lokshin 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is about the date we can use the title United States intervention in Honduras in 1988. If you think this operation is only part of the intervention please expand on it. Añoranza 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, no need to move to an incorrect namespace. Rangeley 16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In how far incorrect? Añoranza 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kirill Lokshin and Rangeley ←ΣcoPhreek→ 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kirill Lokshin and Rangeley and as a participate of this operation.Oldwildbill 21:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In how far does participating in an operation make you think that its article should be entitled in a way that will give most readers no idea what it might be about? Añoranza 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As a participate - all paperwork and logs were titled as Operation Golden Pheasant.Oldwildbill 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose unless you want to rename it the 1988 United States no notice deployment to Honduras that really was not an intervention but could have been had the Contras attacked. That should be significantly bland and NPOV for everyone.--Looper5920 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Looper5920, Oldwildbill (you at Campbell?), Kirill Lokshin, Rangeley, Ecophreek --Nobunaga24 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes when I am not in the desert.Oldwildbill 11:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose It should stay as it is because this helps to indicate the action. If it just said Interference in Honduras or what ever people may get confused.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Result: No move

It is very obvious, no support for the move. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of article disputed

Given the fact that the United states was found guilty of supporting terrorism in Nicaragua (cf. Nicaragua vs. United States), the introduction is not neutral. Furthermore, propaganda terms are inappropriate as article titles, please let's choose something different. Añoranza 23:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the operation, not events that took place afterwards, please do not insert any POV into this article, your comment seems to hold a bias. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to article at all. Please assume good faith in the future. And please read the article I linked to, the US was found guilty, it is a plain fact. Añoranza 04:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Events that happened after do not change what happened during. This was explained to you on your discussion page already. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There was also no "intervention". It was just a training exercise. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? billed as a joint training exercise, but the paratroopers deployed ready to fight"" Añoranza 04:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That is almost the definition of a training excercise, if they were not "read to fight" it would be poor training. Its obviously still not intervention. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what "billed as, but" implies? Añoranza 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a POV statement to me as its unsourced, perhaps I should remove it. I will check back Monday to verify. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags claiming that there is no consensus when no one has even commented on it. Añoranza 11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tags stay up for about a week, this one was up for almost 2 with no support. Follow procedures. Considering you attempted to get them all moved without any support, its pretty odd you would complain. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy says remove or ask for assistance. As I had forgotten to list it at requested moves the first time I do it now. Añoranza 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• What could possibly be POV about a Pheasant? This is a spurious quest for renaming. Keep the article as it is. Johntex\^talk 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is doublespeak, plus, most readers will have no idea what this article is about, this is not a common name for the event.

I added the design as suggested at wikipedia:requested moves. Please add your votes with explanatory sentence to the top. The policy is to let the vote take 5 days and more if no consensus can be built. Añoranza 15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)