This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colonialism 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.
United States' justification for the invasion
Shouldn't this section be on international law, rather than US domestic politics?Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The international law part, which doesn't support the US very much, is pretty well covered under the international reaction section isn't it?Especially since the US didn't seek any international approval. So it had the reasons it felt justified, invaded, then there was international reaction and those pointing out the international law issues. Chronological does seem to work.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the parenthetical from the paragraph about the journalist. I don't particularly care if it's true or not; it's not supported by the provided source, which nowhere says anything about tanks.
I have removed the wording from the same paragraph calling it a "lawsuit". Again, this is not supported by the source. The word "sue" does not necessitate that it be a "lawsuit". For something to be a lawsuit, it needs to involve a court of law. If it does not involve a court of law, it is not a lawsuit. Thus the "law" in "lawsuit".
If these changes are undone without providing sufficient sourcing, I will undo them. If this results in an edit war I will happily go to ANI.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of changing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Any opinions on moving the list of US units to a separate location? It adds a lot of length that isn't really needed, especially since the bulk of units aren't notable in and of themselves. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
So what would you like to discuss about it Glrx? You've reverted twice in a short period of time and given me a bogus 3RR warning, but you've failed to express why you think the term needs removed. I asked you to discuss and you dodged it by claiming that "the way it works" is that I have to start the discussion. Fine, here it is.....this is where you can discuss why you've reverted twice without explaining why it needs removed in either deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Emt1299d clearly stated that your introduction of "so-called" was a "Not needed insertion". My reverts seconded that viewpoint.
You have not given any reason to say "so-called" in Wikipedia's voice.
I see no reason to use an unsourced WP:POV term for a report that hasn't been produced yet.
Emt1299d used a canned summary and it was incorrect. It was clearly not vandalism or a test edit. He has not contested the revert and went so far as to thank me for the revert edit. What you have is sources repeating what the biased originator of the source is calling it. The panel, which has a stated agenda, is calling it a "truth report", but that's their name for it. The very name implies that there was a lie that needs corrected and that's an opinion on their part. "So-called" is not POV. It indicates that this panel is calling it that name. It makes no judgement on the accuracy of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)