Talk:Operation Faithful Patriot

"Order of Battle"

Really? It's hardly a typical military battle, that heading makes it sound like troops are going to be killing civillians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.174.18 (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Criticisms" section and scope

Should this article contain a "criticisms" section? Should it be open to subject matter beyond the planning and operational aspects of the military operation? Chetsford (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• No This is an article on a military operation, not the wider policies that precipitated it. "Criticisms" sections are generally not recommend by the manual of style (WP:NOCRIT) and are aberrant for articles on military operations in any case (e.g. Operation Mincemeat, Operation Market Garden, etc.). Information and content on political policies and social analysis is certainly appropriate for the article on the caravans themselves, however. But this article should be subject limited to the planning and operational aspects of the operation. Chetsford (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is hardly a military operation, not even on the scale of Operation Market Garden. There's no war. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It is an operation conducted by the military. Ergo, it is - by definition - a "military operation". Chetsford (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sort out this cut-and-paste and poor English before adding back

The South American illegal drug cartels which supply the world with their global illegal drugs supply criticize the additional security at the U.S. - Mexico border, especially rural southern California. The military is patrolling the border to catch illegals, however, the collateral effect is that many illegal drug traffickers will be apprehended with millions of dollars of illegal drugs. The criminal endeavor originating from the South American drug cartels will be apprehended by the U.S. military with drugs, illegal weapons, violent traffickers, career criminals & cartel cash. The cartels know it will lower their profit margin of trafficking their illegal drugs, during this period of time. Morever, the illegal drug racket network here will have to raise their prices on the street, thus selling less illegal drugs. America currently has more jobs available than people able to fill them. Those participating in the drug racket will experience a fall in their wages. As a result, they will have to find a legitimate public or private sector job, instead of pushing drugs on the streets of the Americas. http://www.wdrb.com/story/31172522/a-look-at-the-mexican-drug-cartel-pipeline-from-southern-california-to-kentucky

Sammartinlai (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Operation name no longer in use

The operation has been downgraded to "border protection" and the name is no longer in use. Please update to reflect "was the name" or consider deletion. ref: Pentagon Dropping Use of ‘Faithful Patriot’ as Name for Border Deployment https://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-dropping-use-of-faithful-patriot-as-name-for-border-deployment-1541605581 Pentagon no longer calling border mission 'Operation Faithful Patriot' https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/pentagon-changes-name-of-mission-at-border/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren337 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Possibly rename to "2018 US Border Support Operations" or similar, as that is the term being used by DoD. Rainclaw7 (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems like "Operation Midterm Distraction" would be more appropriate. Surely there is room in this article to mention somewhere that it was a raw political maneuver to influence the 2018 midterm election. No accident that the rather absurd "faithful patriot" name was dropped mere hours after the polls closed. --Potosino (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

See the above discussion on adding a criticisms section. TL;DR, it may be a valid point, but military operation articles rarely have a criticisms section. Rainclaw7 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Does "rarely" mean "never" or does it mean "rarely"? If adding a criticisms section is a possibility, this ridiculous and blatant political boondoggle is an obvious target. --Potosino (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's never. See Operation Jump Start, a similar operation conducted by Bush 43, which has no criticisms section. Rainclaw7 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Rainclaw7. Here are a bunch more military operation articles I randomly selected: Operation Ivy Bells, Operation Blacklist Forty, Operation Sea Signal, Operation Vigilant Sentinel, Operation Sahayogi Haat, Operation Fluid Drive, Operation Garden Plot. Chetsford (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality Check

Per the template, the nomination is intended to be discussed on the talk page. In order to provide further context and/or allow for the issue to be resolved, I would encourage Sumanuil to explain in more detail the reasoning behind their nomination. Rainclaw7 (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the first time I've used the template. Sorry. It's that the article in general (and the lede in particular) sound like they have been written from the POV of an isolationist politician.Sumanuil (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a neutrality issue, but maybe you could explain - specifically - what you think is non-NPOV. That said, I do think the prose reads rather choppy. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I've read it a few more times and I suppose there are probably some very subtle framing issues, though I probably wouldn't characterize it as dramatically as "written from the POV of an isolationist politician". For instance, this - "They have also strung concertina wire and wrapped it around barriers to reinforce the border." - uses the phrase "to reinforce the border" to assert the border needs reinforcement. It would be better to either drop "to reinforce the border" altogether or qualify it with a paranthetical expression (e.g. "... to, according to officials, reinforce ..."). Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As there's been no further discussion or effort, I've removed the template. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)