Talk:United States invasion of Grenada/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"19 killed" but 20 names

Under U.S. Fatalities it lists 20 names. But in the Casualties and Losses box it says United States: 19 killed. Under The Invasion it also says "U.S. Forces sustained 19 killed..."

Which is it, 19 or 20? If 19, which name in the list is incorrect?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xapie128 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There were 19 American servicemen killed in action during Operation Urgent Fury, according to the official Pentagon accounting. (See The Rucksack War, p. 532) Included in that total is one grievously wounded soldier, Sgt. Sean P Luketina, a victim of friendly fire, who died 10 months later of medical complications related to his injury. In addition, one other solider, was accidentally killed when he was shot by a fellow soldier. Since this accident happened during the U.S. military occupation of the island, but after hostilities had formally ended on Nov. 2, this death is not included in the official count of 19 KIA. PhilKukielski (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture

@Dingolover6969: You need secondary sources that attest to the importance of this material. You can't just use the sources themselves - the fact that something exists doesn't make it notable. We need secondary sources that say these are notable. Guettarda (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Cuban forces

In one place we have Cuban "workers" described as really "combat engineers and special forces:" all cited. In another, we say they are "Cuban secret police and Soviet KGB". This didn't seem to be cited. We should be consistent if possible. It is probably known which they are, or maybe they were all 4, but all need citation Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to come up with definitive sources. According to Cuba and USSR they were innocent bifocal wearing peaceful scientists. According to USA and others, they were highly trained combat engineers, members of special forces, parts of the Cuban secret police and KGB trained agents. Logically there was a nice mix of everybody there from KGB agents, to Cuban secret police to combat engineers. There were heavy battles between Cubans and Americans, and I just don't see the supposed bifocal wearing Cuban scientists (who were guests in Grenada) put up such a strong resistance. I will put some references regarding this. Meishern (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It will be somehow like the Germans. I am German and can explain it for the GDR. The Germans in Grenada were members of the "FDJ Friendship Brigades", so they were, as Cuba claimed for the Cubans, development workers, teachers, doctors, engineers, etc., but not of the "Peace Corps" type. State loyalty and good professional qualifications were required to serve in such a group. In other words, they were staunch communists, at least party members, if high-ranked party officials, and had done their military service. All they needed was a gun, to look like "special forces". However, they do not correspond to the definition, but rather to that of irregular military or unlawful combatant. --2003:D1:670B:AB13:9C67:46BD:2E73:CB77 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove North Korean military advisors; actually agriculture and irrigation

I looked into the claim of 24 North Korean "military advisors," and was only able to turn up 15 irrigation and agricultural advisors. Not only that, but to begin with the source cited for the 24 only lists them as "advisors" captured, not that they were military advisors.
I removed North Korea previously, only for it to be added back. Let's keep it removed, please.

My sources include,

• Not There for the Nutmeg: North Korean Advisors in Grenada and Pyongyang's Internationalism, 1979-1983 by Benjamin R. Young
• Socialism via Foreign Aid: The PRG's Economic Policies with the Soviet Bloc by Frederic L. Pryor in Revolution Aborted: The Lessons of Grenada by Jorge Heine
• Interagency Intelligence Assessment December 19 1983 Grenada: A First Look at Mechanisms of Control and Foreign Involvement, accessible here

References

I also recommend further research into whether Libyan advisors were military in nature before including them. I've been unable to turn up a satisfying answer one way or another in that regard, but 3-4 military advisors seems unlikely. It seems to me military advisors were entirely Cuban or Soviet bloc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.218.42 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Supported by Grenadians?

In the lead it says the Grenadians eventually ("over time") came to support the invasion. It cites two sources, one of which is a Fox News article that states that presumably right away it "was almost universally welcomed by Grenadians". This sounds kind of spurious, and since it's coming from a not entirely unbiased news source citing no source or reasoning whatsoever, a better source is needed there. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree Farbne (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments on "Capture of Pearls Airport"

The following material was improperly added to the main article by User:DT38FL62. I moved it here as the issues raised seemed worthy of discussion. --Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/U.S.%20Marines%20in%20Grenada%201983%20%20PCN%2019000309700.pdf

The description of the Capture of Pearls Airport highlights several omissions from the record as noted in the primary article. The combined US Forces cited is not accurate. 5 US Navy ships are not listed. The US Navy Flagship is not listed. The article contains no description regarding where the US Marine helicopters and Marine units came from, or the force composition which includes the Marine forces engaged. A significant rewrite of this page is necessary. . The existing article has been previously edited to delete references to the Marine participation. The section relating to marines and their Amphibious ships needs to be included in the article. See also .

This article needs to be substantially revised.

References

Incorrect information

Certain information in this article is wrong. I know. I was there. I was part of Operation Urgent Fury. A very specific part.

The actual start, the first day of the invasion, was not Tuesday, October 25. Why it has been so important to hide this information I dont know. Maybe because it might reveal tactical military operations used at the time. But the actual fact is that the invasion started Sunday, October 23.

On that day, a handful of specifically selected individuals were tasked with loading an Air Force C-130 with a team of soldiers and their necessary associated gear, members of the US Army Delta Team, for the purposes of an immediate surreptitious top secret advance landing on Grenada, taking place 2 days in advance of the main invasion which did indeed take place on Tuesday, October 25th.

I know this because I was one of the handpicked individuals that loaded Delta and their gear onto that C-130. 76.17.252.243 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

American forces mostly relied upon tourist maps. citation.

Here is a citation, if someone else knows how to add this: https://www.military.com/history/invasion-of-grenada-was-planned-using-tourist-map.html "The U.S. military knew so little about the country, it had to plan the invasion using maps normally sold to tourists." AndyDenn (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Soviet, North Korean, and East German advisers

The presence of Soviet, North Korean, and East German military advisers has been constantly added to the infobox of this article, with the leaders of those countries at time being cited on the list of named combatants. This information is always uncited and never elaborated on in the body of the text, so I've removed it for the second or third time, and will continue to do so until references are provided, including references to their military occupations or armed resistance as combatants. Note that in contrast, the presence of both Cuban military personnel and Cuban civilians who carried arms are well-documented by ample references in the text. Most of the foreign military advisers appear to have been withdrawn prior to the invasion (Cuba being the sole exception), so a source indicating they were there at some point will not suffice. They had to be present during the invasion to have participated in resistance to the invasion. Katangais (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

---

United States invasion of Grenada → United States liberation of Grenada or United States intervention in Grenada – The United States did not invade Grenada for the purposes of conquest à la the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, it would be unlike the United States. It was a humanitarian intervention to liberate the country and restore order towards democracy from the brutal military regime of the People's Revolutionary Government (PRG) which illegally seized power a few years prior. The fact that the country literally has a national day called "Thanksgiving Day" is proof that the Grenadian people were literally thankful that their country was liberated. 14.35.117.98 (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please offer reliable sources that refer to this event as a "liberation" or "intervention". 331dot (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that they have a holiday is probably more due to the saying "history is written by the victors". 331dot (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

How is it any different to Victory in Europe Day? Individuals who like to bring up phrases such as "history is written by the victors" often have very interesting views about authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. 14.35.117.98 (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In any event, you need to offer sources that use the terminology you want used to describe this event. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be mindful to base your arguments on the issue at hand and not on the character of other editors. You don't want to get caught in up in a WP:CIVIL issue.

And for the record, I don't know what "interesting views" you're talking about given that Nazi Germany obviously didn't win WWII and the Soviet Union doesn't exist today. Hardly the victors. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Not how it works. "United States invasion of Grenada" is clearly a WP:COMMONNAME. The United States did not invade Grenada for the purposes of conquest à la the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, it would be unlike the United States. - yeah, because the United States totally didn't rule the Philippines for half a century. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose There was nothing "humanitarian" about this brutal regime change. Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Not used in RS nor does the reasoning given by the IP make sense. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Of course, Reagan and the Republican who elected him would have preferred to invade Cuba instead of the little, rather insignificant geo-politically island of Grenada, but somehow that was not possible yet at the time. Maybe someday in the future? warshy ^(¥¥) 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Rename to American invasion of Grenada. "Liberation of Grenada" is WP:POV as it's an American point of view. I support a rename as "American" is the demonym of the United States; we don't have "Russian Federation invasion of Ukraine" instead of Russian invasion of Ukraine or "Iraqi Republic invasion of Kuwait" instead of Iraqi invasion of Kuwait or "United Kingdom invasion of Iceland" instead of British invasion of Iceland; Demonyms are used instead of the country's official name. Toptanazikov (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

About your proposed title, the general rule is that articles relating to countries with a name consisting of two or more words use the country name as opposed to the demonym (see 2019 United Kingdom general election and September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état as opposed to 2019 British general election and September 2022 Burkinabé coup d'état). Aydoh8 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if there's any Wiki policy regarding countries with a name consisting of two or more words using the country name as opposed to the demonym (enlighten me if there is) because I have seen several similar articles using the demonym instead of the country's name (such as [[American military intervention in American intervention in the Syrian civil war, British invasion of Iceland, British invasions of the River Plate, Soviet Union-related articles also use the demonym Soviet instead of Soviet Union. Google Scholars results show 333 results for "United States invasion of Grenada" while 455 results for "American invasion of Grenada". Toptanazikov (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

455 to 333 is evidence that both terms are in use rather than that one is preponderant over the other, IMO. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 16:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "invasion" seems good enough. I'm neutral about renaming it "American" vs US. Would be nice to see (given how many places the US invades) what the preponderance of titles is here. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 16:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm in support of keeping the title as is. Regardless of the optics of the whole affair, "liberation" is a value-laden label that implies a weighted POV whereas "invasion" does not. --Katangais (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Radio program

NPR's Throughline had an episode about the invasion, the lead-up etc.: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1198908205/throughline-grenada-nobodys-backyard November 9, 2023. Kdammers (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)