Talk:United States invasion of Grenada

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)

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.
 * 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. -- Katan gais (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Order of battle
It's a bit odd that this section describes the invading forces but not the defending forces. PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

About Resolution 38/7
Would it be worth mentioning that most of the votes against Resolution 38/7 were from Caribbean island nations, or maybe providing a list of the "no" votes? Bearing in mind that a map wouldn't be super useful since island states are hard to see. Voting record can be found here.

Also, the International reaction section describes criticism by Commonwealth states, but a large amount (maybe more than half: I haven't counted) of the "no" votes or abstentions were from Commonwealth states. I'm not sure that the current description of the Commonwealth reaction gives a full picture. Thoughts on this? Placeholderer (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)