Talk:2025 US Caribbean naval deployment: Difference between revisions

Line 96: Line 96:

:Double checked a source that confirms it. https://www.curacaochronicle.com/post/local/dutch-naval-frigate-zrms-van-amstel-arrives-in-curacao-for-caribbean-deployment/

:It also appears that it is the current [[West Indies Guard Ship (Netherlands)]]. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 19:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

::Nothing in that source connects the ”Van Amstel” to the US Caribbean deployment or to recent US-Venezuela tension. Routine Aruba-Curacao drug interdiction related to neighboring Colombia and Venezuela are common to the Netherland Antilles, and that source just says it is the new station ship. [[User:SandyGeorgia|”’Sandy”'<span style=”color: green;”>Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

… that an ongoing U.S. naval buildup in the Caribbean, ostensibly intended to combat drug trafficking, may be actually intended to intimidate Venezuela?

Source: Multiple in article.

Created by Placeholderer (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 69 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

WP:DYKNEW – created 5 Sep = 2 days ago Y. WP:DYKLEN – around 7800 bytes Y.WP:DYKCITE – ? There were some paywalled sources for key information but now they’re referenced via open-access archives. The specific locations of ships and the ship list are both from WP:NEWSWEEK, which is ~~is not generally reliable~~ marginally reliable post 2013. I’ve put {{better source}}, and it might seem a pity to remove the information, but especially with Newsweek using LLMs, this specific info qualifies as gossip that sounds credible but is false.WP:DYKHFC – Y. WP:DYKCOMPLETE – Y.Overall: Generally OK, apart from the Newsweek problem. Either the map and list of ships sourced to WP:NEWSWEEK should be removed, or they should be sourced from WP:RSes (or the current WP:RSP consensus for Newsweek should be overturned; this is likely the most difficult option). It’s much too risky for Wikipedia to bring front-page attention to poorly sourced information, especially given that it might have just been what LLMs created stochastically (names of US ships are not secret; randomly generating a credible list and credible positions in the Caribbean, without any sources, should be doable by an LLM). Boud (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boud, Newsweek is not generally unreliable, it is WP:MREL, meaning its output needs to be assessed by context. Newsweek‘s editorial policy states that no articles are AI-generated. Is there any evidence that the ship names and location, updated daily, are not correct? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 You’re right, my bad; I’ve corrected to marginally rather than generally unreliable. And you’re right that the stated policy of Newsweek is that any AI-generated information is double-checked by journalists. Whether that’s the real practice is up to the Wikipedia community to judge. No, I don’t have any evidence that the info is wrong, nor do I have any sources disagreeing with the claim that Mads Krügger was in Mark’s Club on the evening of 1 Sep 2025 (I generated the location and person by clicking on Special:Random three times to create a credible fact that very likely has no public evidence contradicting it).However, I’ve done a few edits and more checking. Six of the ship names are confirmed by other sources (The Economist + FT), if I haven’t made any errors, so I shifted the better source tag to just the two ships accompanying Iwo Jima. For the locations, I’ve added an overt attribution to Newsweek. I have no idea whether we should trust Newsweek to be a WP:RS for the locations, which it claims are from open sources. If they really are open sources, then WP:RS should be able to point to them.I guess we should see if anyone else wants to comment within a reasonable delay, but probably the specific attribution to Newsweek plus the better source tag on the map caption, plus ~~the other two better source tags (i.e. the current version of the article),~~ should be enough to satisfy the sourcing concerns. Boud (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC) (edit: those two tags were handled with an acceptable source Boud (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC))[reply]

After doing a bit of looking around, I don’t see any other articles/live maritime trackers that have locations for ships other than USS Sampson and USS Iwo Jima. I didn’t realize Newsweek was an AI-tainted source—the fact that “Newsweek’s review of publicly available sources” seems like the only publicly available source for the locations is absolutely a red flag. The list of ships deployed is fully reported elsewhere—I’ll put in a new source to cover those two ships. At least now I know how to add coordinate labels! Placeholderer (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, just after replying I find this Newsweek article that describes what satellite imagery they used to place some of the ships. Does this justify keeping the labels? (The Newport News label probably worth removing either way. Newsweek says its “precise location” is unknown—it’s a submarine—and they give no hints how they placed it) Placeholderer (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Newsweek does give some satellite images to make its claims credible; and that per WP:RSP it’s marginally reliable rather than generally unreliable; and that we do have the {{better source}} tag on the map caption; and that the editorial discussion is constructive – all the editors involved seem to acknowledge the trickiness of deciding how to handle this with noone trying an edit war; if there are no objections within 24 hours, I’ll give this a good to go tick. Boud (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go. There have been some minor editorial disagreements, but they have/are being handled constructively through clear edit summaries + this DYK discussion and it looks like, at least for the moment, the article is being attended to regularly. It’s ready for DYK. Boud (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boud and AirshipJungleman29:, even Placeholderer, the nominator and creator of this article, agrees it should be merged … see section below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I didn’t AFD or propose a merge for this article, as the other AFD was already convoluted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, if I’ve read Placeholderer’s comment correctly, they were in favour of merging this particular article with 2025 United States strikes on Venezuelan boats, and keeping 2025 U.S. military campaign against cartels as a separate article. But in any case, what does this have to do with the DYK nom? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, I don’t follow DYK processes closely, but I thought you would want to know this article shoulda/coulda been, and still may be, sent to AFD or proposed for merge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, any article could have been sent to AfD or proposed for a merge at any time, and could be in the future; nothing exclusive to this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, AirshipJungleman29, and Placeholderer: Based on OwenX‘s closing summary, my understanding is that the result is to merge any non-redundant content from 2025 United States war on cartels to 2025 US Caribbean naval deployment. If that’s correct and as long as the merge does not significantly reduce the quality of 2025 US Caribbean naval deployment, then I think that the DYK approval remains valid. I had a quick browse of 2025 United States war on cartels and 2025 United States strikes on Venezuelan boats and it’s clear that there’s plenty of redundancy – but it’s up to those willing to do the merge to carry it out. So far the changes from 13 to 25 Sep look reasonable enough to not disqualify the DYK status. Boud (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boud thanks for checking; I’ve asked the closing admin to clarify, as it appears there may be miscounting of declarations. It was quite a mess with three articles covering mostly the same content, and I would have AFD’d this article if not for the already convoluted AFD on the other one … and I’m as yet unclear if the closing admin factored later vs. earlier !votes considering the situation evolved. Again, thanks for looking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See AFD close query here. (My read of the consensus is that this article should be merged to either the broader article or the more specific article — it’s midway, adding nothing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to override the closer. In terms of titles alone, the “Cartels” title sounds rather POV – it asserts the Trump viewpoint that the campaign is in reality a campaign against cartels, rather than the legal researchers’/Economist’s POV that it is an attempt at intimidation – and the “strikes on boats” title is too specific because it ignores the broader context (and fails to mention crimes under international law). In any case, I didn’t participate in the AfD, and haven’t tried to summarise the arguments presented there. If the close is modified, then things could get complicated for 2025 US Caribbean naval deployment, but we’re not there currently. Boud (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my concerns … we have three really messed up NEWS articles … and only one AFD when we shoulda/coulda had three, and my concern is we are losing now the broadest article. All three need to be sorted to a better one overall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are everyone’s thoughts? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the AFD close was correct. I’m not sure it counted correctly the merge target, and I’m not sure it accounted for later vs. earlier !votes as the second, third and fourth strike occurred, and the military buildup escalated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

” I’m not sure it counted correctly the merge target, and I’m not sure it accounted for later vs. earlier !votes as the second, third and fourth strike occurred, and the military buildup escalated.”

Which one the cartel forces or the U.S. Forces? I am sure that the United States Forces and the Venezuelan forces and I can provide sources. It’s at least hit or miss on the cartels. At best 2 of them are alleged for the purposes of US Caribbean naval deployment as opposed to a war on cartels.

Should I just merge the U.S. and Venezuela forces sections for now, and only include the Cartel of the Suns and Tren de Aragua as alleged, then leave off the rest, until if and when we get more sources to the contrary? Would that work? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the counts in the AFD. I’m not sure what the solution is here; I will probably unwatch all three articles, as they are all WP:NOTNEWS messes — not easily solved by one AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh yeah I am not sure either Historyguy1138 (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have queried the closing admin, but did not get an answer to how 3 to 2 in favor of merging content from the military campaign article to the boat strike article over this article ended up with a recommendation to merge to this article. I don’t know what to do about where content duplicated now in three articles belongs. It looks like this is the option that had the least support, but here we are; we will still have content duplicated in two articles, even if the military campaign goes away, and once content is merged <somewhere>, article titles may need to change accordingly. I don’t know how to sort this mess other than to remind people what can happen when you start not one, but three NEWSy articles while events are still unfolding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I merged everything, so someone who knows which is which may need to go through and remove the Mexican. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that no forces other than US forces should be listed (this is a US deployment/operation, not an armed conflict with Venezuela) and that US forces are already mostly listed in prose, so the best move would be to add missing US forces to the prose and leave out the list. I think it’s clear enough that putting a list of drug cartels there is inappropriate (it implies that they form a coherent “side” in a “conflict” and are in fact all subject to that “conflict”) so I’ll start off by removing that part Placeholderer (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was never a fan of the list, so am indifferent if it is deleted … thanks for dealing with the cartel list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m totally fine with that. We can always re add the forces later if need be. I have saved them on a sandbox if necessary. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although maybe we should include at least the Venezuela section and only the F-16s? Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the list fed into the prose I think that issue is moot.

I’ll prose-ify the list pending further comment Placeholderer (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up not prose-ifying the types of aircraft listed. I tried to find details on how some of them fit in with the deployment but didn’t really find further coverage than the El País article—wasn’t sure it made sense to say “And according to El País, some amount of Lockheed P-3 Orions have been involved.”

This edit was a bit bold, so feel free to revert or salvage stuff if I cut too much Placeholderer (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Placeholder just saw the cut. No worries per se, which areas were you trying to prose-ify? I think I will read most of it, albeit perhaps cut the Venezuelan section to just the basics. Were you just trying to look for better sources or something in some cases? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already cut the Venezuelan boat section to WP:SS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boud re this edit, Venezuelan articles use dmy, and see MOS:MILFORMAT. As a good deal of content is duplicated across three articles, which require some merge to somewhere, could we keep the dates consistent to dmy, per Venezuela and military ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer dmy, but this article was mostly in mdy, and it focuses more on the US than Venezuela. I wasn’t aware of the ~~US military switch to dmy~~ US military using dmy. (What next, SI units instead of grains and furlongs?) As long as there’s consensus, either way should be OK.Does anyone object to this article become fully dmy (day month year, as in 25 September 2025)? Boud (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought military was always dmy, but could be wrong. Thx for looking, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of pedantry, I’ve fixed my comment. Boud (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queried MILHIST. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And then … I just found this from Task and Purpose, which reports 1,900 plus 2,200 = 4,100 … which source to trust ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to look at a few more sources to double check the numbers, but while Marines are under the department of the Navy, they are their own separate branch. Similarly the Space Force is under the Department of the Air Force, but are their own separate branch.

Basically what it would come down to though is that if you have for example a 3 Star Navy Admiral and a 3 Star Marine General in the same room, the Admiral is always going to outrank the general, because Navy is always above the Marines.

As for task and purpose they said 1,900 Sailors, but did not mention Marines. Which leads me to conclude they were talking about the Navy and not the Marines. You would never call a Sailor a Marine, some of them would literally fight each other if you said that especially enlisted members.

From what I can tell there is about roughly 1,900 sailors and 2,200 Marines from the 22nd marine expeditionary unit/

But sometimes if an article describes that there are 4,100 Navy personal then sometimes they are lumping the Marines under the navy hence the confusion.

But it is a very good question that people not as familiar with the military do not always consider to ask. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know Marines are Navy and Space Force is Air Force. The problem is the total number. Higher quality sources report 4,000 sailors in addition to the 2,200 Marines. I suspect Task and Purpose has it right, but using that would mean overriding higher quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah gotcha gotcha. 😀 Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, I’m wondering about scope. Marines are part of the Navy, and the Task and Purpose source says that … On Thursday, F-35s from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 225 arrived in Puerto Rico … so are any of the aircraft involved in the deployment part of the Air Force, or is it so far only a Navy operation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also a great question. Actually I am working on an update to the article soon. Apparently there are both Airforce and Marine deployments of the F-35 in the area.

So the U.S. military operates 3 types of F-35 variants. The air force uses the F-35 As, the Airforce uses F-35Bs, and the Navy uses F-35Cs.

Currently there are Marine F-35Bs stationed in Puerto Rico, but I only just yesterday that the US actually has 2 Forward operating sites in Aruba and Curacao where they have Airforce F-35As on station.

Stay tuned as I will update the information soon. Please feel free to reword things for flow or whatever is necessary if you will think it will improve the article when I do so, you do a good job with that. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also interested to see if any MilHist editors weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I chopped liver to you?

Lol JK JK (X.

Yes yes, of course you are right. 2 heads or in this case 3 or more are better than 1. 😀 Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No … but the more feedback the better, as we have to figure out how to override potentially wrong high-quality sources. Here’s what the Marines say …

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“No … but the more feedback the better, as we have to figure out how to override potentially wrong high-quality sources. Here’s what the Marines say …”

Yes yes of course. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading it all, I’m not sure they contradict each other, rather don’t use very precise language. I’ve added it all to a footnote so the reader can decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh I see. Clarifying questions:

Are we generally trying to keep most of the very specific deployments numbers to just the endnote for that purpose instead of that longer section the list Placeholder was trying to prose-ify? We can keep a few highlights in the main body, but are giving the reader the option to look into the wider deployment if they so choose? (:

I am asking because I am going to add some things, but don’t want to step on anyone’s toes and put stuff in the wrong section or something. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand the question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the original list of US, Venezuelan, and Cartel forces that placeholder removed, are we just regulated it to the notes section, except for more important notes on the subject? Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don’t understand the question; nothing about the removed list is in Notes. The only note is to clarify the discrepancy in personnel numbers between various sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh I see. Should we add portions of the list back then? Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think so … ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This content is still WP:SYNTH; the first source never mentions the Caribbean escalation, and the second (Favors Extension) source never names the ship, and we don’t know they are referring to the Van Amstel. Even after my adjustments and attibution, Wikipedia is implying a connection not made in reliable sources. The entire Dutch paragraph is trying to make connections that we don’t have sources for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Double checked a source that confirms it. https://www.curacaochronicle.com/post/local/dutch-naval-frigate-zrms-van-amstel-arrives-in-curacao-for-caribbean-deployment/

It also appears that it is the current West Indies Guard Ship (Netherlands). Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that source connects the Van Amstel to the US Caribbean deployment or to recent US-Venezuela tension. Routine Aruba-Curacao drug interdiction related to neighboring Colombia and Venezuela are common to the Netherland Antilles, and that source just says it is the new station ship. West Indies Guard Ship (Netherlands) makes it sound like a routine rotation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply