User talk:Zleitzen/Archive Apr 2007

Z: (in the Guevara discussion) three points

(1) Your analogy to Geronimo may be far more apt than intended. Since Geronimo was a leader of the Apaches, whose reputation and apparently real record of rape, torture and murder exceeded even the loose mores of the times. BTW there is a link to Cuba since Leonard Wood got his medal of honor for the capture of Geronimo (it is said he was only marginally involved in it)

(2) The said romance with Zoila must have occurred in the quite luxurious headquarters veranda and all that the Che had ordered constructed for himself at that dreadful cold place called Las Minas del Frio. Shades of Mao riding a litter during the Long March

(3) There are now even more questions about the location of Guevara's remains [1]. El Jigue 208.65.188.149 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC) -- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Zleitzen, thanks for your support with my RFA, it was successful! Thanks :) SGGH 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good news.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your comment for Ronald Reagan's peer review. If you have the time, or the want to help out, could you tell me (on the Peer Review page) what you think does not belong in the lead? I think it's time to start working on it again, and your suggestions would really be appreciated. Thanks, Happyme22 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

In what surely is not a process of Fabian alterations, the reference to (Paz-Sanchez, 2001, pp 189-199) was removed. No claim of malice can be inferred from that; however, such a tactic could be used to claim there is no reference to the particular point made (the introduction of Soviet Block military advisors into Cuba); and then in a third step the complete topic could be removed. Let is be "careful out there!" El Jigue 208.65.188.149 15:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EJ that page is now a complete bomb site. The references section has collapsed - and I can barely look at it I'm afraid. My last edit to that page was to remove an addition that said Ciutat de Miguel had his penis cut off!-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: "be afraid very afraid" very soon claiming POV, bad references etc., I fear it will be rewritten to avoid mention of Castro's foreign advisors, the 300,000 political arrests, the adjacent fighting in the Escambray mountains, Castro's thousands of militia casualities, the executions etc. Well that is what you get when you bring in Soviet advisors who fought on the Eastern front in WWII...BTW a listing of Cubans dead in South Africa has surfaced....about 5,000 El Jigue 3-26-07208.65.188.149 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EJ. Any sources regarding African deaths are welcome, there is a real dearth of material on wikipedia about those ventures. Regarding Bay of Pigs, please keep working on those ref formats - at present it looks terrible and your entries are hanging on by the skin of their teeth! Remember that if you reference something correctly, provided it is to a source that meets WP:V - you have nothing to worry about. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an amendment to fix one of your refs. For some reason it turned the reference section into gobbledygook.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ran across it and say what a terrific job you have done! Has your personality changed? (Your signature looks like you are bi-polar now.) Regards, --Mattisse 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matisse. The signature may have changed, but the person remains as grumpy as ever.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Christmas tree. I think you have changed! (Must be for the better as you talent is obvious and standing out.) --Mattisse 00:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zleitzen, thank you so much for the Barnstar, I really appreciate it. I am committed at creating and improving all Hispanic articles, specially HIspanic Lit. Thanks again.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced [reply]

Ok, I went absolutely mental and added God-knows how many citations. I think I dealt with what was on your list and much, much more. If there is anything specific you still want dealt with please let me know via my talk page. Otherwise a change of vote would of course be appreciated. John Smith's 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked on the FAC page, please look at the article again. The matters you discussed in your last post were dealt with. As I have said, most citations deal with the other points - the page would look horrid if every other sentance had a small bracketed number at the end.

You started off by complaining about paragraphs with no citations. Ok, no problem. But I don't see any more - so where's the problem? John Smith's 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite early resistance, Buddhism was promoted by the ruling class and eventually gained growing acceptance since the Asuka period." This is cited - please strikethough. John Smith's 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More citations added. John Smith's 15:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch of citations added. John Smith's 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added and text trimmed - please remove your objection. John Smith's 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infernal Noise Brigade: thanks. Would you agree with me that nominating a longstanding article for deletion without so much as a question on the talk page first is rather drastic? - Jmabel | Talk 18:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jmabel. It was only because I saw your name as main contributor that I took an interest in the article. If it had been a less established or former editor I imagine it could have been deleted without contest. At least the nominator had the manners to inform you on your talk page, and then withdraw the nom after notability had been established. But it shows that you have to bolt everything to the floor these days to ensure someone doesn't sweep it up and throw good work away!-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: One wonders at the relationships between Fabio Grobart and Otto Katz. Koch, Stephen. 1994 (2004 edition) Double Lives. Enigma Press, New York ISBN 1929631200 103-104, 346-349 and others. From 103 states " He (Otto Katz) is known to have worked closely there (Mexico City) with the long time NKVD chieftain Umansky, spending the war (WW II) much involved in Soviet operations within the United States and the Caribbean, working among other things with Fidel Castro's predecessor, Fulgencio Batista. Batista was at this time much admired and promoted by the left, and Katz was empowered to make Batista grand offers on behalf of the Soviet Union if Batista would enter Stalin's sphere of influence. (footnoted to Otto Katz, FOIA dossier #65-9266) Have you run across anything on this El Jigue 208.65.188.149 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EJ, I know very little about these murky figures I'm afraid. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 06:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zleitzen. I did some minor changes in the article, including the extension of the lead up to two paragraphs. They might have some grammar and syntactic mistakes, but I think they are a good summary of the whole article. Check it out when you can. By the way, thank you for your help. Dalobuca 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will give the Eugenio Espejo a good read soon, Dalobuca and add some thoughts. Thanks for your note.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some wording in Cuba page that seems to need rephrasing (surprise (:>) in reference to the Bay of Pigs:

it now reads:

"The result was the disastrous Bay of Pigs Invasion of April 1961. President John Kennedy withdrew promised US air support for the invading force at the last minute and the populist anti-Castro uprising failed to materialize. Kennedy refused direct American military intervention and the invasion force was routed. This prompted Castro to declare Cuba a socialist republic, and himself a Marxist-Leninist in May of 1961."

The phrasing "This prompted Castro to declare..." implies a causal effect...rather than a declaration of the obvious. Perhaps a better statement and more NPOV might be such as "In May of 1961 Castro declare Cuba a socialist republic, and himself a Marxist-Leninist." After all, modern scholarship strongly indicates that Fabio Grobart recruited as Fidel Castro in 1948.

BTW It seems that Otto Katz always claimed he was the first husband of Marlene Dietrich Cockburn Claud 2006 (accessed 3-29-07) Scenes from the Spanish Civil War. Counterpunch August 1, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/claud08012006.html “Otto Katz -- who was now internationally known as Andre Simon -- was a propagandist of genius. He had started his working life as cashier of a theater in Teplitz, where Marlene Dietrich worked at some very early age. Katz -- whether truthfully or untruthfully, I do not know -- always claimed to have been the first husband of Marlene Dietrich. I do know that whereas in every other connection you could call him a liar, hypocrite and ruffian of every description without his turning a hair, if you appeared to doubt this assertion about Marlene he would fly into a passion, white with rage. It is true that he made love to every good-looking woman he met and was a great deal more than averagely successful. He was a middle-sized man with a large, slightly cadaverous bead in which the skull bones were unusually prominent. He had large melancholy eyes, a smile of singular sweetness and an air of mystery -- a mystery into which he was prepared to induct you, you alone, because be loved and esteemed you so highly.”

Apparently while Fabio Grobart was at the Moscow Latin American Desk in the 1930-40s it seems that Otto Katz was taking his place, for instance....

Koch, Stephen. 1994 (2004 edition) Double Lives. Enigma Press, New York ISBN 1929631200 103-104, 346-349 and others. From 103 " He (Otto Katz) is known to have worked closely there (Mexico City) with the long time NKVD chieftain Umansky, spending the war (WW II) much involved in Soviet operations within the United States and the Caribbean, working among other things with Fidel Castro's predecessor, Fulgencio Batista. Batista was at this time much admired and promoted by the left, and Katz was empowered to make Batista grand offers on behalf of the Soviet Union if Batista would enter Stalin's sphere of influence. (footnoted to Otto Katz, FOIA dossier #65-9266)

One wonders if we will ever know the complete truth about all this....what I find strange is that while Katz was hung by Stalin in 1952, Grobart survived...

El Jigue 3-30-07208.65.188.149 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look EJ, I don't really like that history section very much but have no desire to begin the monumental task of reforming it.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mone Borrego, Julián Antonio 2007 (accessed 4-2-07) Health in Cuba, the two faces of a myth, Misceláneas de Cuba 2007-04-02 |[2] ^[1]

cited by El Jigue 208.65.188.149 13:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)--11:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check if the recent edits to this article is NPOV or not... I suspect it held an exile's POV, but I'm not a Cuban history person so I can't decide. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also applies on Havana Club. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up. I made only a minor change and replaced nationalized with expropriated on the other article which I believe is the correct term.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Buena Vista Social Club you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Buena Vista Social Club for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, incorrect statement on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japan; I corrected, in case it matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the recent GA of BVSC. Its a good article, and good music. I wanted to write to you personally to keep the discussion at Talk:State terrorism by United States of America from being too long, as we are spinning are wheels (as are those at the AfD), and our discussion there distracts from those interested discussing other issues at the article. I've brought the discussion here so that I can personally request your help in this. If I am wrong, and you believe that my ideas are misguided, then we have a conflict of opinion, and discussing this on the articles talk page may be overlong. I don't need you to be my friend or trust my intentions or any of that. But I was asked at the AfD to do something about the article if I wanted it kept, so I'm trying.

In my opinion, this article is very good, and very important. Almost every word in it seems to be well thought out, researched, and appropriate. I don't intend to remove any of it, none of it needs removing. However, at all of the recent AfDs, certain issues have been brought up. These are not problems with the article, but rather opinions of certain editors, and there is no way to change every opinion. But there are some things we can do.

Consider WP:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

Bringing a spectrum of the dialog surrounding this issue into the article will add both to the credibility of the discussion and to the article's stability. Being that far left sources are largely silent on many of these issues, bringing in the US government's position will mean citing Kucinich more than McClellum. I'm sure you are aware of this, but it means that adding more nuanced views will not solve everything. However, there is no reason that an article like this has to face AfD five times in 18 months. Having a strong discussion of state terrorism and the US in an article in such a visible place as WP is a "big deal". But for the stability of the article and the credibility of the discussion, it is important that we deal with the criticism at the AfD. Please excuse the length of my note, we can move the discussion elsewhere if you like. And please let me know what you think. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smmurphy. I support any efforts to bring stability and improvements to the article. But be aware that the reason why the article has faced afd so many times is largely down to bad faith nominations and political agendas, not NPOV. If it were simply a case of noble NPOV reasons, then these editors would be afd'ing List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state and the many articles that deal with U.S. government allegations against other states. Only the U.S. article gains any attention from deletionists reflecting the demographic. In principle I think the term state terrorism is not helpful, and these articles are not helpful or encyclopedic. But as long as there are numerous articles such as Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, Allegations of Israeli apartheid and so on, then the U.S. should not be treated as an exception due to peer pressure from the large U.S. editing contigent.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another hypothesis is that people AfD articles about the US because they care about it. Other articles face the same issues when Saying that they should go after other articles is beyond the point, as is the content and name of other articles.

Anyway, many of those voting on AfD are uncomfortable with the tone of the article. I'll start at the talk page from now one, rather than editing the article directly, and I hope that we can work together amicably there. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with stating that Guevara/Castro failed to understand many of the issues of Afro-Cubans in Cuba and Africans in the Congo, is a sectarian comment. It strikes me as something out of Black Marxism. Mao succeeded revolutionizing China, and did not incorrectly asume race, or the alleged lack of understanding of its own intrinsic problems, was a determining factor of marxist analysis. Ultimately, from a materialistic conception, all ideas, including culture, religion, and any other ideological abstract -such as the diferent intellectual conceptions of race, stem from material roots. This is what people who get fixated on nation or race fail to understand, race and nation do not play a protagonist or antagonist role in a materialist conception. Che Guevara was materialist, so is Castro. The conflict of the international proletariat with imperialism is what is decisive, again, from a materialist consideration. Any group or party that places its own importance above the struggle of the international proletariat is being sectarian, and shifting away from the materialist conception. This is why centering the discussions around race, or lack of understanding of racial issues can become sectarian as well, as in the case of Black Marxism. Self-determination is a right of every nation, group, and people. Such self-determination plays a progressive role. But when self-determination places itself above the international conflict, and ultimately dismisses such a conflict, it stops being progressive and becomes reactionary. It can even become chauvinistic and xenophobic. In these cases, not only do supporters of this view leave the international struggle, but in their tacitness they become functional to the status quo, and to the oppresion of their oppresors, which can also include racial oppresion, no matter how much the oppresed group "self-determines". Just in case, since reading text is not the same as hearing someone speak, I just want to make it clear that I'm not trying to bitterly argue or make an attack, only exchange information and thoughts. So what are your thoughts on the previous? Wryn 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comments Wryn. The problem here with Guevara and Castro, is that though they defined themselves by their struggles against imperialism, they didn't represent the working class. They represented a small, elite cabal of educated revolutionaries orchestrating a top down revolution and a centralisation of power in the hands of a few, most of whom remain in power 50 years later. The question is this: was the rejection of individual cultural concerns a necessity to "fight imperialism", or was it a way of eliminating any potential rivals to the core group's centralised power? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zleitzen. I will address your mentions point by point:
Castro and Guevara did, and Castro still does, represent the working class in Cuba. The reason is that under Castro, there has been lots of attention towards social issues such as hunger, healthcare, education, and homelessness. Illiteracy droped since 1961 from 20 percent to 4 percent. Cuba's healthcare and literacy rates are among the highest in Latin America. So yes, if asked if Guevara and Castro were working in the interest of the proletariat, I can say yes based on the above.
You are correct that the revolution was orchestrated in a top down maner in which power was centralized. This was a vanguard party, and the use of a vanguard party is not really a matter of choice, its a necessity. I say its a necessity because any other attempt at establishing socialism in a different way, ultimately falls to imperialism. Take for example Salvador Allende, who was democratically elected in Chile, yet was later overthown in place by the Pinochet regime, which was backed up by the CIA.

In principle, none wants war, none wants violence, yet when armed violence is the only option its not really something you have the luxury to dismiss. The liberation of slaves in the United States required armed conflict, did it not? Yet no one would argue today that it would have been better to maintain the slave system and have no armed revolt. While it would have been "the best" if the slaves were freed without a need for armed struggle, such a position is an idealism, not a reality. And realities should not be compared to idealisms, they should be compared to other realities. Now lets consider the violence of imperialism, not only through military action, but through social violence and economic violence such as being the cause of massive famine in many Third World countries. A position that is only assistive, such as sending aid towards Third World countries isn't going to solve hunger in those countries either, because assistance only addresses the symptoms but does not address the causes, and the superexploitation and economical neo-colonization of the Third World, by the First World, is what causes this massive famine. Lets not even begin to discuss rates of child mortality and lack of medical healthcare that could take care of preventable diseases. Yet imperialism remains indifferent towards economic and social violence in these countries, as if Third World lives were somehow less important. Now lets consider the economic embargo the U.S. has on Cuba, and in spite of the opposition, Cuba manages to have one of the highest rates of literacy and lowest of famine. And this would not have been possible without armed struggle and a consolidation of power.

"was the rejection of individual cultural concerns a necessity to "fight imperialism"" It depends on what role those cultural concerns play. If they play a progressive role, then no. If they play a reactionary role, then yes. However, in a marxist conception as stated earlier, culture stems from material roots. So instead of rejecting these issues, another possibility is re-addressing them and the culture itself from a different system of analysis.
"or was it a way of eliminating any potential rivals to the core group's centralised power?" Of course it was a way of eliminating potential rivals. That is what its about. In a revolution, there will be counterrevolutionaries, and even under a socialist state there is still a class struggle in which capitalism has the potential to revert the socialist state into a capitalist one. This is what happened in the Soviet Union, in China, and is very likely to happen in Cuba. They become state capitalist.
Sorry for such a lengthy post! Wryn 05:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again apparent apologists for the Cuban government have removed reference to limitations on access to education in Cuba.

In March I inserted this (it is now gone)

"However, access to higher education apparently requires party membership since such is "a de facto prerequisite for high-level official positions and professional advancement in most areas."[3]. In addition requirements for part time child labor [4] weaken the Cuban Government's claim of free education for all." El Jigue208.65.188.149 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into it EJ. By the way, your theories about Cubana 455. Please! I like a lot of what you say, disagree with a lot of other stuff, but that really "takes the biscuit".-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: I am not condoning a shoot down of a airliner, however, one must realize that only senior adherents to the Cuban goverment were on that plane. Look at the manifest I that I posted once, will try and dig it up. Apparently, no tourists, no innocents, were aboard and those North Koreans were certainly not there to make peace and happiness. Still Posada and his friends have done far more harm than good in their "promotion" of Cuban freedom. Yet everyday one reads of terrorists in the Middle East (in Colombia, or even in Northern Ireland or the Basque country) who do far worse and yet are treated far more respectfully by the media and academia than Posada. As far as I can tell Posada was never found guilty of the crime, and after nine years in detention escaped. El Jigue 208.65.188.149 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: What Goatboy says in reference to the Cuban educational system has been my experience also. The trouble is to document and quantify these experiences is difficult, since Cuba is not an open society. This gives rise to a great difficulties for scholars studying the present Cuban condition, since on one side the Cuban governments allegations are commonly backed by massive, but unreliable statistics, while the opposition is forced to use small samples and personal experiences. However, the very fact that Cuba is a closed society by logical necessity means that government is hiding factual information. Please forgive me, for my some what intemperate rant, which although it is true it is not scholarly, and must seem quite ungrateful given your efforts to present this material in the light of reality. Not to worry honest disagreement is not a problem for me, for it serves to help me think clearly. However bear in mind, this is all personal to me, and that every so often I get so upset at attempts to enforced conformity of ideological thought and impose the propaganda of the Cuban government on Wikipedia that it makes me lose any rationality mustered in calmer moments. Thank you again for correcting the point of ideological control in Cuban higher education. El Jigue 4-6-07208.65.188.149 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you may be interested to know that I nominated Allegations of Brazilian apartheid for deletion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cúchullain. Ideally, all these allegations articles would go, the apartheid and state terrorism articles, and any worthwhile material would be merged into relevant articles. I've been arguing this for months, mostly in the Sri Lankan articles, but it just escalates. And then it becomes a case of "why should some material go and some stay". Only agreed unilateral deletions will work, and I fear this is impossible.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and similar problems may be not have a solution given the present structure of Wikipedia. At present any one party state and its adherents overseas can afford (and to survive must do so) to promote its own point of view, and suppress dissenting views on Wikipedia with such force of repetition and zeal that it is almost in possible to stop them. Still I admire your efforts and wish you the best... El Jigue 4-5-07208.65.188.149 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want to thank you very much for awarding me the barnstar. I work on Reagan's article almost every day. I know it's going to be tough to get it FA status, but I'm going to try. Again, thank you! Best Wishes, Happyme22 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, Zleitzen, I really appreciate it. I'm working off a list of ~4,000 untagged Caribbean articles, so there are still a few to go. :) jwillbur^talk 18:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one that's going on right now is sockpuppetry, and if there's a wy to close it, I'd do it. Happyme22 03:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, I noticed your comments on that AfD. I thought you may be interested in this discussion, in which I raise similar points. Thank you.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should list the Brazilian apartheid AFD at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Brazil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.214.60.130 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is an inaccurate and prejudicial summary of the events in question. I request that you remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Z: Luis Posada Carriles may not be the most perfect activist in the world but to attempt to build a case based upon what may not be the most reliable sources, and constantly deleting references to complexities in the case does not make a good article. One notes the Che Guevara article attempts balance, this one does not. For instance one might ask: How many prisoners did Posada execute? or How many unarmed aircraft have been shot down by the Castro regime? Posada is apparently as much of a doctor as Guevara was, but one cannot tell it from this article. I personally disgree that the methods used and/or advocated by Guevara or Posada are morally correct, but that is neither here nor there since in Wikipedia merely an attempt to balance factual evidence is required. Such is not present in this article. By the way Posada seems to be dying of cancer. BTW Believing in some absolute ethical standards I disagree with the common saw that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. El Jigue 4-7-07208.65.188.149 18:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated points EJ. I think its safe to say I wouldn't like to meet either Guevara or Posada in a dark ally. You make some good points about - say - the article mentioning Guevara being a doctor in the lead but not Posada in the lead. I removed the doctor from the Che lead some time ago but it was restored by someone last week. I also have issues with the lead of the Posada article anyway and hope to iron the piece out at some point, taking into account some of your issues.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: Thank you. Trying to dig up a balance of sources on the matter... Reading some sources one sees how "messy" (code for horrible) war can be, there is the December 58 ambulance shoot up, if memory serves there were 7 Red Cross workers killed near Santiago (reference not provided here), there was another during the Guisa encounters, and the plane crash both caused by M-26-07 [5] still one can argue that this was accidental. There is the question if it is true why Castro never let the British Authorities raise the plane with the fencing team and the North Koreans....and the link of causality is not complete. As to meeting them in a dark alley, no way, nor even in the light of day. No Way!!!!!!! In the mountains Guevara was feared, because he would readily kill anybody. "Mata a cualquiera" was the saying used to describe Guevara's actions then. One can never tell if such as Eutemio Guerra, who I think was executed by Raul then Guevara's close buddy, was really a traitor or an inconvenient Autentico land-reformer activist. There is something around about Posada being an opponent of FC in the "Gatillo Alegre" (trigger happy) university times. Let me see what I can find. BTW A friend tells me he thinks that a photo of Fabio Grobart, one guess it is him from the his extremely low stature (see below) and his features as an old man see Cantón Navarro, José 2005 (accessed 4-6-07) The first (sic) Cuban Communist Party Bohemia Digital August 5, 2005 A CubaNews translation by Ana Portela. Edited by Robert Sandels and Walter Lippmann. [6] Possibly short young person to the immediate right of Ruben Martinez Villena Photo legend “Ruben Martinez Villena reading the relevant document when the communists too leadership of the Cuban National workers Confederation (CNOC)” Compared with photo in Suarez Ramos, Felipa (accessed 1-13-07) Fabio Grobart (far older) en el movimiento sindical cubano, Suplemento Trabajadores 29 de agosto [7]. There is also a possibility that Fabio Grobart, was Otto Ott intelligence operative in Havana during the Saint Luis Affair. In the "Voyage of the Damned Otto Ott is described as a dwarf NAZI agent, leaving one to ponder if those #$%^** racists would accept such. On the other hand Fabio, who I doubt was more more than five feet tall (see his photo with Castro, where he really looks like a dwarf, and FC is only 6'1 or 6' 2") Martínez Triay, Alina 2005 (accessed 4-4-07) Simiente fecunda del Partido de Fidel. Suplemento Historico. Trabajadores 16 de agosto 2005 http://www.trabajadores.cubaweb.cu/SUPLEMENTO- HISTORIA/revolucion/simiente.htm ” El joven polaco …El peculiar y pausado acento extranjero de Fabio en la presentación del Primer Secretario, se escucha en el plenario como un enlace entre los viejos y los nuevos tiempos”, had used Otto as a cover before, and at that point in time Hitler and Stalin's covert operatives were working together. To see this photo you need to go to [8] and then click on Fabio Grobart en el movimiento sindical cubano. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to introduce some rationality into this topic by editing lead paragraph, thus:

Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles (born February 15, 1928) is a Cuban born Venezuelan national, an anti-Fidel Castro militant, anti-communist para-military and former CIA operative who has never quite admitted participation in a number of plots considered by his opponents to be terrorist against the Castro government of Cuba. He is a controversial polarizing figure and his public record is voluminous but not rigorously documented and often involves conflicting reports (see below). Posada is said to have been active in Operation 40, a CIA anti-Castrist operation in the early 1960s. He has been accused of involvement in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner which killed seventy-three people. Despite requests for extradition by Venezuela to face charges, and calls for Posada to be prosecuted in the United States for terrorism crimes, Posada is presently being held pending trial by authorities in Texas on the charge of illegally entering the U.S.^[2] The Cuban government has recently released a statement attributed to Fidel Castro claiming that the US government plans to release him [9] ^[3]

El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was a harder afd to close as keep than it looks on the surface, I know that. But to explain my stance, you say that there's not enough information in your delete !vote, yet there are 10 reliable sources in the relatively short article. The main problem seemed to be WP:SYNT, yet almost every sentence is cited, with not a whole lot of opinion squeezing in from the looks of it. Granted, I probably should have waiting until the DRV closed, seeing as now that the article has returned I may support a merge of the information back into the main article (that's a different issue though, not for afd to decide). Also, I asked another admin before I made my decision, and he agreed with me that it should have been closed as keep. Most importantly though, in between your delete vote and when I closed, a good amount of work was done on the article. You could argue that the usage of "apartheid" is iffy, and the main issue I got from it was not so much whether to keep or delete the article, but whether or not to rename the article, as evident by the current village pump discussion. I do support that there be some discussion on what's appropriate. Although if there is absolute consensus on this newest apartheid afd, then you can certainly put this one back up again. Sorry I took a while to get to you, I wanted to make sure this was worded properly. If you're really not convinced and you still think it's wrong, you're free to put it back up on afd after Allegations of apartheid's afd runs its course. (I could argue vote count too, but afd's not a vote and i didnt take it into account)--Wizardman 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

As in WWII information of the resistance in the Balkans, the British seemed equally uninformed as to the circumstances in Cuba in 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion. Speculation that this was due to contamination by Castro Agents (as communist sources contaminated British WWII intelligence in the Balkans) is not appropriate here since I am not aware that such information has surfaced. Thus I limited myself to inserting more recent evidence of actions that although pertinent did not appear in British Reports of the time. "More recent analysis suggest that, probably because of the Castro government's almost complete blackout of actions outside of Havana, the sources such as those used in the Ormsby-Gore intelligence estimate were not aware of the following related material: On April 14, 1961, the guerrillas of Agapito Rivera fought Cuban government forces near Las Cruces, Montembo, Las Villas, several goverment forces were killed and others wounded ^[4]. On April 16, Merardo and Jose Leon plus 14 others staged armed rising at Las Delicias Estate in Las Villas, only four survived ^[5] Leonel Martinez and 12 others took to the country side (ibid). On the 17th of April 1961 Osvaldo Ramírez then chief of the rural resistance to Castro (see War Against the Bandits) was captured in Aromas de Velázquez and immediately executed. [10] The ruthlessness with which this resistance was suppressed is well described in Franqui ^[6]. On April 3, 1961, a bomb attack on militia barracks in Bayamo killed four militia and eight more are wounded; on April 6, the Hershey Sugar factory in Matanzas is destroyed by sabotage; on April 18, Directorio guerrilla Marcelino Magaňaz died in action in Sierra Maestra. ^[7] On April 19 at least seven Cubans plus two US citizens Angus K. McNair and Howard F. Anderson are executed in Pinar del Rio Province.^[8]. However, the general Cuban population was not well informed, except for CIA funded Radio Swan [11] Pirate radio in Central America and Caribbean Sea, since May of 1960 almost all means of public communication were in the government’s hands ^[9]. El Jigue208.65.188.149 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) --21:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Added more details as to who was Fabio di Celmo

An Italian businessman, Fabio di Celmo, was killed and 11 people wounded as a result. Fabio di Celmo was the youngest son of Giustino di Celmo a PhD. in Political Science University of Havana, partisan guerrilla in WWII and a commmunist of long standing, ^[10]. El Jigue208.65.188.149 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EJ. That's a strange and interesting addition to the page, thanks.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: Thank you I am not quite sure of the Guistino di Celmo's academic title, but saying PhD is simpler (it may merely be honorary). Added note to "Way of the Warrior" at the Luis Posada Carriles and 445 crash pages. (The entire book can be found at Professor de la Cova's site [12]). Insert reads: Many details of Posada's career are found in his book Camino del Guerrero (The Way of the Warrior) which denies involvement in the destruction of flight 455 and details how he helped destroy the Pro-Castro Venezulan forces and other actions in Central America.^[11] El Jigue 4-13-07208.65.188.149 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EJ. That's a great site by the way. There is still some ironing out to do, and I think that BBC source showing Posada's point of view can be used, but you have certainly made a decent fist of giving some background to the story.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: Thank you. There is far more to this and more most odd details probably involving Soviet and US agents in Guayana (have a reference) as well as the usual suspects. One has to keep in mind that on a world wide perspective Cuba can be viewed at least in part as a frontier fort of the Soviet Empires, as Sanguinetty points out ^[12] That deadline mentioned before is coming up so any further detailed Wikipedia action on my part will probably have to wait until then, unless... El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added following to William Alexander Morgan page: In April 2007, the US State Department, declared that Morgan's US citizenship had never been lost. ^[13] El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I think Ricardo “El Mono” Morales Navarrete is/was related to the Montoto, Castro Bodyguard, who died hit by a propeller in Caracas in early 1959 and to Dr. Briones Montoto a person once active in Cuban politics (Autentico perhaps).

Anyway seeking balance have added to Luis Posada Carriles chapter: On one hand- the group "Agrupación para la Solidaridad Con los Presos Anticastrista en Estados Unidos" presents information alleging that the explosives were set by a provocateur (a secret agent who incites suspected persons to commit illegal acts) double Ricardo “El Mono” Morales Navarrete, whose handlers were DGI, (Cuban Intelligence) officials Cuenca Montoto y Eduardo Fuentes. ^[14] El Jigue 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you've added there EJ. You would need to clarify the structure of that sentence because it doesn't make sense, at least to me. What is the source claiming?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: Thank you for your kind corrections. In the Bay of Pigs Invasion Have added a brief note on Marxist Samuel Farber and his support of the invasion because the landing forces included "old trade unionists" citing: Administrator Marx Mail 2004 (accessed 4-16-07) [Marxism] the ISO and Sam Farber, http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w28/msg00035.htm “I knew Sam Farber at the University of California (Berkeley) in the early 1960s. It probably was in 1964 or 1965. He was a member of the International Socialist Clubs, which at the time had broken away from Max Shachtman, in part because of his notorious discovery that there were some old trade unionists among the Bay of Pigs invaders, thus justifying his support for that invasion……” and will add when I find it again another reference which refers to Manuel Artime as a trotskyite. Personally I find this a little odd, since I wonder about these "trocolocos;" but it does explain the activities of Humberto Sori Marin and others in the Sierra in early 1959. Farber envisions a socialistic but apparently democratic Cuba: Farber, Samuel 2006 (accessed 4-15-07) Cuba’s likely transition and its politics. International Socialist Review ISR Issue 48, July–August 2006 http://www.isreview.org/issues/48/cuba.shtml Farber points out (or hopes?) that a “In addition to having to confront the Right, the new democratic revolutionary Left will also face major obstacles and intense competition from the neo-Fidelista forces…” a circumstance I find strange and improbable, but who knows what the future will be..... El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is difficult, in the absence of legitimizing elections to sustain that Castro's forces owed allegance to the Republic of Cuba, thus I have requested a reference and at least until this matter is resolved reworded thus:

"The government initially reported their army losses as 87 dead with many more wounded. The number of those killed in action in Cuba's army during the battle eventually ran to 140, and then finally to 161. Thus in the most accepted calculations, a total of around 2,000 (perhaps as many as 5,000, see above) Cuban militia fighting in the Castro forces may have been killed, wounded or missing in action." El Jigue21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

El C is back reverting to unreferenced data on this point El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what has happened to the article, which wasn't good to begin with. I requested assistance at the article improvement drive to no avail.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: Trying my best to add information to provide balance, but this despite your kind guidance is running into conflict with apparent ideological givens. Just maintaining a balance of information is troublesome. In this instance here insistence on the word republic seems to be derived from the 1936-1939 Spain. Perhaps I can use the words revolutionary government, since then it was said that "La Revolucion es fuente de derecho." El Jigue 4-16-07208.65.188.149 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your AFD's to succeed, I suggest nominating all of the allegations articles at once. most people would support this idea. the worry of ours is POV, in keeping some and removing others.--Urthogie 16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be a problem if articles were judged on their own merits as per guidelines.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did but I'm not sure there was a need since there obviously wasn't a consensus. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let another admin handle it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Jayjg, award you this barnstar for common sense, clear thinking, and always thinking of what's best for Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same :) Kla'quot 05:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote this just now addressed to "John History"

John, one could not help but note that you erase the whole "land action" section in the Bay of Pigs Invasion page. Since you offered no explanation, one wonders if you knew that Carlos Franqui is a newspaper reporter and author of several books on these and related matters. At the time of the Bay of Pigs Invasion he was an inconditional of Castro (he later defected), and a first hand witness of these events. Could you be so kind as to offer a rational for your actions in this regard. The section you deleted was:

"The land action was very bloody. Carlos Franqui writes: “We lost a lot of men. This frontal attack of men against machines (the enemy tanks) had nothing to do with guerrilla war; in fact it was a Russian tactic, probably the idea of the two Soviet generals, both of Spanish origin (they fought for the Republic in the Spanish Civil War and fled to the Soviet Union to later fight in World War II. One of them was a veteran, a fox named Ciutah. He (Ciutah) was sent by the Red Army and the Party as an advisor and was the father of the new Cuban army. He was the only person who could have taken charge of the Girón campaign. The other Hispano-Russian general was an expert in antiguerrilla war who ran the Escambray cleanup. But the real factor in our favor at Girón was the militias: Almejeira’s column embarked on a suicide mission, they were massacred but they reached the beach.”"

Hello EJ. I don't know who that "John History" is. His reason for deletion does not appear to have been provided. I suggest you await a response, perhaps contacting him on his page, and if none is provided then restore. Please be patient, and most of all Assume good faith, which is much harder to do than it sounds as we both know. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]