Jump to content

User talk:Zleitzen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zleitzen (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 27 January 2007 (→Guevara and executions: reply to EJ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive

Archives

1 2 3

Thanks for

visiting my Talk: page.

If you are considering posting something to me, please:

*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Do not make personal attacks.

Comments which fail to follow the above rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

Contents

thanks

I appreciate your words of encouragement. I picked up on Afro Latin Americans as a wikify and for some reason decided to rise to the challenge of working on it's POV. Now that I've invested more of my effort into it, I'd like to see it get to a good article level but I don't know if that will be possible. More than anything, I'm hoping that other's will add some useful, well-sourced material. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Santa Clara

Congratulations on this outstanding article! Your description of events is by far the best I have ever read, and a most valuable contribution to the "Che Guevara" series. -- Polaris999 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Polaris. I think it still needs more work - and of course a few specific sources. Notably the rumours of payments. I had a look at it round the internet and there was one quite credible account I believe was from the son of one of the troops. At least it was credible enough to me to get an initial mention. Whether any source will pass WP:RS is another matter. Weighing up the claim, it has a certain ring of truth about it, it seems to centre around a comment made by Guevara "you weren't supposed to shoot". Though that the context of this could have been embellished or simply misconstrued - either that or Guevara is an out and out liar with a broad enough imagination to conjur up a vivid false picture of events. I think the reality is probably somewhere in between, as all stories of war generally are. Certainly not worthy of forming any substantial criticism or polemic against Guevara, as if it were the case that troops were bribed, I hardly think it changes the story very much. --Zleitzen 02:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zleitzen. I need to review CG's own account of the battle which I haven't looked at in ages. BTW I was wondering if you plan to implement any of Jmabel's ideas re getting rid of the POV tag, or should we pursue a different route (such as challenging its placement, for which we do have grounds)? -- Polaris999 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The present situation has all the hallmarks of the activity that engulfed the Fidel Castro article. Where various anon "sockpuppet" accounts were logging on to argue at length that this image [1] was a POV insult, and making various other recommendations that didn't seem to have much to do with improving an encylopedia article, or common sense. These interjections were accompanied by extreme vandalism and outrageous uncivil accusations against editors including myself. My efforts to alert admins came largely to nought (see this exchange for example[2] ) and thus I took the page off my watchlist - correcting only the major errors on the occasional basis that I take a look at the article. The placement of the tag should be accompanied by civil discourse on the talk page describing clearly why the tag was placed - this hasn't happened - so by rights the tag is bogus and should be removed.
On the other hand, unless the page, and good faith editors are supported by admins, I have no wish to engage in a dispute with an editor throwing around accusations - using sockpuppet accounts - and harrassing users on their talk pages. My move would be to add the criticism from left wing anarchists somehow (which I have mixed feelings about - the criticism is merely a broad and unfocused opinion from a marginal group - it doesn't illuminate the subject in any way) - and continue improving the article ignoring the dispute. But I'll support any efforts you make to resolve the situation. --Zleitzen 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zleitzen -- I am in total agreement with you on all the basic points. An FA really shouldn't have a POV tag on it for an extended period, so something will need to be done relatively soon. However, let's consider the options a bit longer ... BTW, how would you feel about eventually perhaps changing the title to "Legacy and Criticism" since the text of the section does indeed reflect both and you merged the two previously existing sections with those titles when you created it? -- Polaris999 01:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Polaris, if you think that adding "criticisms" to the section title would clarify the situation for editors that aren't following the lay-out of the page as I'd envisaged, then by all means make the amendments. --Zleitzen 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zleitzen -- I have always steered clear of the Legacy/Criticism section, only making edits to it in the case of glaring problems such as once when someone inserted two almost identical paragraphs into it. I would greatly prefer that you make the two changes you mention, which I think would be an excellent idea under the circumstances, and hopefully we can then move forward. How do you feel about this? -- Polaris999 16:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've also been busy expanding the Cuban revolution series based on the template, writing the History will absolve me article, and creating a timeline if you care to check. And have created a Foco article to remove the conspicuous red link from the two Guevara pages. --Zleitzen 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you so much. I did notice your superb timeline of the Cuban Revolution and will be heading back over there soon to enjoy it in detail; I likewise look forward to reading the two new articles. The "Cuban Revolution" template you created certainly brings all aspects into focus. Re what you explained above concerning your awful experience with the FCR article, I most sincerely hope that, by working together to protect its integrity, serious editors will be able to prevent similar depredation from destroying CG.   :-)   Polaris999 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of thoughts about the Timeline: According to CG's records, RCR introduced him to FCR on 8 July 1955. I was also wondering if it might be worthwhile to include the date of Herbert Matthews' interview with FCR (17 Feb 1957 acc. to JLA, p 236) since that seems to have been a critical juncture in the history of the Revolution(?) -- Polaris999 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Polaris. Some of the exact dates may not be correct - I scooped it directly from the Timeline of Cuban history which was compiled from various different sources and is very much a work in progress. I'll make an effort to check, improve and expand the article over time - adding details when I come across them. --Zleitzen 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Castro

Hi there,

I see where you were going with the change in the photo's caption however, I think by the uniform that its clear he's a rebel soldier, don't you? Lemme know.

Cheers,

Goatboy95 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goatboy.

I think he's likely to be a rebel deserter. I've just erred on the side of caution and have added a source. I hope such pics pass the strict copywrite laws on wikipedia - because the site I've referenced has some great photos for many articles. --Zleitzen 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism template issue

Although you and I have had differences of opinion on this issue, I did learn a lot from your arguments and I will use your advice in my future templates, articles and categories. Although I still belive State terrorism should have it own category, it is imperative that Wikipedia community agree on what is State terrorism is clearly as much as citable and credible opinion is out there. I am more interested in the subject matter rather than the examples, categories and templates as they will follow eventually. Thanks for your timeRaveenS

I also wanted to mention it was a pleasure to have debated with you on this. Though we were arguing on opposite sides of the debate, the points you raised were very much welcome and necessary I think as part of the constructive criticism process. We were perhaps a little envious to have you on our side of the debate. I think there is ample room for consensus amongst ourselves on this and I would be willing to negotiate this offline if you are interested. Cheers, Elalan 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings. Well I was in part playing devils advocate and giving you pair the kind of grilling that is sometimes helpful for future battles you may have. If you want to progress with this topic and minimise the potential for endless battles. My best recommendation is to never put anything on a controversial page until it his heavily worked and sourced in a sandbox first. Once you do put a heavily sourced and attributed section on a page, you should be relatively safe from challenges. And it would save a lot of arguing in the mean time! I don't think you'll have much luck in the long run with your template or category - unless you want to spend the next portion of your life arguing endlessly over the same topic. Good luck.--Zleitzen 05:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Preform

I hadn't dealt with Tannim before his repeated spamming of the unblock-en mailing list, so I'm not informed enough to tell if Preform is him or not. I have indicated on the list your suspicions, so that others who are more familiar with him might be able to tell. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA

Congratulations! I promise I will read it (but not tonight). Glad you stuck around. I've seen your name crop up, almost always with good work. Am I right that I've seen you on several things related to Che Guevara? - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. That's right. I've been trying to raise the standards of all the Cuban related articles (I have some 200 or so on my rounds) - not without its perils. I feel that they are starting to come together now, though I've needed to make thousands of edits in the process. In time I hope that they will be the best collection of nation articles on the encyclopedia, which is by no means impossible. I'd like to vastly improve the Jamaica and Haiti areas as well. I haven't done a lot on the Guevara article in that time, but then it was by far the best Cuban related page I'd seen before I put it on my watchlist. In fact it is one of the best pieces one could read on Guevara anywhere. Certainly in terms of attention to detail. Kudos to Polaris yourself and others.--Zleitzen 07:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful feature article

Looks like it was joyfully created and wonderfully done. Different than the pestering Fidel Castro experience, I bet. You deserve it. Congrats! Mattisse(talk) 12:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Beautiful User and Talk pages. Thought you weren't technically inclined. (Maybe I'l copy it -- would you mind?) Mattisse(talk) 12:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Thanks for your great reponse, Matisse. Be my guest and steal what you can. I stole it off someone else! But I'm still working out how to arrange the text and so on via trial and error. The Castro article hasn't improved significantly since you dipped out, I check it occasionally and weed out the occasional error that I see, but it seems as though it would take a long time before it gets any major improvement at this rate. At least some of the incivility has died down I see. By the way, as I know you are a stickler for sourced articles, did you see how many I used on the British African-Caribbean community article, 113 sources! I hope you're impressed :) --Zleitzen 12:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed! They are well placed also. I too check out the Castro article occasionally. So much is about to happen in Cuba. Maybe the time will become right to try it again. I had a wonderful time doing articles about India for awhile but now there is religious/ethnic squabbling that I can't enter into, so I've backed off and am doing other stuff for now. Mattisse(talk) 13:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey there - thanks for the vandal revert - looks like I missed all the fun :-) Saludos, Sandy (Talk) 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a note on how to calculate prose size. I'm not going to wade into the Chavez POV wasteland until the time comes that others there show a genuine interest in addressing the issues (and I don't see that happening anytime soon), but FYI:
Chavez, 117 KB overall, a WHOPPING 69 KB prose
Guevara, 105KB overall, a decent 48KB prose.
On FAC, people start to get nervous about prose size at around 45KB. Chavez is WAY over the line on size, and it's completely unnecessary, since most of the old info is in daughter articles already. We were working productively and consensually on reducing the size before the WGee/172 revert, and work conveniently halted after I had exorcised the "criticism" to daughter articles. Sandy (Talk) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I was wrong and you were right! It probably won't be for the last time. Cheers Sandy.--Zleitzen 02:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you for the banstar, it's much appreciated. It also remainded me that I haven't contributed a lot to Cuba related articles lately, but I will be back (actually I'll be back in Cuba next week). Thanks again. --Qyd 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varadero entry

Hi there, Zleitzen:

Could you take a look at the Varadero entry? I just reverted an edit - see discussion page. I'd like to come to some agreement on how to handle that paragraph. Essentially, the practice of barring Cubans entry stems from the government, since they control the tourism industry. However, I do think we might want to add a sentence stating something to the effect of: "the practice seems to have been waning over the past few years" - as although I've experienced the practice recently, it's not as prevalent as in past years. Can you put your objective two cents in?

Many thanks.

Goatboy95 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, Goatboy. This issue has a fair bit of backstory on wikipedia, and I am at present trying to clarify and get to the bottom of this on other pages. This isn't easy because despite peoples' personal experiences, there is a real dearth of sources on recent practices. But I am compiling various bits and bobs for a future reworking where I hope everyone can come to an agreement. To make matters worse, the "tourist apartheid" business - which is detailed on Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba - also got mixed up in a horrendous unrelated wikipedia-wide dispute where certain users were trying to write about "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" - seemingly designed as an attack page against that nation. See talk page of the Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba article, and Allegations of apartheid for some idea of the mess created.--Zleitzen 05:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba

I asked for that to be semi-protected again - and it worked ! -- Beardo 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again -- advice requested!

Hello again Zleitzen, I have a question. How do you manage to focus and work in peace? Did you write your article in a user space? (I deserted some Cuba articles I started, because I began to receive flack.) How do you manage it? Say a little prayer for me. This place perplexes me.

Then there are other conversations going on all over about me (some in shadowy places). Would you ever have guessed it? Somewhere on your front page you said that Fidel Castro was one of the most edited articles on Wikipedia, behind the Pope and ahead of Britney Spears. Well, I must be one of the most talked about "virtual people" here. Would you ever have thought that would be the case? Am I destined for fame? Should I write a book? Do you want my autograph? Virtually yours, Mattisse(talk) 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar / Cuba

Dear Z - thank you for the barnstar. But if anyone deserves a barnstar it is you. (Is it bad form to immediately return a barnstar to the giver ?) Really, I am constantly impressed by all your contributions.

And, no, I hadn't come upon the portal before. I hope that I can make a contribution. Thanks -- Beardo 11:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Beardo. There is definately an improved atmosphere on the Cuba articles and they do seem to be expanding and improving thanks in large part to this. (until some new lunatic comes along no doubt). I'm still shocked at the standard of some articles though - the History of Cuba article is very poor for example. Perhaps the portal - and a revived Wikipedia:WikiProject Cuba will help focus editors on some of the problems?--Zleitzen 10:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez

Have left a comment on your other ID about the Chavez article.--Zleitzen 07:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zleitzen - I try to check in there very infrequently, since the watchlist is tedious and distracts from productive work. Once elections are over, some of the POV tendencies may subside towards the holidays (if it's ever going to happen). I'll try to wade back in if I see that things subside and that others have a genuine interest in NPOVing, but if it remains futile, I'd rather avoid them as often as possible. Will check later - thanks for trying, and thanks for letting me know, Saludos, Sandy (Talk) 12:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied you Talk page + working on FA

I'm working on a suite of hopeful FA articles with a person who knows the subject matter: Hoysala Empire, Hoysala architecture etc. so I have been scrutinising British African-Caribbean community for tips. It is a great article. Also, I have an offical Wikipedia Advocate now who is quietly doing little things behind the scenes. Peace has fallen upon me. Plus changing the Talk page to yours stops people from taking it over. Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 14:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments Matisse. One of my guides was the Che Guevara article which I highly recommend - and where I stole the concept of "content notes" from, they can be very helpful in explaining confusing details without breaking the flow of the article. Concerning your comments above, I've also been reading your excellant improvements to the Haitian revolution page which is an article I would like to contribute to in time. Keep up the good work.--Zleitzen 10:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I picked up on your use of "content notes" as they would be highly useful in our situation. (India is riff with POV issues over religious terms, place names etc. and that method would aid in explaining terms succinctly outside the article body.) I'll look at Che Guvara again to examine that. It is a wonderfully presented article -- the use of blank and white images is very effective. Are you back on Fidel Castro or just sticking a toe in the water? The Haitian Revolution is very interesting plus there are neccesary related articles that are a mess. I've got your user page in my sandbox, making it into mine for when the time comes that it's safe for me to have an identiy. Now my user page is a beautiful (I think) map. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 13:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

The José Martí Barnstar
For excellent work on Cuban related articles

Esteemed Fellow-editor Zleitzen: On the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Landing of the Granma, I would like to award the prized José Martí Barnstar to you for your outstanding contributions in both improving the quality of existing Cuba-related articles and creating new ones that are significantly expanding the scope of Wikiedia's coverage of this important topic. Congratulations on your accomplishments! -- Polaris999 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Polaris! Although I would have to share the prize with the junior Zleitzens who have, particuarily of late, turned this venture into a minor cottage industry by producing banners, finding pictures and helping out in all manner of ways. --Zleitzen 10:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources

There are a few additional sources on El Coubre and especially on Castro Hemingway interactions in a very detailed piece written by a friend [3]. The surprising thing is that Hemingway may well have been there when La Coubre exploded. El Jigue 12-9-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks very much for your link to Larry Daley's piece on Hemmingway, EJ. One question I would have to ask - if Castro viewed Hemmingway so poorly, why did he keep a picture of them together in his office for so many years? Castro, a man known for harsh denouncements of those he doesn't like, spoke well of Hemmingway throughout his life. Much food for thought.--Zleitzen 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That puzzled me too until it became clear that he was perhaps influenced by the money "Hemingway" brings into Cuba, through licensing fees etc, which is estimated by the Wall Street Journal at perhaps $600 million per year. That picture could also be a trophy of an enemy humbled...perhaps one day we will know. El Jigue 1-2-07

Category:Dying

What's wrong with this category? It's verifiable, and it's highly pertinent to the indidivual's concerned. Rklawton 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (1) we're all dying to varying degrees and (2) in relation to Fidel Castro, where I spotted the new category, though speculation tends to amount to a strong conclusion that he is about to die, there is no confirmation of the severity of his condition. --Zleitzen 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about the diagnosis - most of us don't have one. Numerous, verifiable sources have made this diagnosis for Castro. They may or may not be correct, but they are verifiable, and that's the Wikipedia standard. Lastly, your disagreement over this particular application is no justification for nominating this category for deletion. Rklawton 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would you consider to be a verifiable diagnosis? I would consider it to be one by a doctor that has made an examination of the subject.--Zleitzen 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding who gets to make the diagnosis is a matter of POV. Reporting that such a diagnosis has been made is not POV - and it is verifiable. Now, would you please retract your CfD nomination? Rklawton 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who has made the diagnosis?--Zleitzen 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Take your pick. Rklawton 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one from your list

Cuban dissidents have begun to stir amid speculation that Castro may be dying, though some believe he will still return from power after recuperating from the late-July operation.[4]

Which illustrates that there is no confirmation of the severity of his condition.--Zleitzen 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one source. What about all the others? The important point is that there exist verifiable sources that say he's terminal. If you read the discussions behind WP:V you'll see that verifiability is paramount. It's when we start judging for ourselves what is true and what is not true that POV and original research enter into the equation - problems we're all trying to avoid. Rklawton 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have this the wrong way round. It is your category that is judging what is true. Categories should not assert that something which is clearly disputed, as it is in this case, is fact. Show me the verifiable sources that say he's terminal.--Zleitzen 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources cited in articles include: Western officials, Western diplomatic sources, U.S. Officials, foreign experts, the U.S. government, etc. If you are only willing to accept the official word of the Cuban government on this matter, then I must ask if that is the same approach you take with all other information about Cuba? Do you accept only the Communist Party line? Aside from the Cuban government, what sources dispute this diagnosis? Rklawton 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castro's health has been a subject of a propaganda war between the Cuban government and the United States for many years, with numerous reports that he is ill/dead/dying appearing in the press in previous years. Here's an old one that states he has parkinsons disease from the CIA.

The CIA believes Fidel Castro has Parkinson's Disease. The agency says that according to observations of his recent public appearances he does seem to have Parkinson's and his condition has progressed [5]

Though it would seem to be that the present assessments of an imminent demise are likely, it is not our role to contibute to this complex situation. When his team of doctors, himself, or the Cuban government announce his condition, then it is confirmed. Before that, no encyclopedia nor newspaper would announce that he is dying as fact. No encyclopedia nor newspaper has announced that he is dying as fact. Nor should we. Please see WP:ATT and most importantly, please see Wikipedia:Categorization which states;

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option

I see that this categorization for Castro fails the uncontroversial test. You would do well, though, taking official Cuban statements with a grain of salt. Rklawton 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A grain of salt not just the Cuban statements, but also the U.S. statements. Reports from anonymous Western diplomatic sources are not automatically WP:V 'verifiable' where there is a history of U.S. disinformation, as is the case with the United States and Castro. BruceHallman 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for you category in general. I fail to see how a category "dying" will work and have offered it to discussion from other wikipedians. Therefore I will not retract the cfd. --Zleitzen 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When understanding fails, it is customary to discuss matters with other editors. Jumping straight to CfD cuts out this logical and useful step. Rklawton 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category was offered to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for that very purpose. I'm sorry if that does not seem acceptable to you. As for taking official Cuban statements with a grain of salt - thanks for your advice, but having been written endlessly about this very topic both here and elsewhere, I've learnt to take many things with a pinch of salt. --Zleitzen 18:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Z, if I may jump in, I think you made the right call on both points there. -- Beardo 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brixton Pictures

Hey, zleitzen; I got round to taking those pictures of Brixton-all on a dismal December afternoon. They may be too crap to use, but take a look-all uploaded to wiki commons; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Windrush_sign_1.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Windrush_Sign_2.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Windrush_1.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Windrush_2.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Windrush_3.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Windrush_4.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Windrush_5.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brixton_Market_1.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brixton_Market_2.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brixton_Market_3.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brixton_market_food_shop.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Electric_Avenue_1.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Electric_Avenue_2.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Electric_Avenue_Africa_Shop_1.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Electric_Avenue_Africa_Shop_2.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Atlantic_Road_1.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Atlantic_Road_2.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Atlantic_Road_Afro_Hair.JPG Let me know if they're ok!Felix-felix 08:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


FAs, Chavez and WP:ELAC

I just discovered why the long article folks showed up on Chavez: considering your recent FA, you'd better check in on this one. FYI, Psycho is 53KB, TS is 71, and British African-Caribbean community is 75KB. Welcome to the extra-long club, aka Nineteen Eighty-Four (we shall be reported to the "committee"). Commentary begins here, and is long. Sandy (Talk) 13:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy.--Zleitzen 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to weigh in over here. I agree that Chavez - at over 70KB prose - is too long, but your/my/Psycho are not 70KB prose, and are not too long. Sandy (Talk) 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made the readable prose 38kbs on my page, Sandy. So I hope the commitee stay well clear. It seems silly that we're wasting time on "problems" on some of the best pages, when there are so many other more urgent problems out there. --Zleitzen 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They tagged Psycho (the fim) when the overall size was 53, and readable prose was 38 !! And they're not listening to all of us telling them that 38 readable prose is entirely within reason, but some article are MUCH larger due to images and citations. At least we got them to adjust the horrific template they were adding to article pages - anyway, 38 is not safe - they want TOTAL article size at 32 !?!?!? Yes, it's a massive waste of time, unfortunately. Sandy (Talk) 14:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hombre sencillo ?

Indeed yes - see http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/CesarRom.htm . It is mentioned in both the Cesar Romero and José Martí articles. As part of the 150th (?) anniversary celebrations, two ladies came to Cuba to visit, who were described as descendants of Marti through his daughter, without questioning - though it seems there is no confirmation that she was his. Oddly http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?secc=5&cont=stories/num11/01.htm describes them as Romero's daughters - but our article indicates that he was a confirmed bachelor. Perhaps they were his nieces ? -- Beardo 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So its true! Well that has to be worthy of a "Did you know". Indeed Romero has always struck me as the "confirmed bachelor" type. There is something about that connection that tickles me. I think its the mental juxtapostion of the noble image of José Martí, with the absurd spectacle of a fully made up Cesar Romero. KERPOW!!!! --Zleitzen 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps Marti thought that he was some sort of superhero - which is why he charged to his death. Marti - the caped crusader ? (Are there any Cuban superheroes ?)
And it would almost be un-Cuban for Marti not to have another child, not with his wife. -- Beardo 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Good thinking Beardo. I think we need to take these claims to the crime-lab for investigation. I don't know of any Cuban super heroes, unless Elpidio Valdés counts? And wasn't James Cason cast as a "joker type" villain in a Cuban cartoon series. I'm serious!--Zleitzen 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Elpidio counts ? His horse maybe. Yes - there have been several cartoons with Cason or Bush (as an eagle) as a sort of super-villain. Interestingly, they are not opposed by an individual superhero, but by the people acting together. -- Beardo 18:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cuban cartoons are fascinating, Beardo. Having watched a few Elpidio cartoons, I was struck by the recurring scenes of violence, prison cells, bands of fighters battling against the evil oppressors, and even repeated scenes of torture etc. Even in the most ephemeral aspects of Cuban life, these themes are ever present. --Zleitzen 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was an article on Cesar Romero in Bohemia in the 1950s where the actor' s claim that Jose Marti as an ancestor was accepted as fact. What ever it was generally accepted as fact in the oral traditions of the time. El Jigue 12-17-06

Strange revert in Fidel Castro

My suspicion - someone using a semi-automated routine and not checking properly. -- Beardo 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Jigue Amendment

See Beardo's discussion page (El Jigue Amendment), for detailed proposal. GoodDay 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with GoodDay he keeps following me around griping about me complaining that I "blog" (without defining what blogging is). His latest complaint was on the Chile discussion page [[6]] in which, trying to defuse an ugly and in my view racist argument I wrote: "==DNA studies of ethnic origens==

"Present day Indigenous populations from Northern Chile have been reported to have the usual Indigenous haplotype groups. e.g. haplogroup A, 8.3%; haplogroup B, 62.5%; haplogroup C, 25% and haplogroup D, 4.2% [7]. Indigenous individuals from Santiago show the expected asymmetrical origens (male parent mainly "European"), female parent mainly Indigenous) [8]. This could be interpreted to indicate that the Chilean population following Spanish law and customs is legally mostly "European," since the male progenitors were commonly from Europe, through the years of legal establishment of "Certificados de Pureza de Sangre" and because the Indigenous elite were considered under these laws to be nobility and thus by definition Spanish. There are also complex problems of later European settlement in Chile, where settlements by those of German, Polish, Russian origens (and thus from areas here the successive "Mongolian" invasions occurred) may have some "asian" haplogroups (and therefore be in this respect equivalent to original Indigenous "Americans);" however, this particular topic is left for others to discuss. El Jigue 12-17-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)."[reply]

GoodDay then responded by: ":I'm giving you one more chance 'Little Joe' to stop blogging talk pages. IF you don't, I'm reporting you to the Administrators. GoodDay 19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Can you use your good offices to resolve this circumstance. El Jigue 12-17-06

First things first EJ, there seems to be an issue with your new IP address. It looks like it is a shared IP and various anonymous editors are vandalising unrelated pages while you are editing, which is showing up in the midst of your contributions list. Either that or you have suddenly taken an interest in the Scottish Premier League [9] I urge you to register to avoid immediate problems, at least until you resume a stable IP address. --Zleitzen 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen, though it may not seem that way, I too am trying to help EJ. It's so simple, 'Register'. EJ is obviously an intelligent person, why doesn't he understand 'Blogging' & why doesn't he see the benefits of 'Signing In'? GoodDay 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In respect to the subject matter. It is immensly complicated. The subject is mired in an unprecedented level of propaganda, false information, highly partisan varying accounts of every single aspect, where reports by govenments and ostensibly citable media organs radically contradict both each other, and people's own eyes. With this in mind, and with editors in effect largely fumbling in the dark, the boundaries between speculative "blogging" and discussing sources is not so easy to define. Remember that there are people who live in Havana who don't even know if their president is alive or dead. So for us to attempt to uphold an accurate encyclopedia article under these circumstances means that a degree of flexibility is essential.--Zleitzen 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're in favor of Blogging 'talk pages', if it helps promote Cuban democracy? Promoting Cuba democracy is great, but first review Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webpage provider, or social networking site, those are the 'current rules'. Do you back my proposal of changing, those rules? GoodDay 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we concentrate discussion in User talk:GoodDay, though I regard this as a big waste of time by GD, who ought to know better. -- Beardo 23:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


thank you all El Jigue 12-18-06

GoodDay

Hello, Zleitzen. Decided to post here (seperate, form EJ/Bloggin debate). To show I'm a fair man & respect Majority Opinons. If any of you guys, feel I've acted inappropiately during the 'Blogging' debate. If I've come across as, being pushy OR harrassing 'EJ'. Then you guys, have the right to report ME to the Administrators, If Admins. then decide to give me a Block, I won't dispute it (honestly). This Wikipedia is much yours as it's mine; it's ours. GoodDay 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done anything to warrant a warning of any sort. But you seem to misunderstand the role of editors and admins. Things in wikipedia work by mediation and consensus. I think the behaviour of Durova may have given a false picture, by ignoring consensus and issuing blocks, which predictably proved to be unhelpful. There is a dispute process in place which has yet to be followed, I recommend you take a look at that first. Admins are not police nor judges. The whole community is the arbitrator of this issue. --Zleitzen 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Zleitzen, I'll scratch out my posting on Administrator David Gerard's talk page. Furthermore I'll no longer 'complain' about 'Little Joe's postings on talk pages (including Public talk pages). I'll respect the consensus (to leave EJ's postings). I'm going now to 'Apologies' to 'Little Joe'. If you can't get him to registered, then get him off his 'current' IP adress (It might get blocked OR banned). As for the UK Election prediction, I'll have to leave it be. It wouldn't look good if I kept changing it (Thanks for noticing it). GoodDay 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GoodDay. --Zleitzen 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: comments

RE: removed my comments that were pasted over here - they have obviously had no impact[10]

Please write this article as you see fit, adding sources. We have different views on how articles should be written, but that should not discourage you.

I think you are a good, honest editor, Zleitzen. I appreciate all of your hard work.

If you know a lot about Operation PBSUCCESS please add this information. I just am not that intersted in the subject right now.

If Fair doesn't do anything with this article after 10 days, I will merge it into Operation PBSUCCESS, which is much better written and sourced. Travb (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have some bits and bobs of sources, I haven't got the desire either Travb. Your schedule for a merger sounds reasonable. I just don't understand where people are coming from with this whole state terrorism business. If these pages followed WP:ATT and just detailed the allegations made from notable sources then there would be no problem at all. In all my time editing here, I've been reverted or had material removed very rarely, and only by acknowledged cranks, to be reinstated at the appropriate time. Yet I have edited and shed light on some very controversial topics. So I hope my words of advise carry some weight. We disagree on methods, but I think we both agree that many editors are way off the mark, and are writing material that just won't stand at all. Have a good Xmas if I don't converse with you before then!--Zleitzen 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War_Feels_Like_War

Thanks for the info. War_Feels_Like_War Travb (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for creating that page. Great work Trav.--Zleitzen 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

I see you're up for the main page soon - you'd better follow the threads on AnI about the main page vandal, for example, this. Sandy (Talk) 02:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy! I just read that earlier Sandy. I think a festive wiki-break may be in order! What is happening, what is the vandal doing to the pages, I can't figure it out.--Zleitzen 02:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not doing anything to the actual article, rather vandalizing the templates and images associated with the article. This means *every* template or image associated with the article must be protected in advance - you have to find an admin to do it for you. Talk to tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) in advance, and make sure they're *all* protected. Today's vandalism was utterly disgusting - way beyond the norm - and it was on {{Harvard citation}} - so, it was up for seven minutes on every article that links to that template. Sandy (Talk) 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. Will do. Good work.--Zleitzen 02:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prepare for a wild ride: if I'm home, I'll help vandal watch. Sandy (Talk) 02:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vilma Espin

It strikes me - should we really include her second surname in the article name ? She is normally just referred to as Vilma Espin. -- Beardo 02:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beardo it is most appropriate to include her last name as it links her to her family history a matter of some importance in Latin America where even the communists have genealogical concerns. As to her betrayal of Frank Pais and if memory serves of others I think that needs to be known. El Jigue 1-2-07

EJ - I am not saying exclude her second surname - just don't include it in the title of the article. -- Beardo 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beardo I agree then, Vilma should have an article of her own, for she as much as any other was responsible for Castro's rise to absolute power. In my view a kind of wicked witch of the west type mention. Eva Braun, Dolores Ibárruri (La Pasionaria) and Rosa Luxemburg do so why not Vilma. The article needs balance and to mention the nasty things she did such as her "accidental" phone call that betrayed Frank Pais [11] [12]. This is also said mentioned in Robert Freeman Smith (The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Aug., 1975), pp. 585-586) but as yet I have not read this. Vilma naturally blames someone else [13]. There is also juicy gossip that she seduced somebody and then yelled rape, to get rid of another rival. This is from memory but I will try to get citations. Jose Espin her father hid some of the Moncada attackers in 1953 (The Cuban Insurrection, 1952-1959. by Ramon Bonachea, Marta San Martin p. 52). Nilsa Espin, her sister, was murdered or commited suicide in Raul Castro's office in 1969 [14]. Vilma is said to be one of the most corrupt among the Castro elite in Cuba and it is alleged that her brother left Cuba to live the life of a millionaire in Ecuador [15]. El Jigue 1-2-07


In Karol, K. S. (Translated from the French by Arnold Pomerans) 1970 Guerrillas in Power. The Course of the Cuban Revolution. Hill & Wang New York. (A review is available in Hispanic American Historical Review, 51, (4) (Nov., 1971) pp. 670-674. This author was educated as a communist and it shows. However, Footnote 113 pp. 173-174 demonstrates the struggle for power between Guevara and Frank País, and can be taken to suggest that the Guevara and Raul used Vilma Espín for their purposes. And this also demonstrates Guevara over weaning ambition in that despite his Argentine accent which would have given him away as soon as he opened his mouth in Santiago de Cuba) he wanted to be Frank País’ s replacement in “El Llano.” Footnote 114 on p. 174 ends with”…On the day of victory the human material was politically immature, even on admission of many veterans, and this explains why so many guerrilleros later defected.” In other words El Llano rebels were not communists nor were most of those in the Sierra; thus by definition sooner or later they would be candidates for purges by Fidel, Guevara and Raul. El Jigue 1-3-06

Z: You might want to look at the topics I have been raising in Vilma Espin discussion. El Jigue 1-6-07

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. --Qyd 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba edits

You do a good job keeping up with the Cuba-related edits. Thought I'd tell ya. takethemud 16:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)takethemud[reply]

Editor Help

Hi, I've reached an impasse with another editor on the Oliver Kamm page and would appreciate a third party opinion. Thanks.Felix-felix 10:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Felix. But beware. If memory serves me, a friend whose opinion I value discussed a book written by Gilad Atzmon which he described as outrageously anti-semitic, and virtually the rantings of a madman. Incidently, the same friend later provided me with David Edwards and David Cromwell's new book "Guardians of Power", and thus is well versed in all the matters at hand. I'd also be loathe to present anything that showed the odious Socialist Worker Party in an improved light. As for the absurd Kamm, I believe he was banned from editing this site, or at least an editor showing all the hallmarks of Kamm was banned, for repeatedly editing his own article.--Zleitzen 12:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ambassador to Cuba

See my reply. •DanMS 04:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Greetings

Merry Christmas my fellow Wikipedian Zleitzen. Yours truly GoodDay 19:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I noticed that you were instrumental in bringing a recent article to FA status. I have been trying to get the Ohio Wesleyan University article to FA status. One of the critical areas for the article that remains an issue is copyediting and prose. I was wondering if you might be willing to help me in this area? I'd greatly appreciate it! Thank you. WikiprojectOWU 22:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas wishes from Miami

And a Merry Christmas, to you too, Z. And all the best for the coming year. -- Beardo 06:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feliz Aňo Nuevo

Hello, Zleitzen. Many thanks for the Christmas greetings! As you may have noticed, I have decided to celebrate the holidays by taking something of a wiki-break. (Must confess I am really enjoying it.) I wish you and your family health, happiness and continued success throughout the new year!! -- Polaris999 07:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too will be seeking a break from activities, Polaris, perhaps more permanent in nature. I see Jmabel has entered semi-retirement, and the unwelcome return of an editor - whom I am not ashamed to say I believe is the worst and most ungracious editor on wikipedia - to Cuban articles, leaves me with the feeling that I'm too old to be dealing with such people. I just thank the heavens that in the real world I am still able to engage with archivists, historians and people with some nouse about the issues at hand. It seems a lot more preferable than talking turkey with American undergraduates at this place, regardless of how ungracious that may sound itself. I hope I've managed to present a more nuanced and detailed picture of Cuba on various articles and I've put myself to good use. And I'm glad that my pet project reached featured article status. I'll be following developments on citizendium, which if it goes as planned, will hopefully mean an opportunity to re-engage in a generally enjoyable enterprise without having to deal with various lunatics and the plain ignorant on a regular basis. Thanks for all your help and I've very much enjoyed your excellent input which is always of the highest standard.--Zleitzen 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I swear, we need some admins that are actually willing to do something about problem editors. We are losing far to many good people because of it. Anyway, I really do hope you decide to stick around for a bit at least. There is so much more work to be done on Cuban-related articles and to be quite honest because of the political situation in Cuba there is extreme partisanship from both sides that tends to make editing such articles a difficult task. I find you to be one of the few rational people whom I find editing such articles and losing that will be a big loss. Anyway, happy new year.--Jersey Devil 08:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Z: One of the best references on the bloody failure of the Guevaran approach to guerrilla warfare in Guatemala is: Le Bot, Yvon 1997 La guerra en tierras mayas (War in Mayan Lands). Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico D.F ISBN-10 9681645375, ISBN-13 978-9681645373

or if you prefer it in French: Lebot, Yvon 1992 La guerre en terre maya: Communauté, violence et modernité au Guatemala, 1970-1992 Editions Karthala. Paris ISBN-10 286537369X, ISBN-13 978-2865373697

Although this book gives too much credence to Rigoberta Menchú at the time it was written Menchú's little changes to history were not well known.

El Jigue 1-2-07


ps Happy New Year


Z: You might want to look at some of the topics I have been raising in Vilma Espin discussion page. El Jigue 1-6-07

Charles Magoon

You added the ref to Cuba: The Pursuit of Freedom on this page. I've fleshed it out to use the cite book template and found the ISBN number, but can you check and fill in the edition of the book you have (from which you pulled the page numbers), so that they match up? I assumed first edition, but I could be mistaken. JRP 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ha, Cuba topic, so Zleitzen is involved :-) I think he's taking a bit of a wiki break. I've also been experimenting lately with Diberri's ISBN finder, and I can't make that ISBN work there - I admit ISBNs are Greek to me, but you can play around with Diberri's tool (click on the ISBN drop down) to see if you can find something. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tool may be somewhat borken. It comes up in ISBNdb, which is (according to the text) the data source for that tool. JRP 22:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised - have had many problems with Diberri's tool, but it's helpful with PMIDs. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Z: I have added the following to the discussion of the Escopetero article:

Raul Castro, Ernesto Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos' views on escopeteros

Raul Castro recognizes the presence of escopeteros in his Diario de Campa~na. He divides escopeteros into two categories: (1)"escopeteros por la libre" and (2) "escopeteros" under the control of the Castro comandancias. During the "opening" of La Segunda Frente Raul admits the prior presence of "500" escopeteros in the area and talks about executing some he accuses of banditry. Then and this is the surprising thing he incorporates the rest into his own forces. This generates the largest group of anti-Batista guerrillas in existence at that time.

Guevara's approach is far more self serving, he accuses the escopeteros of crimes and executes a good number of them (see Jon Anderson). This action drastically decreases the resistance to Batista in the Sierra Maestra zone ("Primera Frente"). The credit for the military actions of these guerrillas is then assumed by Guevara. For instance at the second action at Hombrito, much of the credit goes to El Mejicano (Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo) but this is not mentioned. Anderson refers only to Guevara pardoning of Rodriguez Tamayo. Of course later one finds on the web reports of the defection of Rodriguez Tamayo who had been sent to Miami to kill Rolando Masferrer, leaving one with puzzling thought that if Rodriguez Tamayo was considered such a skilled assassin (he is also reported by Cuban government sources as involved in the JFK assassination), what did he do to earn that reputation, become second in command of Universo Sanchez's forces, and then be completely written out of Cuban government official histories.

Camilo Cienfuego's first Llanos campaign's success is readily attributed to support of Orlando Lara Batista group (Los Muchachos de Lara). Cienfuegos, a more generous soul, readily admits this support, and after Lara Batista is wounded the support of the July 26 Movement towards the central provinces by the Muchachos de Lara is also recognized. However, Orlando Lara Batista did something to offend the powers that be and sometimes in official Cuban sources there are hints of such. El Jigue 1-11-07


Fabio Grobart

A mayor éminence gris of Cuban history is best known as Fabio Grobart (although his original name is Polish). His importance in founding the Cuban (Stalinist) communist party is/was(:>) recognized by Fidel Castro:

Castro, F. 1965 (accessed 1-9-07) Pursc Central Committ Presentation, Havana's Chaplin Theater -Havana Domestic Radio - Speech Report_Nbr- Fbis - Date- 19651004 -Text- Castro Refers To Cuban Refugees, Guevara [16],

the Rand thinktank [www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM4994.pdf],

and Jewish History experts: Asís, Moisés 2000 (accessed 1-8-07) Judaism in Cuba 1959-1999 ICCAS Occasional Paper Series, [17]. “By 1925, there were 8,000 Jews in Cuba (some 2,700 sephardic, 5,200 ashkenazic, and 100 Americans). Four ashkenazic Jews were in the small group that founded the first Communist Party of Cuba in 1925: Grimberg, Vasserman, Simjovich aka Grobart, and Gurbich. They opposed the religious and community life of the other Jews.”

Evidence has been presented to link Grobart to the Leon Trotsky assassination, and less strong evidence to the Julio Antonio Mella assassination.


Although the party Grobart helped found was not the first Cuban communist party, it is considered as such by the present Cuban government.

His son(?) Fabio Grobart Sunshine has a number of publications and is highly placed among the Cuban Nomenclatura.

I am preparing a major footnote in my book on Grobart and I am will to share some (but not all (:>) citations) to this major figure in Cuban history. Could somebody be so kind as too open such an article El Jigue 1-12-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello EJ. I'm at present fairly disillusioned with the process, therefore I'm not editing at the prolific levels I was last year. What may interest you is the important role of Spanish anarchists in the period which saw the rise of Grobart and others, many of whom were later deported by Machado. I remember you have written about the lack of coverage of Grobart here in the past, Good luck with your research.--Zleitzen 02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: Thank you. You might also consider Italian Anarquists who were active in Cuba since at least the 1895-1898 war. I have been scanning an Orestes Ferrara book which is on line (Ferrara y Marino, Orestes. 1975 Una mirada sobre tres siglos. Memorias. Playor Madrid ISBN 84-359-0119X)) it is found a site which puts old Cuban books on line (many of which I read with some distaste, but then reading Cuban government produced books is even more distasteful). The main site is [18], and the Orestes Ferrara book of interest is found at [19]. Unfortunately this book is in a pdf form that my computer finds unsearchable, so I must use the index and read it all. In one of the later chapters Ferrara talks about how he maintained links to his former anarquist coleagues. The book amazingly enough narrates events up to the 1960s, and although it glosses over the author's ties to Machado, he has a certain view which might be called arrogant independence. The long introduction by CArlos Marquez Sterling is most informative. Thus this books is well worth reading as are others at this site, even if one. as in the case of the Batista volumes, finds the authors views distasteful. El Jigue 1-13-06


Celia Sanchez photo

Wandering through the web a photograph of Celia Sanchez (which I assume given the source is in the public domain) it shows the Che but it also shows a quite different Celia Sanchez profile (my memory of faces is not that good). The interesting thing about this Celia profile is that it shows her clearly to be of a least partial Taina inheritance (whether this is a deliberate propaganda distortion I do not know). this is found at: Martínez Crespo, Xurxo 2004 (last accessed 1-13-07) Manolo Ponte Regueira “Duende”, a sombra galega de Fidel Castro en Caracas en xaneiro de 1959 A Coruña, 15 de marzo de 2004 [20] Still given where Celia was born and grew up this is very possible. El Jigue 1-13-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Talk:Havana Club Question

Thanks for your vote in Talk:Havana Club#Proposal to Disambig. However, as I have stated, for a 'support vote there are three options as stated in the poll question, but you didn't answer which option you prefer-- I suppose you'd support option 1 (move away Barcadi only), but if not, plus clarify at your vote, thank you. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fabio Grobart article

Z: Perhaps you have time to glance at the new Fabio Grobart article. El Jigue 1-13-06

Good work EJ. That's an article that had been waiting to be written for a long time. Though I was surprised to read mention of Star Trek in the article!--Zleitzen 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: Thank you. I did quite a bit more then took a rest from Fabio Grobart, to work on something else. You may want to take another look at it. Thank you. BTW If you are not a trekkie you might want to watch re-runs of "Deep Space Nine," the complexity of the tailor-spy Garak tells you that he is a composite character taken from real life. Besides there are quite a number of followers of this program in the computer world and in fiction who recall such, e.g. John LeCarre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" El Jigue 1-14-06

Fidel Castro dying

It seems finally clear that Fidel Castro is dying after a series of failed gastro-intestinal operations [21] [22].El Jigue 1-16-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Z: inconditional Castro partisans are attacking on a wide front from Cuba to Che Guevara. l Jigue 1-18-07

Z: Norseman's deletion of Miami Herald sources still stand. Frankly this points out one of the greatest weakness of Wikipedia: contributors with strong feelings and not necessarily the most accurate information prevail. "The good are without will and the bad full of passionate intensity." we are way back to 1917 El Jigue 1-19-07

I think the links themselves were actually dead EJ. The Herald archives pages after a few months and the website address changes. Though the concept of not using the Herald at all seems simply impractical.--Zleitzen 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Bakri Muhammad

This is English Wikipedia, not British English Wikipedia. KazakhPol 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style which states:

"Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country."

--Zleitzen 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked Bakri is not in the UK. KazakhPol 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bakri was a British citizen, spent most of his life in Britain, is a known figure in British public life and has had no association with the United States. Which is probably why another user was as surprised as me when the spelling was reverted three times by you to United States spelling from British/International English without any justification and against policy. --Zleitzen 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

Hi, I've been considering nominating you for adminship on Wikipedia. Would you object if I nominated you for adminship?--Jersey Devil 08:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the endorsement Jersey, though I don't think I have the patience for all the grief that seems to follow the role, and I imagine I've made more enemies than friends at this place to pass the stingent review process! More urgently, having successfully submitted yourself to a peer review, it would seem right that you should be up for adminship.--Zleitzen 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I actually was up for adminship a while ago (last July) in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jersey Devil.--Jersey Devil 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Pigs

I'm curious why you removed the following paragraph from the Bay of Pigs Invasion article?

The reaction of some of the American combat pilots when Kennedy canceled the planned air attack can be seen in this quote from the book Nicaragua Betrayed by the former President of Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza Debayle. "In the meantime, the U.S. aircraft carriers stood off Cuba and never launched their fighters. One fighter squadron, VA-34, known as the 'Blue Blasters,' did get airborne but was prohibited from engaging the enemy. It has been reported that some of those American combat pilots were actually in tears. All was in readiness, but at the last moment, orders came from the White House to cancel fighter support for the invading [exiled] Cubans. Only President Kennedy and his brother, Bobby, knew why this decision was made. It was a U.S.-planned and U.S.-financed operation and, in the end, it was a U.S. decision that led to disaster for the invasion force and permitted Castro to remain in power." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misbach (Misbach)

  1. Not cited.
  2. Contrary to popular thinking, Kennedy didn't cancel air strikes. The option of airstrikes and direct US involvement was not on the table and had been dismissed long before the invasion - see extensive writing on the Kennedy administration, Bay of Pigs invasion and declassified records.
  3. Somoza is simply not an appropriate source. A brutal figure bitterly resentful of both the United States for apparently betraying Nicaragua, and Cuba. His statement "Only President Kennedy and his brother, Bobby, knew why this decision was made" is hopelessly ahistorical. Records which would show this to be hollow and false rhetoric are freely available from all sides.

Therefore I consider the quote to be misleading to readers. Bear in mind that I have no interest in protecting the reputation of the Kennedy administration, but rather, would prefer the article to reflect the multitude of research by leading historians. --Zleitzen 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasio Somoza was a staunch anti-communist, a graduate of West Point, a General, and a President. He was not bitter towards the U.S., he was bitter towards the President. He was a friend of America, educated in our schools, who spoke perfect English, and had helped with the Bay of Pigs invasion, but who was betrayed by the Jimmy Carter administration during his country's bloody fight with the Communist Sandinista invaders, armed and trained by Castro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misbach (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Right, OK. Whether the charming Mr Somoza was betrayed by Jimmy Carter and was therefore unable to protect Nicaragua from those "communist invaders" as you call them - the Sandinistas - or not, his claims concerning the Bay of Pigs invasion were erroneous and are not really serious enough to be on the page. Again, Somoza's analysis "Only President Kennedy and his brother, Bobby, knew why this decision was made" contradicts extensive coverage of the detailed decision making process in Washington, where numerous advisors, planners and analysts were involved. Consider that Bobby Kennedy was barely involved in any decision making regarding the Bay of Pigs, only after its failure did he adopt the central role he was to have during the missile crisis. Which is why, alongside the fact that his quote is not sourced anyway, the section was removed from the article. I suggest rexamining the period, reading established historians, and examining the declassified records to establish the story of Washington and the Bay of Pigs. All should be freely available. --Zleitzen 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Magoon

Thanks for your kind words. I'm happy this is over and have been working on some other Spanish-American War-era articles that I can try and advance to FA. So many wonderful stories and biographies of people very important and notable in their day, but someone forgotten. If you have some suggestions, please let me know. JRP 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Che Guevara's purges

Purges

The article states;

Guevara conducted a series of purges of those he viewed as unreliable or not appropriately ideological

The source provided is Jon Lee Anderson. Checking the appropriate pages of his book, it seems to me that it would take a leap of logic to describe Anderson's description in the terms laid out above. For instance, one of the page numbers given in the our reference list (p.279) refers to the murder of René Cuervo. He was executed by Guevara's forces for "victimizing an entire section of the population of the Sierra, perhaps in collusion with the army. In view of his status as a deserter, the trial was speedy". This case is typical. I have read nothing in those citations that imply that people were executed for being "unreliable or not appropriately ideological". --Zleitzen 15:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the other page citations given, p264 doesn't refer to executions, p269 refers to Guevara sending his men out to track a deserter with orders "to kill him if they found him". p269 refers to an attack on enemy chivatos and Guevara's orders to kill Cuervo if found. --Zleitzen 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Z: the orders were carried out and Rene Cuervo was killed. The motive behind this killing was apparently to take the money Cuervo was bringing in from the folowers of the now dead Frank Pais and from Cuervo's parents. As to Cuervo and the others being "bandits, chivatos etc, etc." all we have as evidence are the Che Guevara's words, repeated by Anderson. In the Sierra the word was that Guevara had killed Cuervo,"por que el le hacia sombra." You are just going to have to await the documentation in my book El Jigue 1-21-07

There is an academic reference at [23] which supports at least in part what I stated previously about the Che's purges in the Sierra. El Jigue 1-21-07

I have read Julia Sweig's book and used it as a reference before, EJ. I highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it, as it covers a lot of the Frank País arena. Though I don't remember reading anything about Guevara murdering the non-ideological in the Sierra, nor does she detail any of the rumors you have discussed concerning País's death. Given that Julia E. Sweig is one of the leading historical authorities on the Cuban revolution anywhere, and has written and spoken about events in much detail many times, perhaps you could contact her with these revelations and perhaps, oversights.--Zleitzen 14:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Z:What Sweig does mention as I have repeatedly is the tension between Frank Pais and the Che was serious, a number of others (such as Huber Matos) have commented on this. However, the most revealing details are from verbal histories, which will appear in my own book, as will other views of betrayal of Frank Pais. Dunno if it is useful to filter personal memories through the mind of an academic who was not there. Still it is not scholarly to take without reservation words of accusation from the Che's own writings. El Jigue 1-22-06

Indeed EJ. If you take a look at this paragraph I added to Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution here [24]I have attempted to convey both the differences between Guevara and the other groups, and some of the self-serving issues with Guevara's memoirs. This is taken from Swieg.--Zleitzen 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Z: The one who really knows is Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo (El Mejicano, El Mexicano, The Mexican, there are others who also use this knickname) who served with Guevara. Jon Anderson mentions Guevara, pardoning Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo, but this seemed to be because Guevara could not field a fighting force without him after these purges. Perhaps I owe my life to El Mejicano. However, he is hard to get hold of (I believe he contacted me under a pseudonym but refused to go into further detail since then I could have identified him). He crops up in unexpected places on the web, such as in the endless discussions on plots to kill JFK (I think that accusation is invalid and may have been fabricated by Fabian Escalante and that against Rolando Masferrer (El Mejicano defected instead, somebody else got El Tigre). The last I heard of him was years ago something to do with gambling and gamecocks and possible involvement in crime in south Florida. Anybody who makes contact has access to a goldmine of information. Sporadically I keep trying to find him but given what I owe him do not want to place him in jeopardy. El Jigue 1-22-07


One should keep in mind that Sweig had access to Cuban government sources, a privilege only given to those who favor the Castro government (see

Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground.(Book Review) The Historian - June 22, 2004 Luis Martinez-Fernandez

Word count: 924. citation details

Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground. By Julia E. Sweig. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Pp. xv, 254. $29.95.)

This review starts “Few, if any, t.....”

but the critical part of this review is:

"The bulk of the documentary evidence sustaining the book consists of hundreds of documents housed at the Cuban Council of State’s Office of Historic Affairs, which the Cuban government made available to Sweig while keeping the archive’s doors closed to other researchers. This valuable and fascinating collection of documents allowed the author to paint a well-documented and nuanced perspective on llano- sierra relations as well as on how the leaders of the 26th of July Movement related to other anti-Batista figures. These sources are complimented by much of the extant historiography on the insurrection and around twenty interviews that Sweig conducted in Cuba. Although the able use of the Council of State’s documents stands as one of the book’s most salient contributions, the admittedly sanitized nature of the document collection and the author’s failure to interview voices beyond those loyal to the Castro regime produces a somewhat distorted picture of the events and a more favorable portrayal of Castro. The correspondence between Castro and former president Carlos Prío Socarrás, for example, which was withheld from the author, would have most likely exposed the politiquero (politically opportunistic) side of Castro. Contrary to Sweig’s conclusion that Castro was opposed to politiquería, while scolding Hart and others for overtures to Cuba’s politicians, three years earlier he had maneuvered to secure for himself Havana’s mayoralty in exchange for supporting Justo Carrillo, leader of the Agrupación Montecristi, who at the time appeared most likely to emerge as the post-Batista leading figure. Likewise, had Sweig interviewed and/or used sources written by key protagonists who are not Castro supporters such as Colonel Ramón Barquín, Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo, Carlos Franqui, Huber Matos, and Gustavo Arcos, to name only five, she would have produced a more accurate and balanced view of the Cuban insurrection. Unfortunately, such manifestations of Miami-phobia plague much of the scholarship on Cuba. Despite these problems in terms of the selection of sources, Sweig’s book is an important and useful contribution for the understanding of the struggle against Batista.

Rutgers University Luis Martínez-Fernández "


El Jigue 1-22-07

Very good EJ. By the way, I've been meaning to read Carlos Franqui's book for a while. Do you recommend it? One major consideration that I have to bring up concerning various rumours is this: Guevara's animosity towards certain individuals and groups is well known, but would Celia Sanchez and others really continue to show such genuine affection for Guevara, if it was the case that Guevara had been involved in the death of various underground figures including País? It seems unlikely. Likewise the old Camilo rumours. If Castro was somehow responsible for his death, Guevara - who worshipped Camilo - certainly never thought so, as is evident from his continued devotion to the old fox after the events. Occam's razor seems appropriate to apply to these matters and it seems simpler than these rumours imply, I fear that we are heading too far into the murky world of George Smiley :>)--Zleitzen 00:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z: The trouble with that argument is that Vilma Espin's telephone call was the trigger for Frank Pais's killing. As to the argument that Celia would have objected does not consider how deeply she was in love with Fidel Castro. Besides it would not be Fidel, but Raul and the Che...... Fidel Castro has always "hid his hand" when murder was done,he learned to do that when a student at Havana University. Then there is the mystery as to why did Vilma's sister kill herself in Raul's office. One has to look at the series of betrayals of rivals of Castro to Batista killers, even though the only one I know to be extremely well documented is the betrayal of the palace attackers in Humbolt 7 by the high level communist Marquito..... One should be aware that most historians do not have a history of involvement in these bloody details and often, unconsciously view the actions of revolutionaries as if it were a mere faculty fight over office space or such. A far more realistic and rational approach would be to consider that murder and betrayal are a "Modus Vivendi" (sarcasm intended) among hardened revolutionaries and only those who have gone through such (e.g. "George Orwell) really understand that. Thus it is equally erroneous to assume innocence as to postulate guilt in these matters. All hardened revolutionaries involved in the Frank Pais matter, especially Raul and Guevara are known to have killed openly on other occasions. One can get and idea of what this means considering the case of Universo Sanchez shooting and killing a communist bureaucrat who refused him a milk ration, and only getting house arrest. BTW I will get to Franqui later. El Jigüe 1-23-07


A most useful reference in his regard is:

Grossman, Dave 1996 On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Back Bay Books (Little, Brown and Company) New York ISBN 0316330116

El Jigüe 1-23-07

An even more critical review is found at [25] El Jigüe 1-23-07


Recent minor rebellion

Illustrating the point of the difficulty of obtaining information from Cuba is the following matter I recieved by e-mail today:

"It is common to read that nothing is happening in Cuba, as Fidel Castro, seems to be dying. However, this is not exactly true, what is more appropriate is to say no news of rebellion reaches the outside world. For instance here is a description (footnote 1) of a minor rebellion among army recruits, which involved an escape and a relatively large military operation to capture them. The rebels are expected to be shot......." [16] El Jigue 1-24-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Religion in Cuba

I inserted this note in the Cuban article discussion:

The present article is so bland and kind to the past and present circumstance of religion in Cuba, that it bears revision. A good starting point might well be: Super, John C., 2003 Interpretations of church and state in cuba, 1959-1961. Catholic Historical Review, Jul 003, 89 (3)511-529.

A friend of mine excerpted the following from this article: “ Then in the fall of 1959 Raúl Castro disbanded the Comandos Rurales (Rural Comandos), a group formed in February, 1959, to promote community development in the Sierra Maestra.( n26) By the end of the year, the regime also made efforts to control the Central de Trabajadores de Cuba (Cuban Labor Confederation), purging from its ranks members of Acción Católica.( n27)” “The Church took the offensive when it organized the Primer Congreso Católico Nacional (First National Catholic Congress) in Havana on November 29, 1959. Some one million Cubans crowded the Plaza of the Revolution to attend Mass and to hear denunciations of communism.” “As resistance to the revolution became more difficult within Cuba, forces organized outside of it, culminating in the Bay of Pigs invasion of April 17, 1961. Much attention has been given to the three Catholic chaplains who accompanied the expeditionary force, which lent it the air of a crusade. Castro's reaction could be interpreted as a counter crusade. Widespread arrests, imprisonments, and expulsions followed on the heels of the invasion. The government arrested bishops, shut down La Quincena, the last Catholic publication, closed the offices of Acción Católica, and created a general climate of intolerance. More Catholics now believed that the struggle went beyond politics and involved the very survival of their faith.( n49)” Increasing confrontations hardened the relationship between the church and state, and contributed to discrimination, intimidation, insuits, sabotage, and much more.( n50) Even Cubans returning to Cuba from the United States in 1961 were filled with propaganda against the Church. In the summer of 1961, the widely read Spanish author José Maria Gironella sat on the deck of the Guadalupe as it steamed toward Havana and watched Cubans reading in Cuba Nueva stories about "nuns who killed children, about cardinals given over to orgies, and every time it referred to Spanish priests in Cuba, it called them 'Falangist clergy.'"( n51) Stories such as these fit very well with the government's emphasis on popular education to mold attitudes and beliefs. This was the education of home and office, of ballfield and beach, and it was an education that criticized religion and the Church.” “) The final blow came in May, 1961, when the government took over all remaining private schools, both parochial and non-parochial, and then closed them, displacing some 100,000 students.( n54)” ’ Events surrounding the feast day of the Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre in 1961 also help to explain the historiography of the revolution. The Virgin of Charity of Copper, a figure as celebrated in Cuban history as the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexican history, continues to influence Cuban identity, despite the efforts of the revolution to minimize her importance. Castro refused to allow the Church to celebrate the feast day on September 8, but did grant permission for September 10. When the procession left the church, the police and their supporters attacked it, wounding ten and killing Arnaldo Socorro, a young student. The following day the government claimed that Socorro had been killed by "falangist priests" bent on destroying the revolution. The government buried him as a hero, claiming that "reactionary priests" continued to serve the interests of "Yankee imperialists."( n57) The war of violence and propaganda would continue.” El Jigue 1-26-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Great quotes and sources EJ, certainly should be incorporated into the Religion in Cuba page.--Zleitzen 14:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing Posts

Hello, Zleitzen. I've noticed 'Little Joe/EJ's IP address page, is being peppered with 'sign your posts' advice from HagermanBot. Hope 'Little Joe' agrees to those instructions. Hopefully his 'not signing posts' doesn't lead to blocks. GoodDay 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aureliano, thanks for your concern. In my view the "robots" attention is kind of touching. BTW I left at note on the Che Guevara page discussion which reads:

Guevara and executions

Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografía de Fidel Castro. Destino Ediciones. Barcelona, Editora Planeta Mexicana, Mexico D.F. ISBN 8423336042. ISBN 9707490012 pp. 695-696 Lists four "traitors" secretly executed before the Granma left Mexico these were Jesus Bello Melgarejo, Arturo Avalos Marcos, Cirilio Guerra plus a fourth unnamed individual. One was said executed by Raul Castro. This leaves three who could have been executed by the Che. Now I do not completely trust Fuentes as a source, not because he does not know, but because he follows "line" that is suspiciously closer to the present Cuban government official dogma than I would like. BTW on page 692 Joaquin Ordoqui, is quoted as saying the Antonio Blanco Rico, Batista's chief of Military Intelligence (who was assassinated in Havana before Castro landed in 1956) was a member of the Cuban Communist Party. This can be taken to suggest that the Cuban communist party as usual was playing both sides of the fence. On page 696 this author states that Guevara was in Mexico for two years and three months which is sufficient time for quite a lot of things. El Jigue 1-27-07

Thanks again EJ, more food for thought and this information has been noted. Apparently, the graves of those executed in Mexico remain to this day. I understood those executions to be the responsibility of Fidel's "council" and I might be wrong but at least one of these men was executed by Fidel himself. I'm not sure if Guevara, who was not yet an integral figure at that time was directly involved. This would be an area that I imagine Polaris would have some further details on.--Zleitzen 19:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zleitzen&oldid=103661128"