User talk:208.65.190.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, El Jigüe. Right now, I am reading a bit about Latin American contemporary history. As I know you're familiar with the subject, I am wondering what is your opinion of the Nicaraguan revolution 1979 and FNLN reign and developments afterwards?--Constanz - Talk 13:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Constanz I left an answer at your talk page. In which I refer to what Senator Lugar calls pseudo democracies [1]. which now, given recent past history of turning into real democracies, are under far tighter control. El Jigue 6-9-06

1.I'll see the article by senator after a while. If you can help, please try to complete the remaining blanks in table National_Opposition_Union#Member_organisations. My source [2] gave certain notion -do- in orientation space of table. And the wikipedia articles on Nicaragua are really poor.
2.Only recently did I find out that Somozas were nominally 'liberals' and a conservative party even supported Sandinistas for a while. This has been fuelling my curiousness. Also, what is intreaging is Communists' participation in opposition alliance UNO. In the future, I'll try to improve some of the wiki articles, in case I manage to find English web sources.--Constanz - Talk 17:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Constanz you have a lot of work to do, You might start with William Walker to get historic perspective, I believe a Cuban patriot I think it was Goicuria fought withhim. Will send references later El Jigue 6-9-06

Hm.. the problem is that hardly any of these books could be within my touch! If you have some web references in English (or German), you better mention those.--Constanz - Talk 14:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Paper

El Jigue, Remember when you get to Miami in a couple of weeks for your talk - that the history section rewrite was written not by Bruce Hallman, or me for that matter. But by Adam Carr - the "historian". Adam was certainly not pro-Castro and I'm neither pro-Castro nor anti-Castro. In fact, I've been writing a lot of material on oppostion parties - adding details when I can get hold of them which is scarce. Have you ever figured that maybe Adam or myself may have added what you consider to be misinformation purely in good faith? What I recommend is that you quit commenting on other editors - roll your sleeves up and take up my offer of the User:Zleitzen/Cuba history sandbox which I provided some time ago for your amendments. Your knowledge and personal experience is invaluable. It seems a waste to see it put to negative means under a cloud of misunderstandings of people's motives. --Zleitzen 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Information was received, but what I don't understand is why the info on "palestinos" was simply erased. Is it Wikipedia policy to delete material one does not understand, a kind of lowest common denominator. Such info could be easily found with a google type search El Jigue 7-24-06

Fair enough El Jigue. There is so much unsourced or inaccurate material on that page it's hard to know where to look - but my concern at that time was the demographics section which still needs some clarity - there was no sinister motive. I just didn't get what it was trying to say. No need for either of us to jump to conclusions. On the demographics note - you've provided some good information throughout wikipedia on Taíno influence which is very interesting. Also, I asked you about the Partido Auténtico some time ago - but it was when Teemu was affecting the page - would you care to take a look at that page? --Zleitzen 06:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks El Jigue. There's a lot of very interesting information on that autentico page. We all have to bear in mind on wikpedia the vast differences in knowledge of the subject matter. From people like me with a certain knowledge - to you with knowledge, reading and experience that is unlikely to be paralleled on wikipedia - to people who couldn't point Cuba out on a map. Yet everyone has the chance to edit and they do. Such is the nature of this game. As you rightly say, the history of Cuba is most baroque - with many twists and turns - the deeper you delve the more one's preconceptions are proved to be false. For instance the view that the war of independence was primitive until US involvement etc. Providing the civility levels don't deteriorate, users assume good faith and strive for a detached academic encyclopedic approach, then I see no reason why you should give up. It seems a loss to the dissemination of important information.--Zleitzen 23:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Hi, appearantly we have an occasion to congratulate you (although we don't know the results of the surgery yet).--Constanz - Talk 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Constanz we know so little of what is going on, now the emphasis seems to be on a support committee for Fidel Castro, rather than nominating Raul. This could, or could not mean, that Raul is now out and the Communist Party rules, or it could mean that the Cuban bigwigs are killing each other, or none of the above. What seems certain is that Fidel Castro is not in complete control, and may even be dead, or even recovered as is the present official line. Interesting and scary. The Raulites here in the US are defending him vigorously too vigorously perhaps....xe xe El Jigue 8-12-06

[edit] One thank you, and one request

EJ, Thanks for the response over at the CG talk page -- I had worried that I was being too sarcastic for a first encounter. It is indeed the case that I find your contributions extremely interesting, and in fact they have prompted me to study deeper into this subject than I previously would have considered (but, please, be patient -- no matter how interested I become this can only ever be a limited part time affair for me). On that subject, I now need to select an adequate first general reference history to read. Given all of the usual caveats regarding the writing of Cuban history, I am thinking that Hugh Thomas is the best way to go; do you have any advice for me before I make a decision and dive in (I am also thinking that Betancourt et. al. on The Cuban Insurrection 1952-1959 -- which I had never heard of until you mentioned it a couple of days ago -- would be a useful companion volume; but please, no more than two books on the subject for me right now, OK)? Finally, on Wiki procedure -- I fully understand how someone with your experiences and continuing deep interest could become frustrated with the way things work here, but as Zleitzen previously wrote to you this is the way it has to be for the project to have any meaning at all as a collaborative internet medium. Otherwise the trustees (or whoever) would have to get into the business of screening levels of expertise and judging both contributions and contributors on their relative merits (not that this would "bad"; it would just be "different"; it is after all how traditional encyclopedias function, but it would then no longer be Wikipedia). I believe that it is precisely because of these often-frustrating procedures that Wikipedia has gained such a huge audience and has become so influential. It's a double-edged sword to be sure, but the best way to influence it is to participate -- just as you have been doing by giving instruction to all of us. And as Zleitzen (again, I think it was he -- or perhaps Polaris999) noted somewhere, once you publish your book (which I will buy) you can cite it at will in the article :) Anyhow, this has become a rather long post, so I'll finish by once again expressing my appreciation for your contributions here and "blegging" for your book recommends for a Cuba-novice. Dasondas 14:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC) UPDATE I almost forgot -- another book you mentioned, El clandestinaje y la lucha armada contra castro by Enrique Ros -- looks like it might be extremely interesting. Would you recommend it for me as well (I'd have no trouble reading the Spanish)? If so, I may have to work with three books instead of two. Dasondas 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

D: yes the Hugh Thomas book is excellent although it has a few errors for instance the land measure Caballeria is describe as being 330 acres ten times (10x) larger than it actually is 33 acres. This can lead some to conclude that Cuban holdings were all large to very large before Castro. The Clandestinaje book of Enrique Ros is excellent and I have been consulting with the author about some details. I believe a copy of the Betacourt volume is somewhere in my study but cannot lay hands on it for the moment.

Here is a summary of the problems (taken from a rough draft of an application to a publisher) It obviously it reflects my views "... books on Cuban history over the last fifty years or so are subject to much distortion. This process started even during the struggle against Batista before Castro reached power and has intensified during the last almost fifty years."


"The present government of Cuba has strict official oversight of publications produced in the Island and access by non-Cuban scholars to material and archives is in great part limited to those the government views as reliable."


"Many witnesses to, and actors in, recent Cuban history have been killed or imprisoned by the present government. For example the contributions of numerous rebels from the “War against Batista” and who again fought for freedom against the Castro government, such as in the bloody “War against the Bandits” disappear from official histories. The contributions of these witnesses and actors are either omitted or minimized in official histories, and their characters maligned."


"The lives of actors who remained loyal to the Cuban government were often squandered in Castro’s seemingly endless overseas adventures. Surviving loyal actors who have no conflict with the present government find that their contributions are co-opted and attributed to those in higher positions of power or “given” to dead official state heroes such as Ernesto “Che” Guevara."


"Outside of the island among scholars with no ties to the present government information is limited by difficulties involved in smuggling out accounts and loss of the memories of participants outside of the island as these survivors die off. A number of first hand sources have died during the writing of this work. At age ... I cannot be expected to live forever."


"Even when these histories pass from oral to written accounts they are commonly written in Spanish which makes them less accessible to readers in this country. While these volumes are extremely useful they are frequently written with over-optimistic assumptions of the readers' knowledge of details and personages in Cuban history, and with such passion and pain that they are difficult to follow by those less familiar with the context. Other obstacles to scholarly publication are generated by over-zealous attacks by Castro’s academic overseas partisans. On many campuses oral presentation of material critical to the present Cuban government is often met by Castro’s partisans interruptions." El Jigue 10-16-06

Many thanks, EJ. I have both books on order now (the Thomas was surprisingly difficult to locate, but I think I have a bead on the 3rd edition published in 2002; I hope it comes through). And I'm really looking forward to Enrique Ros. I also ordered Betancourt, et. al. on the insurrection. Once these arrive, I should have enough material to keep me busy for awhile until I get to the point where I'm **really** ignorant :) Dasondas 21:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not the talk pages

Hi! El Jigue, your knowledge & interest about Cuba is great. However 'talk pages' (example: articles 'Cuba', 'Fidel Castro' and 'Raul Castro'), aren't really the place for observations, conversations on political events in Cuba (This would be more suited for Web-Blogs). The 'talk pages' are for debating about what should & shouln't be added to respective Wiki articles. Just wanted to let you know, (I'm not critizing, only informing). GoodDay 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator warning

The purpose of article talk pages on Wikipedia is to discuss how to edit particular articles. These are not bulletin boards for tangential conversations. The Internet has many other sites that offer such services, if that is what you seek, but continued misuse of Wikipedia's talk pages can and does lead to administrative editing blocks. Please work on building an encyclopedia if you choose to participate here. DurovaCharge! 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hope you're still here

EJ,

You probably know that there's been a recent flurry of discussion around here that has involved you. I am a big fan of your contributions here; your insights and comments are of high value to me personally, I think they are of high value to Wikipedia at large, and I have said so to a number of the other editors. Given this, I hope you will permit me to suggest that going forward you may want to experiment with phrasing your comments in a way that references content in the article. Given what I've seen of your commentary, I think that you could do this without changing the content of your comments at all. My suggestion is only stylistic, insofar as you might direct your comments towards suggesting specific edits to the articles, or general suggestions as to how the article itself might be improved. Since all of the comments of yours I have seen are right on topic, I think that this stylistic change is something that could be done without compromising one millimiter of the integrity of your discussion. The reason for my suggestion is that the Wikipedia policy on talk pages (Yes! I know how you feel about Wikipedia policy; nevertheless...) is pretty clear that even though there is wide allowance for personal observation and personal experience, the discussion should still be oriented towards suggestions for improving the article itself. I, for one (and there are others besides me), do not want to see you go anywhere; your presence here makes my own experience more enjoyable and more educational, so please don't be offended by what I've just written. I want your own experience here to be as enjoyable as mine is. Dasondas 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WE NEED YOU

Though, I've started the discussion about removing OR curbing your observations on the 'talk pages'. I beg you In the name of Jose Marti's memory, become a registered user, so we can have discussion & conversations about your insigtful views on Cuban related events. On your presonal 'talk page'. Please register. GoodDay 04:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't ban you. However ,your arbitrary attidue to Wikipedia ('El Jigue's way & and no acceptions) seems very autocratic. Not to be insulting, but ths is behaviour I'd expect from Fidel Castro. 1)Uncooperative, 2)Feeling rules don't apply to you, 3)Arrogant ,4)Paranoid. So go ahead FORCE your methods on Wikipedia. GoodDay 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second block warning

Your post to my user talk page indicates that you misunderstand my previous warning. Although your insights appear to be knowledgeable and thoughtful, the nature of your posts falls outside of Wikipedia's mission. My recommendation is that you open a Blogspot account, link to it from your user page at Wikipedia, and post commentaries there. This would have several advantages:

  • More people would read and appreciate your insights.
  • Editors who focus on improving Wikipedia articles would have an easier time navigating the talk pages on subjects that interest you.
  • The articles themselves would improve because the talk page content would be more to-the-point.
  • Your editing privileges at Wikipedia would continue unhindered.

Wikipedia policy is at issue here. Unfortunately this means that support from a couple of editors who appreciate your insights cannot alter my administrative decisions. I will issue blocks if your current behavior continues. DurovaCharge! 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 week block

You have been blocked for 2 weeks for violations of WP:NOT, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, and vandalism. DurovaCharge! 14:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 week block reset to 2 weeks starting today

Per WP:SOCK for block evasion on another IP address. DurovaCharge! 23:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/8/User_talk%7E208.65.190.194.html"