Talk:Cuban Five

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:Cuba
 Cuba Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do:

See [1]

Andy, I feel there are a few things wrong with your most recent additions.

This article is about the Cuban 5, and their trial.

Orlando Bosch, had nothing to do with the charges made against them. The bombinbg of the Hotel by the Salvadorian had nothing to do with the Cuban 5, and the perp admitted that it was not politically motivated.

The charges that Brothers to the Rescue tried to smuggle in explosives is one made by Cuban authorities and is highly suspect.

If you want to write about these things, do it in an article about covert activities in Cuba, and not in this article. TDC 15:25, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

TDC, the defence contention is that the Cuban Five were in Miami to infiltrate terrorist groups. It's part of the story and the evidence of terrorism from Miami is relevent even if it doesn't fit into your propaganda line. AndyL 15:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As for the bombimg of the hotel you've (deliberately?) misinterpreted. The "perp" said *he* was not politically motivated but that he was paid to do it by exile groups in Miami. He was not politically motivated, but the bombing itself *was* and it supports the Cuban Five contention about terrorism. AndyL 15:37, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

You are the one who is deliberately?) misinterpretin the article. The Cuban government is the one stating that he was acting on behalf of Miami exiles, the perp admits to bieng paid by a Salvadoran.TDC 16:09, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

All charges against Brothers to the Rescue are bieng made by the Cuban government, whose word is highly suspect and you are not even including that in your revision? TDC 16:18, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)


And the PVC bombs? What up with that? How can you justify using an unsourced claim from some UK pinko commie rag? TDC 16:22, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Claims given additional sources. A member of Brothers to the Rescue admitted experimentation with PVC bombs under cross examination. AndyL 20:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

" by the Cuban government, whose word is highly suspect and you are not even including that in your revision? " TDC, I recall recently in the Cuba HR discussion when I said something in the article about US State Dept and OAS info being suspect for political reasons you took that out because of POV but now you want me to say the word of the Cuban government is highly suspect?. AndyL 07:31, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV?

"The arrest and conviction incited an uproar from leftist groups."

The preceding phrase is not fully accurate, and does not depict the entire story. Yes, the arrest and conviction incited anger among leftist groups, but also civil liberty alliances which are cross-ideological. Many leftist groups made the biggest stir about it, but the Republican dominated court in Georgia also found that these mens' convictions were not only immoral (opinion) but, according to our Constitution, unlawful (fact). The phrasing of that statement makes the issue seem more of an issue of morality than one of legality. And, of course, it also generates the view that only the radical left is appalled (sic) at this, when it is not the case.

What NPOV means for this article Many seem to be unaware of NPOV really means. Therefore an excerpt of official Wikipedia policy:

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. from WP:NPOV

Jens Nielsen 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] original convictions have been reinstated

Hmmmmmmm Although it has been a month nobody has mentioned that the original convictions have been reinstated [2] This must be an oversight xe xe El Jigüey 12/3/05.

[edit] Holy Ackerman quote

I moved this sentence here from the article: "The men’s contention, that Cuba is threatened by U.S based anti-Castro groups, is questionable at best, says Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba."

A couple questionable items:

  • Although Holly Ackerman is cited at least once on the WWW for her association with Amnesty International, the source documents being quoted, do not appear to be affiliated in any way with Amnesty International, and the implied association in the sentence is wrong. The actual byline in the article is "Holly Ackerman is a professor of social work and Latin American studies at Tulane University, New Orleans. She previously lived in southern Florida.".
  • Here are links to the source document of the sentence, from 'Peace Magazine' [3] and [4]. Reading that article, I cannot see that the paraphrased quote ...that Cuba is threatened by U.S based anti-Castro groups, is questionable at best,... comes from any wording in the article. Indeed, contrary words occur, "Those Cubans who were terrorized..." and "An unspoken thread that runs throughout is the willingness of most Cuban political groups to use terror. Until 1962, bombings, shoot-em-ups, and political assassination were as common as coffee and tobacco."

In short, the sentence is a bit loose with the facts, and I think is should be tightened up through use of a direct quote, and through use of direct byline of the author. BruceHallman 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See link and text below:

But the activists' contention -- that Cuba is threatened by U.S.-based terrorists -- is questionable at best, says Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba. The U.S. stopped encouraging groups to overthrow Castro in 1965, Ackerman says. Today, most people who want a violent overthrow of Castro and live in Miami are themselves quite elderly, and they have no realistic plans for action, Ackerman says.

Ackerman, however, says activists often hold onto a romantic notion of Cuba that allows them to be manipulated by the Cuban government, which has gone on a publicity campaign about the Cuban Five case.

"They are simply told a story, and they accept that story ... " Ackerman says. "It's silly really, if it weren't so harmful, it would be silly."

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, and I see once again the slippery slope of the label 'terrorists'. Ackerman is quoted as talking of the 'activists' where the sentence says 'the men's contention', and these are different people, right? BruceHallman 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont follow. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ackerman is writing of the statements of a spokesman for the Greater Hartford Coalition on Cuba (GHCC), which she calls 'activists', yet the sentence which I moved from the article starting with the words "The men’s contention..." incorrectly makes it appear that Ackerman is writing that the 'Cuban five' held that belief. BruceHallman 18:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
By 'slippery slope', I mean: From a Cuban government point of view, essentially any activity of a counter-revolutionary movement might be seen as 'terrorism' or 'support of terrorism', yet from a Liberal Democratic advocate's perspective the exact same activity might be called be 'freedom fighting'. BruceHallman 18:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the 5's contention is that the work they were doing in Cuba was to stop US based "terrorism" in Cuba. Ackerman, above, has stated, although not in reference to the 5 specificly but in general, that the threat is non existant. I beleive that the 5 made it very clear at thier trial that they were here in the US to stop "terroristic" activities of US based anti Castro groups. Ackerman's staement was added to provide balance to the littany of charges in that paragraph. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point, balance is needed there I agree, I rewrote the sentence to hopefully fixing the inaccuracies, and put it back. BruceHallman 19:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility of antiCuban terrorism claims.

This seems to be an independent report of anti-Cuban terrorism, from Italian media[5] that calls into question the Ackerman statement. Cuban sources also identify a rash of antiCuban terrorist bombings in 1997 [6].

Its like Akerman says, most of the hard line anti-Castro types in Miami are in thier 60's and 70's, and have long given up the fight. Brothers to the Rescue is a peacefull group that drops leaflets, not bombs, on Cuba.
I have also removed material that does not comply with WP:V (weblog stuff). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no reason not to believe Ackerman, 'most' is certainly believeable. Though it would only take a few to bankroll some bombings of tourist hotels. BruceHallman 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
And there in lies the credibility issue: Ackerman vs the Cuban government. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That Cuba has suffered many terrorist attacks in the past four decades is beyond dispute. It's a fact and such attacks have been reported frequently in the (US) press, though the scale is a surprise to many unfamiliar with Cuba, and there are of course many who for political reasons would like to see it forgotten. To my knowledge, the intensity of these terrorist attacks have declined much since the early years after the revolution (the now elderly terrorists), but as the report to the UN argues there have been many incidents also recently. Claims by the Cuban government should of course be taken with a good grain of salt. There's plenty of paranoia, as is to be expected from any country recently having suffered terrorist attacks (United States included). As for the credibility issue, if Ackerman suggest Cuba has nothing to fear from Miami-based groups he's lost credibility, and the article with the quote offers almost no analysis. Can't we refer to a more-than superficial analysis of why the statement should be questionable? Jens Nielsen 09:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats not what the article is about and it leads to tooo much creep. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is so wrong and too simple to say that the terrorist attacks against cuba are aimed at the so called "castro-regime". That would be like saying that the terrorist attack against the WTC was just activities aimed at the Bush-regime. Bronks 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So, the individiual members of Brothers to the Rescue have been involved in violent actions targeting civilians in Cuba? Do you have a verifiable source for this? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes they have attacked and killed cuban civilians and they have even attacked tourists, as was written about the attack against hotels, that YOU delteted!!! Bronks 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please also check the sources cited on José Basulto
That I detailed, come again? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is fair to ask that reports of anti-Cuban terrorism meet WP:V, and we should put together a listing of citations [7], [8], [9] etc.. We could collaborate on this research. BruceHallman 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It is an interesting exercise, but irrelevant here. The only thing that needs verifiability is the claims made. Here's the Wikipedia policy:
Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. from WP:NPOV

If it is verifiable that the cuban five indeed claim to have tried to stop terrorists, there is no need to try establish whether their claim is credible or not. We should try to present fairly the views of the five, and opposing views for that matter, such as those of Ackerman. Jens Nielsen 13:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that any of the above would qualify as WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
To, out of hand, disallow all Cuban based sources for an article about Cuba seems too extreme. Specifically, the Cuban goverment issued this list of terrorist acts [10]. One of the acts on the list involved the killing of an Italian on September 4, 1997. This event is confirmed independently in the Italian media[11]. Such independent confirmation reflects positively on the credibility of the Cuban list. BruceHallman 21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The above comfortably qualifies for WP:RS. For the views of the Cuban government, the Cuban government or affiliated sources are superbly reliable, and indeed the best and only obvious choice. Likewise for the Cuban Five.Jens Nielsen 13:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of the Cuban five?

Third Opinions, please turn to the questions in bold half a page down. Other comments are of course also welcome. Jens Nielsen 18:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you now referring to wording versions that aren't even current? 72.65.68.229 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's now an edit war going on over some recent changes of mine. Here's the issue

Jens Nielsen proposes

"The five convicted men claim that they were in Miami to monitor Miami-based right-wing groups engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba. In a report to the UN, the Cuban government claims that since 1959, 3,478 Cubans died as result of terrorist attacks or aggression, and in the 1990´s suffered 68 terrorist attacks. [12]

vs alternative:

"The five convicted men claim that they were in Miami to stop anti-Castro groups engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba which the Cuban government claims have killed 3,478 and wounded 2,099 Cuban citizens since 1959. [13]"

First of all, the issue is what the Cuban Five claimed, not what we think they were actually doing. The correct NPOV policy is present conflicting points of view fairly. So, the task is to accurately represent what they claimed, not what we think is the truth of their activities, whatever that may be (as long as the claim is clearly attributed).

I have not read all court documents, but this statement from the website of Free the Five, also supported by the WP article [14] is to my best knowledge accurate: "the Five pointed out vigorously in their defense that they were involved in monitoring the actions of Miami-based terrorist groups, in order to prevent terrorist attacks on their country of Cuba." This clearly supports the first half of the first statement. In additional support of this, note following statement from the defense attorney:

They came here basically on a mission to infiltrate various exile groups that were posing a threat to Cuba during a period where there was a wave of bombings of hotels and tourist attractions in Cuba by exile groups.[15]


The second statement, on the other hand, is less precise. Did they claim they were chasing anti-castro groups, or terrorists? Right-wing or otherwise? Crucial differences to many, and therefore at best an inaccurate presentation of their view.

The number statement is is also flawed. The second statement is ambiguous - does the cuban government claim that those particular groups were responsible for that many deaths? The truth is that they don't. The source sketches the general picture of terrorism and aggression (latter also not mentioned in second statement) aimed at Cuba, not these particular instances. Also, it's not just some government media claim, it's a report to the UN, with much more credibility, and besides these claims were discussed widely in court.


First statement is clearly better Jens Nielsen 08:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


A key question is the definition of the crime 'terrorism'. I argue, that the encyclopedic standard to apply here is the definition of the local jurisdiction, that is: 'terrorism' is defined by the local law. Here is a summary of the crime of terrorism as defined in Cuba. By that definition, the description of 'terrorism' is appropriate in the article and meets WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Though this may be controversial, as you can see, in Cuba dropping subversive and unconstitutional propaganda leaflets from airplanes is a special form of terrorism, described as 'political terrorism'. Regardless of whether we like or dislike that Cuban rule of law, an encyclopedia should give respect to locally sovereign law. BruceHallman 14:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to suffice for any version which attempts to imply the communist government's own colorful slurs by sleight of hand. If "terrorism" is to appear, it needs to be explicitly and contextually attributed and else affixed with quotation. You, Jens, are presenting this issue as if information is being deprived of the reader rather than the opposite, which is what is really occurring; namely, a race to see how many times the word "terrorism" can be imposed upon an amalgamation of groups in even the very same paragraph. It is horribly biased, Hallman's diatribe on local sovereignty even put aside. 151.205.8.146 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"diatribe"? I object to that false characterization. BruceHallman 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I object to your insinuation that this encyclopedia must conform to Cuban "sovereign law", i.e. police state measures. 151.205.8.146 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Which countries should Wikipedia honor by respecting their soverign law and which countries should not receive respect for their soverign law? If not local soverign law, which law do you choose? Is your choice arbitrary? How do you ensure your choice meets WP:NPOV? And, in doing so, how do you avoid Systemic bias? BruceHallman 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have asked you five questions, will you give me five direct answers? BruceHallman 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be "honor[ing]" countries by utilizing contradictory legal definitions for what amounts to a political pejorative. That is the singular NPOV issue here. If this is true, and it is, for those who fly airplanes into buildings and blow up crowded markets it is certainly true for those who assist rafters and drop political pamphlets. If you wish to denote that the Cuban standard for terrorism includes activities undertaken for the purposes of humanitarian assistance and political dissent, be my guest. But the view of the regime is not going to be the view of this article. 151.205.8.146 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You didn't answer even one of my five questions. BruceHallman 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And, your last sentence implies that you intend to push your POV on this article, is that true or false? BruceHallman 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
There are 194 independent countries in the world today though you are vague as to which one sets the legal standard which the other 193 are contradicting. Or, is it your belief that you get to personally set the legal standard we are to measure the world against? Again, please give direct answers to my (now seven) questions. BruceHallman 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I missed the part where I am on trial here and you are dependent on my testimony. This has nothing to do with legal standards but Wikipedia policy on neutrality. I never claimed that any "sets the legal standard" because that issue is beside the point. The fact that there are contradictory definitions of terrorism is acknowledged by you when you expressed a wish for the article to compensate for Cuba's own. That would be forcing bias into the article.
My last sentence should imply precisely that I am pushing NPOV and disallowing an article to be engulfed by one POV. You may feel at liberty to interpret things as you like, but this is something you have constructed alone, not something I have stated. 151.205.8.146 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may then, without answering questions, your position is enigmatic. BruceHallman 04:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that the anon's view of NPOV is a view that conforms to a certain idelogical perspective and does not allow opposing views to be presented fairly. In other words: POV pushing. Why do we even care what an anonymous user or sockpuppet) thinks anyway? Again, the appropriate NPOV policy as I've cited again and again is to present opposing views fairly. Jens Nielsen 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Question:

  • Do you agree that it is correct wikipedia NPOV policy to present the Cuban views as they are, even if you don't believe they were in the US to stop terrorists? If no, please state why the NPOV policy quoted hereunder does not apply.
Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. from WP:NPOV
  • Do you agree that following statement as to the reasons given by the Cuban five, is an accurate description of their view, whatever you may think of the view itself? If not, please refer to a source.
"The five convicted men claim that they were in Miami to monitor Miami-based right-wing groups engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba." Please refer to the sources I quoted in begining of this section.

Jens Nielsen 18:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jensbn, I am not interested in participating in your people's court; someone who asks why "we even care what [I think] anyway?" is obviously not familiar with policy on their own part, and is best not leveling accusations. I have not in any instance voiced support for disregarding NPOV policy, and in fact have edited in order to best conform to it. You have provided no evidence that my changes to the section violate NPOV but simply rest on the fact that they are changes to your own wording and presumed the matter to be self-evident.

Now, I will specifically address those changes, something you have so far refused to do.

First of all, your only reference to Cuban government claims is at the beginning of the paragraph; thereafter, you let a passive voice insert the government's view which appears to the reader to be objective fact. Thus, "Miami-based right-wing groups engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba". What groups? Which ones are "right-wing"? Who says? I changed this to "anti-Castro", which is rather evident. Why is this problematic? I also added "which they claim were" engaged in terrorist activities, whereas you are content to let the article claim that all of these "terrorist activities" did in fact occur as the Cuban regime says. Not only this, but you allow in the next sentence that deaths are due to these as well as the unattributed events of "aggression", completely out of context to claims. Why is the Cuban government allowed all these colorful descriptions for the article without the benefit of directly attributing their language to them? Is it NPOV for Wikipedia to say that they "suffered" as a result of these terrorist attacks without attribution? This is emotionalistic writing to shield the regime's facade and slur against all opposition and resistance groups.

I take it you have issue with the accuracy, but I still don't know if you agree with me on the NPOV policy quoted. In fact, your criticism seems founded on an attempt to achieve objective accuracy instead of describing their views.

"The five convicted men claim that they were in Miami to monitor Miami-based right-wing groups [they say were] engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba." Everything after "The five convicted men claim..." is to my best English making clear that anything that follows is their point of view, not objective fact. Adding they say were is a redundancy, no? >What groups? Which ones are "right-wing"?

the sentence does not claim to establish objective facts, so I don't see why it needs to be more precise. If their claim is vague, let it be.

>"anti-Castro"

If the issue is what the five claimed, and not what objectively happened, then it is a crucial difference. Does the Five claim to be after anti-castro groups or terrorist groups? The latter according to my research.

>unattributed events of "aggression",

Again, to my knowledge of grammar it is all claims of the Cuban government, so no need to try to be objective. Also, it is an improvement on the original version, where all deaths were attributed to anticuban groups. In fact, the Bay of pigs casualties are included in the estimate, and I included as a necessary qualifier to the claim. With that, it becomes clear that not all of these is terrorism as we know it.Jens Nielsen 19:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This does not surprise me. Many people are ignorant of the long struggle of many Cubans against the government after Fidel's acession, and even after the Bay of Pigs. This took many forms, from attacks on so-called "soft targets" such as tourist and industrial/agricultural targets (some of which can plausibly be described as terrorism, though for our purposes this is POV characterization) and much of which was straight resistance, including that of fighters in the Escambray Mountains (the intended site for US-supported invasion), where Cubans resisted for years. Invariably they are described as "bandits", "terrorists", and such. It is inconceivable that these should all be slurred as such with the assistance of editors here. I don't believe that is the intention of everyone, but is the effect of what I believe to be sloppy wording. That is what I am intending to counteract, and if it does not trouble Jensbn too much, I will attempt this anew tomorrow (so as not to give the impression that I am reverting again on this day). 72.65.80.34 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The next paragraph is even more egregious. Basulto is fully within his rights to decide whether the Castro regime of Cuba is illegitimate and deserves to be overthrown by force (considering there is no other means and has not been for over forty years). Yet you casually describe him as participating in attacks against Cuba (my emphasis), rather than participating in attacks against the government or what he claims was a hotel used to accomodate Russians, which at the time were stationing a great deal of troops on Cuban soil in the process of stockpiling nuclear weapons and furthering the satellization of the country. In order to twist this around, you delete my insertion of his very own words, namely that the hotel was "full of Russians". Why? The Cuban government got their say, why did not Basulto? Does he not deserve it, because he is part of those "Miami based right wing" groups, and you'll be damned if their view gets across?

I can agree to "attacks against the government of Cuba" which is more accurate. If you find it important to mention that it was full of Russians, go ahead too. I removed it because I found it a bit clumsy, since it is an objective fact, not just his opinion. Jens Nielsen 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I detailed my opinions about the word "violations" below. Suffice it to say, you do not likely regard any of this or that as mattering. In fact, you felt obliged to violate 3RR at another article yesterday, and here have attempted to remove the POV tag as you don't feel you have to pay attention to my objections. I am afraid in that case you are the one who is going against policy, and against any good faith effort to establish a consensus, NPOV version. Please reconsider your stance, as it is very unproductive. Thanks. 72.65.80.34 18:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you've been irritated. I have argued over this at great length in the past half year, done lots of research, adding sources, etc etc. When I get confronted with a user (not you) who (on numerous occasions) reverts without bothering to read even the basic sources, it's tempting to see further arguing as unproductive.Jens Nielsen 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If you would be more open to compromise rather than making sure to summarily revert material repeatedly, things would go a lot smoother for everyone. Just a suggestion. 72.65.80.34 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from parsing my words. It makes the conversation much, much more difficult to follow. As to your response, I am in no sense trying to make mere arguments against their assertions but your treatment of them. It is not redundant to include qualifiers for such tendentious and contested issues. The most obvious way to resolve such a matter is to provide direct quotes rather than your own summation. That way, claims of "terrorism" and "aggression" do not have the implicit effect on the reader of appearing to be established facts but merely show the bombast of the Cuban government. If you would engage this matter rather than simply revert my changes, perhaps these elementary issues could be resolved more quickly and better, more pertinent work on the article could continue. 72.65.80.34 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. From WP:NPOV

Adding direct quotes shows only that the editor distrusts the statement. I take it you disagree with official policy, then. Jens Nielsen 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes are not mentioned in the passage you give. What is wrong with making it absolutely sure that claims of "terrorism", "aggression", and such are directly attributed? It seems very clear to me that an impression, or pretense of, establishment of objective fact, is given by the passage as it is. My edits are an attempt to address this and I still do not see what is wrong with where I am going, if not precisely what I did. 72.65.80.34 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this source meets WP:V and says clearly what the five men were doing in Miami: "The Five were working with the Cuban Government to protect Cuba from invasion and terrorism organized, funded and launched from Miami and presented evidence to show the serious threat posed by Miami-based terrorism. They showed how they had infiltrated some of the Miami-based organizations, and how US law enforcement had failed to act on evidence turned over by Cuban authorities before their arrest. They also presented evidence to show that the only military information to which they had access was publicly available. Furthermore, they presented testimony from high-ranking former U.S. military and intelligence officials to the effect that Cuba poses no military threat to the United States, but is only interested in knowing what it needs to know in order to defend against the threat of attack, either by the United States or US-based mercenaries. "
BruceHallman 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This does not establish anything further than what the Cuban government claims, as it seems to come from its mission to the UN. Please don't attempt to mislead editors. 72.65.80.34 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree it establishes little more than the Cuban view, but it is precisely the view we should be after, not the objective facts, as according to WP:NPOVJens Nielsen 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This does not seem to be the implication of him saying that it "says clearly what the five men were doing in Miami", rather than merely it being what the Cuban government claims was going on. If it was the latter, I would have no objection to it. 72.65.80.34 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
72.65.80.34 wrote: "Basulto is fully within his rights to decide whether the Castro regime of Cuba is illegitimate ", actually this assertion could easily be true, but it appears to be original research, and if included in the article would violate WP:NOR. BruceHallman 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Whose observation is it that Basulto engaged in "attacks against Cuba", as opposed to subversion and espionage activities? 72.65.80.34 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of accurate use of English language. Firing a 20mm cannon at a hotel qualifies better as an "Attack" than "Subversion" or "espionage". Agree? Same with Bay of pigs invasion. Of course, all apply given his rich record of activities.Jens Nielsen 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If they all apply, then they can all be included, rather than simply stating he was involved "attacks against Cuba", which is a misnomer. 72.65.80.34 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
There's something on this I am not sure is completely understood, as well. Subversion and sabotage very well can, and often necessarily do, include the use of violence, such as the attempted destruction of industrial facilities (which happened in Cuba). These are not euphemisms. But it is not acceptable to describe Basulto's activities against the Cuban government as being "against Cuba", so more work is still justified on this specific area as well. 72.65.80.34 20:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Opinion

I think the first statement above is preferable. It seems to be much more precise. As for all the qualms about the term terrorism, I don't honestly see it as that big of a deal in this case. As a reader it's obvious that these 5 men just might be skewing the definition of terrorism a little bit. Still, thats what they claim they were there to do, so that is how it should be represented. Our readers are intelligent, give them some credit. and let them interpret the facts. --Hetar 06:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

Why this article have no information on the charges they were convicted of and tells instead about complaints of their treatment and their supporters? This looks like an advocacy page right now. I tried to edit it but can't. Contrarrevolucionario 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airspace violated vs. airspace "violated"

This issue is discussed at length on Talk:Brothers to the Rescue. Please continue there.

Jens Nielsen 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Would the engaged editors involved in this edit war please negotiate and resolve their differences. Your resolution would be helpful, to allow the edit protection to be removed from this page. BruceHallman 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that one of the warring parties has been blocked indefinitely so it may be worth asking to unblock the page for continued editing. --Zleitzen 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I support what I understand to be Hallman's attempted compromise elsewhere of "incursions" or something similar. 141.153.121.104 02:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Though that is not the only thing in dispute regarding this article. Zleitzen is right about the indefinite block, however. 141.153.121.104 02:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

One should refer to things by their accurate designation. Cuba is a sovereign country. If a foreign plan flies into Cubans air space without permission it is of course a violation against Cuba. To not acknowledge that is indeed POV. Bronks 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

One of the edit warring parties has been indef blocked, and I have lifted the protection. I have watchlisted it as well, and if the edit war starts again, I will block again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Jensbn will start it very soon. 141.153.121.104 17:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Shock and horror. I was right. 141.153.121.104 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
As for claims to "accuracy", I can only express bewilderment. As noted above, there is not even any detail as to what the five were arrested and convicted for, but there sure is plenty of material about those who want them to be released based on the fact that they work for the Cuban government. I am sure you will make sure Castro (by proxy) gets plenty of his own say for the article, but that is not what this page's purpose is. 141.153.121.104 17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If the edit warring start again, I will protect the stuff again at the place I unprotected it, because I did not unprotect it to get an edit war again. My suggestion, source the stuff better, and use at time direct quotes so that there is no doubt about the interpretation which I think might be the issue at times. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The primary problem is that Jensbn does not believe he is even engaging in an edit war but is merely restoring self-evidently correct revisions. He has rebuked opportunities to compromise because he has determined who he accepts edits from and who he doesn't. 141.153.121.104 17:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've cited wikipedia policy in support of my edits, I've cited sources. Your turn. Jens Nielsen 00:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It takes two hands to clap, and 141.153.121.104 is the other hand. Both of you should source your edits. It is my understanding that the fact that the air flights have entered Cuban airspace is undisputed. They admit such. Why is that only a 'claimed' violation of the airspace, your reasoning seems illogical. BruceHallman 17:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I am clapping, very well, and I did not dispute this. I question though, whether you are being completely honest as to your intentions here. On another article, you find the word 'violation' to be "inaccurate". Here, you say such an objection is illogical. Is it that you have discovered an enemy of the "socialist republic" and have conformed to the hard line? Or did you suddenly disregard any hope for compromise? 141.153.121.104 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, questioning my honesty does not help with editing. Neither does treating Wikipedia as a battleground, as your 'discovered an enemy' question suggests. Even if our feelings are hot, sticking to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is required. BruceHallman 14:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You are certainly right that we must, which is my concern here; however, I contest the idea that personal characterizations are solely the responsibility of one party. I will instead ask you directly: what do you believe may serve as a functional alternative to "violations", as you were attempting to establish on the other, related, article? Thanks. 72.65.80.34 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

72.65.80.34, to whom are you addressing that question? Personally I feel that unauthorized flights into sovereign airspace is well described by the word 'violation'. Perhaps the word 'incursion' is a functional alternative? BruceHallman 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the use of the word "incursions" as I stated before. 72.65.80.34 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The edit summary of you says: revert to non-npov version, which is literally a self-proclaimed revert to a POV version. That is in violation with wikipeida policies. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Further, discuss the content, not the editors!-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've done so, and I'm looking forward to Tjive and the anon doing so too.Jens Nielsen
You will have to forgive my typo; that is not what I meant to say. 141.153.121.104 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that 141.153.121.104, various other IP addresses, User:TJive and User:YINever are one and the same? Using these aliases to avoid being hassled and stalked by another user? If so, and this other user has now been indefinitely blocked - could I request that TJive revert to a singular moniker. Given the involvement in a number of disputes with unrelated editors it would make consensus far easier.--Zleitzen 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my impression as well. It would be an extrarodinary coincidence otherhwise.Jens Nielsen 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The UN report

Can be mentioned without the present wording. I certainly don't object to that. 72.65.80.34 13:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to me to be something rather pathological in the stubborn insistence on the single word "violations" in reference to the Hermanos activities. It is as if Cuban waters are a virgin which their planes were intruding upon sexually in an aggressive matter - practically they have been raped. This "verifiable fact" has not been sourced in any such matter and there is no need to keep this word other than the linguistic choice of a single editor who has rammed it in over the course of months by now. "Incursions", "unauthorized entries", and any other choice our editors may come up all inform the reader just the same but do not seem to have the same flair and literary excess as saying that the lily has been "violated".
There is no reason not to compromise on this matter except as a mental refusal to kowtow to any perceived edit war by "the anticommunist", as Jensbn has taken up calling me as if it were an insult. 72.65.80.34 13:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Google "airspace violation" get 53,000 hits. Google "airspace incursion" and get 255 hits. Linguistically, I favor 'airspace violation' as the better use of standard English. BruceHallman 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
99,200 for "incursions into airspace". Google is a bad way to conduct encyclopedic matters. 151.205.36.69 15:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Google is a good way to measure the frequency of useage of words or phrases in standard Engish, and is recommended by Wikipedia for rooting out typos at least. BruceHallman 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


To contend that an article, story, description, prose, should not overlap another description, is absurd.

< http://google.com/search?q=%22mission+against+terror%22+%22%22+%22%22+%22%22 >.

Hopiakuta 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holly Ackerman

The Holly Ackerman piece - "Cuba is not threatened by terrorism" makes absolutely no sense to this or any other article. Given the number of verifiable cases of terrorism through the 90's - and the well publicised hijackings of 2003 - How can this be a credible statement? Let alone sit in this article. One American scholar's opinion which would be found wanting by any of her international Latin-American peers does not deserve such prominence. I'd like to know more about why users insist on it's inclusion.--Zleitzen 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ackerman is most certainly notable for the following reasons: Latin America is her area of expertise, she has written and spoken a great detail about Cuba, and she is one of the more mainstream opinions in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy it, and I've never met a Cuban scholar who would promote her point of view here.
Here is a simple question for yourself, and Ackerman if she were here to answer it.
  • Were there any terrorist acts against Cuba during the 1990's? --Zleitzen 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You have never met a Cuban scholar who would say that... oh well, that's a shame I guess. I am not into answering questions, but I would say no. There have been no "terroist acts" against Cuba in the 1990's. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, so you're going to ignore the six month bombing campaign in Cuba - 1997 (Miami Herald) for starters - and Orlando Bosch's subsequent statements to the Miami media that such attacks would continue. That during the mid to late 90's Cubans were afraid to go to the baseball gives you an idea of how serious this issue was. By 2001 Cuba was not threatened by terrorism? Not credible. And how about the same year, Walter Van der Veer, of terrorist group Comandos L who was charged with plotting to attack Cuban tourists and gathering material for bombs. NY Times. The list is too long to detail here. --Zleitzen 01:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to ignore anything, but this conversation is not relevant to the article. They had a unarmed plane shot down for dropping leaflets over Cuba. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Why do you feel that this conversation is not relevant to the article? Given that you have inserted the claim "Cuba is not threatened by terrorism". That would seem to be the statement that is irrelevant, not credible and intrusive to this article. I'm just giving you an opportunity to defend it. If you ignore that route, then I'm afraid the statement will have to go.--Zleitzen 02:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, enough of this. Castro is on the hospital slab about to drop off so we'll have to resume this at a later date! There's some reverting to do on his page...--Zleitzen 02:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the full quote:But the activists' contention -- that Cuba is threatened by U.S.-based terrorists -- is questionable at best, says Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba. The U.S. stopped encouraging groups to overthrow Castro in 1965, Ackerman says. Today, most people who want a violent overthrow of Castro and live in Miami are themselves quite elderly, and they have no realistic plans for action, Ackerman says. , and its true. Most of the individuals who would violently overthrow Castro are old and have given up that route. Trials and evidence from the Cuban government has to be taken with a grain of salt. There exists no independent press or judiciary, and the claims go un challenged. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As Zleitzen points out, her statements (as just quoted) are at odds with scholar opinion and more importantly, with a mountain of facts and press reports of terrorist incidents. I'm all in favor of adding scholar opinion, but Ackerman's (what are her credentials in Cuban history and Cuban-US relations anyway?) is more obscuring than enlightening. Jens Nielsen 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify how ridiculous Ackerman's claim is, the trial of Santiago Alvarez begins this week, on federal charges of maintaining an illegal armory of machine guns, C-4 explosive and hand grenades at a suburban apartment complex, weapons gathered with the stated aim of attacking Cuba. [16]--Zleitzen 08:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Support

I've requested a citation for this line from the International Support section: Since their conviction, there has been an international campaign for the case to be appealed, with support groups in twenty-seven countries. TexasDawg 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As Bronks said, the information is in the link to the site, for one thing there is a list right here:[[17]]. As a matter of fact, I'm rather sure I heard of one in Denmark and the Netherlands which are not mentioned there, so the number is probably higher. Jens Nielsen 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Their names

I am a little confused, because on this page, their names are listed differently than I found on Democracy Now. There it is Ruben Campa, Rene Gonzalez, Gerardo Hernandez, Luis Medina and Antonio Guerrero. [18] Does anybody have an explanation for this? BigBen212 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Two of them were arrested and charged under pseudonyms, and those names are used on all the court documents. Democracy Now must have picked the names up off of the court documents. "Luis Medina" is the pseudonym for Ramón Labañino and "Ruben Campa" is the pseudonym for Fernando González.

"Their Names

It is very clear that they were under false names to protect themselves and the work they were doing in Miami: that is: protect Cuban people from terrorist acts based in Miami. These men are serving long sentences without having done any harm to the United States. Please search information in the Atlanta Court of Appeals page and help us to free them. Be honest, at least, for a time. Don´t be part of President Bush´s criminal policy. The point is not if they were using false names or not, the point is that they were saving human lives and not only of Cubans, but american lives, too. The terrorist they were keeping an eye on, in Miami, are the sames who killed President Kennedy, Orlando Letelier, Ronny Moffit, and who knows how many people more..." L.D. Argentine,25thDecember,2006

[edit] facts of the case; basis of appeal

I am a little confused why the basis of the charges and the appeal are not mentioned. I worked on the appeal with Len Weinglass, and collected information about Bosch and the Brothers of the Rescue from Amnesty International's office in the Empire State Building.

The case, to say the least, was complicated. This article, however, doesnt seem to capture any of the really salient features of the legal case. THe original judge applied the wrong legal standard, ignored venue complaints, and refused prosecutorial attempt to drop the murder charges. This is an extremely unusual thing for a judge to do, refuse a prosecutorial attempt to drop a charge. Talk some about the case. It will create a nice frame for the story.

Jason Frazzano —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.24.27 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/b/Talk%7ECuban_Five_499f.html"