Talk:Guantánamo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the Caribbean WikiProject, which provides a central approach to Caribbean-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please help us by assessing and improving articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
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.
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.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in Cuba may be able to help!

Some people seem to have difficulties with reality!

 :) Well, looking at your edits to Siegerjustiz, I would say you have an anti-American slant. I honestly could care less about your ideologies, but Wikipedia has an NPOV for its articles. -- Notheruser 06:41, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It would be very interesting if someone describes the (hi)story of how the heck US have a base on Cuba. It does look strange, doesn't it? Like if North Koreans had a base in San Francisco or something.

Contents

[edit] Page move

Why was this page moved from the correct Spanish spelling of "Guantánamo"?--Pharos 00:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to the spelling which seems far more common in English, where the article originally was, and where most links still pointed. If this is controversial, perhaps we should list this on requested moves. Jonathunder 01:10, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
I deleted from here a comment I wrote before reading down. I'm of the opinion it should be under Guantánamo. Many English-language sources use the accentuation. Many other Wikipedia articles have correct accentuation (See my reply to A.D.H.'s vote below). Unfortunately I missed the vote so that's that, and the IMO wrong decision stands. - PhilipR 15:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~,
  • Object. common usage -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — note that this is a move back to its original position. Spanish placenames elsewhere in WP are spelt with the correct accent as a rule. Surprisingly, Wikipedia:Naming conventions doesn't really cover this. Gareth Hughes 14:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would not be a move to the original position; it has been moved twice, and is now where it started, which is the name most common in English. Jonathunder 15:15, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is about the Cuban city, not the U.S. naval base.--Pharos 22:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Common usage is w/out accents--see Montreal for precedent. Niteowlneils 02:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the English-language Wikipedia. It's not Québec and it's not Zaïre, and it's not Guantánamo. Local form ≠ English form. A.D.H. (t&m) 09:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Additional comments:
  • I don't think the city gets referred to often enough for any usage to be called common. Of the top 50 pages Google found for "guantanamo -bay -base -XP -naval", only three were about the city; "common usage" would make Guantanamo a redirect to Guantanamo Bay. —wwoods 18:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This article currently says it's about the Cuban city, but then about half of it is about the U.S. naval base. About half of "what links here" seems to be looking for the base. In fact, the article started (without an accent) as a duplicate stub for the base. Maybe this would be a good place for a disambiguation page, and the article about the city could go to Guantánamo, Cuba (with accent). Jonathunder 04:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
    • I've been going through the links, changing them to Guantánamo or Guantanamo Bay when it's clear if the city or base is intended. Those submarines should almost certainly go too.
      I don't get the significance of Guàntanamo, for which Google only finds two pages. —wwoods 08:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That was a typo on my part, which I corrected above. Jonathunder 18:43, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 11:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I think it is unclear for many readers why there is an American base on the territory of Cuba. Is this base rented from the government? What's the history of this place?
    • I agree, the history of Guantanamo could be included.

[edit] History of Guantanamo

When I was in Cuba arround year 1999 I was told about this little piece of US in CUBA. Of course most american will never hear the story because they are not authorised to go in CUBA, only american cars from the 50's are.

The story was that Guantanamo military base was given for 100 years to the american at the Cuban independance. At the time I noticed that very soon that place should return to Cuban.

It was a surprise for me to learn after Iraq that the US was still having a base there.

Anybody with more knowledge on the real history and the secret deal that make this base still exist should update the page.

The article about the naval base is at Guantanamo Bay.
—wwoods 17:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong map

The map highlights Guantanamo Bay, not Guantanamo. I won't remove it, because it's better than nothing, but it should ceratainly be replaced. Is there a place where maps are kept? DirkvdM 18:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Taken care of - Pollodiablo
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move/redirect/what EPA said. =] —Nightstallion (?) 07:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move: the revenge

[edit] Vote

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~,
  • Support as proponent. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems to be more common without accent in English use. Thumbelina 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination -- Mareklug talk 00:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and if you're inclined to oppose, please read the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base talk page first. This a second (?) step of a major move project. AjaxSmack 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per discussion on other page, as this will simplify many, many references throughout Wikipedia. More below. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Full support. Let's have things at their proper name whenever possible. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 05:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — this makes sense to me — Gareth Hughes 13:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Use correct accents in all names whenever possible. MikeZ 21:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) has been debated numerous times and is not policy. Diacritics may be used with appropriate caveats. In this case the need for disambiguation trumps Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), as I see it. It is arguable whether Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) applies to the mere use of diacritics. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • For rationale and recent discussion (of related moves), consult the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base talk page with germane discussion ... which has not been contested. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the first part of this move. Even though it reverses or reinstates moves that have been done in the past, it meets the common names standard. Almost all of the references to Guantánamo will be to the city. On the other hand, almost all of the references to Guantanamo will be to the naval base, not the least for its recent notoriety. As a matter of simplicity, I think that should redirect to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, but this is just something I highly recommend. I think non-base references (province, natural bay) will be so few that a top-line DAB should be sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.