Talk:Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Birds Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency) 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.

Contents

[edit] Biography of Living Persons Standards

I have blanked out several portions of this article and the comments because they do not follow the Wikipedia official standard for Biographies of living persons. If you think a section was improperly blanked, it was probably because it did not have a high-quality verifiable source listed.

This page in a nutshell: Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

--Burzum 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

This article is clearly biased. I attempted to make changes, but then realized I am not aware of the standards, etc. as of yet so I erased my changes. This article needs substantial editing to remove political bias.

You have failed to explain the bias. I have removed the bias template--Burzum 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A blank declaration of bias is not convincing, you should at least mention your points of conflict and then provide some documentation. El Jigüey 1-3-06


Note: It is often alleged that Rodriguez' father and two brothers were executed by the Castro regime soon after it came to power. I'm not disputing whether it did or didn't, I'm simply seeking some source for this claim. Rodriguez says nothing about it in his book. Can anybody help with this?

[edit] TDC: Please do not revert or this will quickly go to Admin

TDC: welcome to the scholarly study of US relations with Latin America. Your Wikipedia web-page clearly states your political biases: you are a self-proclaimed "defender of capitalism against the 'Neo-Coms' ('neo-Communists')." "William Blum, Howard Zinn, George Galloway, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Robert Fisk, and [Noam] Chomsky sound exactly like Osama bin Laden." "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." Your first words on your page are: "Wise words to bear in mind before picking a fight with The TDC'ster." You are welcome to these opinions. Wikipedia articles, however, require a NPOV. You are welcome to offer countervailing facts and sources to those on an existing page. You are are not welcome, however, to randomly delete well-documented and highly relevant material that happens to run against your views. You have done this repeatedly, and a complaint will soon be lodged against you. I suggest you work with Wikipedia guidelines, which will help create more informative and balanced web pages. Your contributions are welcome! But please do not delete the hard work of others just because you disagree with them politically. Stick to adding factual material and sources. 208.59.121.177 00:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

TDC: please stop the Vandalism. It can be hard when you start a Wikipedia page and future revisions take it in a direction you did not intend. But consider this part of the joy and beauty of learning on Wikipedia, exploring the unknown, making new bridges in understanding.
The information you are adding does not comply with WP:V, please read the policy and comply. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
That is a non sequiter, and does not address the concerns raised. Additionally, it is clear from your Talk page that you deliberately provoke conflicts rather than trying to resolve differences and make a better article. *shrug* That's too bad. I've posted as a warning of potential WP:VAND on your Talk page. 141.161.48.111 06:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO: please see Talk on TDC, and please engage in Discussion

(The following is cut-and-pasted from Barry Seal for ease of reference, as the same issues/people/time apply.) MONGO: Agreed it is vital to stick to the facts and NPOV. Article reverted, per ongoing conflict and attempts at discussion with TDC. MONGO, you understand your responsibilities as an Admin and you understand that Blanking Vandalism is not constructive. You also understand that not every single sentence or fact in an encyclopedia must be sourced, and that a pattern of mis-using Wiki guidelines (including NPOV, V, CITE, etc.) as a veiled attempt at partisanship or ideology is itself unacceptable behavior. Please identify which facts, if any, you believe need citations with the {{Fact}} template. Please also identify any particular examples of alleged "POV" and they will be fixed. The vast majority if not all of what you removed is sourced and NPOV. The fact that much was created by anons is irrelevant. Your blind support for TDC (three times now) calls into question your neutrality as an Admin, especially on topics outside your areas of expertise (natural parks, etc.).

Reference for other Admins: for background, please see User talk:TDC, and discussion above and on Talk:Barry Seal. Please note that this week TDC has already violated the terms of his parole for similar behavior. Please also note that twice before TDC has turned to Admin MONGO after engaging in revert wars and other unWikipedian behavior (on "Depleted uranium" and "What's the matter"/"Protect"), and (as far as I can tell) both times MONGO has been overruled.

[edit] Hey what's going on with this article?

Nobody should be adding anything that is not sourced, or deleting anything that is properly sourced. Both bad edits occurred today. The last revision subtracted something that was not sourced and added something not sourced. This is a recipe for disaster, misinformation, propaganda, and violations of all sorts of Wikipedia polcies. Will the person who added the stuff about the 2004 US presidential election either source it or delete it. If it is not verifiable, it does not belong here. Will the person who deleted sourced information (along with a whole lot of other nonsourced stuff) please pay closer attention. Thanks to all. Skywriter 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record-- http://www.nndb.com/people/677/000107356/ -- is not an authoritative source. It is edited by users, same as Wikipedia. Anyone can upload anything. Find an acceptable source or delete this entry. Thanks. Skywriter 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ is also an unacceptable source because, like frontpagemagazine.com, it is obviously partisan. A link to the Senate Committee hearings themselves, or at the NSArchive is acceptable, and would enhance credibility. Skywriter 22:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Skywriter: for background on TDC and MONGO, see Talk above, and User talk:TDC (this section), and Talk:Barry Seal. As you note, MONGO (despite recently being made an Admin) is now engaging in ideologically-based selective blanking, thereby violating his neutrality and abusing his powers. At least he is now using {citation needed} templates, which is a step forward. But this page needs to be redone back to your helpful edits (thank you!) as of 19:09 tonight, and then merged with MONGO's most recent revisions. This will take time. Of course you're right about the John Kerry section -- this is hardly the most notable aspect of Felix Rodriguez' colorful life! *LOL* And that section is full of unsourced POV. Notice that TDC put it there in May 2004, during Kerry's campaign. I have allowed it to remain so far, and not complained about it's flagrant violation of NPOV, in the interest of compromise and moving this page forward. However, the fact that TDC and MONGO have left it unchallenged points to their right-wing ideological bias. (TDC is is proud of this, as noted in Talk above). Again, please note that it will take time to undue the damage MONGO has wrought on this page. I'm curious if other Wiki-users have experienced similar troubles with MONGO. 208.59.121.177 03:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You will have troubles with me if you don't refrain from personal attacks. I think I have already covered this issue with you elsewhere, haven't I? I am not a recent admin...I have been an admin for well over six months. Your edits appear to utilize many poor sources that are not unbiased and in fact, a few of them are nothing more than blogs, really.--MONGO 04:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
"MONGO": please be civil -- "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." I'm sure you mean well, but statements beginning with "You will have trouble with me if..." come across as threatening and are unbecoming to any Wiki user, let alone an Admin. I've read the links on TDC's pattern of behavior and can see what 208.59.121.177 means about POV; this is not a "personal attack," it is about neutrality. Frankly, the record speaks to his/her concerns.
In the latest "Edit summary" you unnecessarily use the command verb form -- "stop removing the bracket" ("please leave bracket" would be more than sufficient, or even say nothing, don't we have bigger fish to fry?) Of course there should be a closing bracket, I just missed it (why else would you think I'd leave the open-bracket?). As I noted in my "Edit summary", we had an editing conflict as I had been working on the Bush section for some time: " 'Editing Conflict' -- I tried to catch and add all M[ONGO]'s changes, hopefully did." In merging that section I tried to include your changes, but evidently I missed this one closing-bracket. Sorry about that! Six months may seem long on Wiki, but to those with white hair, who lived through the events described on this page, it is very recent indeed. 68.50.13.23 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
How many different IP"s are you going to use to edit here?...that is my point...respected users create an username and use only that username and log in each and everytime they edit. Continued acclaim that TDC or myself are biased because we have a content dispute with you is incivil. The same could be said in reverse, however, I have not done so. I may very well feel (and correctly at that) that your edits are biased...in fact, that feeling would not be without merit. With that said, you probably have fewer years on me than you may think, so you know you're not in communication with either an amateur or some teenager, not that age has anything to do with educated knowledge of this, which can be achieved by anyone with a mature mind. I'll be looking over your references, but also any further commentary about bias or wide eyed speculations about others additions, reverts being vandalism or any other commentary in regards to myself or others that see your edits as circumspect. You'll gain favor in my eyes and the community if you use only one newly created username when editing.--MONGO 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of South Vietnam?????

Isn't this the provisional Communist government set up by the North Vietnamese after the defeat of the South??? Why would they give Rodriguez medals??? I think it should be The Republic of Vietnam which is more commonly known as South Vietnam. I tried to edit this but it is continually reverted back. Does anyone have a source????

My guess is this got caught up in broader editing discussions, and was accidentally deleted by mistake. I don't know this for sure; if I did so then I offer my apologies. I have changed it per your suggestion, to the following: The Republic of (south) Vietnam. I inserted the parenthetical "(South)" just in case someone intentionally put it there. I have no opinion or insight on this matter. Please feel free to remove the "(South)" if it would be more clear and accurate. Thank you for your contributions, and again sorry that this edit got changed without discussion. 68.50.13.23 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, after reading the South Vietnam page, I see that it is much more clear to simply state: by the South Vietnamese government, so I did that. Please revise if you like!

[edit] MONGO edits

MONGO's goal seems to be to remove all links from the article to prevent readers from seeing anything but MONGO's biased point of view. MONGO removed the link to the Cuban Revolution and inserted The 26th of July Movement (a non-existent article). MONGO removed the reference to Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista and inserted Batista, a link which forces the reader to choose between six different "Batista" articles. Another obvious attempt to confuse readers. Other examples: changed neutral "government" to loaded "regime", changed "South Vietnam" (correct reference) to "Republic of South Vietnam" (not the government referred to in the article), and removed a large number of supporting references and work completed by other individuals. These instances, on top of the numerous other points of bias added by MONGO and removal of relevent information left me no choice but to revert all edits by MONGO to the previous version. --Nc11

[edit] False Investigation by John Kerry

Nothing about John Kerry's witch hunt on Felix? Wow.