User talk:Zleitzen/Archive 3

sorry I am confused

I left a message at the bottom of Archive 2, wasn't sure if you meant leave new messages there, or on this, what seems to be the actual talk page? I hope you get this...... --Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your last 2 messages made today showing up on my Watchlist

• One to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää- can't find what you wrote.
• The other to Talk:Fidel Castro - maybe the Miami Prank call is it?

Sorry I have been tuning out - will help you out again. KarenAnn 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Teemu's RFC

Hello Zleitzen. Thanks for your message... I'm off on holiday tonight, so it may be worth asking someone else (I know Mongo left a message for Teemu at one point) to keep on eye on things. Please could you also ensure ASAP that you leave a message on Teemu's talk page informing him of the RFC? Cheers, Proto::type 06:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I did that at the time [1].--Zleitzen 12:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sandbox

Yes, I would be interested.

On the (barely) hopeful side, Ian¹³/t 08:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC) has left a final warning on Teemu's Talk page, threatening to block him if he continues. Certainly your assemblage of all that data in the rfc demonstrates that Teemu is not a run-of-the-mill disruptive person. He is disturbed. KarenAnn 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am interested but sceptical that it can be sustained unless all sides of the POV battle are involved. BruceHallman 15:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly worried about the POV battle, its the actual nuts and bolts of the article, the largely non controversial elements of format and style that need addressing as much as anything.--Zleitzen 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help, so count me in. mensch • t 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BruceHallman that all sides of POV battle must be involved. Otherwise, conspiracy theories will flourish. Good faith will not reign. KarenAnn 00:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi KarenAnn, I'm mainly concerned with restucturing issues on the sandbox. Stuff like removing non controversial material to different pages etc, style and format and so on. At the time of creating the box - the talk page was still a mess - so it can provide a forum away from the noise. Work really needs to be done on this article, and its impossible with conditions as they were/are. --Zleitzen 00:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, as we Americans say, but don't want to set up disharmony for the future -- TJive, for example. I know you are task-oriented and frustrated. And Teemu is still lurking, god know where. I think it needs to cool down. The red-carpet war -- why waste energy over that now? It's all trivia at this point -- it needs to cool. (I have been fighting my own wars in distant lands on Wikipedia.) You clued me into MONGO, a marvelous help. KarenAnn 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion page?

Tag the articles with deletion templates, put the details on the deletion page and they should be deleted per norm.

I have tagged the pages with the proposed deletion tag...... didn't see anything about "deletion page" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PROD. I listed details on the deletion tag and article talk page that are clear enough..... In any case, thanks for the help!  :) --Antelope In Search Of Truth 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO

Ever since you asked MONGO for help on the Teemu matter, I have been enormously respectful of him. He has helped me out on serveral occasions. I don't know how much you follow certain aspects of the goings-on on Wikipedia but a rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO has been lodged against MONGO by totally unreasonable people. (I have been following their behavior.) If you are so inclined, you have an opportunity to make a statement in MONGO's defense. It appears these people target him because he attempts to maintain Wikipedia standards and policies. KarenAnn 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a small section of support to yet another new rfc aimed at MONGO (a different one to the above). I'm finding that too much of my activity here seems to be dealing in harrassment, incivility and a kind of juvenile geek territory. There's shedloads of material relating to Cuba that I still need to sift through and there's heaps of new things to add to pages. But one seems to get tripped up on minor tedious squabbles - and dealings with people who are clearly not up to speed. I was reverted only yesterday by an administrator a third my age who probably couldn't point Cuba out on a map, let alone enter any discourse concerning the intricacies of Cuba's legislative body. A subject that even Latin American scholars discuss at length with differing opinions. There is an air of the absurd about this whole enterprise, But one soldiers on! --Zleitzen 15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the outside view. What a change from the days when you congratulated all for working well together, and when we all worked towards consensus. I hope that environment, which was upset at the time of the revert, will return someday. Sandy 15:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

PS, as Flanker knows, I merged "referenced" content to the old version of the Criticism article, but didn't delete the unreferenced, really poor content that was there. Then, they changed the game, my house was hit by lightening, and work stalled. Admittedly, some of what was there before was an unreferenced mess, but he could have deleted that instead of the entire thing. Thanks again for inserting some reason. Sandy 15:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments and an independent view. Reviewing the old Chavez talk pages is interesting: they had a few nasty moments, but basically got along wonderfully and had nothing extreme like we're seeing now. But the funny part is that they didn't work based on reliable sources very often: it's a lot of, "yes, that's true, you can add it", or "no, that's not true, best not to include it", which relative to today's needs for references, is really interesting! Viewed from that aspect, it was really very consensual.

I wasn't sure what you meant by removal of Amnesty material: in fact, I haven't had a chance to thoroughly go over everything that was removed, since he'll just revert anyway. I didn't realize he had also removed Amnesty material. Sandy 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, there, sorry for disappearing in the middle of the Criticism deconstruct: a death in the extended family, as well as a bad (unrelated) car accident (no injuries, other than totaled cars) left my entire household very shaken for several days.

I haven't had a chance to check on the status of the Criticism deconstruct, since that environment is too toxic for me to wade into right now, and I regret this "gotcha" style of editing that has taken over that series of articles. Having to reconstruct references and text is so time consuming. Anyway, knowing that they would be productive, I did take the opportunity to have a look at your edits. I appreciate the cleanout of some of what had accumulated there, as I just never got to it when I merged the reference content to there and reorganized the article. I didn't want to ruffle any (more) feathers with massive deletions.

I only found one edit from you that we might want to revisit: deletion of History. The Criticism article has been argued from both sides by the same editors. The gist of one of the arguments is that it has to be a fully contained article, balanced in its own right, so as not to be a POV fork. So, I added the background, thinking it would be needed as context for building upon the article, particularly considering major sections that have yet to be written. Some of the criticism and counters to the criticism won't flow if the reader isn't given some background for context. You've more experience at this than I, so what are your thoughts about adding back in some version of History, from which to begin to reconstruct the article? Best regards, Sandy 18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put the history section back in based on your arguments Sandy. Sorry to hear about the bad news. --Zleitzen 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zleitzen ... we're all doing fine, not to worry, Regards, Sandy 20:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Cuba

Thanks for clarifying the Human Rights Counsil sentence. I didn't know wheater the original was meant' as a critique or a neutral membership. Teemu Ruskeepää 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Independent media

In Talk:Castro you recently pointed to a lack of 'independent media' to make an argument. Where in the world to you see an independent media? I am curious, because I see such no where. Everywhere, the question is: independent of what and by what degree? And, why is the question of independence more important than the question of ownership of media? Why do you focus on one and not the other? BruceHallman 16:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

An independent media would be me, writing some articles, photocopying them or printing them up and offering them on the streets. This media would be independent of government or private interest concerns. This happens in the UK at least, But cannot exist in Cuba. --Zleitzen 16:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting food for thought. Yet, even you, self-publishing like you describe, would not be independent of laws or social norms. For instance, I doubt that in the UK you could advocate and aspire for the overthrow of the incumbent government, the economic system or 'civil' society by force, etc.. In Florida, being more "aspirational than operational", talk and thought, (to an undercover FBI agent) is cause for arrest. Different in Cuba? Yes, but only by a matter of degree. BruceHallman 15:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. "Critical media" is more appropriate to my meaning. Though on the above subject, it is still in dispute. You could advocate and aspire for the overthrow of the incumbent government and the economic system in Britain. Espousing revolutionary politics is within the bounds of the law. Though Islamists occasionally walk the tightrope. See what happened to this hapless bastard: Omar Bakri Mohammed!--Zleitzen 16:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

• You're welcome. I'm anxious to see what gets made of all the 9/11 stuff. I'm afraid I may not have the ambition to try to help mediate another edit war if it comes to it. --Dystopos 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That was fast... --Dystopos 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! I've managed to change my Cuba misquotes on the page and so I'm out of there. If Frances continues to assume bad faith then he/she will simply be blocked. There's no getting around it, I'm afraid. It is naive for the user to think otherwise.--Zleitzen 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Autentico Party

First it seems obvious that although I have given up on Wikipedia, you have not. Thank you for the Autentico Page re-my first revolutionary association was M-26-7, not the autenticos, I was only associated with them after Castro seized power. For a balanced presentation one has to keep in mind that much of the blame for the student gangsterism can laid on Emilio Tro (Castro's leader and who was the first of one of the first to teach him how to kill by stealth) and Rolando Masferrer. Masferrer was a brilliant intellectual who was professor in the Havana Institute, Cuban senator and newspaper editor a former communist and executioner for the Republic in the Spanish Civil War, was tied to Batista by his later ruthless killings. In my view none of these were the heroes many make them out to be. The Organizacion Autentica still exists and a web page is found at [[2]] El Jigue 07-26-06

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 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Castro is charismatic - Listed with footnotes

Even though you may not care anymore, I listed Castro in List of charismatic leaders against their will, but because I had the references, they had to let it happen. Don't know if this is still an issue on the Castro talk page. But if so for BruceHallmaan et al, there it is. Article up for adf -- but there it is, if you are interested. Mattisse 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me Matisse (I like the new name!) that's interesting. I've also added a few words to save the article which actually refers to a bonafide political concept. The word "charisma" is possibly misleading to some.--Zleitzen 02:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest reference for Castro as a charismatic leader in the Weberian sense of the word strikes me as solid. On the other hand the author seems to interpret the concept too negative in my opinion. Thanks. Andries 23:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Castro

Thanks for your work on the Castro transfer page. Could you please watch the Cuba page, users are insisting in the info box that Raul is now President of the Council of state (President of Cuba). This is not the case, Raul is assuming duties as per Cuban constitution. Thanks. --Zleitzen 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but it looks like the Raúl Castro (temporarily) solution is working fine. Also, please note the three-revert rule as you appear close to breaking it on the Cuba article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Exactly, that's why I'm calling for other users to assist.--Zleitzen 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You reverted my adjustment when I said Castro made himself President. A president is generaly elected- see Calderon and Bush. Tannim 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Cuban transfer of duties

Why have you reverted my edit regarding allegations of Castros death? It had a reference from a legitamate source not just some random blogger. --¡Viva la Revolución! PiMaster3 ^talk 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Content Reviewal

Hi, I've just created a couple of pages about Cuban topics. Here are the corresponding sandboxes. Please take a look and feel free to comment and/or criticize. Thanks.--EmirCalabuch 00:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Rationing in Cuba -- I would use some help providing sources.
• Carlos Enríquez (Cuban Painter) page -- Are there any pictures of his paintings in the public domain/fair use licenses?

I'm adding a few Cuban painters on the category (just stubs for the moment, will dwelve into them later). Not many painters found. Just found a stub about Amelia Peláez, but the page name is misspelled (Amelia Pelaes, which is wrong). Shall we keep the old page or create a new one with the correct spelling?).--EmirCalabuch 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Headline

Cool, though I think you wrote "Alarcon" by mistake instead of writing Roque.--Jersey Devil 03:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn Alarcon on the brain. I've just been listening to an interview with him!--Zleitzen 03:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Castro

Cheers for the advice! TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

List of charismatic leaders made it through!

I see the list made it through the afd by the skin of it's teeth. Looks good now with it's new name and Castro has great citation notes. Strangely, when Castro recently was hospitalized, the American media universally used the word "charismatic" in discribing him. Mattisse 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still interested in Frank Pais and the revolutionary underground

It seems the Cuban stuff is in an uproar right now. I noticed you deserted Fidel Castro as it is hopeless for the time being. The Max Wever stuff is great. I never paid much attention to him until now. Applause for your ability to soldier on. Thanks for the support from you. It made a difference and I am getting the hang of this place now. Maybe one of these days I'm be back into my Cuba interest. My doctor is Cuban -- left Cuba in 1997. He told me not to believe anything the US govermaent says, nor the Cuban exhile community. Mattisse 01:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. I don't believe what the Cuban government says either. But then I don't believe what any government has to say! The problem in editing in this area is that too many people believe propaganda at face value of all kinds, without considering balance. I was looking at an old interview with Fidel recently where he was trotting out the most awful lies. But one needs to remember US, European or other Latin American Government propaganda and lies - many of which have had an equal or greater damaging effect. For instance, the CIA's campaign of convincing Cuban families that their children would be "sent away to Russia" leading to a tragic emigration scenario that divided children from their families, some permanently. Then we hear the repeated claims by the Cuban government that all dissidents are in the pay of the US and must be punished etc, which is clearly bogus. All governments are to blame in some fashion! Such lies and propaganda are part of an endless game of power and control between nations, and between governments and their people.--Zleitzen 01:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro talk page user has come alive again

Teemu is back. So far he seems just to be fiddling around on his own talk page. But beware. Mattisse 10:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Black British

If you cannot see the relevance of the passage you have just deleted then I am...surprised. Your edit summary implies that there is some "scientific" definition of "black", a view disputed by almost every commentator on such racial labels. The reference is very clearly in the context of the discussion of the inclusion of Asians within the term due to a perception of shared experience of denigration because of white attitudes to people with dark skin. Hence it is directly relevant to the issue being discussed here - the fact that common experience derives from labels applied in the mainstream/white culture. Further historical evidence of this usage has already been given below. You only have to see a film like "Rita, Sue and Bob Too" to identify that this usage has been common (in which an Indian youth is called a "black bastard" by a drunk). Paul B 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, white people have occasionally called Asians "black". But that is something that should not be expanded on in the opening paragraph of an article about Black British people. I fail to see how evidence of a racist insult in "Rita Sua and Bob too" backs up your argument, plus the citations you have provided each refer to racist applications of the term. By that reckoning, we should go to the British African Caribbean Community page (which I wrote) and write in the opening paragraph "British African Caribbeans are also referred to as ******"(add insult), that would be citable and true but wholly innappropriate to an encylopedia. Asians self describing as black was a feature of civil rights movements during the 70's and 80's - that is of note. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be suggesting that the view of bigoted/ignorant people should be represented in equal measure. --Zleitzen 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a non sequitur since you are implying that black is in itself an insult. No one is suggesting that a generic insult term is added as part of a label. It is not bigoted to refer to someone as "black", otherwise no-one would adopt the term. This is about usage. It was simply easier to find citations for people complaining that they had been called black as part of insults rather than as a matter of normal language, because most relevant sites are about attacking racism. Paul B 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can ask the writer of "Rita Sue and Bob too" if the remark was meant to be an insult or not in the movie and see what answer you get. Of course it can be bigoted to refer to someone as "black" - in a particular context. Why do you think your citations and examples refer to people being offended by the term? Similarily, the word "queer" is offensive/non-offensive depending on context. Self-description is totally different to bigoted attribution - yet the word remains the same. We have presented examples of legitimate "usage" of the term black via the Southall Black Sisters etc - you are insisting on retaining abusive usage which should not be given equal prominence. Try editing the widespread verifiable usage of the N word into the opening sections of articles referring to African Americans and see how far you get.--Zleitzen 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

More non sequiturs. I have already laid the context in the opening points here. The adoption of the term as a self-description arises from established mainstream/white usage that referred to any dark-skinned person as "black" or "coloured" (the two terms were not generally distinguished in maintream British usage. An African was as likely to be described as "coloured" as an Indian. Indeed it was considered the more polite term until "black" became adopted as a self-description. It still is where I live). Because Indians range from very dark to light skin-tone the terminology was always contested as applied to South Asians - or at least since this started to become an issue of definition in the 19th C (read Max Muller for example. It was further complicated by models of race in India affected by Aryanism). However, it was very common for South Asians to be referred to as "black". Since being black was generally considered to be negative in Western culture this inevitably carried some level of stigma in even apparently neutral usage - hence the attacks on Salisbury for using the term. In much more recent times the term "black" has become strongly associated with African-Caribbean identity, and South Asians have increasingly identified as "Asian", though that term is also contested as self-identification with religious affiliation is seen as more significant in the wake of Islamism/Islamophobia. The problem here is with attempts to claim some sort of "ownership" of the word black, as evidenced by your (wholly inappropriate) analogy with spiders being called insects - a point that implies that racial differences are on a par with differences between species! Your comment about African Amercans is also inappropriate and misplaced, since American usages are different from British usages. Indeed, that's the whole point. There is no "real meaning" of black and you seem to have internalised a provisional historical-political construct as if it is a natural truth. I have provided several other modern citations already in other footnotes if you care to look. It is utterly misplaced to say that I am "insisting on bigoted usage". Paul B 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If the fact that you have had to explain your position at such length here does not convince you that your brief sentence is insufficient, then I don't know what. Gather all your sources and research and create a section on the page to detail this in full, carrying the various views.--Zleitzen 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

CDR

I modified the photograph and added it back into the article. Is it ok now? - FrancisTyers · 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis.--Zleitzen 13:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I also have a photo of graffiti with their slogan (but not a CDR tag like the billboard)--"En cada barrio: Revolucion!"--which I uploaded here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EnCadaBarrioRevolucion.jpg. Do you think this would work as well, or better? The article isn't particularly long; it may not merit two photos. I'll let you decide. Also, on the Vinales page there is a photo of the local police/CDR office with an officer sitting next to a visible board of revolutionary dictates. Keep up the good work! --DavidShankBone 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reality TV

Could you weigh in here with an opinion - I'd like to get a consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Reality_Telvision_Contestants --DavidShankBone 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I've redone List of dictators currently in power to add explanations beside each dictator. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I Wrote the Article About Andres Rivero Aguero

Zleitzen: Yesterday I contributed an article about Andres Rivero Aguero, the last person elected President of Cuba in a multiparty election (1958). I noticed in the "Discussion" section that you wrote that you didn't know "who the Hell" contributed the article. Now you do. I have since been in email contact with Mr Rivero's grandson of the same name, and based on information he supplied have made three minor corrections: 1) Rivero didn't accompany Batista into exile in the U.S. from 1944-52, but instead remained in Cuba, practising law and contributing political commentary to several publications; 2) Rivero was the candidate of four (not six) pro-government parties in 1958 (including Batista's Progressive Action Party); and 3) Rivero did not practise law in Miami after settling in the U.S., but instead lived in very modest circumstances supported by his wife and children.

I felt that Rivero deserved more than a stub, considering his important role in the transitional period 1958-59.

--Doug Rees 23:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work on the article. I was actually referring to the title which was previously Carlos Rivero and didn't know at first who that was - and confused me when I spotted it. Good work and I hope you continue to contribute to the encyclopedia.--Zleitzen 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Zleitzen: Thank you for your kind words. I am working on a submission about Osvaldo Dorticos Torrado, who played a key role in the Cuban revolution but is practically unknown in the U.S. Dorticos is usually described as a "colourless yes man" to Castro, but I feel that anyone who went from being President of the Cienfuegos Yacht Club to being President of Communist Cuba is interesting enough to get a reasonably long biography.

--Doug Rees 11:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I mentioned your name here. Sandy 18:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen, do you see any way out of the impasse on the Chávez articles? As you know, the editing environment was pleasant and consensual until the revert, which seems to have empowered and enabled a "gotcha" bullying style of interaction and editing. I so regret that I did not oppose the revert, because it altered the consensual environment. Both articles need to be trimmed and balanced. We don't need 84KB of criticism any more than we need 120 KB of ancient history on Chavez: we need one balanced article, focusing on the big picture, covering all sides, written in encyclopedic tone, and employing Summary Style, but I don't see any hope of ever getting there. Maybe if you got involved, you could bring some balance and reason? It would be a big chore, and time commitment. Would you be willing? Do you have the time? Do you think all sides would respect your input (I would trust you to rewrite and cut the criticism to the most relevant, and balance the articles — where I have a problem is with the obviously biased or unknowledgeable editors trying to trim the content). The environment that took hold there is so unfortunate, and I see nothing on the horizon to indicate that the pro-Chavez group will ever understand the need to present balance. I can't understand what drives the inability to see that there are two sides to the Chavez story. We seem to be graced with editors who either 1) know nothing of Chavez or Venezuela, but are idealistic about Chavez, or 2) are hopelessly polarized in their bias. Just respect your opinion, and would like to hear your thoughts, Sandy 01:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The atmosphere is still far more collegiate than I'm used to, Sandy - It's just that the rate of editing requires full commitment, and has generally kept me on the sidelines. I just can't keep up with you guys! It does seem to be a little one-sided at present. What are the sub-articles that need to be looked at beyond the main two? (I see there is an Israel relations article there somewhere)--Zleitzen 02:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In terms of sub-articles, the following are intact and thorough, and anything in these areas can be trimmed:

• Early life of Hugo Chávez
• Military career of Hugo Chávez
• Presidency of Hugo Chávez (more significant - the entire Presidency section)

These are also thorough, although they've had a lot of prose deterioration and suffer from a lack of inline citations:

• Venezuelan coup attempts of 1992
• Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002
• Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004

This one is weak: IMO, it needs to be reorganized, not geographically, but by area of foreign policy focus:

• Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez

This article is *awful*:

• Media representation of Hugo Chávez

I could actually rewrite if I didn't spend all my time dealing with 4-against-1 and cleaning up sloppy editing.

The new article, the brainchild of a brand new editor who was bitten and chased off, is:

• Israel-Venezuela relations

Anyway, the real work is in reducing the Presidency Section of the main article Hugo Chavez (the content is all in the daughter article), and weaving relevant content from the Criticism of Hugo Chávez article into the appropriate places, cutting both articles in half (the main article and the criticism article). Objection to reducing the size comes principally from 172, who pops in occassionally only to object. The others insist that "criticism" should be separate, not recognizing that "criticism" is just the other side of the story, the balance they refuse to allow into the article. They don't seem able to acknowledge that what they call "criticism" is every bit as relevant as their POV. The criticism article suffers from overkill right now, because anything I introduce as one sentence, they object to (no paraphrasing or summarizing is allowed), so the content grows to address their objections. If they would agree to simpler summarization of basic concepts, the article could be half the size.

I dunno: I feel badly asking you to help. I still have no indication there is any flexibility or desire to work consensually, and it gets worse by the day. It's a huge chore, and with so much intransigence, I'm not sure how it will ever get done. Every time a new editor comes on the scene, I get my hopes up, but bias and/or simple lack of knowledge of the issues become quickly apparent. I trust you to be able to edit outside of any ideological bias. Sandy 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Another courtesy notification here. Anagnorisis is a very long-standing editor of the Chavez articles, so he should be included in any consensus, particularly since he had a long interaction with JRSP about that article: including everyone will help smooth out problems in the long run. I searched all of the sources I have access to in order to expand the Chavismo article, but I was unable to find anything positive about it from any reliable source. The pro-Chávez editors complain of imbalance, but I can't invent text from thin air. Sandy 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Anagnorisis left a message on my talk page that he's OK with the redirect, as long as no text is lost. [3] Shall I re-do it? Sandy 00:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me.--Zleitzen 00:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it now. Thanks for understanding. Sandy 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with any refs. My references are usually terribly laid out, not being a computer person I just don't think I have the technical mindset to format them correctly. I always try but inevitably make errors!--Zleitzen 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm glad the writing is neutral and well done, and I'm happy to expand refs. Sandy 18:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A reference that may interest you

Hello Zleitzen -- Your boldness in restoring the integrity of the CG article is greatly appreciated. I have been searching for the references we discussed re Cuba-USSR relations and have just found an interesting paragraph on page 361 of "Ernesto Guevara también conocido como el Che" (2003 edition) by Paco Ignacio Taibo II that I am wondering if you have seen? I believe that there is too much text for me to reproduce it here without violating WP's copyright rules, but I am thinking that perhaps you either own or have access to that book. Meanwhile, I will be searching for the other references that I promised to forward to you. Am hoping you will continue to keep a watchful eye on the CG article! Many thanks -- Polaris999 05:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: I found one of the quotes I wanted to pass on to you. It is from Castañeda, Jorge G. Che Guevara: Compañero. New York: Random House, 1998. ISBN 0679759409, page 170 where he quotes Che explaining his idea that Cuba should withdraw from the IMF to one of his subordinates shortly after assuming the presidency of the National Bank of Cuba in Fall 1959:

"No, look, we are going to withdraw anyway from the Monetary Fund because we are going to join the Soviet Union, which is technologically 25 years ahead of the United States."

This sentence is a succinct expression of his deluded view of the USSR at the time (before he visited the "Bloc".) -- Polaris999 07:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Polaris999, that's great. I'll follow that Castañeda quote up and place it on the page. I haven't read the "Also Known As Che" book, though it's meant to be excellant by all accounts. --Zleitzen 07:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Zleitzen. I am glad to know that you find that quote useful, it is one of my favorites. As you will be looking at the Castañeda book, here are some other pages that you might want to peruse:

Page 72 -- tells about Che being an admirer of the USSR in 1955; his great ambition during his early months in Mexico (before he signed up with Castro) was to arrange a trip to, and if possible a scholarship to study in, the USSR or one of the socialist bloc countries: Think how different history might have been if he had been able to get a first-hand look at that reality before becoming a decision-maker in Cuba.

Pages 251 - 271 -- the best discussion of Che and his relationship with the USSR that I have found.

About Che being a Maoist, after considerable study of this matter, my personal conclusion is that he was not a Maoist. He always insisted that this was the case, but the question has been obfuscated by the fact that his own ideas often coincided with those of Mao, in particular as concerns the "path of armed struggle". However, Mao himself seems to have agreed that Che was not a Maoist as he declined to receive him on his last trip to Peking (1965). Some sources cite as evidence of his pro-Chinese stance the fact that Che defended the right of the Chinese Embassy and its auxiliary, the Xinhua News Agency, to distribute in Cuba "bulletins" and other literature promulgating the Chinese point of view at a time when the distribution of such pro-Mao materials was being strongly criticized by the Soviets. Nevertheless, this position was probably more an outgrowth of his generally inclusive view of what should be accepted as being "within the revolution" than an espousal of Maoism. Che's position was that any group that sincerely wanted to struggle to promote revolution should be accepted into the revolutionary movement (a theory that he notably put into practice in Bolivia), whether they might classify themselves as "Maoists", "Trotskyists" or by some other label.

A stronger case could be made for his having been a Stalinist: During his first trip to Moscow, he insisted on placing a wreath on Stalin's gravesite even though he was warned by the Cuban Embassy there that this act would be viewed extremely negatively by Khruschev and the other leaders of the Soviet Communist Party. Moreover, in 1954 he used to sign his letters to certain family members "Stalin II" (JLA, page 151), and in December 1953 he wrote to his Aunt Beatriz:

"I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octupuses annihilated." (JLA, page 126)

For some interesting comments by Alberto Granado re the impact on Che of his "discovery" of Stalin, see JLA, page 565.

Note: in all of the above references, JLA = Anderson, Jon Lee, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. New York: Grove Press, 1997. ISBN 0-8021-3558-7 (pbk.)

-- Polaris999 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Polaris999, that's really helpful and exactly what I was looking for. A key grey area is the movement's attitude to the Soviets in the period just before and after the Cuban revolution. Castro will give different answers to every question and there are numerous conflicting reports. Some say that an alignment was planned and inevitable, others continue the story that Cuba was "pushed towards the Soviets" by the US. My standard line when editing a brief sentence on various wikpedia articles is that the defining point of open relations is mid 1961. But I know that it's far more complex and ambiguous than that which is something that could be expanded in Cuba-Soviet relations page. Your Guevara material which predates the standard line is a good tangible way of expressing that ambiguity.--Zleitzen 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Zleitzen. Your focus on fixing a "defining point" intrigues me, I had never thought of the denoument from precisely that perspective. I think I would tend to put the decisive date a bit earlier, in early Fall 1960. My impression is that during approximately the first year and a half, Fidel was keeping all of his options open. It seems that during this period even Che was uncertain which way he would go. In my opinion, Fidel has always been guided by a single purpose -- to take and hold power. By August 1960, I believe that he had decided that the USA was going to attempt to overthrow him rather than accept his land reform and other radical programs so, after his visit to the UN and meetings there with Khruschev during which he satisfied himself that the USSR was indeed willing to provide the financial and military support he required, he made the decision to "join" the socialist camp. Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject. (As you know, Fidel is "flexible" in the extreme. Consider, for example, that until a few years ago he was obsessed with Venezuela possibly playing a hegemonic role in the Caribbean. Preventing this was his major motivation for Cuban involvement in Grenada. But when Cuba's economic straits became so severe that he needed a patron to bankroll the country as the USSR had once done, he embraced Chavez' offer of support with enthusiasm, not only putting aside his fears of Venezuela playing a hegemonic role in the region but actually placing Cuba under its hegemony, a status which he made official when he proclaimed Chavez to be the "co-President of Cuba".)

There are a few more Che quotes that I am going to try to find for you, from after the "awakening" ... -- Polaris999 19:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Polaris. What I meant by referring to mid 1961 is that across the board on those wikipedia articles which give a brief mention to the revolution - Cuba becoming a "communist state" - "Cuba aligning itself with the Russians" and so on - I try to clarify that it was only formally the case after mid 1961. I think that Castro's Marxist-Leninist declaration after the Bay of Pigs is the easiest signpost for this. However I agree completely with your above analysis.

Hi again, Zleitzen. Here are a few more quotes that may be of interest to you, all are from Jon Lee Anderson, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, 1st Pbk. Ed edition (April 1998):

• the extremely close (and never fully explained) relationship between CG and Leonov of the Soviet Embassy in Mexico

p 157 "… Ernesto saw him almost every day."

• CG knew from the outset what policy he wanted to follow; re 1959:

p 415 "By contrast, Che wanted nothing to do with the United Sates and had already begun to prepare for the showdown with Washington he saw as inevitable. In this he was seconded by Raúl. Both favored a sharp radicalization in revolutionary policy, a final consolidation of power and a break with the West."

• disillusionment with USSR begins:

p 488 "Che never said so publicly, but those who knew him say he returned from his first trip to Russia privately dismayed by the elite lifestyles and evident predilection for bourgeois luxuries he saw among Kremlin officials, in contrast with the austere living conditions of the average Soviet citizen. Four and a half decades of socialism had obviously not created a new Socialist Man, at least not among the party elite, and this was not what he had expected to find in the madre patria of global socialism."

• anger over Soviet behavior during Missile Crisis:

p 544 "Over the coming days, Fidel recriminated bitterly with Khrushchev, and the hapless Mikoyan was dispatched to Havana to patch things up. Mikoyan did what he could, but Fidel and Che were convinced Khrushchev had sold them out for his own strategic interest. Their talks went on for several weeks and at times were exceedingly tense."

• disillusionment with the Soviet model

P 565 - complete paragraph, beginning "To Alberto Granado, Che's malaise …"

• attitude of senior circles of the Soviet Communist Party to CG

p 581 - five paragraphs beginning with, "Feder Burlatsky, a former Khrushchev advisor, … "

• a "true friend" of the Soviet Union

p 585 – four paragraphs beginning with, "Snapping back from his romantic reverie, Metutsov said that as Che spoke …"

• CG on the fact that the Soviet army had imposed socialism on the nations of Eastern Europe:

p 766 - "Some of the remarks he scribbled on the margin of the Soviet manual, however, were no less irreverent than his observation of Lenin. Signaling a passage that boldly declared: 'Socialism need not come about through violence, as proven by the socialist states of Eastern Europe, where change came through peaceful means', Che quipped in humorous disbelief: 'What was the Soviet army doing, (obscene comment omitted here, but it appears in the JLA text)?' "

Hope this helps! -- Polaris999 09:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Another reference for you

Guevara is talking with Leonov, in Feb 1960. Leonov says, "So, it's true you are really serious about building socialism?" "Yes," Che replied, "I'm going to devote my life to it. That's why first, I was reading, to build later." -- JLA, p. 446 (NB: this is the same Leonov mentioned above who had now come to visit him in Havana) -- Polaris999 23:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you will want to check this out

Hello Zleitzen -- This concerns the Fidel Castro article which I just took a look at in order to see how it deals with the matter of Cuba - USSR relations. I have no interest whatsoever in becoming an editor of that article but, as I notice that you have done some work on it, I thought that I would mention the following problem to you in case you wish to pursue it. The issue is this: within the "References and footnotes" section, there is the following note:

^ Castañeda, Jorge (1998). Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara. New York: Vintage. ISBN 0-340-56650-7, 62.

The text to which this note is linked is:

"Military Units to Aid Production, or UMAP's, were labor camps established in 1965, according to Che Guevara, for “people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals” as well as Castro's concept of "social deviants," including homosexuals and AIDS victims, in order to work "counter-revolutionary" influences out of certain segments of the population.[99]"

This bizarre sentence is not only wrong, it is absurd. Che Guevara was not making policy in Cuba in 1965, nor did he ever set up anything called "UMAP". Furthermore, page 62 of Castañeda's book is definitely not a source for any statement to the effect that he did, or that he made comments about the same; in fact, that page deals exclusively with the period in Fall 1953 when Guevara was travelling from Ecuador to Costa Rica, en route to Guatemala.

Polaris999 01:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd advise any good editor to stay away from that Castro article. I poked around in it for a while but it was a hideous experience. The article is terrible and the talk pages are the most unpleasant I have encountered. Good editors are subjected to repeated abuse from idealogues - vandalism is rife - and almost nobody seemed to know anything about the subject matter in hand. I'll don a tin hat and go in to make changes. --Zleitzen 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The lamentable situation you describe vis-a-vis the Castro article is the reason I occasionally fall into despair over Wikipedia. Certainly a self-respecting encyclopedia should contain a decent article about such a prominent figure and that it does not is either pathetic or risible, depending upon one's mood. I do wish that the WP "powers that be" would find a solution to the very serious problems afflicting controversial articles. Ever since the CG article got "roughed up", I have been thinking about how one could keep a stable, factually correct version of an article for public consumption, while at the same time allowing wikipedians to create alternative presentations of various sections (either modifications of existing sections, or totally new sections that they might wish to add to an article) that could subsequently be evaluated by other editors and possibly accepted for inclusion. The only way that occurs to me for this to be done would be to set up a sandbox connected to the article itself so that an editor wishing to modify, say the "Guatemala" section, could develop his text on the "Che Guevara/Sandbox/Guatemala" page and then when he was ready to have his work reviewed by other editors, he could post a link to it in a special section of the Talk page that would be set aside for this purpose. Do you happen to know if such an idea has ever been tried? If it hasn't been, do you think it would be worthwhile experimenting with it? For example, I am considering doing a re-write of the Guatemala section, as several people have requested this, and I would like to do it in a "space" where others (such as El Jigue who was a major contributor to this section) could participate, but I don't want my "scratch" work to replace the currently existing "Guatemala" section of the article until all of us who are actively editing the CG article would agree that the newer version is better than the existing one ... -- Polaris999 05:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this page Wikipedia:Stable versions for a suggested future for wikipedia. I also believe that there are future plans touted to have articles treated in exactly the manner you describe, with sandbox versions being feeders to approved main versions. --Zleitzen 05:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, Zleitzen, that is the best news I have heard for quite a while. I had studied the "Stable versions" page just yesterday wondering whether it might be applicable to the CG article, but it seemed that it was aimed at articles that had not yet been identified as "good articles". I also couldn't figure out whether it had been adopted, was about to be adopted, or had been abandoned. End result was that, after reading it several times, I was totally confused. Do you think that terrible things would happen to me if I created a "Che Guevara\Sandbox\" ? I ask because I know that subpages are generally frowned upon, but in this case it seems to me that there is a good argument for creating one. (Or should I just continue being patient and wait until a new official policy along these lines is announced?) -- Polaris999 06:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and make the sandbox. I do it all the time with varying degrees of success. But I wouldn't carry much hope of El Jigue's involvement. He seems disillusioned with the whole thing and seems to content to blame everyone (including me) for the "horrendous inaccurate and biased" articles on Guevara, Castro and Cuba in general [4]. I even set up a sandbox for him to discuss historical matters (he is refusing to edit the pages) but he didn't take it up. He has reduced his input to wild speculations on Castro's transfer of power on the Cuba talk page! --Zleitzen 18:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Zleitzen. I have set up Talk:Che Guevara/Sandbox/Guatemala -- I don't think that there is any rule against creating such a subpage under a Talk page. EJ is not the easiest person to work with for sure, but I think that he has some interesting views and occasionally thought-provoking ideas. One must be careful to check the accuracy of his contributions, however, and I consider some of the sources he cites to be of uncertain reliability. (For example, he claims that many thousands of pro-Castro Cubans died at the Bay of Pigs, but I cannot find supporting evidence for this in any scholarly source.) I did notice that about six months ago on one of the Talk pages he wrote that he had heard from his contacts inside Cuba that Fidel's health was declining and that he probably had only a few more months left -- so it seems he gets a high score on that one!! BTW did you notice where Fidel was when he suffered his accidental fall? And did you notice where he had been just prior to his "bleed-out"? Pangs of conscience perhaps? Or perhaps something else???? Anyway, back to the sandbox for me! -- Polaris999 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Related to the above: BBC News article re possibility of "stable" versions on WP -- Polaris999 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado

Hi Zleitzen,

I have just submitted an article on Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado, which can be viewed online. I realise that the Cuban Revolution is a highly emotional and contentious topic; but my own personal belief is that an encyclopaedia article should be factual and unbiassed, with opinion clearly identified and strictly bracketed. I have tried to apply this standard to both articles I have written--on Dorticós and on Andres Rivero Agüero. I hope that I have followed the correct procedure in listing references. -- DougRees 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great, Doug. Thanks for informing me of your work. I'll make some superficial visual format changes to the page but the text is really good.--Zleitzen 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

José Miró Cardona

"Castro designated Miró ambassador to the U.S. in May 1960. But by July, Miró had rejected the policies of Castro, resigned his post and had sought refuge in the Argentine Embassy. He entered the United States as an exile in the winter of 1960-1." This does not make sense at all. If Miró was in the US since May of 1960, why would he "enter" the US the next winter? I'm a 100% sure that he was an embassador to Spain and I've seen a couple of sources on the subject. Here's one: http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/m/miro_cardona.htm

There is going to be an act in his honor in Puerto Rico in about 4 weeks, so I should be able to get a better source from there.

Thanks for your message. My source said ambassador to the US but that sounds like it could have been an error on the page. I think it was in Arthur Schlesinger's memoirs - which certainly throws some light on the reliability of his records, which I've never wholly embraced!--Zleitzen 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Carlos Piedra

Howdy, Zleitzen:

I'm a brand-new contributor and corrected Carlos Piedra's middle name in your article earlier today. I probably violated a dozen protocols, standards and accepted practices for Wikipedia while doing so, and I hope you'll accept my apologies.

But his middle name was Modesto. I have an interview with his daughter recorded, and could put you in touch with her directly if you'd like. She and the other members of the family have been annoyed for some time at this error, and as I came across your piece (doing research for seperate project on Piedra) I thought I'd try to set the record straight. Please advise as to how I should proceed.

Best-

Mike Hassinger

Hi Mike, thanks for your message. Could you provide source to support the name change? Judging by your message it would seem that a change is in order. --Zleitzen 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A few Cuban matters

I have added to the Central Bank of Cuba article. I am thinking of doing more of the Cuban banking sector - do think it warrants its own page, or shall I include under BCC ?

I would like to add more to Cuban cinema - but am not sure that I really know enough. Perhaps I should translate some stuff from the ICAIC website.

We need a page for "Fresa y chocolate" - should that be under the Spanish name ? How commonly is it translated into English rather than left in Spanish ?

I have had the honour to be involved in the financing on the new Cuban movie "El Benny". I would like to start a page on that movie, but wonder whether I am too closely connected.

I have put a NPOV tag on the tourism apartheid page - hope that you don't mind. I really think it is just too one-sided.

-- Beardo 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Beardo

• A Fresa y chocolate page is essential, Beardo. I can't believe it's taken that long to for wikipedia to get round to it! It would also complement a minor tussle I'm having on the Gay rights in Cuba page which I felt wasn't up to date or accurate on first viewing.
• I think I replied on the Central Bank of Cuba page on that topic, feel free to start a banking in Cuba page.
• I wouldn't worry about the El Benny article - as long as it's NPOV. But be prepared for a battle with the deletionists. I've had to rescue a few of these from those who believe non-English speaking movies are not important. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clase Z "Tropical".
• I understand your points concerning the allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba. I had to fight to get it to "tourist apartheid", it actually read simply "apartheid in Cuba" at first which was even worse! I think it was set up after a dispute over "Israeli apartheid" - anything that anyone could find that was described as "apartheid" somewhere got a page.--Zleitzen 03:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Z - you were up late if you're in the UK.

Sorry - I'd missed your response on banking. Yes, I am sure that the National Bank deserves a page.

El Benny - maybe I'll start with the director and star. (The star just won an award at Locarno Film Festival - so perhaps he'll be our first article on an actor who is still in Cuba. (Though Jorge Perugorria deserves one, too.) Of course, short films tend to have a harder time than full-length features.

btw - a number of geographical pages have links to a Spanish language site www.guije.com. This seems to be referring to a pre-1976 (possibly pre-1959) status. I wonder how best to dscribe that.

-- Beardo 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Chavez/Morales photographs

Zleitzen, I understand you position, and I respect it. But your position on Chavez or Morales, and my position, are irrelevant to the work we do here. When I tell people I went to Cuba I invariably hear, usually via a joke to soften the statement, "Oh, didn't mind supporting Castro a little, huh--haha." Trust me, I was poor when I went there and Castro made little off me. I went there to see a country that I grew up thinking housed the devil himself. And I wanted to see it before it became Starbucksa-fied and before history is written, and re-written, on Castro. With that mentality, I posted those photographs. I liked them, first off. I thought they were interesting and good. But I also thought it served my job--our job--here to do so. Which is is to tell a full story, not a partisan one. I am working on Floyd Abrams and that's my photograph. I also worked extensively with Evan Wolfson. Still, if I came across a criticism, I had to put it up. To let people know not everyone feels and thinks the same thing. At least to give a hint of it. That is why those photos need to stay on those pages. I have a lot of respect for the work you put into this, by the way. --DavidShankBone 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean about partisans and criticism here, David. I don't know what you think my position on Castro, Chavez or Morales is, as I don't know what it is myself - the world is a complicated place. I just don't think a picture of an inflatable Evo Morales is very appropriate to the page that's all. --Zleitzen 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you are partisan, I was just talking in general. It wasn't meant as a criticism, and I apologize if it read that way. They aren't inflatable - they are hand painted puppets. If they are not appropriate for Evo Morales (who has killed nobody) and Hugo Chavez, then they shouldn't be appropriate for Michelle Bachelet, Lula's page and Kirchner's page (of course, the least controversial didn't upload, frustratingly). I have dial-up, and it takes a long time for these to upload from home. My point is that it doesn't matter if they murder or not, they are being represented in an award-winning, National Endowment for the Arts-funded public theater piece. That's noteworthy, and significant, and adds dimension to each person. Don't you agree the NEA funding and the depiction are relevant and noteworthy? --DavidShankBone 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

These are suppose to be articles about heads of state not of the National Endowment of Arts. The pictures in question are simply unencylopedic, there is nothing political about this and I am removing them from the pages in which they were added.--Jersey Devil 09:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic": Can you define for me how you are using this term so that I can understand where you are coming from, or point me to a definition? --DavidShankBone 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Cinema

Thanks a lot for your help in the battle with deletionists concerning the notability of Cuban Films. Thaman81 01:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks! Your work in this area is much appreciated. Please keep it coming!--Zleitzen 08:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Chávez economics

Thanks for helping organize discussion on Talk:Hugo Chávez. I was a little discouraged when my original edit was reverted, but I'm happy to see discussion over the section. Hopefully the section will end up with some good references -- the original article I dereferenced seemed to make their figure up, and I'd like a more reliable source (regardless of the direction of revision). CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Category link

After you visited my page i thought I'd return the favour. :) I noticed that you haven't made Category:Opposition to Fidel Castro a link. Just in case you don't know how to do that (I only learned that after a year editing Wikipedia) - just add a colon, like I have done here. DirkvdM 18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuban NPOV etc.

Under Allegations of tourist apartheid on my talk page, you wrote "I don't know who rattled the anon's cage on that talk page! But there is an element of practicality about the comments in the sense of this: Having added the POV template, which is perfectly acceptable, you really would need to offer suggestions on how to make the page NPOV. I understand entirely why you believe the page to be POV, but how do you propose to change this?--Zleitzen 09:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)"

In an ideal world, I'd love to - but I am not sure that I am up to it. (I half wonder if this should just go back in as a section in Cuban tourism). I guess that is why we have the NPOV tag - for those who can see a problem but not how to fix it. -- Beardo 00:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Havana Shipyards - I added the NPOV and Original research tags last night, which user Gabrielfoto removed without comment, ignoring my comment about OR on the talk page. I have restored the tags. I note that you included such tags a short while ago, which he removed. He has also taken out a section on El Aresenal so that the article is just about the Palmer shipyard (I assume his family's). I am almost tempted to AfD on non-notability.

I think instead I'll try to make some progress on creating pages for Cuban actors, films etc. -- Beardo 00:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Beardo, Your rationale for my having removed El Arsenal is misguided - although understandable. My reasoning was that I couldn't find any information linking the actual site of El Arsenal to the site where the Palmer Shipyards are today. I looked for several hours online but couldn't make heads or tails of it. If you can verify, put that reference back in, by all means - I just couldn't verify it in any way,shape or form - it's a tough one, on account of the fact that we're talking about a centuries-old location. I just wanted to make sure that it was 100 percent true. Actually, Zeitlen might have some insite on this - he assisted me a great deal in how to provide sources sources, etc.

Take care, GabrielFoto

pro-american?!

How can you justify this pro-american behaviour?! you call yourself a European!! deleting an article about anti-americanism is one thing, but opposing another similar articles elevation to GA status is despicable! I can see you are anti-communist, you accuse Castro's government of corruption, yet the country you betray your continent to support is more corrupt than any other! it's digusting! --Frogsprog 12:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No justifiying reply??, I expected as much. --Frogsprog 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

your message

In reply to your request, I ask that you do not victimise articles about anti-americanism, or otherwise do not claim to be a european --Frogsprog 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Americanism" is considered a bigoted or irrational dislike of America/Americans/ This is not the same as Cubans, Europeans etc who object to aspects of US policy. Objections to American occupation and activities in Guantanamo Bay may be rational and legitimate protest against US policy. Do not confuse the two concepts, one is "anti-Americanism" the other is "opposition to US policy". Also note that the term "anti-American" is usually used by supporters of US policies to suppress legitimate criticism and dissent, to blur the distinction, and to characterise those who object as merely bigoted, irrational "anti-Americans". I suggest you read the article anti-Americanism that you claim is being victimised by me (I haven't edited a word on the page) where all these disputes are detailed. --Zleitzen 15:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I point you to an article which pretty much sums up your rant at me above...

But it only demeans things further to pre-stigmatise all debate with the mark of "anti-American". Some Europeans deserve the label, but very few. Most want to share in a dialogue where they are listened to, especially when they disagree. The crisis is far, far too serious for its terms to be entirely coloured by that convenient, thought-killing smear. The US, I think, will do what it wants anyway. But I don't think it's anti-American to say so. The real anti-Americans - anti-worlders, in fact - are those who don't want a serious discussion.[5] --Zleitzen 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

POV tag on Tourist apartheid

I've been trying to get Beardo to produce counter-sources to the material in the article, but he refuses; he simply insists that there is another position that is not stated, and that the tag must remain there forever until this theoretical other view is documented. Do you have any ideas as to what to do? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, I actually responded before reading your message here. I can see what Beardo means, also he does live in Cuba and is generally a very neutral arbitrator of Cuban articles . But I had a quick look for opposing views myself and struggled. I did ask Beardo myself if he could address the issues with content, but I don't think he was prepared to do that. I'll have another look and see what I can find.--Zleitzen 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We should probably centralize discussion here: Talk:Allegations_of_tourist_apartheid_in_Cuba Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Cubans

Dear Zleitzen - with reference to your comment "Hi Beardo, when writing up a new piece on a Cuban actor - could you add the name to the List of Cubans page under the appropriate headings, that page needs beefing up. Thanks.--Zleitzen 16:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)", I had looked at that page before, and run off. It's got better, but still has a lot of problems. The section on entertainment mixes in musicians (although they also have a separate section), actors and TV personalities. Many of these are based in the US - should they be moved to "Cuban - Americans" ? And what about the actors who are Mexican citizens, appearing in Mexican soap operas ? -- Beardo 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of image

On the Anti Americanism page you deleted an image. I find it interesting that three people all opined that it was a 'better' image than the one you restored; pretty nervy of you to arbitrarily remove the one you did. Also it's a bit odd that you would revert to an image which is an unpaid ad for someone's book. It's unfortunate that a guy got burnt while burning that flag, but you reap what you sow. Tough luck for him. I shall be asking for admins' opinion of the actions you took. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, get an admin to check my actions in removing a picture of a man on fire.--Zleitzen 18:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That excuse for deletion doesn't pass the smell test. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What you created is a picture of fire and a picture of a flag, which is not the same as a picture of a flag burning. I'd like to see the non advertisement picture put back in place. I have a copy of a copyright free version of a man burning an American flag that we could use here (where he's seen actually burning the flag). There is no consensus on your adding this 'picture' and there was no discussion about it. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry about that

zleitzen, sorry i didnt mean to revert, just to add the image, i must have done it absent mindedly --Frogsprog 19:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: US English

But "Globalization" and "Labour" are perfectly compatible if we're using Canadian English. :^) -- WGee 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha, good point! Though I'm pretty sure Venezuelans follow the pattern of other Latin American nationals in using US spelling for translations and so on. I know that central American and Caribbean nations do.--Zleitzen 00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, they do. Sandy 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense; so US English it is. -- WGee 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving pages

It'd be a shame if you left Anti-Americanism because we've had some improvement there recently. I'm sorry if my post showed insensitive wording. Marskell 12:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Users seem to be on totally different wavelengths on that page and I haven't the willingness to continue. I would say though that on a page called Anti-Americanism, your belief that six lines discussing Chomsky means giving a "POV magnet" undue weight is rather like complaining that the Evolution page has too much Darwin.--Zleitzen 13:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

These six lines in which context? In a section with six paragraphs, OK (he isn't the be all and end all on the subject, after all—we don't mention Revel by name). When accompanied by criticism of him, OK. In a section that is keyed to opinions rather than usage, OK. I don't think my wavelength is that hard to work with—if we improved the first two sentences, I'm sure the rest can be worked on.

And listen, this is one of two pages of import (the other is Extraterrestrial life, which is instructive in different ways) that I have watched and actively engaged for my year-and-a-half here. "POV magnet" is more a reference to how others will greet it than a judgement of Chomsky himself. The "Ayatollah of...", for instance, is only going to generate counter name-calling, caveats on top of caveats etc.

Anyhow, no need to go on at length if you'd really rather not work on it. Just saying you don't have to give up. Marskell 14:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Hi,

thanks for putting my edits to the bacardi article back online. I find it very off putting when a wiki admin tells you that its not acceptable but doesn't offering a solution - simpl removes it. Surely the community should be leaning towards editing items rather than the removal of potentially valid information? Nothing would work if the first point of call was the delete button rather than the edit button!

Thanks again - Cuba libre ;)!

I think your additions still need a bit of tweaking and more varied sourcing. Would it be possible for you to take another look at the passages?--Zleitzen 15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I will do. Mr magoo 13:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

"if the Guardian and the US Dept of State are singing from the same hymnsheet then there is no real dispute here." LOL !!! Thanks for the laugh. I just can't figure why they do these things. Sandy 01:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, my watchlist became unmanageable, and the POV wasteland that is the Venezuela articles is not conducive to building good articles. I started a separate account to track Venezuela/Chavez articles, so I don't have to see the POV on my watchlist a gazillion times a day while I try to get some productive work done. Letting you know - write to me on this account for Chavez. SandyG 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifying my message above. Sandy 03:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I'm currently living in London, so if there are any photographs you can think of that you'd like me to take, let me know and I'll see what I can do. The article is good, well on the way to becoming featured. Might be worth nominating it for "Good article", as they can give you some ideas how to improve it. - Francis Tyers · 09:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Francis - if you're anywhere near the Brixton Academy, Notting Hill, Windrush square (Brixton) or any West Indian shop/hairdressers/community centre and you think it looks good then by all means please get a snap. I don't have a digital camera - my scanner never works - and I live in the countryside now! I'd also really like to use some of these pictures [6] or similar. But they're all copywrited.--Zleitzen 10:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those would be awesome. Are there no public domain ones around? I probably won't be around any of those areas for a couple of weeks (I work in north central london), but I'll keep my eye out for West Indian shops. - Francis Tyers · 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Healthcare

Hi, I think that the article could be immensely helped, and less POV'ed by getting rid of the criticism section altogether, with the elements from this section being incorporated into more relevant sections, for instance medical staff to discuss the pay and abundance of doctors (as well as their export), a funding section could incorporate the not totally free nature of the system etc. btw, although I work in france at the minute, my house in London is in Vauxhall-so if you need any Brixton related stuff, pics or whatever, then let me know!Felix-felix 16:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Missile Crisis

Thanks. Yes, I think this article is a good start, but I think it has a much greater potential. There are a lot of key elements not mentioned, and I think there is a slightly biased tone in places. I think, in fact, one of the key lessons of the crisis is that we can never know precisely what people "believe". There are a couple of other examples of assertion along these lines in the text which I may return to at some time. Tfine80 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Alberto Fujimori

As I noted on the Alberto Fujimori talk page, I am confused by your statement, "We can also help Wikipedia by abiding by policy, and stressing these core policies on the talk page, can we not?" Any clarification would be much appreciated. Regards--User:Bdean1963 28 October 2006

Dear User:Zleitzen, thank for your rapid reply and clarification regarding your comments. I appreciate your drawing my attention to WP:BLP and for stressing this policy on the Alberto Fujimori talk page. I agree with you 100% that the Fujimori entry "has numerous unsourced accusations or dubious passages" and that this is indeed unacceptable. However, I feel uncomfortale removing unsourced material as I think that some of the unsourced materials do in fact contribute to a better understanding of the significance of Alberto Fujimori. I trust that your wise intervention will provoke all who edit the Alberto Fujimori entry to follow WP:BLP policy. Regards, User:Bdean1963 28 October 2006

Well, Bdean, you may feel uncomfortable removing unsourced material, but we can guarantee that other people won't. Other users with different viewpoints may come to a different conclusion, that the unsourced material is detrimental to the understanding of the subject. If you believe in the statements, it would be wise if they were not given that opportunity. --Zleitzen 00:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hi, I just started an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil and am trying to get feedback on my edits. Feel free to leave a review or comment. Thanks and bye.--Jersey Devil 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you there?

Hi Zleitzen -- If you are online, could you please come over to the CG Talk page and have a look at a new version that Dasondas and I are feeling rather cheerful about? If you approve it, we will put it into the main article ... -- Polaris999 00:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again -- Just thought that I would mention that the rant you removed from the CG article a few minutes ago was a "cut-and-paste" of the Vargas Llosa article. Thank you for your vigilance! -- Polaris999 02:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Zleitzen -- I was wondering if you might be willing to remove from the sandbox where you were working on the Legacy section , i.e. User:Zleitzen/Legacy, the image Che relief on MININD building.jpg? The reason that I am making this request is that I had promised the photographer who took this picture that it would only appear in the Che Guevara article. -- Polaris999 06:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Polaris.--Zleitzen 07:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks -- Polaris999 08:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

El Jigue

How about rectroactively 'erasing' his views, from the talk pages. Everytime he adds unhelpful conversations? Even if, it doesn't discourage him, continue erasing anyway. Be as stubborn as he's been. GoodDay 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it usually doesn't bother me as one gets used to his ways. And on occasion his comments can be very useful. Though again, I understand the problems with his additions. See my comments at the top of the Cuba page.--Zleitzen 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be allright, if I erased his 'babbling'? Not that, I want to start a squabble with him. I just want to push him into becoming a registered user again. If I could, I'd block each IP address he uses. I don't mean to come across as a vigilante Wikipedian. GoodDay 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Um! I don't think it is a good idea to be honest. I can see where you are coming from, from a position of just noticing his activities. But EJ's contibutions do have a charm over the long term, and as I say - regular users including myself do have a soft spot for his entries - and his knowledge is a major bonus for editors. I have no idea why he doesn't register - just another eccentric EJ quirk! You'd also need to be prepared for an almighty tirade from EJ about wikipedia censorship! Perhaps discuss this with other experienced editors before any further action.--Zleitzen 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I won't wipe out his 'gossiping'. Just bugs me to see him getting away with annoying wrongful (yet non-threatning) usage of the 'talk pages'. Thank you for understanding and responding. GoodDay 00:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen, just out of curiosity what policies has EJ been violating? I've only come into contact with him at CG (and that only recently), yet I haven't noticed anything there that I would remotely consider to be a violation of Wiki policy. Is his activity elsewhere of a substantially different character? Dasondas 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dasondas, EJ's been banned a few times in the past for disruption on the main article space (see [7]) - and now choses not to edit the articles themselves. On various pages he keeps users informed on the latest Cuban news from the grapevine (Cuba being of course a place full of rumour and speculation where there is always an unofficial story). Strictly speaking this is against policy and the talk pages should only contain material about the article. I'd like to believe that EJ could be considered a special case as a regular long term wikipedia character - also in light of his occasionally very helpful and informative comments on the articles themselves. And no pursuasion to register and observe policy has ever worked on EJ! --Zleitzen 02:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you're interested, Zleitzen, there is this thread now at durova's talk page. Dasondas 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your mail. Dasondas 03:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, again Zleitzen. I decided not to complain anymore about 'El Jigue' cluttering up the 'talk pages'. My complaint wasn't about the views/observations (only there location, the 'talk pages'). However the consense seems to be 'leave El Jigues' entries alone, so I will. My views (on how to use the 'talk pages') aren't everyone's views. I accept that. GoodDay 04:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You were within your rights to complain, and you are certainly not the first. However, see what happened the last time his talk page activity was challenged [8]. EJ typically dissmissed the calls as censorship and carried on in earnest!--Zleitzen 04:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Hi Zleitzen, i appreciate that. Thanks. -- Szvest 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

El Jigüe

Hi, I see he has been blocked. I also share your sympathy in this respect; for a long time I have not been involved in the articles he edits, so I don't know which edits did evoke the block. As you are more aware of it and (in case you) disagree with the block, you may report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, if you object to admin actions concerned. I, as a person rather ignorant on Latin American matters, have enjoyed El Jigüe's suggestions/opinions - and wish to have the possibility to meet such a wikipedian in the future as well. Constanz - Talk 18:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I cannot agree with a two-week ban for some vague 'misdeeds' - even arrant vandals are usually not given such punishments here...Constanz - Talk 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the comments by Constanz. -- Polaris999 22:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Side remark: I rarely bother with anything shorter than a month block for vandals with four or more warnings (not for a moment to say that El Jigüe is a vandal, I'm addressing what Constanz said in passing). I've been known to give them a year or more if the account looks to be exclusively or mainly used for vandalism. If other admins are going lighter, I guess some vandals are just unlucky that I get their case. - Jmabel | Talk 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel -- EJ's last act on CG Talk was to post two perfectly coherent and informative answers to queries I had raised there. I am not familiar with what he may have been doing on other pages, but I certainly cannot see any reason why he should have been blocked from the CG Talk page. User:Durova, however, apparently felt that his postings there were so egregious that she placed an IP block on the page -- i.e., 06:04, 9 November 2006 Durova (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Talk:Che Guevara: anonymous IP blogging in violation of WP:NOT [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]). I find this all extremely mystifying, and very contrary to the efforts most of us working on the CG page have made to communicate well and work constructively together even when our perspectives might be markedly different. I thought that the modus operandi we had achieved was very much in keeping with the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Now I don't know what to believe ... -- Polaris999 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I find EJ a very useful person to have around even if he can occasionally be a pain in the butt. Maybe this will give him a couple of weeks to focus on writing his own book. I would certainly not have blocked him for this. - Jmabel | Talk 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, as the admin in question I've stopped by to clarify: I took down the semi-protection from the article talk page shortly after issuing the IP block. I've also offered to reduce the block duration and instructed EJ on how to request another admin's block review. There's some related discussion at my user talk page which you might want to browse. He's decided to sit this one out, but if he changes his mind and decides to accept my offer - or at least stops accusing me of political bias and makes a reasonable counteroffer - he wouldn't need to sit on the sidelines for so long. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 03:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova. It is my personal opinion that although the Cuban government has declared Fidel Castro's health a state secret such a ruling should not apply to Wikipedia. Thus the US government statement, according to Fox News this morning, that Fidel Castro has terminal cancer is worthy of mention. The novel aspect of this latest report is the putative belief of the US government that Castro will not see 2007. El Jigue 11-12-06

Che Guevara article

Responded on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin issue

Hi Zleitzen, I wonder if you could help on a Wikipedia admin issue. I'm not happy with an Administrator on here who is butchering articles without bothering to consult anyone, and replies to complaints with nothing but pompous jargon. Is there a procedure for complaining about an Administrator? Thanks. Rusty2005 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rusty, I had a quick look at the dispute (I presume is was the issue over pics). Some editors and admins are what they call "deletionists", others are "expansionists". The admin appears to be acting according to the instincts of the former group. In the case of pics, one would need to consider the fact that a lot of photos on a page can slow a page down and/or make it very difficult to access for users with slower connections. Therefore the general rule-of-thumb is for a page to carry a limited number of pics. Only pics that are essential to the page tend to survive. It may be worth taking a further look at the guidelines for pics on a page, and if you have a dispute with an individual admin - there are dispute procedures in the help section which give advice on how to proceed. --Zleitzen 08:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zleitzen  :-) Rusty2005 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi Zleitzen -- If you have a chance, I would very much appreciate your taking a look at the RCR article to which I have just added an infobox. I would like to know whether you think that in said infobox I should use his full titles which are "First Vice President of the Council of State and of the Council of Ministers" or whether it is all right to leave the word "First" out of the infobox because it is implied, plus I have included that detail in the first para of the intro section? Thank you -- Polaris999 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)