Talk:Cubana de Aviación Flight 455/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Starting discussion

The goal of this article is of course to report facts as objective as possible about this plane crash. I hope the discussion remains civil and NPOV. Ze miguel 14:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of the questions I have tried to address are the uncertainties involved as well as the political motivations behind the revival of interest in this matter (El Jigüe, 10/15/2005)

OK I see what your viewpoint is. That is fine with me, however I would like to point you to this policy document, which states that articles on wikipedia should always be presented from a neutral point of view, along with proof of the statements. So I understand the statements you made, but I think you should support them with facts. Furthermore, I don't think such statements should be placed in the article header, but should be put in the Political Implications section. The header section should be used for a short summary of the article (3 paragraphs maximum). Thank you very much. Ze miguel 15:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Miguel vea las referencias incluidas e.g. [1] es muy possible que todo esto fuera un extension de la guerra fria, y es cierto que los encargados de los botes pesqueros cubanos buscaba algo mas que peces xe xe

Anyway given the circumstance I think the way I modified the blank statements gives the correct degree of neutral impartiality required; and of course my contributions are heavily documented. You might read [2] to get a feel for the context of those times (El Jigüe, 10/15/2005)

El Jigüe, you are not being neutral at all. All the edits you have made are heavily POV. This is quite unfortunate. Ze miguel 18:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Miguel That is a most interesting charge since I took the data on the passenger list from a Cuban Government source. Perhaps it would be more productive, instead of issuing blank non-specific condemnation if you addressed the points that you feel demonstrate bias. (El Jigüe, 10/26/2005)

I'm not sure if what I'm going to post belongs here, but I'll post it, and you can tell me where it should go. Basically this is sharing some other things that are not addressed in the article. Were the 24 members of the fencing team actually fencers on the team? According to a friend of the family of ours, who lives in Cuba, he never recognized any of those names as any of the actual members of the national team. He was, however, a fencer in the national circuit and knew, according to him, every one who competed. Has anyone ever actually verified the participation of those young men, other than the Cuban Government? (Jhaerlyn, 02/18/2007)

Available documents

Report from Venezuela government (I think): http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/belligerence/caso-avion-cubano.pdf and 24 annexes (in the same directory)

Chronology from the Cuban government: http://www.ain.cubaweb.cu/2005/mayo/31cmcronologia.htm

CIA and FBI documents on the case obtained in 2005 through the FOIA: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/index.htm Ze miguel 14:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Miguel:

Everything is relative, one could also view your original post as a following the Havana line far too closely. For instance it: concentrates on the Guyanese medical students, and does not mention North Korean or Cuban officials; places the events without the context of the Castro initiated destabilization efforts to overthrow the democratically elected and democratically functioning Venezuelan government; ignores the revenge actions of the Castro government in reference to Bolivia as described in citations

You presume to ignore http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/belligerence/caso-avion-cubano.pdf which cites Castro's improper demand to influence the trial and in which he calls the Venezuelan COPEY government a gang of christian-democrats......

You do not mention the National Security Archives, is a private left of center organization that presents xerox copies selectively retrieved sources, and the statements from this source rely on such things as "a confidential source "all but admitted that Posada and [Orlando] Bosch had engineered the bombing of the airline." "

An anonymous source who "All but admitted" does not exactly constitute proof, does it now.... (El Jigüe, 10/17/2005)

El Jigüe,

As a precision, I am not Cuban, nor do I have any personal interest in this subject. I fully agree with you that one must be very careful not to state as facts things that are carefully-built propaganda. The whole purpose of the Wikipedia is actually that. Now to address your points:

The article is about Flight 455. We should not mention things that are unrelated, such as destabilization attempts on the Venezuela government, or for instance Operation Condor. These points should be detailed in the pages devoted to them. Only things specific to this subject should be detailed, although links can be provided to other pages when the subject is mentionned.

One should not be concerned with the political leaning of the National Security Archives. If this is a concern, then the origin of the document should be mentionned, with a link to the NSA article. Then, in that article, discussion about the political leaning of this organization is certainly valuable. What is important, though, is the documents themselves, which are from the FBI and the CIA, and I think it makes them very valuable.

Something very important: the article should only state as facts things that have been proven, such as the number of dead, the trials, or the affiliation of Posada with DISIP. Allegations should be stated as such. For example: the Cuban government has accused the USA of being behind the attack. Or: Anti-Castro organizations think that Castro may have performed the attack himself. When it is not proven, it should always be stated like that.

If you need more information about this, I invite you to consult Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View. It is an official Wikipedia policy on how articles should be written not to favor a given pro- or anti- point of view, but remain neutral and provide factual information.

Best regards. Ze miguel 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Miguel:

Hmmmmmmmmm I still have quibbles (1): that when the "National" Security Archives (a private left leaning organisation), requests a document it is a selection from a pool of other documents, and each document are usually selectively blacked ("to protect the innocent");(2) during the whole process Castro was exerting pressure on the Venezuelan government, a thing to be taken most seriously since he has already set up a mini-invasion of Venezuela; (3) context is important what if one mentions the Lusitania tragedy without mentioning WWI, one would get a different impression of events; (4) there is no doubt (i took that list, see reference, from one of Castro's sites) that there were senior North Korean cultural attaches and Cuban government officials who held high positions in the trawler fleet that spied on Venezuela and at least once were shelled by Venezuelan naval forces. What I have not yet tracked down the source that reports the athletes were dressed in their Cuban Armed Forces uniforms. (El Jigüe, 10/17/2005)

El Jigüe, that's not the point. You may of course have an opinion on the case. I also have mine, which is different. But what is important is that our personal opinions are not reflected in the article, and that it remains neutral. If you agree on this, then the rest is easy. Your latest edit "Besides the crash was at sea and it is not clear how such evidence was gathered. Or perhaps it is merely testimony." is speculative, you don't have any proof of that. Ze miguel 21:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I reformatted and moved your comments, in order to set a neutral point of view in the article. I hope this is ok. Ze miguel 09:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cuba-CARICOM meeting this week

Castro due this week for summit: Daily Nation (Barbados) - (December 05th, 2005)

New article (See link above). It is suspected Fidel Castro will this seek the assistance of other Caribbean states for fostering a resolution to the Luis Posada Carilles situation. CaribDigita 18:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice find. Would you please report on the conclusions of the meeting after it's concluded ? -- Ze miguel 19:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There will be tons of information about it on most of the media sites in the Anglophone Caribbean, and from CARICOM which always issues an official conference communique.

CARICOM-Cuba summit begins in Barbados this week CaribDigita 02:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a pity Chavez is not around, since it is Venezuela which is supposed to judge Posada. -- Ze miguel 09:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

History in the making: I should probably have set aside time to update this myself however these newspaper links are tough to find after approx. 3 days, (based on the structure of the website), so I'm merely chaching the links here for right now.

Leaders pay respects to crash victims: (December 9th, 2005) - Barbados Nation News

Sunset ceremony at Paynes Bay Monument: (December 9th, 2005) - Barbados Advocate

... Cuba the focus of attention as Caribbean leaders meet in Barbados: (December 8th, 2005) - The Jamaica Observer Newspaper

Cuba's future in CARICOM:(December 9th, 2005) - The Caribbean Media Corporation (VIDEO) w/ Fidel

I added a new paragraph to the article, mentionning CARICOM. -- Ze miguel 13:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed

The article has numerous error, such as the US know of bombing in advance. An attempt to correct this was made but reverted without explanation. If no attempt regarding exaplantion is made, then the prior version will be reverted.[3]Ultramarine 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead make my dayEsmehwp 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

you can put up tags, you can put in your own comments + sources but because you are biased, ideological, and a US supremesist, you wont be allowed to delete any thing in articles criticising USA.Esmehwp 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This was removed without explanation "However, Posada stopped being a CIA agent in 1974, but there remained "occasional contact" until June 1976, a few months before the bombing. CIA had concrete advance intelligence, as early as June 1976, on plans by Cuban exile terrorist groups (but not who or when) to bomb a Cubana airliner. The FBI's attache in Caracas had multiple contacts with one of the Venezuelans who placed the bomb on the plane, and provided him with a visa to the U.S. five days before the bombing, despite suspicions that he was engaged in terrorist activities at the direction of Luis Posada Carriles.^[1]"Ultramarine 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this addition is fair, and I checked the source which supports the claim. So, with some minor tweaks, I added it back, and removed the POV tag. If there are any issues about this addition, I'd be happy to talk about it, and abide by consensus.Giovanni33 02:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The text claims that the CIA had advance knowledge of the bombing, citing ultimately this soruce, [4], which is incorrect, the CIA did not who or when..Ultramarine 05:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Awful sources

Okay, the citing of online commentaries and editorials from high-bias ultraleftist blog sites is making this article look really infantile, and far from encyclopedic. This has gotta end. Did the CIA bomb that plane? Maybe, but citing this and this as though they were authoritative sources draws suspicion over the whole article. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Eric (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sunday at 2pm Barbados' national broadcaster CBC is going show a rundown of events

On Sunday 2 October (at 2PM U.S. EST) the National Broadcaster of Barbados (the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation) is going to aire a documentary of the Cubana disaster as it is known to have occurred. The free online feed is at ([5]) CaribDigita (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Possible" CIA Knowledge?

Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but don't the declassified archives and transcripts quoted in that very section prove that the CIA and FBI DID in fact know about it? Is there any reason at all to keep the word 'possible' in there except to make the US look better? --Baligant

CIA foreknowledge is an undisputed fact. Academic Peter Kornbluh makes the case pretty clearly based on declassified material from the CIA itself: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB202/index.htm. The article should be changed accordingly.68.193.166.17 (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Crash

" ... it appears that the pilot turned the craft ... towards the Caribbean Sea off porters St James ... " On-line maps show "Porters" on the island of Barbados, but there doesn't seem to be a "St James" ... the latter appears to be a parish taking in Porters. So should the extract be " ... it appears that the pilot turned the craft ... towards the Caribbean Sea off Porters (parish of St James) ... "?

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cubana de Aviación Flight 455. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

^ CIA and FBI Documents Detail Career in International Terrorism; Connection to U.S.

[posada-1] CIA and FBI Documents Detail Career in International Terrorism; Connection to U.S.

[1]