Talk:José Basulto/Archive 1

This page 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.

Untitled

Before reverting changes by others to the article, please argue your reasons here. Let reason, argument and evidence win.

Re:violations of airspace vs 'entering' airspace. It is a clear case of a violation, please see Brothers to the Rescue and talk pages. Please do not revert to entered. 'violated' is accurate, neutral, and carries more information than 'entered'. Jens Nielsen 08:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So are you going to lodge any actual reason for your summary reverts or just laze on the trail of PatCheng's wikistalking and the word "violations"? 151.205.8.146 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you get yourself a username? And see the talk on the Brothers to the Rescue page, to which I have referred, and where it is discussed at lenght. Jens Nielsen 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No one said that "violations" must be tread over here, but you are making changes completely unrelated to it, including the removal of information which informs the reader. 72.65.80.34 19:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Per a request at WP:RfPP, I've protected this article to prevent further edit-warring. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once you have reached an agreement and protetion is no longer necessary, leave a note on my talk page or request unprotection. Please note that my protecting the current version is not an endorsement of that version--I just protected whatever version it was at when I arrived. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Jensbn requested protection, perhaps now he can provide a reason for his edits. 72.65.80.34 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "violations" is not necessary, in any such context, to inform the reader as to the actions of Hermanos.
As the Hermanos page makes clear, the leaflets were not dropped over the top of Havana but blew into it.
"After the revolution" is redundant and looks bad.
The Contras were most certainly battling the Sandinistas and this is relevant to Basulto's activities.

72.65.80.34 21:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm ready to bring up the matter for the arbitration committee. However, I don't want to take so much trouble for an anon. 72.65.80.34, will you enter arbitration with your real identity? Jens Nielsen 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for arbitration here. You haven't even discussed the edits yet, much less attempted mediation or RfC. 72.65.68.229 17:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the issues are discussed at length at Talk:Brothers to the Rescue, where I've had a third opinion, as you've been told repeatedly. Jens Nielsen 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dishonest; if you moved my comments in an attempt to create an impression of incongruity I must only reemphasize that this concerned only a portion of the edits, and hence reverts, in question. Also, the third opinion was solicited by you alone in the midst of unremitting, and bizarrely inexplicable, hostility to my edits. I did not seek it and no one is bound by it. 72.65.68.229 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Basulto quote

I suggest that the following quote, dated July 5th, 1999, be edited into the article because it is well sourced and because it provides helpful and descriptive information to the reader about the thoughts of Jose Basulto:

" Let me tell you, Brothers to the Rescue has not only be involved in assisting the refugees at sea, by saving their lives. We have also been very helpful by providing the opposition within the Island with an instrument of change, namely non-violence - strategic non-violence. We have been sending training material to the Island on how the people of Cuba can act on their own, oppose the government, and even overthrow it, and create a new government there. This will take time, but I believe we are making headway in the Island with this proposal that we have made. And we have sent tremendous amount of material there, which the opposition has acknowledged as very good material for their intended purposes at this time...."

"First of all, I am a Cuban. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every citizen is allowed to go in and out of his own country freely. So I'm not a foreigner there. And that sovereignty belongs to the people of Cuba, and not to the ruler, Fidel Castro in this case, and I'm not infringing on the sovereignty of my country, namely Cuba, by being there. So I have a right there. Second, if I have any kind of infringement there, perhaps it would be with aerial regulations or something that I may - but that has a civil consequence in a court - there are civil remedies for that type of thing - not a criminal act like the one that took place - an air execution of pilots, which by the way did not go into the Cuban territorial air - waters. So they were murdered in international airspace." [1]

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceHallman (talk • contribs)

It's a good quote but too lengthy for this short article. --72.65.68.229 17:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to have quotes of Basulto here, when relevant. The first paragraph is fine with me, though a bit lengthy, but the second one does not add all that much. How about mentioning somewhere that "Basulto claims that being a Cuban citizen, and Cuban airspace belonging to Cubans, he is in his full right to fly over Cuba." Jens Nielsen 17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This portion of the quote: "Second, if I have any kind of infringement there, perhaps it would be with aerial regulations or something that I may - but that has a civil consequence in a court - there are civil remedies for that type of thing" is a frank admission that Basulto sees his flights through Cuban air space as violating civil Cuban law. That is very relevant I would think. Earlier, he mentions that he thinks that Article 13 from the UN trumps civil Cuban law, but that is an non-standard legal belief, most would agree. BruceHallman 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

72.65.80.34 edits

The word "violations" is not necessary, in any such context, to inform the reader as to the actions of Hermanos.

I Disagree, It is discussed at length at Talk:Brothers to the Rescue.

Same. 72.65.68.229 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As the Hermanos page makes clear, the leaflets were not dropped over the top of Havana but blew into it.

They are biased and what you say refers to a single instance. Read the UN report, where you'll see they were dropped over Havana on various occasions.

I was referring to the Wikipedia page, but there are references to both occurring. Proposal for this point: change to "dropped anti-Fidel Castro leaflets into Cuba". This covers any and every case of proximity to Havana or water demarcation. 72.65.68.229 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"After the revolution" is redundant and looks bad.

OK, replace with "Later"

1 out of 4 Resolved. 72.65.68.229 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Contras were most certainly battling the Sandinistas and this is relevant to Basulto's activities.

Yes, but there is little (if any) connection with Cuba. If people have gaps in their knowledge about the contras, they follow the link. Jens Nielsen 19:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The connection is given in the very comment! The Sandinistas were allied with Castro and Cuba, which gave them material and public support. Do you really wish to deny this obvious reality? If that wasn't the case, it's likely that Basulto would not even have concerned himself with the matter in the first place, yet you are here presenting it as if it is an isolated event in his history unrelated to all other matters. Why do you wish to deny relevant contextual information to the reader in such a short and unelaborated article?

Also, might I request BruceHallman's opinion on these other edits? 72.65.68.229 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am confused just exactly which 'other edits' you are talking about. I started a 'sandbox' page which hopefully we can mutually edit and agree upon to end the 'edit war' and remove the protection of the main page. See: José Basulto sandbox If you could please put the 'other edits' there, we can collaborate and come to agreement. After we agree, the sandbox can be 'cut and paste' migrated to the main article. BruceHallman 21:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to my version so the differences would be made plain, though the diffs don't read correctly to me. 72.65.68.229 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi all: I think that this article ought to be changed to the version at the José Basulto sandbox, because that version doesn't read like an attack piece. This one does. Cheers V. Joe 21:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to explain where the sandbox version differs and each of those differences constitute a superior and more accurate version. Jens Nielsen 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a third opinion, Jensbn, and you didn't even have to solicit it in secret. 72.65.68.229 21:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It can't help but strike me that it looks very much like your version, but let's have him argue his case. Jens Nielsen 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It should look like my version, though I wouldn't necessarily expect an in-depth explanation for his input, as it's not likely other people are going to have any sort of fascination with this article and its minor edits. 72.65.68.229 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

José Basulto sandbox

As you are aware, this article is presently protected, pending negotiation of an end to the edit war. I call you attention to the José Basulto sandbox page which I propose as a mutually acceptable compromise of our differences, which, if agreed, can form the basis of the truce. If interested, you are welcome to edit and talk towards this settlement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceHallman (talk • contribs)

This is much more workable, yes. I think it is tendentious to say that they were attempting to "provoke" the Cuban government based on the estimation of an observer who is critical of the group, though it is possible that an admission by the group or a member could be found. I'm not sure where you saw that the Raul material was from 1991 either. There are also a couple of minor fixes needed related to spelling and such. 141.153.90.177 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jose Pertierra is publically considered an expert, and he described the flights as designed to provoke. Also, the Basulto statement to 'overthrow' can only be interpreted as intent to provoke. In other words, my edit meets WP:V BruceHallman 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Experts" can be consulted to resolve contentious issues, but not at the expense of WP:NPOV. Pertierra is a member of a Cuban-American group which directly differs with Hermanos in beliefs, policy, and strategy. He thus has an interest, in the course of direct criticisms of their actions, to portray their motives in suspect ways which the group does not attribute to their actions. Please find a source which shows Hermanos in some fashion acknowledging a strategy to "provoke" the Cuban government, or else it needs reworded to show that it is merely one interpretation of the facts.

Also, whether Hermanos intends to "overthrow" Castro (which they would certainly like to see happen), this does not mean that their tactics necessitate forcing any pretextual strategy, i.e. to "provoke" the government. That is a separate, but related, issue. 141.153.90.177 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is just so many Basulto actions that add up to the appearance of provocation, that I believe it is neutral to include the word provocation, regardless of Basulto denying such. BruceHallman 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with the analysis in question but the article should not merely reflect our view at the expense of others. It's extremely easy to find examples where Basulto attributes their actions to a desire to demonstrate that resistance to the government is possible, but it does not necessarily follow that they explicitly desire that the government react in kind, for whatever reason. That may be a particular interpretation of events, but as it stands that is all it is. 141.153.90.177 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I welcome other editors to edit in 'other views' (which meet WP:V, WP:NPOV AND WP:NOR) about this. In the 'oral history' given by José Basulto, he flat out says that he understands there are likely consequences from unauthorized entrances into Cuban airspace. His complaint was just that the consequences should be determined in civil court, not through the use of military shoot downs. I just don't see how repeatedly entering unauthorized airspace, even if it is called civil disobedience (knowing there would likely be consequences) cannot be described as 'provocative'. Also, the timing, on the day of Concillo Cubana meeting was not a coincidence, Basulto acknowledges this in his 'oral history'. Basulto also acknowledges that Castro would likely be sensitive about overflights on that day. Also, I have seen speculation, that Basulto was well aware of the USA domestic politics brewing at that time relative to the difficulty in the passage of the Helms Burton Act, and provoking a hostile Cuban reaction at that moment in time proved very helpful getting that legislation passed. BruceHallman 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Any other comments on José Basulto sandbox? BruceHallman 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This article has been protected for weeks and week and weeks, and there has been no discussion for about four weeks. Long past time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations

There are many statements that are uncredited, communicating supposed pro-U.S. activities. Very Easy to spot, it appears this page is largely inactive (As of 19.10.13)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on José Basulto. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)