Talk:Brothers to the Rescue

Raul Castro Tape Recording
The front page of El Nuevo Herald on Sunday (August 20th, 2006) shows Raul Castro on the cover and describes how he premeditaded the downing of the two planes. El Nuevo Herald obtained an unedited audio tape of a meeting in which Raul Castro discusses the fate of the planes. http://www.miami.com/mld/elnuevo/15315496.htm Can someone please update the article accordingly? Currently the article only appears on the Spanish-language version of the Miami Herald.

Recent edits
Hello, the front page of El Nuevo Herald on Sunday (August 20th, 2006) shows Raul Castro on the cover and describes how he premeditaded the downing of the two planes. http://www.miami.com/mld/elnuevo/15315496.htm Can someone please update the article accordingly? Currently the article only appears on the Spanish-language version of the Miami Herald.

User Tjive did apparently not believe the claim that the airplanes had violated the airspace of Cuba and in response to his repeated reverts, I have upgraded the article. This information should suffice for a start. I will add more information later. Jens Nielsen 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC).
 * I have worded this article carefully, and believe it to be accurate. If you disagree, please argue your point here before editing - it is considered bad wikiquette to bypass the talk page. It seems to me beyond doubt that we are talking about violations of airspace here, as it would be if Cuban airplanes would enter US airspace without explicit permission. Jens Nielsen 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me, based on your contributions list (which could be misleading) that you are relatively new to the processes of Wikipedia and "Wikiquette" yourself. The fact is that most edits and reverts aren't discussed unless there is a determined and ongoing but (at least ostensibly) legitimate dispute over something.  I did not perceive my edit to be altogether significant or controversial and there is no particular requirement to discuss it per se.  Please don't bring process into the question until you have at least asked whether I can speak on the question to begin with.


 * Personal insinuations regarding this edit hopefully resolved, I do find the word "violations" rather troubling in this context. We are speaking about a civilian humanitarian assistance group (albeit with an admitted political agenda).  It appears (despite my earlier perception) that the group did not even make a habit of overflying ground and that the "pamphlets" were blown inland.  Thus, saying of the pamphlets that they were dropped "over Havana" is either astonishingly pedantic (in the sense that they were dropped over any point below their elevation) or extremely misleading.  That this is all being treated as an atrocity is astonishing to me.


 * This means that "violations" constituted of broaching an invisible demarcation in the water. There is no insinuation in the report that these planes were acting threateningly, were violent, or were threatening violence.  This was not a military operation enacted by one country in order to molest another country's sovereignty and provoke a response.  Therefore I changed references to "violations" to the planes "entering" territory where not being specifically attributed to one party--either the report, the Cuban government, or an American administration.  --TJive 13:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, if cuban airplanes would enter US airspace without permission, it would be (justly) considered a violation of the airspace, regardless of whether Basulto's intentions were benevolent or aggressive. It does not matter whether you think or I think they violated the airspace. If they were forbidden entry by Cuba for whatever reasons, fair or unfair, entering is a violation. They were explicitly warned that they might be shot down and were definitely not welcome. Even mainstream US (a hostile power) news sources refer to them as violations, as does UN sources. It astounds me that you can then claim it not to be. Jens Nielsen 15:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I am sure there is offical treaty definitions somewhere as to what constitutes violations of airspace, but I dont see that as necessary. A simple google search reveals that violations need not involve military aircraft or any hostile intentions. Jens Nielsen 11:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "[I]t would be (justly) considered" by whom? I have left this attribution to those who characterize it thusly; what exactly is wrong with that?  --TJive 15:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC). I don't see the relevance of your comment Jens Nielsen 09:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC).


 * 'violation' of airspace, compared to 'entering airspace' carries more information, namely that the act of entering was unwelcome. That information is accurate and relevant, and Tjive's removal of it reduces the value of the article. Jens Nielsen 09:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The latest attempt by Tjive was to change 'The group has violated Cuban territorial airspace on numerous occasions' to 'The Cuban government has accused the group of repeatedly violating its territorial sovereignty '. The edit removes information from the article, and I have therefore reverted it. 'Accused' removes the information that it was not just an accusation, but that it is substantiated and indeed, accurate. Attributing the claim to the Cuban government, a disreputable source, is unhelpful when the claim can be established from more credible sources. Jens Nielsen 11:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A few points justifying my latest revert (whatever is not discussed already). Stating that ICAO did not believe US+Cuban position data would 'suffice' is plain wrong, as would have been obvious to anyone reading the report. They found the disagreements between US and Cuban data so great they did not trust any of them. The court data from later years event suggest that the Cubans might have been right from the start. To err on the safe side, I did not draw that conclusion, though it is credible. Jens Nielsen 15:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The semantic difference posed here is negligible. That they did not "suffice" for data from either country does not imply that one or the other is incredulous in particular, whereas "did not believe" insinuates this disregard as their position prima facie, which has not been demonstrated and is not even excluded in my word choice.


 * ''To err on the safe side, I did not draw that conclusion


 * Why is it your conclusion to draw? --TJive 15:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

'information did not suffice' implies the amount of information is the issue. 'did not believe information' is clearly different, it is not the amount, but the quality of information that is the issue, as was clearly the case and is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the ICAO source. Tjive's edit therefore distorts the information, and as the user is obviously has not bothered to read the sources, I find it hard to consider it as anything but a bad faith edit. Jens Nielsen 09:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tjive reverted my text that Basulto was warned of the possibility of being 'shot down' to "Basulto was warned by an FAA official about the possibility of military interception". Again, it is a case of removing information from the article. 'Military interception' is ambiguous, it could mean several things apart form being shot down. If you read the source, it is clear that Basulto was warned with being 'shot down', a much more powerful warning than a vague reference to 'interception'. Jens Nielsen 12:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm consolidating these edits rather than attempting to follow several separate sections which only involve the same two users at the moment. This is so I do not get confused, and you can not claim to have missed my remarks.  First of all, stop deleting talk comments.  In ordinary circumstances (not involving defamatory information, blanking, hate speech, etc.) this is considered vandalism.  You do not guard this talk page, and it is not your decision to determine what is relevant or not, particularly as the main party to a dispute.


 * ''I don't see the relevance of your comment


 * The claim of "violations" can very well be consolidated in the intro. to all of the negative (source) charges levied against the organization by the same entity, as it is discussed and contextualized further in the next section in any case. As for the Cuban government being a disreputable source, if further evidence is said by you to prove their case then wouldn't this bring them into repute?  This is irrelevant as all that is being established is a claim.


 * '' ' information did not suffice' implies the amount of information is the issue


 * It implies no such thing, and states only that the organization did not consider this evidence adequate to determine the facts of the matter (therefore they conducted more research). This, far from being a matter of "bad faith", is a rather banal semantic edit as "believe" attributes inappropriate personal characteristics to the conduct of research for the report.  Several words are preferable here in rewording--"suffice", "accept", "inadequate", etc.--which do not bring any more connotations than that which they literally say.


 * ''it is a case of removing information from the article


 * It is a case of nothing more than attempting to steer the article away from linguistic redundancy. There were already several instances of referring to a "shootdown" or the planes having been "shot down", etc.  I attempted to change one and you accuse me of malign intentions.  However, I agree in this instance it is ambiguous so I will change it.  --TJive 16:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * dictionary definition: sufficient


 * adj : of a quantity that can fulfill a need or requirement but without being abundant; "sufficient food"

Have you read the source yet? The sources contradicted each other so much that they decided not to use it. A clear quality problem, thus. If you want to replace 'believe' with something else, like 'found', or 'concluded', go ahead. Jens Nielsen 05:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion
Saw this on the 3rd opinion page.

"I am in a dispute with another user over whether to label a particular instance of an incursion into a country's airspace as a violation."

Yes. As per both FAA and DOD procedure, that would be considered a violation of airspace. Intent is not a factor when referring to airspace violations as per the ADZ guidelines of the southern US, Cuban airspace holds a similar standing (based on anecdotal evidence from pilots who've made the trip.) Cheers., now removing from 3rd opinion list. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  07:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Double notes problem
Some sources are referred to twice. This messes up the references which now don't appear correctly. Needs fixing. Jens Nielsen 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this group of Cubans being treated as if they are outlaws and criminals, and even terrorists! This does not make sense to me. This organization saved many lives. Contrarrevolucionario

Summary reverts
The same question applies here as at José Basulto. Are you going to provide a rationale for reverting the deletion of POV forks and grammar fixes or simply pretend that your insistence on the word "violations" justifies summary reverts of material unrelated to it? 151.205.8.146 21:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war
Could we please discuss the specifics of the contentions about the edits? A back and forth, edit war serves no ones interests that I can see. BruceHallman 15:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Violations of airspace? Or simply 'entering' ?
The many attempt by various anons and others to change 'The group has violated Cuban territorial airspace on numerous occasions' to 'The Cuban government has accused the group of repeatedly violating its territorial sovereignty ' reduce the quality of the article. These edit removes information from the article, and I have therefore reverted it. 'Accused' removes the information that it was not just an accusation, but that it is substantiated and indeed, accurate (and in fact not even officially disputed). Attributing the claim to the Cuban government, a disreputable source, is unhelpful when the claim can be established from more credible sources.

If Cuban airplanes would enter US airspace without permission, it would be (justly) considered a violation of US airspace, regardless of whether the pilot's intentions were benevolent or aggressive. It does not matter who thinks or claims they violated the airspace. If they were forbidden entry by Cuba for whatever reasons, fair or unfair, entering is a violation. They were explicitly warned that they might be shot down and were definitely not welcome. Even mainstream US (a hostile power) news sources refer to them as violations, as does UN sources, and the requested third opinion of a military expert wikipedian (see above) confirms that it is indeed a case of violation of airspace.

Jens Nielsen 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact of entering Cuban airspace is not questioned. The dispute concerns essentially the entitlement to enter the airspace.  Apparently, advocates for Brothers to the Rescue believe that because their incursions are well intentioned that they have a right to enter Cuban airspace, therefore the word 'violation' is inaccurate.  In essence this requires the premise that there is not Cuban sovereignty of Cuban airspace. I see this as a valid, yet non-neutral POV position.  BruceHallman 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the word 'incursion' might be a mutually acceptable compromise? BruceHallman 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept "incursions", "unauthorized entries", and so forth. Jensbn has simply been insisting on one singular term that I find problematic, and I fear that after so long of an edit war that he will not back down.  --TJive 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why make a compromise on accuracy? Isn't it clear that Tjive et. al. are merely twisting the facts to conform to their ideological perspectives? In fact you'd be hard pushed to find an edit of Tjive that is not merely POV tweaking. Jens Nielsen 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * More personal comments, very little topical substance. --TJive 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that this is approaching the level almost of original research. Edits can be made with this understanding in mind but I'm not quite sure the argument has been explicitly leveled by the group in question; hence it remains the observation of editors.  My objection remains in regard to the word "violations" itself.  Using the verb form of "violate" looks bad and there is no reason, beyond saving face in edit wars, to not change it to "incursions" or something similar as suggested here.  I encourage Jensbn to consider compromise alternatives to resolve this issue rather than disregard alternate opinons.  --TJive 22:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's Absurd. It is referred to as 'violation' by UN, in US mainstream press, as well as in US court opinion, as I've argued before. No need to change it.Jens Nielsen 06:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Where have I challenged the fact that the word "violation" appears anywhere? So do the words "incursion", "entry", and so forth.  This is only a half-argument.


 * By entering Cuban airspace, an unauthorized flight commits (what the organizations in question refer to as) a "violation" (noun), but in the course of the action they are not merely violating - this completely slurs the entire issue of the circumstances of the actions (i.e. proximity and intent) and the group's perspective on them (they are serving a humanitarian purpose and disregard the government's claims). As an example of the use of a compromise term, Brothers to the Rescue could be said to have "made repeated incursions into Cuban air space" whereby the reader is informed of the same exact thing!


 * Let me ask you something. BruceHallman appears to support such a compromise; he proposed this particular one.  I support it as well.  The question posed is not "should we change it, Jensbn", as you are not a lord or sole determiner of this article's contents, it is instead "why do you object to the proposed change"?  So far you have not answered that question.
 * same applies to you: Why make such a fuss over a single word?Jens Nielsen


 * I don't quite get what your point is here. You have made repeated attempts to impugn my character and behavior here in the course of editing, completely disregarding most of my edits, summarily reverting some of them, which nobody else has contested in any fashion.  I have not seen fit to continually respond in kind, because I believe content should take priority over petty character issues.  Why do you doggedly insist on this campaign and refusing any compromise opportunity to close this matter?  --TJive 06:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I favor the word 'violation'. My reasoning is that, yes, perspective matters.  And in Wikipedia the perspective and laws of the sovereign government should be given precedence.   BruceHallman 13:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * TJive, you mentioned 'humanitarian purpose' but is there a reason you neglected to mention the dropping of anti-Castro campaign leaflets. Political campaigning is illegal in Cuba.  BruceHallman 13:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you accept "incursions" as a compromise? Yes or no.  It was your proposal.  --TJive 23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would need to see it in the context of the proposed paragraph to answer that question. BruceHallman 03:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why incursion is any better, since it less clearly conveys that fact that the act was explicitly forbidden. You are welcome to suggest a different compromise, if you can think of one. Jens Nielsen 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only is it obvious already from the context of the phrase, but simply saying "unauthorized incursions" or "unauthorized entries" does exactly the same. 72.65.68.229 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget about it, the term is "violate". I can't believe that this is an issue now, let alone has been festering for months. "Violate" is the particular aviation term used in such cases regardless of the surrounding context. None of the arguments by Tjive (and IP aliases) attempting to avoid this word hold much water. If the late Mother Teresa had piloted a plane over Calcutta dispensing gifts and goodies to the poor unauthorised, she would still have been arrested for offences described as "violating airspace". Move on.--Zleitzen 13:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody has challenged the relevance of the terms in question or has argued that they do not appear in sourcing (note that this applies as well to others). The distinction has already been made, linguistically, between the appropriateness of "violate" in the verb form versus the the noun, e.g. "committing a violation".  The article(s), as Jensbn would have it, have Brothers to the Rescue going around "violating" with their planes.  This is shoddy work, and it can be better written.  The problem is that any attempt to reword it is summarily reverted (by him) on the basis of who has done the work.  If you need evidence for that, please take a detailed look through the diffs in the history (as well as the pages for Basulto and the Cuban Five); you will see innumerable examples of his reverts owing nothing to this particular dispute and accepted only begrudgingly.  151.205.36.69 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see on this page, you've been in favour of "been accused of repeatedly violating Cuban airspace" against "group has repeatedly violated Cuban airspace". It's a minor difference. But no one accused the Cuban five of violating Cuban airspace. They did violate Cuban airspace, (by their own admission and the analysis of every source including the FBI). There is no need for a rewrite and certainly not for a protracted edit war. When Korea beat Togo 2-1 yesterday, no one accused them of doing so, it was an undisputed fact. Just as "group has repeatedly violated Cuban airspace" is an undisputed fact. I don't understand why there is an issue here.--Zleitzen 15:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of the wording that appears here presently. Thanks.  151.205.36.69 15:55, 14 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. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed wording of introduction
I propose the following as the intro:


 * Brothers to the Rescue (Spanish: Hermanos al Rescate) is a Miami-based organization headed by José Basulto. Formed by Cuban exiles, the group is widely known for its opposition to Cuban President Fidel Castro. The group formed in 1991 and describes itself as a humanitarian organization aiming to assist and rescue raft refugees emigrating from Cuba and to "support the efforts of the Cuban people to free themselves from dictatorship through the use of active nonviolence". In the course of many flights throughout the early 1990s, the group's planes made repeated incursions into Cuban territory. While these were condemned as airspace violations, Brothers to the Rescue believes that this constitutes legitimate resistance against the government. The Cuban government accuses them of involvement in "terrorist acts" and in 1996, the Cuban Air Force shot down two Brothers to the Rescue planes, leading to international condemnation.

Please consider it. 151.205.36.69 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

'Condemned' is not precise. It was described as violations by many who did not condemn the acts. Consider my amended compromise:


 * Brothers to the Rescue (Spanish: Hermanos al Rescate) is a Miami-based organization headed by José Basulto. Formed by Cuban exiles, the group is widely known for its opposition to Cuban President Fidel Castro. The group formed in 1991 and describes itself as a humanitarian organization aiming to assist and rescue raft refugees emigrating from Cuba and to "support the efforts of the Cuban people to free themselves from dictatorship through the use of active nonviolence" . The Cuban government on the other hand accuses them of involvement in terrorist acts . In the course of many flights throughout the early 1990s, the group's planes made repeated incursions into Cuban territory. While these were widely considered airspace violations, Brothers to the Rescue believes that these were acts of legitimate resistance against the government. In 1996, ignoring a final warning by Cuba, two Brothers to the Rescue planes were shot down by the Cuban Air Force, leading to international condemnation.

Jens Nielsen 10:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that. I am not partial to "condemned" in that context. In fact you may find that there are still better alternatives, such as "designated", but regardless I do not find anything apparently wrong with this version. 151.205.52.68 18:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus seems to have been reached on this article and possibly others. Perhaps this one should see unprotection?  151.205.52.160 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Shot down over international waters?
There seem to be some confusion over the topic of the planes being over international waters or not. Here are the facts:


 * 1) The planes did enter Cuban airspace, as is also stated in the ICAO report and, well, just about any source. U.S. radar data put him 1.7 miles into Cuban territory.
 * 2) The planes were shot down upon their return from their mission. Whether that occurred in international airspace or Cuban airspace is disputed. As is explained in the article, US radar data put them well outside Cuban airspace, Cuban data inside Cuban airspace, and combined data from two civilian vessels just outside Cuban Airspace. At the time, the ICAO commission found the data irreconcilable, but chose to find the fishing boat data "most reliable", but refrained from stating it as an actual fact. Since then, testimony from the Cuban Five trial has disputed that too, in support of the Cuban data. The Cuban view here is quite interesting. In a response to the security council resolution, they claim that United States only cooperated grudgingly with the investigation, causing numerous delays, were particularly slow in providing data on position of the aircraft, that the US provided record of radio communications had six minutes of communication omitted, and that US radar data from the nearest radar station had simply been deleted. This may well be true, but we'll probably never know the final answer.

Claiming they were shot down over international waters for a fact is dubious at least, and distorts the facts even more when fact #1 is not mentioned. The events are serious enough as they are, overdramatizing them serves only propaganda purposes. Jens Nielsen 07:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Roque and the dates
Someone familiar please address this: "Juan Pablo Roque, unexpectedly left on February 26, 1996, the day before the two planes were shot down" then it says the shootdown wsa on Feb 24. So it should read either "Juan Pablo Roque, unexpectedly left on February 23, 1996, the day before the two planes were shot down" or "Juan Pablo Roque, unexpectedly left on February 26, 1996, the day after the two planes were shot down". Also the Roques part should be moved to after the shootdown part as it references the shootdown. --Justanother 04:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * correct, thanks, and fixed. Jens Nielsen 18:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(Parts of) This article was (were) written by a bunch of commies.
Succubus MacAstaroth 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Article needs?
What do people feel this article needs to be improved further? I would like to assist in whatever way I can to help move it further up the status ladder. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am looking to add content from a letter before the UN on the group by the Ambassador from Cuba. It details what Cuba states are incidents related to the group occuring. The source is:, any questions or comments? --SevenOfDiamonds 14:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There ought to be more information on the individual members of the group and perhaps more detailed information on their activities. I'm sure there is loads of interesting information from the court documents relating to the Cuban five trials, and it would not be wrong to add a little more information on the relation between BTTR and the Cuban Five in this article. As a last note, I think the relation between the incident and the Helms Burton Act should be further stressed here. Jens Nielsen 08:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

GA sweeps (delisted)
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of May 12, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1) The article contains a lot of controversal statements that need good sources. However inline citations are sparse and there are a number of 'fact' tags. In addition the article itself is marked with 'refimprove' tag.

2) The lead is not a summary of the article, because it contains information not mentioned in the main text.

Ruslik (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Still needs a lot of work. --John (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

DiscoveryID
the show "Who did I merry?" covers everything well after It may give some insight to those who don't know the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.144.252 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Undisputed
We twice say that the violation of Cuban airspace is "undisputed" and "beyond question". This does not really sound encyclopedic and later text seems to indicate U.S. radar has a different opinion. I think we can scratch the "It is beyond question" bit, and update the "undisputed" bit to "ICAO determined" -- Bertrc (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this statement about the use of terms "undisputed" and "beyond question". These are not objective terms. Additionally, there is no need to repeat what was stated previously in the paragraph, "Afterwards, Basulto trespassed into Cuban airspace, still heading east, for less than 45 seconds." It is redundant, and connotes opinion and argument. Oteta (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the introduction
The item above about the delisting says that "2) The lead is not a summary of the article, because it contains information not mentioned in the main text."

The intro needs info about Roque. Oteta (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Cuban Five / Wasp network
I believe the article needs mention of these individuals as well. Proposed wording: Roque and the Wasp network Brothers to the Rescue (BTR) was also infiltrated by the Wasp network (citation from that article) Oteta (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism and criminality allegations
The sentence in the Introduction describing the organization began with a reasonable summary of what it claims to do, but then continued:
 * but in fact they are widely known for sponsoring terror attacks both with their own organization platform and through fundraising for criminal organizations of Cuban Americans living in Florida.

This not only sounds NPOV but is presented with no support, as the only reference on the sentence is the group's own website, where (not surprisingly) there is no mention of these alleged activities. If the accusations were in an appropriate section or sentence of their own, they might well just be worth a tag, but the wording and placement are so strongly indicative of vandalism or edit-warring that I'm deleting them. --Thnidu (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Brothers to the Rescue. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051225171627/http://www.hermanos.org:80/Background%20and%20Information.htm to http://www.hermanos.org/Background%20and%20Information.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130407004204/http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/background.html to http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/background.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926000735/http://www.cubasolidarity.net/planes2.html to http://www.cubasolidarity.net/planes2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060310093618/http://ssdc.ucsd.edu:80/news/notisur/h96/notisur.19960301.html to http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/news/notisur/h96/notisur.19960301.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050401233248/http://www.hermanos.org:80/ to http://www.hermanos.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706074146/http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/99eng/Merits/Cuba11.589.htm to http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/99eng/Merits/Cuba11.589.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

CIA connections and narcotics trafficking
There are many article that link Brothers to the Rescue with terrorists Felix Gomez, The Contras and narcotics trafficking

why is this not mentioned in the article?

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/basulto.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.56.53 (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)