Talk:Cuban Five/Archive 1

Top
See

Andy, I feel there are a few things wrong with your most recent additions.

This article is about the Cuban 5, and their trial.

Orlando Bosch had nothing to do with the charges made against them. The bombing of the Hotel by the Salvadoran had nothing to do with the Cuban 5, and the perp admitted that it was not politically motivated.

The charges that Brothers to the Rescue tried to smuggle in explosives is one made by Cuban authorities and is highly suspect.

If you want to write about these things, do it in an article about covert activities in Cuba, and not in this article. TDC 15:25, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

TDC, the defence contention is that the Cuban Five were in Miami to infiltrate terrorist groups. It's part of the story and the evidence of terrorism from Miami is relavent even if it doesn't fit into your propaganda line. AndyL 15:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As for the bombimg of the hotel you've (deliberately?) misinterpreted. The "perp" said *he* was not politically motivated but that he was paid to do it by exile groups in Miami. He was not politically motivated, but the bombing itself *was* and it supports the Cuban Five contention about terrorism. AndyL 15:37, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

You are the one who is deliberately?) misinterpreting the article. The Cuban government is the one stating that he was acting on behalf of Miami exiles, the perp admits to being paid by a Salvadoran.TDC 16:09, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

All charges against Brothers to the Rescue are being made by the Cuban government, whose word is highly suspect and you are not even including that in your revision? TDC 16:18, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

And the PVC bombs? What's up with that? How can you justify using an unsourced claim from some UK pinko commie rag? TDC 16:22, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Claims given additional sources. A member of Brothers to the Rescue admitted experimentation with PVC bombs under cross examination. AndyL 20:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

" by the Cuban government, whose word is highly suspect and you are not even including that in your revision? " TDC, I recall recently in the Cuba HR discussion when I said something in the article about US State Dept and OAS info being suspect for political reasons you took that out  because of POV but now you want me to say the word of the Cuban government is highly suspect?. AndyL 07:31, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

NPOV?
"The arrest and conviction incited an uproar from leftist groups."

The preceding phrase is not fully accurate, and does not depict the entire story. Yes, the arrest and conviction incited anger among leftist groups, but also civil liberty alliances which are cross-ideological. Many leftist groups made the biggest stir about it, but the Republican dominated court in Georgia also found that these mens' convictions were not only immoral (opinion) but, according to our Constitution, unlawful (fact). The phrasing of that statement makes the issue seem more of an issue of morality than one of legality. And, of course, it also generates the view that only the radical left is appalled (sic) at this, when it is not the case.

What NPOV means for this article Many seem to be unaware of NPOV really means. Therefore an excerpt of official Wikipedia policy:


 * Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. from WP:NPOV

Jens Nielsen 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy Ackerman quote
I moved this sentence here from the article: "The men’s contention, that Cuba is threatened by U.S based anti-Castro groups, is questionable at best, says Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba."

A couple questionable items:
 * Although Holly Ackerman is cited at least once on the WWW for her association with Amnesty International, the source documents being quoted, do not appear to be affiliated in any way with Amnesty International, and the implied association in the sentence is wrong. The actual byline in the article is "Holly Ackerman is a professor of social work and Latin American studies at Tulane University, New Orleans. She previously lived in southern Florida.".


 * Here are links to the source document of the sentence, from 'Peace Magazine' and  .  Reading that article, I cannot see that the paraphrased quote  ...that Cuba is threatened by U.S based anti-Castro groups, is questionable at best,...  comes from any wording in the article.  Indeed, contrary words occur, "Those Cubans who were terrorized..." and "An unspoken thread that runs throughout is the willingness of most Cuban political groups to use terror. Until 1962, bombings, shoot-em-ups, and political assassination were as common as coffee and tobacco."

In short, the sentence is a bit loose with the facts, and I think is should be tightened up through use of a direct quote, and through use of direct byline of the author. BruceHallman 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See link and text below:

''But the activists' contention -- that Cuba is threatened by U.S.-based terrorists -- is questionable at best, says Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba. The U.S. stopped encouraging groups to overthrow Castro in 1965, Ackerman says. Today, most people who want a violent overthrow of Castro and live in Miami are themselves quite elderly, and they have no realistic plans for action, Ackerman says.''

''Ackerman, however, says activists often hold onto a romantic notion of Cuba that allows them to be manipulated by the Cuban government, which has gone on a publicity campaign about the Cuban Five case. ''

''"They are simply told a story, and they accept that story ... " Ackerman says. "It's silly really, if it weren't so harmful, it would be silly."''
 * Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, and I see once again the slippery slope of the label 'terrorists'.   Ackerman is quoted as talking of the 'activists' where the sentence says 'the men's contention', and these are different people, right?  BruceHallman 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont follow. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ackerman is writing of the statements of a spokesman for the Greater Hartford Coalition on Cuba (GHCC), which she calls 'activists', yet the sentence which I moved from the article starting with the words "The men’s contention..." incorrectly makes it appear that Ackerman is writing that the 'Cuban five' held that belief. BruceHallman 18:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By 'slippery slope', I mean: From a Cuban government point of view, essentially any activity of a counter-revolutionary movement might be seen as 'terrorism' or 'support of terrorism', yet from a Liberal Democratic advocate's perspective the exact same activity might be called be 'freedom fighting'. BruceHallman 18:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, the 5's contention is that the work they were doing in Cuba was to stop US based "terrorism" in Cuba. Ackerman, above, has stated, although not in reference to the 5 specificly but in general, that the threat is non existant. I beleive that the 5 made it very clear at thier trial that they were here in the US to stop "terroristic" activities of US based anti Castro groups. Ackerman's staement was added to provide balance to the littany of charges in that paragraph. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, balance is needed there I agree, I rewrote the sentence to hopefully fixing the inaccuracies, and put it back. BruceHallman 19:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Credibility of antiCuban terrorism claims.
This seems to be an independent report of anti-Cuban terrorism, from Italian media that calls into question the Ackerman statement. Cuban sources also identify a rash of antiCuban terrorist bombings in 1997.


 * Its like Akerman says, most of the hard line anti-Castro types in Miami are in thier 60's and 70's, and have long given up the fight. Brothers to the Rescue is a peacefull group that drops leaflets, not bombs, on Cuba.


 * I have also removed material that does not comply with WP:V (weblog stuff). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no reason not to believe Ackerman, 'most' is certainly believeable.   Though it would only take a few to bankroll some bombings of tourist hotels.  BruceHallman 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And there in lies the credibility issue: Ackerman vs the Cuban government. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That Cuba has suffered many terrorist attacks in the past four decades is beyond dispute. It's a fact and such attacks have been reported frequently in the (US) press, though the scale is a surprise to many unfamiliar with Cuba, and there are of course many who for political reasons would like to see it forgotten. To my knowledge, the intensity of these terrorist attacks have declined much since the early years after the revolution (the now elderly terrorists), but as the report to the UN argues there have been many incidents also recently. Claims by the Cuban government should of course be taken with a good grain of salt. There's plenty of paranoia, as is to be expected from any country recently having suffered terrorist attacks (United States included). As for the credibility issue, if Ackerman suggest Cuba has nothing to fear from Miami-based groups he's lost credibility, and the article with the quote offers almost no analysis. Can't we refer to a more-than superficial analysis of why the statement should be questionable? Jens Nielsen 09:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats not what the article is about and it leads to tooo much creep. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is so wrong and too simple to say that the terrorist attacks against cuba are aimed at the so called "castro-regime". That would be like saying that the terrorist attack against the WTC was just activities aimed at the Bush-regime. Bronks 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So, the individiual members of Brothers to the Rescue have been involved in violent actions targeting civilians in Cuba? Do you have a verifiable source for this? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes they have attacked and killed cuban civilians and they have even attacked tourists, as was written about the attack against hotels, that YOU delteted!!! Bronks 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also check the sources cited on José Basulto
 * That I detailed, come again? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is fair to ask that reports of anti-Cuban terrorism meet WP:V, and we should put together a listing of citations, ,  etc..  We could collaborate on this research.  BruceHallman 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is an interesting exercise, but irrelevant here. The only thing that needs verifiability is the claims made. Here's the Wikipedia policy:
 * Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. from WP:NPOV

If it is verifiable that the cuban five indeed claim to have tried to stop terrorists, there is no need to try establish whether their claim is credible or not. We should try to present fairly the views of the five, and opposing views for that matter, such as those of Ackerman. Jens Nielsen 13:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont think that any of the above would qualify as WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To, out of hand, disallow all Cuban based sources for an article about Cuba seems too extreme. Specifically, the Cuban goverment issued this list of terrorist acts .  One of the acts on the list involved the killing of an Italian on September 4, 1997.  This event is confirmed independently in the Italian media. Such independent confirmation reflects positively on the credibility of the Cuban list. BruceHallman 21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The above comfortably qualifies for WP:RS. For the views of the Cuban government, the Cuban government or affiliated sources are superbly reliable, and indeed the best and only obvious choice. Likewise for the Cuban Five.Jens Nielsen 13:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make a point about the contradictions between the (USA) English site and the German site. The former does not mention the main rationale behind the Cuban 5's attempt to infiltrate these groups. The German site foregrounds their infiltration to expose anti-terrorism against Cuba activities. As a result of the omission on the former(English) site, the massive international protests appear as if they are all related to technical issues which is a disconnect. The sub-text is that these famous international figures are just anti-American if all they are concerned about is technical legal issues. In Britain the issue is perceived as relating to the opaque history of the USA against Cuba. Why not open the historical papers from the State department, the intelligence community etc.to independent academics and experts etc? If there really is nothing to hide and the USA did not support terrorism against Cuba....TJG —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimJakeGl (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Claims of the Cuban five?
Third Opinions, please turn to the questions in bold half a page down. Other comments are of course also welcome. Jens Nielsen 18:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you now referring to wording versions that aren't even current? 72.65.68.229 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's now an edit war going on over some recent changes of mine. Here's the issue

Jens Nielsen proposes
 * '''"The five convicted men claim that they were in Miami to monitor Miami-based right-wing groups engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba. In a report to the UN, the Cuban government claims that since 1959, 3,478 Cubans died as result of terrorist attacks or aggression, and in the 1990´s suffered 68 terrorist attacks.

vs alternative:
 * "The five convicted men claim that they were in Miami to stop anti-Castro groups engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba which the Cuban government claims have killed 3,478 and wounded 2,099 Cuban citizens since 1959. "

First of all, the issue is what the Cuban Five claimed, not what we think they were actually doing. The correct NPOV policy is present conflicting points of view fairly. So, the task is to accurately represent what they claimed, not what we think is the truth of their activities, whatever that may be (as long as the claim is clearly attributed).

I have not read all court documents, but this statement from the website of Free the Five, also supported by the WP article is to my best knowledge accurate: "the Five pointed out vigorously in their defense that they were involved in monitoring the actions of Miami-based terrorist groups, in order to prevent terrorist attacks on their country of Cuba." This clearly supports the first half of the first statement. In additional support of this, note following statement from the defense attorney:
 * They came here basically on a mission to infiltrate various exile groups that were posing a threat to Cuba during a period where there was a wave of bombings of hotels and tourist attractions in Cuba by exile groups.

The second statement, on the other hand, is less precise. Did they claim they were chasing anti-castro groups, or terrorists? Right-wing or otherwise? Crucial differences to many, and therefore at best an inaccurate presentation of their view.

The number statement is is also flawed. The second statement is ambiguous - does the cuban government claim that those particular groups were responsible for that many deaths? The truth is that they don't. The source sketches the general picture of terrorism and aggression (latter also not mentioned in second statement) aimed at Cuba, not these particular instances. Also, it's not just some government media claim, it's a report to the UN, with much more credibility, and besides these claims were discussed widely in court.


 * First statement is clearly better Jens Nielsen 08:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A key question is the definition of the crime 'terrorism'. I argue, that the encyclopedic standard to apply here is the definition of the local jurisdiction, that is: 'terrorism' is defined by the local law. Here is a summary of the crime of terrorism as defined in Cuba. By that definition, the description of 'terrorism' is appropriate in the article and meets WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Though this may be controversial, as you can see, in Cuba dropping subversive and unconstitutional propaganda leaflets from airplanes is a special form of terrorism, described as 'political terrorism'. Regardless of whether we like or dislike that Cuban rule of law, an encyclopedia should give respect to locally sovereign law. BruceHallman 14:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not going to suffice for any version which attempts to imply the communist government's own colorful slurs by sleight of hand. If "terrorism" is to appear, it needs to be explicitly and contextually attributed and else affixed with quotation.  You, Jens, are presenting this issue as if information is being deprived of the reader rather than the opposite, which is what is really occurring; namely, a race to see how many times the word "terrorism" can be imposed upon an amalgamation of groups in even the very same paragraph.  It is horribly biased, Hallman's diatribe on local sovereignty even put aside.  151.205.8.146 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "diatribe"? I object to that false characterization. BruceHallman 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to your insinuation that this encyclopedia must conform to Cuban "sovereign law", i.e. police state measures. 151.205.8.146 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which countries should Wikipedia honor by respecting their soverign law and which countries should not receive respect for their soverign law? If not local soverign law, which law do you choose? Is your choice arbitrary?  How do you ensure your choice meets WP:NPOV?   And, in doing so, how do you avoid Systemic bias?    BruceHallman 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have asked you five questions, will you give me five direct answers? BruceHallman 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not be "honor[ing]" countries by utilizing contradictory legal definitions for what amounts to a political pejorative. That is the singular NPOV issue here.  If this is true, and it is, for those who fly airplanes into buildings and blow up crowded markets it is certainly true for those who assist rafters and drop political pamphlets.  If you wish to denote that the Cuban standard for terrorism includes activities undertaken for the purposes of humanitarian assistance and political dissent, be my guest.  But the view of the regime is not going to be the view of this article.  151.205.8.146 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer even one of my five questions. BruceHallman 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And, your last sentence implies that you intend to push your POV on this article, is that true or false? BruceHallman 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are 194 independent countries in the world today though you are vague as to which one sets the legal standard which the other 193 are contradicting. Or, is it your belief that you get to personally set the legal standard we are to measure the world against?  Again, please give direct answers to my (now seven) questions. BruceHallman 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I missed the part where I am on trial here and you are dependent on my testimony. This has nothing to do with legal standards but Wikipedia policy on neutrality. I never claimed that any "sets the legal standard" because that issue is beside the point. The fact that there are contradictory definitions of terrorism is acknowledged by you when you expressed a wish for the article to compensate for Cuba's own. That would be forcing bias into the article.


 * My last sentence should imply precisely that I am pushing NPOV and disallowing an article to be engulfed by one POV. You may feel at liberty to interpret things as you like, but this is something you have constructed alone, not something I have stated. 151.205.8.146 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may then, without answering questions, your position is enigmatic. BruceHallman 04:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear that the anon's view of NPOV is a view that conforms to a certain idelogical perspective and does not allow opposing views to be presented fairly. In other words: POV pushing. Why do we even care what an anonymous user or sockpuppet) thinks anyway? Again, the appropriate NPOV policy as I've cited again and again is to present opposing views fairly. Jens Nielsen 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Question:
 * Do you agree that it is correct wikipedia NPOV policy to present the Cuban views as they are, even if you don't believe they were in the US to stop terrorists? If no, please state why the NPOV policy quoted hereunder does not apply.


 * Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. from WP:NPOV


 * Do you agree that following statement as to the reasons given by the Cuban five, is an accurate description of their view, whatever you may think of the view itself? If not, please refer to a source.
 * "The five convicted men claim that they were in Miami to monitor Miami-based right-wing groups engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba." Please refer to the sources I quoted in begining of this section.

Jens Nielsen 18:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jensbn, I am not interested in participating in your people's court; someone who asks why "we even care what [I think] anyway?" is obviously not familiar with policy on their own part, and is best not leveling accusations. I have not in any instance voiced support for disregarding NPOV policy, and in fact have edited in order to best conform to it. You have provided no evidence that my changes to the section violate NPOV but simply rest on the fact that they are changes to your own wording and presumed the matter to be self-evident.

Now, I will specifically address those changes, something you have so far refused to do.

First of all, your only reference to Cuban government claims is at the beginning of the paragraph; thereafter, you let a passive voice insert the government's view which appears to the reader to be objective fact. Thus, "Miami-based right-wing groups engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba". What groups? Which ones are "right-wing"? Who says? I changed this to "anti-Castro", which is rather evident. Why is this problematic? I also added "which they claim were" engaged in terrorist activities, whereas you are content to let the article claim that all of these "terrorist activities" did in fact occur as the Cuban regime says. Not only this, but you allow in the next sentence that deaths are due to these as well as the unattributed events of "aggression", completely out of context to claims. Why is the Cuban government allowed all these colorful descriptions for the article without the benefit of directly attributing their language to them? Is it NPOV for Wikipedia to say that they "suffered" as a result of these terrorist attacks without attribution? This is emotionalistic writing to shield the regime's facade and slur against all opposition and resistance groups.


 * I take it you have issue with the accuracy, but I still don't know if you agree with me on the NPOV policy quoted. In fact, your criticism seems founded on an attempt to achieve objective accuracy instead of describing their views.

"The five convicted men claim that they were in Miami to monitor Miami-based right-wing groups [they say were] engaged in terrorist activities against Cuba." Everything after "The five convicted men claim..." is to my best English making clear that anything that follows is their point of view, not objective fact. Adding they say were is a redundancy, no? >What groups? Which ones are "right-wing"?
 * the sentence does not claim to establish objective facts, so I don't see why it needs to be more precise. If their claim is vague, let it be.

>"anti-Castro"
 * If the issue is what the five claimed, and not what objectively happened, then it is a crucial difference. Does the Five claim to be after anti-castro groups or terrorist groups? The latter according to my research.

>unattributed events of "aggression",
 * Again, to my knowledge of grammar it is all claims of the Cuban government, so no need to try to be objective. Also, it is an improvement on the original version, where all deaths were attributed to anticuban groups. In fact, the Bay of pigs casualties are included in the estimate, and I included as a necessary qualifier to the claim. With that, it becomes clear that not all of these is terrorism as we know it.Jens Nielsen 19:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This does not surprise me. Many people are ignorant of the long struggle of many Cubans against the government after Fidel's acession, and even after the Bay of Pigs.  This took many forms, from attacks on so-called "soft targets" such as tourist and industrial/agricultural targets (some of which can plausibly be described as terrorism, though for our purposes this is POV characterization) and much of which was straight resistance, including that of fighters in the Escambray Mountains (the intended site for US-supported invasion), where Cubans resisted for years.  Invariably they are described as "bandits", "terrorists", and such.  It is inconceivable that these should all be slurred as such with the assistance of editors here.  I don't believe that is the intention of everyone, but is the effect of what I believe to be sloppy wording.  That is what I am intending to counteract, and if it does not trouble Jensbn too much, I will attempt this anew tomorrow (so as not to give the impression that I am reverting again on this day).  72.65.80.34 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The next paragraph is even more egregious. Basulto is fully within his rights to decide whether the Castro regime of Cuba is illegitimate and deserves to be overthrown by force (considering there is no other means and has not been for over forty years). Yet you casually describe him as participating in attacks against Cuba (my emphasis), rather than participating in attacks against the government or what he claims was a hotel used to accomodate Russians, which at the time were stationing a great deal of troops on Cuban soil in the process of stockpiling nuclear weapons and furthering the satellization of the country. In order to twist this around, you delete my insertion of his very own words, namely that the hotel was "full of Russians". Why? The Cuban government got their say, why did not Basulto? Does he not deserve it, because he is part of those "Miami based right wing" groups, and you'll be damned if their view gets across?
 * I can agree to "attacks against the government of Cuba" which is more accurate. If you find it important to mention that it was full of Russians, go ahead too. I removed it because I found it a bit clumsy, since it is an objective fact, not just his opinion. Jens Nielsen 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I detailed my opinions about the word "violations" below. Suffice it to say, you do not likely regard any of this or that as mattering. In fact, you felt obliged to violate 3RR at another article yesterday, and here have attempted to remove the POV tag as you don't feel you have to pay attention to my objections. I am afraid in that case you are the one who is going against policy, and against any good faith effort to establish a consensus, NPOV version. Please reconsider your stance, as it is very unproductive. Thanks. 72.65.80.34 18:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you've been irritated. I have argued over this at great length in the past half year, done lots of research, adding sources, etc etc. When I get confronted with a user (not you) who (on numerous occasions) reverts without bothering to read even the basic sources, it's tempting to see further arguing as unproductive.Jens Nielsen 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you would be more open to compromise rather than making sure to summarily revert material repeatedly, things would go a lot smoother for everyone. Just a suggestion.  72.65.80.34 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from parsing my words. It makes the conversation much, much more difficult to follow.  As to your response, I am in no sense trying to make mere arguments against their assertions but your treatment of them.  It is not redundant to include qualifiers for such tendentious and contested issues.  The most obvious way to resolve such a matter is to provide direct quotes rather than your own summation.  That way, claims of "terrorism" and "aggression" do not have the implicit effect on the reader of appearing to be established facts but merely show the bombast of the Cuban government.  If you would engage this matter rather than simply revert my changes, perhaps these elementary issues could be resolved more quickly and better, more pertinent work on the article could continue.  72.65.80.34 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. From WP:NPOV

Adding direct quotes shows only that the editor distrusts the statement. I take it you disagree with official policy, then. Jens Nielsen 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Quotes are not mentioned in the passage you give. What is wrong with making it absolutely sure that claims of "terrorism", "aggression", and such are directly attributed?  It seems very clear to me that an impression, or pretense of, establishment of objective fact, is given by the passage as it is.  My edits are an attempt to address this and I still do not see what is wrong with where I am going, if not precisely what I did.  72.65.80.34 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this source meets WP:V and says clearly what the five men were doing in Miami: "The Five were working with the Cuban Government to protect Cuba from invasion and terrorism organized, funded and launched from Miami and presented evidence to show the serious threat posed by Miami-based terrorism. They showed how they had infiltrated some of the Miami-based organizations, and how US law enforcement had failed to act on evidence turned over by Cuban authorities before their arrest. They also presented evidence to show that the only military information to which they had access was publicly available. Furthermore, they presented testimony from high-ranking former U.S. military and intelligence officials to the effect that Cuba poses no military threat to the United States, but is only interested in knowing what it needs to know in order to defend against the threat of attack, either by the United States or US-based mercenaries. "
 * BruceHallman 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This does not establish anything further than what the Cuban government claims, as it seems to come from its mission to the UN. Please don't attempt to mislead editors.  72.65.80.34 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it establishes little more than the Cuban view, but it is precisely the view we should be after, not the objective facts, as according to WP:NPOVJens Nielsen 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This does not seem to be the implication of him saying that it "says clearly what the five men were doing in Miami", rather than merely it being what the Cuban government claims was going on. If it was the latter, I would have no objection to it.  72.65.80.34 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 72.65.80.34 wrote: "Basulto is fully within his rights to decide whether the Castro regime of Cuba is illegitimate ", actually this assertion could easily be true, but it appears to be original research, and if included in the article would violate WP:NOR. BruceHallman 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Whose observation is it that Basulto engaged in "attacks against Cuba", as opposed to subversion and espionage activities? 72.65.80.34 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of accurate use of English language. Firing a 20mm cannon at a hotel qualifies better as an "Attack" than "Subversion" or "espionage". Agree? Same with Bay of pigs invasion. Of course, all apply given his rich record of activities.Jens Nielsen 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If they all apply, then they can all be included, rather than simply stating he was involved "attacks against Cuba", which is a misnomer. 72.65.80.34 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's something on this I am not sure is completely understood, as well. Subversion and sabotage very well can, and often necessarily do, include the use of violence, such as the attempted destruction of industrial facilities (which happened in Cuba).  These are not euphemisms.  But it is not acceptable to describe Basulto's activities against the Cuban government as being "against Cuba", so more work is still justified on this specific area as well.  72.65.80.34 20:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion
I think the first statement above is preferable. It seems to be much more precise. As for all the qualms about the term terrorism, I don't honestly see it as that big of a deal in this case. As a reader it's obvious that these 5 men just might be skewing the definition of terrorism a little bit. Still, thats what they claim they were there to do, so that is how it should be represented. Our readers are intelligent, give them some credit. and let them interpret the facts. --Hetar 06:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias?
Why this article have no information on the charges they were convicted of and tells instead about complaints of their treatment and their supporters? This looks like an advocacy page right now. I tried to edit it but can't. Contrarrevolucionario 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Airspace violated vs. airspace "violated"
This issue is discussed at length on Talk:Brothers to the Rescue. Please continue there.

Jens Nielsen 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Would the engaged editors involved in this edit war please negotiate and resolve their differences. Your resolution would be helpful, to allow the edit protection to be removed from this page. BruceHallman 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that one of the warring parties has been blocked indefinitely so it may be worth asking to unblock the page for continued editing. --Zleitzen 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I support what I understand to be Hallman's attempted compromise elsewhere of "incursions" or something similar. 141.153.121.104 02:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Though that is not the only thing in dispute regarding this article. Zleitzen is right about the indefinite block, however.  141.153.121.104 02:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

One should refer to things by their accurate designation. Cuba is a sovereign country. If a foreign plan flies into Cubans air space without permission it is of course a violation against Cuba. To not acknowledge that is indeed POV. Bronks 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The UN report
Can be mentioned without the present wording. I certainly don't object to that. 72.65.80.34 13:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to me to be something rather pathological in the stubborn insistence on the single word "violations" in reference to the Hermanos activities. It is as if Cuban waters are a virgin which their planes were intruding upon sexually in an aggressive matter - practically they have been raped.  This "verifiable fact" has not been sourced in any such matter and there is no need to keep this word other than the linguistic choice of a single editor who has rammed it in over the course of months by now.  "Incursions", "unauthorized entries", and any other choice our editors may come up all inform the reader just the same but do not seem to have the same flair and literary excess as saying that the lily has been "violated".


 * There is no reason not to compromise on this matter except as a mental refusal to kowtow to any perceived edit war by "the anticommunist", as Jensbn has taken up calling me as if it were an insult. 72.65.80.34 13:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Google "airspace violation" get 53,000 hits. Google "airspace incursion" and get 255 hits.  Linguistically, I favor 'airspace violation' as the better use of standard English.  BruceHallman 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 99,200 for "incursions into airspace". Google is a bad way to conduct encyclopedic matters.  151.205.36.69 15:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Google is a good way to measure the frequency of useage of words or phrases in standard Engish, and is recommended by Wikipedia for rooting out typos at least. BruceHallman 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To contend that an article, story, description, prose, should not overlap another description, is absurd.

< http://google.com/search?q=%22mission+against+terror%22+%22%22+%22%22+%22%22 >.

Hopiakuta 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Holly Ackerman
The Holly Ackerman piece - "Cuba is not threatened by terrorism" makes absolutely no sense to this or any other article. Given the number of verifiable cases of terrorism through the 90's - and the well publicised hijackings of 2003 - How can this be a credible statement? Let alone sit in this article. One American scholar's opinion which would be found wanting by any of her international Latin-American peers does not deserve such prominence. I'd like to know more about why users insist on it's inclusion.--Zleitzen 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ackerman is most certainly notable for the following reasons: Latin America is her area of expertise, she has written and spoken a great detail about Cuba, and she is one of the more mainstream opinions in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't buy it, and I've never met a Cuban scholar who would promote her point of view here.
 * Here is a simple question for yourself, and Ackerman if she were here to answer it.
 * Were there any terrorist acts against Cuba during the 1990's? --Zleitzen 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have never met a Cuban scholar who would say that... oh well, that's a shame I guess. I am not into answering questions, but I would say no. There have been no "terroist acts" against Cuba in the 1990's. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so you're going to ignore the six month bombing campaign in Cuba - 1997 (Miami Herald) for starters - and Orlando Bosch's subsequent statements to the Miami media that such attacks would continue. That during the mid to late 90's Cubans were afraid to go to the baseball gives you an idea of how serious this issue was. By 2001 Cuba was not threatened by terrorism? Not credible. And how about the same year, Walter Van der Veer, of terrorist group Comandos L who was charged with plotting to attack Cuban tourists and gathering material for bombs. NY Times. The list is too long to detail here. --Zleitzen 01:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not going to ignore anything, but this conversation is not relevant to the article. They had a unarmed plane shot down for dropping leaflets over Cuba. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you feel that this conversation is not relevant to the article? Given that you have inserted the claim "Cuba is not threatened by terrorism". That would seem to be the statement that is irrelevant, not credible and intrusive to this article. I'm just giving you an opportunity to defend it. If you ignore that route, then I'm afraid the statement will have to go.--Zleitzen 02:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, enough of this. Castro is on the hospital slab about to drop off so we'll have to resume this at a later date! There's some reverting to do on his page...--Zleitzen 02:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the full quote:But the activists' contention -- that Cuba is threatened by U.S.-based terrorists -- is questionable at best, says Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba. The U.S. stopped encouraging groups to overthrow Castro in 1965, Ackerman says. Today, most people who want a violent overthrow of Castro and live in Miami are themselves quite elderly, and they have no realistic plans for action, Ackerman says. , and its true. Most of the individuals who would violently overthrow Castro are old and have given up that route. Trials and evidence from the Cuban government has to be taken with a grain of salt. There exists no independent press or judiciary, and the claims go un challenged. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As Zleitzen points out, her statements (as just quoted) are at odds with scholar opinion and more importantly, with a mountain of facts and press reports of terrorist incidents. I'm all in favor of adding scholar opinion, but Ackerman's (what are her credentials in Cuban history and Cuban-US relations anyway?) is more obscuring than enlightening. Jens Nielsen 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify how ridiculous Ackerman's claim is, the trial of Santiago Alvarez begins this week, on federal charges of maintaining an illegal armory of machine guns, C-4 explosive and hand grenades at a suburban apartment complex, weapons gathered with the stated aim of attacking Cuba. --Zleitzen 08:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

International Support
I've requested a citation for this line from the International Support section: Since their conviction, there has been an international campaign for the case to be appealed, with support groups in twenty-seven countries. TexasDawg 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As Bronks said, the information is in the link to the site, for one thing there is a list right here:[]. As a matter of fact, I'm rather sure I heard of one in Denmark and the Netherlands which are not mentioned there, so the number is probably higher. Jens Nielsen 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Their names
I am a little confused, because on this page, their names are listed differently than I found on Democracy Now. There it is Ruben Campa, Rene Gonzalez, Gerardo Hernandez, Luis Medina and Antonio Guerrero. Does anybody have an explanation for this? BigBen212 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Two of them were arrested and charged under pseudonyms, and those names are used on all the court documents. Democracy Now must have picked the names up off of the court documents. "Luis Medina" is the pseudonym for Ramón Labañino and "Ruben Campa" is the pseudonym for Fernando González.

"Their Names

It is very clear that they were under false names to protect themselves and the work they were doing in Miami: that is: protect Cuban people from terrorist acts based in Miami. These men are serving long sentences without having done any harm to the United States. Please search information in the Atlanta Court of Appeals page and help us to free them. Be honest, at least, for a time. Don´t be part of President Bush´s criminal policy. The point is not if they were using false names or not, the point is that they were saving human lives and not only of Cubans, but american lives, too. The terrorist they were keeping an eye on, in Miami, are the sames who killed President Kennedy, Orlando Letelier, Ronny Moffit, and who knows how many people more..." L.D. Argentine,25thDecember,2006

People Still Don't Know Who Really Rule The World?
It surprises me to see how people are so ignorant and keep being away from the truth. We really like to be away from the reality. We are educated in that spirit since we grow up with media, tv, videogames, internet, etc...I only need to say one thing: if you dont know whats really going on, do not extend your opinion; instead of illustrate, you are overshadowing the truth. Unfortunately, since the real power which rules is never to be discovered for common people, the Five would always have an unfair judicial disposition 'cause there are other factors involving power, money, extorsion, public figures, elected officials, uncovered actions by government agents in the USA; and the persons' names behind all of this are still in power or influencing.

Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for unfocused rants... talk pages exist to improve the article, not to vent generalized grievances that vaguely relate to the subject matter of the article. Seary6579 05:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exile point of view
I removed the section on the reaction of Cuban exiles, mostly because it was wholly unsourced and generalized wildly. User:Freedomwarrior reverted me, adding a source. Unfortunately, the source is anonymous, so we can't say whether it represents even one Cuban exile, and inadequate. According to Cuban exile, there are more than 2 million Cuban exiles living in the United States; "most" of them would be at least 1.5 million. Anything short of a Gallup poll broken down by demographics isn't enough to represent the opinion of two million. Deltabeignet 18:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not meant to represent the opinions of the whole exile since they are not a monolith; however, I am adding the views of some exiles on this matter to balance the views put forth by the Cuban government and its partisans. Freedomwarrior 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You still haven't addressed the issue of the source being anonymous. Without an author, it doesn't represent Cuban exile views any more than a Cal Thomas editorial. Besides, the "Some Cuban exiles" is useless. Of course some Cuban exiles believe something. Majority opinion and sizeable minority opinion are notable—anything else, no. The article might be a useful source, but not to prove the Cuban exile point of view. Deltabeignet 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no rallies in Miami to support the convictions (because the U.S. government, as opposed to the Cuban government, does not prod the people to the streets like cattle). There is no singular, monolithic Cuban-American view, and I am not claiming this. I am making a claim about a position that some Cuban Exiles have on this issue. I am doing the exact same thing that is done in other section of this article (why are you not deleting those parts?) How many "defenders" of the five are there? Why are their views at all relevant? Are their positions, by your standard, at all relevant?

This article, and your edits, are not at all impartial. If you insist on eliminating that section, which has additional citations, I will hold the rest of this article to your requirement that they have "sizeable" support. Freedomwarrior 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly right. I was scanning the article briefly and saw an egregious example of weasel words, and removed it. Naturally, I defended my edits when challenged. I did not check the rest of the article meticulously; I wish I had that much time. Deltabeignet 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Svenskfreecuban5.jpg
Image:Svenskfreecuban5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead links and neutrality of Cuban press
Most of the links are dead: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/13056994.htm UN Report - http://www.un.int/cuba/Pages/cubasreportonterrorism.htm UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention report - http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/62chr/E.CN.4.2006.7.Add.1.pdf And Cuban press can't be used as NPOV source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking #165 - Cuba) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.169.5 (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reality Check
This article is biased against the Cuban 5.

This part is laughable in particular: Still other Cuban exiles believe that it is hypocritical for the Cuban government, a government which they claim has engaged in numerous summary trials and executions, tolerates "actos de repudio" ("acts of repudiation") in which citizens attack other citizens and which many international groups criticize for lack of a fair judicial process, to be criticizing the judicial system of the United States. [6]

That's like saying some assert that it is hypothetical for the U.S. government to have criticised (let alone invaded and overthrown) the Taliban for harbouring Osama bin Laden, because they themselves harbour terrorists like Orlando Bosch. And yet somehow I don't think this hypocrisy is mentioned in the Osama bin Laden article.

--A.Molnar (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Exile Views
FreedomWarrior wants to have the views of exile Cubans (that the process was fair, and the Cuban government is being hypocritical because its own processes often aren't) represented. I don't think those views are relevant. They're not experts on whether the process is fair; it's just their opinion, and opinion we'd expect them to hold. The opinions are not in themselves notable, because we'd expect them to say that (now if they were criticising the process, that would be notable). The section is just disguised WP:NPOV-violating commentary, which, as FreedomWarrior's edit summaries seem to suggest, is being proposed to 'balance' the presence of international criticism (which is certainly notable) and the Cuban government's views on the background and hence motivation (which may be in the wrong place within the article, may be improvable; but given that they are Cuban government agents, is indisputably relevant). Disembrangler (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disembrangler, I restored the material (which you deleted a couple of months ago) in the interest of balancing the POV claims of the Cuban government and a biased cross-section of the international community.

A couple of questions: What's your standard for "notability"? For instance, how is Rigoberta Menchu more of an expert on the fairness of the process than Cuban exiles? Since we would expect her and other leftists to support the Cuban Five, how is that notable under your standard (since you seem to be arguing that we should just include opinions that are "unexpected")? Moreover, why do the OPINIONS of organizations and individuals who were not directly affected or implicated in the affair matter more than those of the victims of Hernandez, et al? While your at it, how is the 2001 report by Cuba's Permanent Mission at all relevant? Freedomwarrior (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is fairly well explained above. International opinion is not cited because each person is an expert or in a position of US legal power - but because international criticism of a US legal case is relevant. We expect US cases to be resolved according to high standards, so such criticism is notable. The exile views aren't. Anyway, you're in a minority here, so please don't edit war - do an WP:RFC if you think you can persuade others that you are right. Disembrangler (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain to me how including information on the families that have been victimized is not notable. Try and do so consistent with the standard of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAVOTE. Remember that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." WP:VFreedomwarrior (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a question of relevance (whether it's useful for the reader) and of WP:NPOV (whether it's promoting one point of view unnecessarily). I've agreed with your removal of the reference to Cariles, for exactly the same reasons: not relevant enough, and breaching NPOV. As I said before, do an WP:RFC if you think others will agree with you. Disembrangler (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also as a general rule, the views of victims aren't included in WP crime/criminal articles - for the reasons stated above. Draw your own conclusions. Disembrangler (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

disputed changes
Some disputes arising here. Dixie is saying this source -Pat Denny, Green Left Online, UNITED STATES: Cuban Five ruling a "travesty of justice", #680, 2006 - is not a reliable source. Well I think it's reliable enough for a supplementary source, and the point it's backing up is in the lede, as a aummary of sourced material in the body (namely, the existence of substantial international criticism). Rd232 talk 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you leave it on long enough, the journalists will use wikipedia, and ten we will be justified in using it? This is exactly why we need reliable sources. We don´t exist to give marginal groups a platform and inflate their "widespreadness" or create notability for them.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ? The point I was trying to make is that if the source bothers you that much, you can drop the source without dropping the text, because the text is in the lede and is summarising the body, and there are other sources on that issue in the body. Rd232 talk 16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Article issues
This article has several problems. The sources are in many cases marginal and not mainstream. They are agenda driven and have no demonstrated history of fact checking and are generally in violation of WP:RS. If these source are to be used, then more balance from the Cuban-American community sources need to be used. It is not useful to use propoganda from cuban statist media or other fringy extremist left sources. If this information is alltrue and notable, reliable mainstream sources will have picked up on it. The John Birch Society shouldn´t be used either. Quality reliable sources. The POV is very lopsided and th article lacks neutrality and balance--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * notability is not a criterion which applies to information in articles. From what you say, you might consider posting at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN, but you might suggest other sources first. Rd232 talk 16:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be no one side or two sides, It should be the truth and nothing but. Not opinions from the Cuban Americans or the Cuban Government but the actual facts. The fact that the Cuban Government in this case and I'm not saying all cases, but in this case is absolutely being truthful should allow this to be sourced. I fail to see how the Cuban Exile Community needs to put their two cents in on this issue, and its not like its a monolith that everyone follows as a party line, the Cuban Exile Community even has socialists, communists and trade unionists in it alongside the Right-wing ones. CmrdMariategui 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CmrdMariategui (talk • contribs)
 * I think the truth is expounded here: http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2007/July/20070712120209atlahtnevel0.7962915.html . I will be adding this information into the article as time allows.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Back ground
The background information that is being readded is not supported by the cited material. Please do not add it unless you add the sources that would make a direct link. The ones presently profered do not make that link.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the background information: please stop removing relevant information. Or make a coherent argument how the Cuban government's motivation for sending the Cuban Five is not relevant enough for an article about the Cuban Five. On the suspect/believed point: the source clearly states "believed". The contents of the leaflets is not relevant, it is the violation of airspace and dropping of leaflets which is the motivation for Cuba (also the source says only some had the contents you mentioned). The US response on the visa issue I've kept - presented this way it makes sense to include it. Rd232 talk 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The source that we are using specifically mentions what was on the leaflets. What exactly is your objection to its inclusion? I do appreciate your cleaning up the source for the US response.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The source mentions a lot of things. No doubt the leaflets mentioned a lot of things. The precise contents are not relevant, and the source only picks one bit of information from them (well, some of them in fact), which isn't relevant here. As I said above, "it is the violation of airspace and dropping of leaflets which is the motivation for Cuba". Rd232 talk 01:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it isn't mentioned on the Brothers page, you can add it there. There it is relevant. Rd232 talk 01:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm. That seems a little self serving on the part of the Cuban Government. I propose that we mention both the Declaration info, and we can even add the info that called for insurrection.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. Unless you have evidence that the content of the leaflets has any relevance (i.e., if the content had been different, Cuba would have acted differently), it should be left out. Rd232 talk 18:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you said yourself said that airspace and leaflets were what motivated Cuba. Are you suggesting thay were murdered in international airspace for having littered?? The court thought it was relevant to mention. RS´s have mentioned it, why shouldn´t we report what the RS´s say?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If the edit warring by various IPs to delete this background persists, I will ask for semi-protection. Discuss here why the motivation of a government for sending spies is not suitable for an article about those spies, or desist. Rd232 talk 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

cuban five
just want to say that this article has many wrong bias information. the important thing to remember about the five cuban is that they are ILLEGAL AMERICAN PRISONNERS and the states has absolutely NO reason to keep them.... they are not the only illegal prisonners in the USA but, it would be nice if wiki could at least give us the facts... ( the REAL facts...) .... and the fact have to come from cuban NOT cuban -american...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azalhia (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuban 5 vs Sakineh
What a contrast we have to the case of the iranian woman, Sakineh, being tried for murder. The Cuban 5 have been in prison for more than 10 years based on obviously trumped up charges, and tried in a state known to be anti-cuban...yet the US govt has done nothing to ensure a fair trial. Jalusbrian (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected
One of the edit warring parties has been indef blocked, and I have lifted the protection. I have watchlisted it as well, and if the edit war starts again, I will block again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Jensbn will start it very soon. 141.153.121.104 17:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Shock and horror. I was right.  141.153.121.104 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for claims to "accuracy", I can only express bewilderment. As noted above, there is not even any detail as to what the five were arrested and convicted for, but there sure is plenty of material about those who want them to be released based on the fact that they work for the Cuban government.  I am sure you will make sure Castro (by proxy) gets plenty of his own say for the article, but that is not what this page's purpose is.  141.153.121.104 17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the edit warring start again, I will protect the stuff again at the place I unprotected it, because I did not unprotect it to get an edit war again. My suggestion, source the stuff better, and use at time direct quotes so that there is no doubt about the interpretation which I think might be the issue at times. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The primary problem is that Jensbn does not believe he is even engaging in an edit war but is merely restoring self-evidently correct revisions. He has rebuked opportunities to compromise because he has determined who he accepts edits from and who he doesn't.  141.153.121.104 17:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've cited wikipedia policy in support of my edits, I've cited sources. Your turn. Jens Nielsen 00:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It takes two hands to clap, and 141.153.121.104 is the other hand. Both of you should source your edits.  It is my understanding that the fact that the air flights have entered  Cuban airspace is undisputed.  They admit such.  Why is that  only a 'claimed' violation of the airspace, your reasoning seems illogical.    BruceHallman 17:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am clapping, very well, and I did not dispute this. I question though, whether you are being completely honest as to your intentions here.  On another article, you find the word 'violation' to be "inaccurate".  Here, you say such an objection is illogical.  Is it that you have discovered an enemy of the "socialist republic" and have conformed to the hard line?  Or did you suddenly disregard any hope for compromise?  141.153.121.104 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, questioning my honesty does not help with editing. Neither does treating Wikipedia as a battleground, as your 'discovered an enemy' question suggests.  Even if our feelings are hot, sticking to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is required.  BruceHallman 14:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are certainly right that we must, which is my concern here; however, I contest the idea that personal characterizations are solely the responsibility of one party. I will instead ask you directly:  what do you believe may serve as a functional alternative to "violations", as you were attempting to establish on the other, related, article?  Thanks.  72.65.80.34 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

72.65.80.34, to whom are you addressing that question? Personally I feel that unauthorized flights into sovereign airspace is well described by the word 'violation'. Perhaps the word 'incursion' is a functional alternative? BruceHallman 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the use of the word "incursions" as I stated before. 72.65.80.34 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit summary of you says: revert to non-npov version, which is literally a self-proclaimed revert to a POV version. That is in violation with wikipeida policies. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Further, discuss the content, not the editors!-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done so, and I'm looking forward to Tjive and the anon doing so too.Jens Nielsen


 * You will have to forgive my typo; that is not what I meant to say. 141.153.121.104 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that 141.153.121.104, various other IP addresses, User:TJive and User:YINever are one and the same? Using these aliases to avoid being hassled and stalked by another user? If so, and this other user has now been indefinitely blocked - could I request that TJive revert to a singular moniker. Given the involvement in a number of disputes with unrelated editors it would make consensus far easier.--Zleitzen 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's my impression as well. It would be an extrarodinary coincidence otherhwise.Jens Nielsen 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

facts of the case; basis of appeal
I am a little confused why the basis of the charges and the appeal are not mentioned. I worked on the appeal with Len Weinglass, and collected information about Bosch and the Brothers of the Rescue from Amnesty International's office in the Empire State Building.

The case, to say the least, was complicated. This article, however, doesnt seem to capture any of the really salient features of the legal case. THe original judge applied the wrong legal standard, ignored venue complaints, and refused prosecutorial attempt to drop the murder charges. This is an extremely unusual thing for a judge to do, refuse a prosecutorial attempt to drop a charge. Talk some about the case. It will create a nice frame for the story.

Jason Frazzano —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.24.27 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC).


 * well this is Wikipedia, a pseudo encyclopedia edited by persons with politicised viewpoints and little expertise in the area they edit.Jalusbrian (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reality Check 2 (Back at You) ***
A.Molnar: Your made this claim: "That's like saying some assert that it is hypothetical for the U.S. government to have criticised (let alone invaded and overthrown) the Taliban for harbouring Osama bin Laden, because they themselves harbour terrorists like Orlando Bosch."

You compare a self-admitted terrorist who's made his terrorit intentions clear to someone who is simply alleged of being a terrorist. And alleged by a communist government to boot. Nice. Osama bin Laden's status as a terrorist is clearly established - Orlando Bosch's is not.

--Abarreras —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC).


 * 'The terrorist activities of Orlando Bosch are fully documented in the book Deadly Secrets by Warren Hinkle and William Turner who in turn drew their information from a Senate investigation led by Senator Kerry into the activities of the CIA.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/oct1999/corr-o26.shtml So yes Boschs terrorist credentials are established Jalusbrian (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, Orlando Bosch is a CONVICTED terrorist who served 10 years in jail for his crimes. I'm sure some believe Bosch's actions were justified, and not really terrorism, but Osama and his supporters feel the same way about his terrorist acts. My argument stands! --A.Molnar (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "ACTUALLY, Orlando Bosch is a CONVICTED terrorist". Sorry wrong guy, but you're wrong, guy.  He was convicted of a crime, the nature of which is terrorism only if your politics insist on such.  Like yours appear to.  Your argument fails totally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blappo (talk • contribs) 11 December 2008
 * Orlando Bosch. Rd232 talk 15:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * well clearly your politics decides who you call a terrorist..but thats not the standard Jurisprudence is it...Your definition of terrorism is its an act of political violence carried out by enemies of the US. Thanks for undermining your credibilty, and showing how Wikipedia is open to dodgy shadowy manipulation.  Jalusbrian (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you may have been confused by Blappo's failure to sign his comment; I've just added the "unsigned" marker for clarification. I was replying to that by pointing to the Orlando Bosch article. (Unless your comment wasn't directed at me.) Rd232 talk 09:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag added
Hello. I just came across this page looking for info on this group of people. I added an NPOV tag because pretty much every source cited has a left-wing bias. An unbiased article needs to balance the views from different perspectives, which isn't the case at all in this article. Similarly, although it's expected that most of the criticism will come from left-wing sources, this needs to be balanced with responses to the criticism (likely from non-left-wing sources). I don't see a single source representing the Cuban-American community, for example, and I can guarantee you that their perspective differs greatly from what's presented here. On top of this, there's a certain amount of peacocking going on -- e.g. the section on the eight Nobel Prize winners seems trying ent irely too hard to use their Nobel Prize status to present them as especially credible, when in reality the fact that someone has received a Nobel Prize in Literature doesn't mean at all that they are credible sources on a political issue (all it means is that they are much more likely to have a left-wing political bias, and hence it's hardly surprising, and not especially notable, when they express a pro-Cuba opinion). Benwing (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you define "Left wing"? The article seems to me to have plenty of right wing content.  I'm not quite sure what kind of content you are expecting from the Cuban-American community, surely any comments from them would simply be opinion?  The fact that a bunch of Nobel prizewinners are supporting the 5 is simply that, a fact.  The article draws no conclusions from this so I see no bias.


 * I rather suspect that the problem here is that most of the world regards the US left as right wing and the US right as extreme right wing. What seems left wing to you seems like neutral to the rest of us. --Deke42 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources that are not reliable should not be used, whether they're on the left or right side of the political spectrum. These sources are unreliable: the Green Left, CounterPunch, LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, freethefive.org, Cuba-solidarity.org, Znet, and Havana Times.
 * The issue is reliability, not left vs. right. For example, NPR, CNN, and Washington Post are all reliable sources from the left. Miami Herald and Fox are reliable from the right.
 * The larger question is whether or not this article needs a NPOV tag. Yes, it does. It seems to have been hijacked by Cuban Five advocates--74.96.52.45 (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a Template:Unreliable sources to the article to reflect the points made in comments above. In order to move forward, the specific sections/paragraphs/sentences with either POV or reliability issues should be tagged. What parts, for instance, give you the impression that the article has been "hijacked by Cuban Five advocates"? Please specify those. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 12:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No specific allegations have been presented to support the claim of "left wing" (whatever that is, since it is culture specific) bias - at least some specifics, examples of offending content, are required as justification for the tag. Without some specifics, how can editors know what the problem might be and how they might attempt to fix the problem, to remove any bias? And without specifics, how do editors know if the alleged problem has already been fixed, or still exists. For that reason I am removing the tag. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

original convictions have been reinstated
Hmmmmmmm Although it has been a month nobody has mentioned that the original convictions have been reinstated  This must be an oversight xe xe El Jigüey 12/3/05.

Yeah. Moorrests (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)