Talk:Havana Shipyards

Gabrielfoto
Gabrielfoto has twice insited on the below paragraph and reverted any attempts for the text to be amended. Lets start with a simple one,
 * In April of 1960, the shipyards were illegally seized by the de-facto Cuban revolutionary government. Subsequently, much of the Palmer family were forced to flee the island in later months.
 * 1) The nationalisation of the shipyards. Which Cuban law was broken in 1960 by the government?--Zleitzen 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary siezure of private businesses by a non-elected government with a proven track record of repression the likes of Cuba or Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s would be considered overtly illegal in the vast majority of western nations. The laws of Agrarian Reform were not instituted after a national referendum, rather, they were instituted at the whim of those who seized power in Cuba, much like the previous administration of Fulgencio Batista had seized power in the early 1950s. Secondly, as for the repeated attempts to alter the sentence "forced to flee," is concerned - had the individual understood that the family fled under duress, after the extra-judicial execution of a family member, said individual would understand that the fleeing of the family was not by choice but, rather, under threat of death. Remember, wikipedia should not be used to make political points but, rather, to showcase factual information. In my opinion, that is the altruistic essence of this site.

That said - best wishes.

Furthermore, the Castro Regime was working under the constitution of 1940 at the time of the institution of Agrarian Reform and government seizures. The actions of the revolutionary heirarchy went against said constitution. It had not been ammended to allow for the seizure of private property. Again, this would be considered an unconstitutional/illegal act.

Cheer, GabrielFoto


 * The 1940 constitution was rejected by Batista in 1952 and thus the Castro regime could not have been accused of going against a code that was not in practice. Nationalisation in this case is not an illegal act.
 * This page does not provide any sources to the "extra-judicial execution of a family member". In fact it provides no sources at all. In that case wikipedia should not be used to make political points but, rather, to showcase factual information. I think that applies to this article - and I know having being editing here for a long time - that the community will think in exactly the same way. --Zleitzen 19:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Once ensconced in power after the march on Havana of January, 1959, the revolutionary government re-implemented the Constitution of 1940, which does not provide for seizure of private businesses/property. Case closed. Secondly, I have pointed to those pieces of information which came either from interviews conducted or from publications like Cuba's Officials Gazette. The extra-judicial killing of a family member concerns one "Anastasio Rojas." You will find his name among any number of databases put togethor on this matter. Again, case closed. There fore your arguments are refuted.


 * OK, please provide a source that says "the revolutionary government re-implemented the Constitution of 1940". Also, do not remove the templates until you have provided sources for the statements on this page. Further removal will be viewed as disruptive.--Zleitzen 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there - OK, done. Also included (always has been) is the site for the Curacao Drydock Company as well as the name of Anastasio Rojas. I'm going to remove that template. If you think it needs anything else - feel welcome to let me know. Best, GabrielFoto

Please read
I have added this to your talk page to clarify the matter in hand. Do not insert controversial content into articles unless you can back it up with reputed, verifiable sources (such as papers and books by respected scholars, good-quality online content, etc.). Article content should be verifiable rather than simply true *WP:1SP. Read these pages... --Zleitzen 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV
 * wp:POVp
 * WP:V
 * WP:RS
 * WP:CITE
 * WP:NOR

Sir, as stated in the article you may consult

1) The Official Gazette of the Republic of Cuba - April 1960 2) Should you wish to contact any members of the Palmer family to verify the entry on Anastasio Rojas, I would be happy to provide. You may also research the name on any number of databases online. 3) I suggest you research the use of the 1940 constitution by the Castro government.

I haven't the foggiest idea why you have chosen to antagonize a user who has performed extensive research on this matter both in Cuba, at great risk to the researcher, and in the United States. I have been nothing but cordial and professional with you and am more than a bit confused. If there is some sort of political rationale behind these messages - please - save if for an editorial site. I am merely attempting to post information on the Havana Shipyards and not attempting to makes some political point. One should go elsewhere for that sort of thing.

Respectfully, GabrielFoto


 * I haven't chosen to antagonize you, nor is there any political rationale behind my requests for citations. I'm asking for the article to follow wikipedia policy. At present, it doesn't - hence the templates. Please read the information provided on the pages offered on how to present verifiable sources on the page, and re-read the comments other editors have made on your talk page on this matter.--Zleitzen 19:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I fear I'm missing something here - I looked at those tags however, are you saying I am not using the correct wikipedia-approved manner for citing sources? If so - kindly let me know how that's done and I'd be glad to re-input information in that manner. Viewing the "templates" you sent - I didn't see any sort of explanation of how to cite. Thanks.


 * Apologies if my tone appears antagonsitic in print, and I appreciate your efforts to clarify the points on the page. My only concerns here are to ensure that WP:V verification and neutrality policies are in place on the page. Given that anything to do with the Cuban revolution is potentially contentious, these policies need to be upheld to the finest detail. This applies to all editors regardless of the nature of the material. Take a look at this page for clarity on wikipedia's attitude to articles and research : WP:NOR and this page: WP:CITE which should give you guidance on how to deal with the technicalities of providing citations.--Zleitzen 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

missing content
Aside from the neutrality issue, the article really lacks information about the shipyard(s). Shipyards build and repair ships, so typical information about them includes the number and capacity of dry docks, list of notable vessels they've worked on or launched, etc. Check out some other articles on yards, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipyard.

It would be great if the top two photos were dated. The shipyard entrance one doesn't appear to date as far back as the founder's photo or the events in the first few paragraphs of the article. The flow might be better if it is placed nearer the text which matches its time period. I'm not seeing the Official Gazette image at all.

Great additions on the graving docks, etc. .. my thanks. I think the date for the entrance photo is a good idea and am going to implement it. Cheers. GabrielFoto

Neutrality issues dealt with via re-wording of final paragraphs.

Havana / Palmer
At present this article is mainly about the Palmer shipyard in Casablanca. (Though I assume that El Arsenal was elsewhere). Is that the only operating shipyard in Havana Bay ? Or are there other shipyards which should also be mentioned ? -- Beardo 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On this I am not sure - still researching - another user input this information and while interesting, as of yet, I have been unable to totally verify the original loation although, it would be consistant with ocation in the Bay, as during the 17th century, fortifications were in place to seal the inlet during attacks by pirates, etc. Logic would dictate that El Arsenal would be located safely behind those enclosures in the bay however, if I'm unable to find positive reinforcement of this contention - that segment will have to be deleted.

Cheers. GabrielFoto


 * I suspect most likely that the "El Arsenal" yards were somewhere near the Arsenal that is by the main Havana train station.

But if the article is to be restricted to just the yards set up by Palmer, it should be renamed to something more specific.

Either that, or widen it to cover all shipyards in Havana. -- Beardo 22:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Referencing
Interview material, Cuba and the United States - whose interview material ? Has this been published anywhere ? -- Beardo 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

US position
Is the Palmer shipyard one of the certified claims at OFAC ?

There is reference to a denial of visas - is that under Title IV of Helms Burton ? Is that denial still in place. (I tried to find mention of this on the internet, but only found Sherritt, Domos and BM.)

-- Beardo 12:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Beardo,

Yes, if you contact the Helms/Burton unit at the U.S. State Department, you'll find that the shipyards have indeed been registered, I've included reference to contacts at State for anyone wishing to look further into this topic.

Best, GabrielFoto

Interview material
Greetings Beardo,

This interview material is from the book Dos Epocas, Flight of No Return and is currently in production, as I am a working journalist. Best, GabrielFoto

Dear Gabriel - unfortunately, the rules of wikipedia do not permit the inclusion of that material until it has been published in a reputable source. -- Beardo 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No original research
Please read WP:NOR:

"Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"."

-- Beardo 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny Bandana
A reference to this gentleman was added - I assume to provide a source. Where can one go to look up the statements he made ? -- Beardo 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Beardo, Mr. Bandan can be reached at the Helms/Burton Unit desk at the State Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Best, GabrielFoto

Hmm, OK Beardo, seems like this would be a relevant tag for this entry since much of this information still hasn't been published yet.

As for POW tag - since this article contains no POV claims, I'd have to obviously disagree, as this piece as based on factual information only. Don't want to turn this entry into a political debate in either direction - some have certainly tried, much to my consternation.

Cheers,

GabrielFoto

Also, thanks for pointing out the OFAC inconsistancy - meant to input State Department's Helms-Burton Unit. It had been a LONGGGGGGGGG day. Very good catch, will update H/B Unit.

RE: El Arsenal:

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

Take care, GabrielFoto

Tags added and removed, POV
I've moved this from my talk page:


 * Hi. I added the NPOV and Original research tags last night, which user Gabrielfoto removed without comment, ignoring my comment about OR on the talk page.  I have restored the tags.  I note that you included such tags a short while ago, which he removed.


 * He has also taken out a section on El Aresenal so that the article is just about the Palmer shipyard (I assume his family's). I am almost tempted to AfD on non-notability.  -- Beardo 23:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Take care,
 * GabrielFoto


 * There are real problems with this article, Pablo-flores. The user is citing a book seemingly written by himself and not yet published to furnish the article. There are disputes about that, the POV of the article, and the removal of reference to Havana's historical shipyards (Arsenal de la Havana). This article appears to be written to conform to a narrow story about the Palmer shipyard. I agree with Beardo's position.--Zleitzen 11:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a discussion about the article, I feel it should be conducted here, instead of in my talk page. :) I know next to nothing about the subject of this article, so it is you who have to suggest what to do. What I can say is that content dispute tags should never be removed without prior consensus. There is clearly no consensus here, so feel free to restore them. Consider bringing in other editors knowledgeable or interested in the subject. If the dispute is not solved, try WP:RFC. I don't want to protect the page from edition at this point, but I might as well do it if this isn't solved. Propose changes here; do not apply them directly to the article. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gentleman, I have made it perfectly clear that El Arsenal was removed because I have been unable to verify it's existance at the current Palmer site. There simply is no information available to back it up. As for POV - this was solved earlier. As one can see, this article is based solely on factual knowledge. If there's anyone who'd like a primer on how to perform research, journalistic ethics, etc, I'd be happy to help but let's stop these personal attacks. Haven't attacked you or given nonsensical criticism to edits performed by you, etc. This is a forum for facts, not your interpretation of facts. Let's keep it that way.

Blanking, legal threats, etc.
It's apparent that Gabrielfoto has been using this article to post research of his own, as if it were a draft for a book. I don't know what copyright law says about this, but Gabrielfoto himself has implied that the content does not at present have a copyright, and at the bottom of Wikipedia's edit boxes there's the warning "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL", as well as the warning "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." In keeping with Wikipedia policy and what common sense tells me, I will continue to restore the content of this page whenever it is blanked either by Gabrielfoto or (as it happened twice already) by an anonymous editor (who may or may not be a sockpuppet of Gabrielfoto), until/unless I'm instructed by Wikipedia authorities, or by more knowledgeable editors, to do otherwise. At this moment I'd rather leave this article alone and never again come anywhere near it, but I'm not going to take threats from an individual who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't show any respect for the rules of this community. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've stripped the article down to a stub and its verifiable sources. The best outcome would be for the page to grow back keeping to policy, and also it means that Gabrielfoto's personal research is not compromised. I wish to thank Gabrielfoto for his contribution, unfortunatlely wikipedia is no different to any other public venture, and one must read the rules and smallprint before engaging on such a venture.--Zleitzen 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done, Z. I stayed clear of this to see what happened.  Thinking further though, I am not sure that the title "Havana Shipyards" is correct - though the CDC website refers to "Havana Shipyard", I am not sure if that is its name. Even if it were, I wonder if we should start with a general article on Havana Bay or Havana harbour ?


 * Gabrielfoto's photos are, I assume still there. Should we do something about them ?  As the uploading were stated to be "with permission", can he withdraw that permission ? -- Beardo 23:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)