Talk:Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Cuba Portal Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991) is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Cuba To-do: edit  WikiProject Cuba - To do list

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-17. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Sources etc. 2 Duplication? 3 A very biased POV - Why? 4 Merge 5 large scale vandalism 6 lets start the debate!!! 7 Article deletion 8 further edits 9 Revision 10 arnaldo ochoa 11 Edit reversion 12 Aftermath redux 13 Introduction

[edit] Sources etc.

i first wrote this article in german using german and english sources. i'm presently translating everything into english and will try to use and look up some more english sources on the way and should be done in a few days. i greatly appreciate others smoothing out my germanisms which are hard to avoid when translating for hours and, of course, contributions, which i can translate back into german. Sundar1 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fowler's Modern English Usage is quite clear on the difference between transpired and occurred. I gave the reason for my correction, not like some other editors who sometimes make gratuitous changes without sources or reasons. (I don't think one needs a source for mere grammatical errors, unless it is contested). It is brave of you to write so extensively in English. I do think you have done a great service to Wikipedia with this very interesting article.24.226.60.29 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication?

This article appears to cover the same content as South African Border War and Angolan Civil War, although from a different point of view. Is there any merit in merging these articles into one? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A very biased POV - Why?

I'm not sure why the presentation is so extremely biased. Cuban propaganda and its sympathizers are printed as fact without any acknowledgment of disputes by reputable sources. And why anyone hasn't incorporated the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale article applicable to 75% of this? I've gone ahead and incorporated some more balanced views from the literature as well as toned down the opinionated tone of some of the prose. Virgil61 (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because this article was translated from Spanish, or because it was somewhat orphaned until I cross-referenced it? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though it was translated from Spanish the editor has some obligation to tone down its partisan rhetoric if used as a source for the article--short of quotations of course. I've tried to put input on the SADF/American side's view without as a counter in order to balance it. Anyone aware of the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale article will see the controversy. If you linked it, well thank you, it allowed a larger audience to discover it and for a synthesis of the conflicting opinions. There's nothing wrong with presenting the Cuban version if the disputing version is also given. Virgil61 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way Socrates I wasn't attacking you on the article's POV by any means. Thank you for correcting tags, I'll be more aware next time. Virgil61 (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries - I expected you'd find it pretty quickly once linked ;-) Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is just a regurgitation of the standard Cold War era Cuban rhetoric of the time, e.g. they successfully saved Angola from SA invasion and in doing so secured Namibian independence and ended apartheid. This is all based on the disputed outcome of Cuito Cuanavale with no supporting facts:

1. SA invasion? – Cuba entered in early 70's before independence or SA involvement/incursion as part of jockeying for three independence movements.
2. Nam independence? – Some would argue that they in fact delayed it by 10 years, because UN 435 was set out in 1978, but SA wouldn't implement it until Cubans left (large Comm block force posed a threat).
3. End of apartheid? – Strangely this coincided with the end of the Cold War and the Comm block threat on the SA border.

Anyhow, article (encyclopaedic portions) should be merged, see discussion below. — Deon Steyn (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

It does not seem to me that these comments are fair. It is by no means ``all based on taking sides in the dispute about who ``won the battle of Cuito Cuanavale. The careful timetable about when South Africa agreed to what concessions in the negotiation, linked with the events on the ground, is very strong evidence for the conclusion offerred, which conclusion is also backed up by citations to independent sources, and so counts, under Wiki guidelines, as ``verifiable. It is inappropriate to use the tag ``sympathiser without more analysis, to demote an academics independent work as not counting as an independent source. But quoting an

SADF general about the intentions of the SADF is not, under Wiki guidelines, independent, and so cannot count as evidence that the SADF and UNITA never intended to capture the city of Cuito Cuanavale, for example.

That timetable and that conclusion show that before these military events, SA was only willing to trade its withdrawal from Angola for Cuba's withdrawal from Angola. AFter these events, SA wound up agreeing to let SWAPO take over Namibia in return for Cuba's agreement to later withdraw from Angola.

Also, repeated claim of ``large Communist block posed a threat is itself controversial: many liberal European and American observers thought that SA felt threatened by any independent, black, nationalist movements in Namibia and Angola and Rhodesia. (See Stockwell, formerly of the CIA's, explanation that the MPLA was originally pro-American until Kissinger decided to make an example of it.)

It is hard to see why you are justified in labelling an American academic (Piero Glieseje is at Johns Hopkins, isn't he? or is it only the publisher of his book?) as the cuban point of view. It counts as an American point of view. The official point of view of Kissinger and Crocker could not, under Wiki guidelines, count as a verifiable source since they are not independent...but Glieseje does...My point being, that the fact that Glieseje is pro-Castro and agrees with so many aspects of the cuban point of view is irrelevant, under Wiki guidelines, it still counts as independent. it would be circular to say that since his conlusions agree with the cuban governmental point of view, therefore citing him does not count as independent verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.29 (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Just thought I'd make a separate heading to go along with the merge tags. Aside from the completely biased nature, clearly this article belongs to the article on the Angolan Civil War (some portions also overlap with Battle of Cuito Cuanavale). Cuba's involvement is 100% tied to and limited to the civil war and should be discussed as part of that only. — Deon Steyn (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is not only highly biased but highly inaccurate, which complicates merging. I would suggest this be merged to Angolan Civil War, Angola-China relations (for the section on Deng Xiaoping), and Angola-Cuba relations. Once it has been merged I would suggest deletion rather than redirecting it. Jose João (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so why has the merger proposal just changed from Angolan Civil War to Battle of Cuito Cuanavale? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Although there is some overlap, I don't support the merger with Battle of Cuito Cuanavale - Cuban involvement was much wider than just this battle. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I only had one article in the mergeto tag, because it is limited to one article, but it would really be merged into a combination of; Angolan Civil War, Battle of Cuito Cuanavale and Angola-Cuba relations (as Jose João pointed out). So myself, Jose João and Socrates2008 are in favour of it. Shall we get on with it then? — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On trying to merge, I see there isn't really much of value here. I suggest we just redirect to Angola-Cuba relations or delete. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the merge tag, but this time to Angola-Cuba relations, but as per our discussion the merge should be to several pages. Do not remove the merge tag until consensus has been reached or the merge completed. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I have completed the merge moving sections almost wholesale (for now) into Angola-Cuba relations ( [1] ) and Angolan Civil War ( [2] ). Can we have a vote on redirecting the page now? — Deon Steyn (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No... I disagree with how you merged the content. A lot of what I left here, I left because I suspected it was inaccurate. That and the content was barely English. Eventually I support redirecting. Jose João (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation I find this is not your fault. It's Sundar's. I removed all that crap because it was ridiculously inaccurate. Sorry about not commenting on the ongoing dispute prior to this, I have not had this article on my watchlist and I thought it was on the verge of AFD. Jose João (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't want to move and edit to avoid confusion. As a first step I just wanted to move it out and "into the light" in the proper articles where more editors can have a look and correct it while this page itself is closed down (redirected, merge whatever). Anyhow, let's sort out the AFD debate first. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason for not merging. The Cuban involvement in Angola was, in fact, directed towards independence for Namibia and so transcends the smaller topic of the civil war in Angola. And vice versa: the civil war in Angola naturally requires a longer discussion of Portuguese colonialism and the background of the struggle than is relevant here. This article does form a natural unit. It is already quite long enough, but this is appropriate due to the very controversial nature of the topic, requiring the many quotations and citations which this article uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.29 (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] large scale vandalism

all these edits in the last 2 weeks are cerainly not what i had in mind when i asked for contributions. it was clear to me that the information compiled in my article would be hard to swallow for some. but there is not one sentence of my own doing; each one is taken from sources that i listed. i actually stumbled upon this subject watching a documentary on cuban involvement in africa/angola on "arte", a bilingual german-french tv-channel, which, considering it is publicly funded, is quite an outstanding undertaking because of its high quality and, at least to my astonishment, very critical documentaries. my attention provoked, i proceeded to find out what was written on this issue in wikipedia. what i found was not so surprising: cuban involvement was hardly mentioned at all. writing the article "cuba in angola" was to shed light on cuban history and i thus intended to add it to the cuba history section. after it grew too big in size i decided to give it an own article with a link from cuban history. i had in mind to add more about the non-military involvement as soon as i could find more info and sources. so, from the very beginning, this article was firstly a cuban history article. of course it was clear to me that large sections of it are also useful for angolan themes. in fact, i even started adding some things but then became disheartended, because the angola history articles are, in my view, pretty screwed up.

i noticed that "cuba in angola" recieved critical addiditions, adding a SADF pov, which is fine, although i have something to say about that. then the article was almost totally dismantled within a few days by only one or two persons. going through the discussion sections of the related articles it is quite obvious, that these persones are the ones i had in mind when i wrote "hard to swallow for some". they refer to a "merge" discussion, which i cannot find anywhere and they also repetedly argue with "cuban propaganda" although i fail to have noticed any such propaganda outside that country in the last 40 years. the sources i used are very well documented and easily accessible. also, there is nothing wrong with dublication if the context is different.

unless i can make out a meaningful discussion with an acceptable number of participants over an acceptable period of time, i do not accept the dismantling of this article and concider changes of this scale vandalism. anyone is welcome to use parts of it for angolan issues but the bulk must remain a history of cuba issue. there will be more additions concerning cuban engagement in other african countries, e. g. algeria, zaire, guinea bissau etc. Sundar1 (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to accept that any article on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and try not to have a personal attachment to the article. It is not good to simply undo many edits of several different editors without discussion. Aside from "facts", there is also the question of whether this "information" warrants a separate article. Please see the merge discussion (topic above this one). Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling it "large scale vandalism" isn't constructive. Much of the article is uses highly biased prose not suitable for an encyclopedia and still needs cleaning up in that regard. Using one side's POV in a disputed historical battle is also not constructive, especially since the opposing POV is just as well sourced. At least three editors took part in this without intent to vandalize. Let's hope we can all cooperate from now on, in the spirit of Wikipedia. Virgil61 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i did not undo any of the edits because the article has been dismantled and distributed into other articles, such as the battle of c. i do not consider the few contributions above a discussion. your basic critisism is the discription and outcome of the battle of cuito cuanavale. this battle only takes up a small portion of my article and is not it's major issue. that's why you should focus on the article of the battle and not on the history of cuba. you are free to change the "highly biased prose" if it has no sources and if you find other sources to counter it, but not delete the whole article as you did. you say i undid edits without discussion, but none of your changes are based on discussions except that it's "pov" or "propaganda". besides, the whole article was distributed after a number of edits which i had not reverted. the issue is the article at all. if you don't like a seperate article i can simply add it into cuban history, what's the difference? no need to show me Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Assume good faith! perhaps you should consider looking into it yourself. i was constructive putting in this article, who is destructive here? Sundar1 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Different points of view are allowed and encouraged round here, but need to be verifiable. So let's focus the discussion on the verifiable content and move forward. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A single edit with a proper edit comments is okay, but reverting several such edits from a multiple of editors is not and it would definitely require a discussion first. The more important debate here is in fact the existence of this article to begin with. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lets start the debate!!!

as deon stein says himself, there were several edits by "multuple" editors (i'd say 2 or 3 at the most) and a single edit should be done with "proper" edit comments. well, where are all the "proper" comments? there is a difference between editing an article and removing a whole article. for the latter, simple edit comments and a discussion among 2 or 3 likeminded people within one week won't do. so let the debate begin. why don't you like the existence of this article. the reason i wrote it is explained above. it was part of cuba history.Sundar1 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you reverted (without discussion or even a reason) the work of five (5) editors (Perspicacite, Virgil61, Supergodzilla2090, Socrates2008 and myself) spanning 32 edits, almost all of them with clear edit comments. As for the article's existence, there is already a debate on the topic that you have not participated in: Talk:Cuba in Angola#Merge. In this debate several concerns are highlighted, most notably the fact that more appropriate pages already exist (especially Angola-Cuba relations, but also Angolan Civil War and Battle of Cuito Cuanavale) which duplicates much of this work. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

my reverts would appear in a different light if you consider that all the edits you mention are still in those places where the article has been moved. in the remaining article there was nothing left for me to change exept for a leftover, which made no sense in itself. it seems to have been kind of left to die. i gave a lenghty reason for putting the former article back into place which actually is not my original article but the last version before the distributing started- thus it contains most of the edits. in contrast, your so-called debate took place from jan. 4 until jan. 6. with contributions by only 3 - 4 people. generously i could say it started jan. 1. - makes no big difference. by the time i joined on jan. 6. the changes were all done. you can hardly blame anyone for not having participated in that short time. what was the hurry for? besides, the major changes and moves which raised my objections were done by 2 people, i so far did not put much thought to the minor edits, but i will.

i can add that i do think the subject merits an own article, just as e. g. the invasion in the bay of pigs does. in fact, i have in mind to write articles on cuba's involvement in other countries as well. indeed, articles often overlap, i could give you many examples, so that is no reason to delete. nevertheless, i do not insist on an own article, especially if none of the information is lost, but arguments certainly need to be more convincing. another major reason for my objection to distributing the article is that the recieving articles all have differing statements, in most cases, unlike in this one, without sources. interestingly, none of you had anything to remark about that yet.

to the person who requested a citation behind almost every sentence in the paragraph "proxy war": the sources for every statement in this article i gave either at the end of the sentence, the end of the paragraph and at the end of the article, perhaps not exactly to standard, i'm not sure, but i don't think they are really necessary in that abundance. nevertheless, i added them as he wished, to see what it looked like. i can do so with every sentence in this article, if he likes. not one statement in this article is my own.

i suppose we can agree that we don't agree and continue from there. would that be a start? why don't you pick up points, one by one, you don't like about the article? and it would certainly be nice if more people joined the discussion. Sundar1 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus reached was to merge the article into the other articles for the various reasons discussed at that time. The invasion of the bay of pigs does indeed warrant it's own article, because it was a specific well known event. Describing the history of Cuban operations in Angola can also be an article, but that is what Angola-Cuba relations is there for (as well as other articles already listed). They might not contain the information from this new article yet, but that is why the editors are adding (merging) the content to these pages. Your new article name does not make sense or refer to a specific thing. Does it refer to tourism or culture? The other articles are clear standalone concepts (Angola-Cuba relations and Angolan Civil War). — Deon Steyn (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments about a merger. However this should be done in a way that preserves the verifiable information and points of view in this article so that the end result is balanced. i.e. Some of the existing articles do not present the Cuban/Angolan point of view very well, while this one does the opposite. So rather than end up with something that no-one agrees with, I think folks need to agree to disagree and start thinking about how the two points of view can be presented objectively side-by-side.

Lastly, I don't think this article or any of the related ones are referenced enough, especially considering the different points of view being presented. Anyone that has issues with their material being challenged, please go and read Burden of evidence Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article deletion

I oppose the deletion of this article - relevant content should be merged with existing articles as discussed above. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] further edits

having made a number of smaller changes i could not explain them all in the edit summary. i will try to sum it up here: i removed a number of additions because they were added to statements which i had sourced. additions would render them incorrect. also, the editions i removed had no sources. i was especially intrigued by deon steyn's removal of "invasion" in the introduction with the reason that the south african intrusion was not an invasion. sounds very much like he wants to stick to south african nomenclature of the late 1975s. perhaps deon steyn would like to enlighten me, what the south africans did in angola. i don't suppose it was a boy scout's outing. i know of no sources using any other term than invasion and, looking up the definition in wikipedia it looks like just what south africa did. that's why i returned the older version of the introduction. i'm not so happy with the heading of the new paragraph "south africa's defeat" although the result is something along that line. Sundar1 (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

By your definition, Cuba's intervention in the civil war was an invasion too - it was certainly long enough to be a strategic endevour. At the end of the day, SA intervened on one side, and Cuba the other, so there's no point arguing a POV that only one side was an "invader" here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I believe "Kifangondo" is German spelling - "Quifangondo" is the correct English. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

well, socrates, you do have a point there and i think the use of the term "invasion" is worth a discussion. only, more or less all sources i ever came across except, perhaps, south african ones, talk about south african invasion or intervention while on the other side, i never read about a cuban invasion. perhaps it's because the term "invasion" also has a negativ flavour and it's necessary to compare the situation with others around the world or in history to see whether there is some kind of consistency. at present i have no explanation why the cuban intervention is not called invasion. but the south african intervention certainly was one. as to the spelling of Kifangondo, i mainly used english sources and actually never came across that name in a german source. i don't remember where i got the spelling from. the spelling with "qu" i first noticed on wikipedia. whatever the official spelling should be taken. Sundar1 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

if internet hits are any indication, for quifangondo there are 600 entries on yahoo, for kifangondo 19,000 both in all languages. that explains why it took a while until i first came across the "qu" spelling on wikipedia. what do we make of this? Sundar1 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a completely partisan mess straight out of the Cuban playbook. It needs serious rewriting. A section called "South African Defeat" gives only sources from sympathetic media. Atrocious. I don't have time to rewrite large portions of it with a more balanced multi-sourced POV. You'll note few American or South African sources in the article and heavy reliance on Piero Gleijeses a far-left lecturer on diplomacy who's received awards from Fidel Castro and, frankly, knows little about military history or operations. While his voice should be heard it's an embarrassment to have his POV as the sole standard. This isn't FidelCastropedia. Virgil61 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sundar, please don't take it as a personal slam, I understand you work with what you have on hand. No more, no less. Just calling attention to the issue from some of us who've worked this area before. It gets a bit frustrating to fight the same battles over and over again. Virgil61 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the definition of "invasion"? The only sources that use the term are Cuban or Cuban-aligned, because it served a propaganda purpose or because they completely misinterpreted the action. This is some aspects of an invasion:

• the goals of an invasion are usually large-scale and long-term
• a sizeable force is needed to hold territory

Most importantly: Smaller-scale, tactical cross-border actions, such as skirmishes, sorties, raids, infiltrations or guerrilla warfare, are not generally considered invasions.

Looking at this definition no one will ever believe that the SA government wanted to conquer and occupy Angola. It would be the most ridiculous and absurd venture imaginable. Look at the map, look at the population and forces strenghts. How would the white SA population of a few million (5 or 6?) with an army of 50,000–100,000 ever hope to defend South Africa, Namibia and Angola from all the neighbouring countries??? It was a simple cross border action in support of UNITA and against threatening SWAPO, MPLA positions. Because of the non-existent or pathetic oppostion encountered the commanders advanced further than planned, but they retreated soon after. Have you ever heard of such an successful "invader" just leaving again??? The fact that they left after completion of mission objectives, proves that it was not an "invasion". Please see Webster's defitions of incursion and invasion (for conquest or plunder). "Incusion" yes, "invasion" no. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Jan Breytenbach's 'Forged in Battle' used for sourcing only when it compliments the Cuban POV (or is quoted out of context) but none of his unit's battles ending in defeat of Cuban and MPLA units commented upon? It looks to be 'third' sourced, ie sourced from inside another writing rather than directly. The sourced phrasing which lists only the last name and no publisher, date etc. looks like it came from an old PhD working paper done years ago. I'm still trying to figure out how six or seven blown up Elands in the successful ambush of an SADF column 'turned the tide' of anything outside that recon skirmish much less the war for Angola. Virgil61 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

deon steyn, according to your definition the u.s. whatever into grenada was no invasion, irak was not an invasion and the u. s. whatever into afghanistan neither. where are the differences? the time frame, the number of soldiers, the objectives? nobody said the sadf wanted to conquer and occupy angola for good, although they did the latter for quite some time. invasions don't only have the purpose of adding territory. they obviously also have other reasons. a successful invader leaving is indeed rare - they usually get kicked out unless they were sure things were going "their way". you say the sadf advanced further than planned, but retreated soon after. my sources to not confirm this. instead, the sadf repeatedly tried to gain more ground to the north, including the benguela railway.

i'm not fighting for this terminology but my observation remains the same, the term invasion is most widly used. as to the title of the new paragraph, i figured it would raise objections. could have called it "humiliation" instead of defeat. as i'm telling vergil below, it's not single battles that count, but the outcome in the end: south africa out of the country is what matters. there are enough sources saying they didn't leave voluntarily but by a combination of being stuck at the southern front, internatinal pressure and being dropped like a hot potatoe. Sundar1 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

virgil, i'm beyond taking it personal, thank you, and what i'm working with is listed. i'm sorry you're not happy with they way i use sources. winning a battle here or there, or winning almost all battles, as breytenbach might have done, simply isnt't the issue here. you are more than welcome to write an article on all the battles during the civil war, count up the casualties, list the used weapons and relish in the south african victories, if it makes you happy. it doesn't change the outcome that destroying mpla and installing a government to its own taste was foiled. mission not accomplished. for black africa and third world nations this is a victory, no matter how you put it.Sundar1 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't the ultimate political outcome it's with the facts concerning the outcome of military operations. To historians, especially of those who follow military history, the truth in that regard (battle, skirmishes, air superiority, etc.) is an important aspect of the story. It doesn't change the wrongness of apartheid but that isn't the issue with addressing the objective facts of military operations. To anyone knowledgeable about it things like the Angolan foreign minister stating that an ambush resulting in six scout cars destroyed 'changed the course of the war' must be met with skepticism.

As with much of Wikipedia there is a middle ground that we can meet where both sides on a debatable issue can be presented. You seem absolutely OK with that, which is commendable considering what sometimes can happen on Wikipedia. And pardon my frustrations. Virgil61 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A 'charged' question perhaps--but a legitimate one considering how diseases spread--but has anyone else read that returning troops from Angola introduced HIV into the Cuban population? Virgil61 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Invasion vs. Incursion — Once again have to ask you if you have actually read the page for invasion Sundar1??? Your arguments actually prove my point! According the definitons U.S. operations in Iraq, Grenada and Afghanistan are "invasions" (in terms of scale, duration and intention), but clearly a single, month-long, cross-border operation (Ops Savanah) does not even come close the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This is exactly the problem with this page, we are wasting time discussing the outcomes of wars or battles already discussed on other pages when this page is supposedly about "intervention" or "relations" between two countries. And calling the outcome a "humiliation" or "defeat" for one side when both agreed to leave, is clearly biased, because Cuba also withdrew. South Africa managed to removed Cuba and hand over Namibia without interference from Soviet proxies... so the mighty Com Block was the one humiliated perhaps? 40,000–50,000 troops, billions of dollars of equipment and they couldn't even take a few Unita strongholds and when the USSR crumbled and the money from Europe dried up they left Angola in tatters ravaged by civil war for another 13 years and now one of the worst economies in the world (Economy of Angola and see 2002 figures: [3])... thanks for your intervention Cuba. You see, it all depends on your point of view. Please keep wikipedia neutral and present all sides of the story in such controversial topics. Leave interpretations and original research out of the article. Yes Cuba was in Angola, yes they were helping one side in civil war, yes they left again... these are the facts... this is what the article title is!!! yes? no? —&nbspDeon Steyn (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

definition of invasion according to wikipedia: a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering territory, altering the established government, or a combination thereof. can be the cause of a war, can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. it usually denotes a strategic endeavor of substantial magnitude; because the goals of an invasion are usually large-scale and long-term, a sizeable force is needed to hold territory, and protect the interests of the invading entity. Smaller-scale, tactical cross-border actions, such as skirmishes, sorties, raids, infiltrations or guerrilla warfare, are not generally considered invasions. because an invasion is, by definition, an attack from outside forces, rebellions, civil wars, coups d'état, and internal acts of democide or other acts of oppression, are not considered invasions.

deon, the first thing i did is check up with the definintions and it's remarkable how interpretations can differ. my major point is the general use of the term in the sources i have seen so far. as to your referring to the wikipedia definition, which i posted here, i see absolutely no contradiction: as to a the comparison to iraq or afghanistan there are indeed differences in terms of scale and duration, not in intention. it is not correct saying the sadf actions only took one month, but longer duration is not a "must" for the definition anyway. neither is a larger sized force. the only one who regarded the development and outcome in angola and namibia your way was apartheid south africa. if that is not very onesided then i don't know what is. cuba was in angola because of south african aggression and not the other way around. so putting the blame on cuba for the whole mess in angola is twisting history. savimbi was only able to reject the outcome of the elections and continue the war for so long because of apartheid support. if south africa was so successful as you put it, they would have not left angola before reaching their objectives and they certainly wouldn't have moved out of namibia. they couldn't even prevent swapo from coming to power.

No, Cuba was in Angola because of Unita as well as the SADF and Savimbi relied to a large extent on U.S. support as well (stinger missiles). He outlasted Apartheid by well over a decade so your statement doesn't hold true. I believe you've been hoodwinked by your 'sources' over SADF objectives. The facts are that Cuba seemed to finally 'get' that they weren't going to succeed over the small SADF forces and decided to negotiate, get out and declare victory. It cost Pretoria money to stay in Namibia and that it was unpopular at home. All sides got an excuse to leave. It ain't brain surgery. Virgil61 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

of course, invadors don't like to call what they are doing an invasion. you will note, that the term is not much used by the us when referring to their actions in other countries. it has a destinct negative flavour, as does the term "infiltration" which the us loves to use for describing the support of leftist liberation movements. the term invasion is usually used by the ones who suffer them. in fact, the nazi germans called the allied landing in normandy an invasion and to this day the term is still widly used in german historiography. in spite of the size, objective and time frame you will hardly here any of the allies using this term.

To call the 2,500 sized SADF incursions to support UNITA an invasion frankly is preposterous. That is part and parcel of the leftist view of the conflict. Virgil61 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

by the way, the article does not contain own research or any single interpretation of my own. there is nothing wrong with presenting the apartheid side- they certainly did have their reasons, but what you are doing is justifying what they did- that's a big difference. i have no intention to do that. it's like justifying the nazi attack on russia just because it was communist.

Germany attacking Russia is so far off the mark here I'm not sure what to tell you. Fidel's Cubans hadn't any more moral authority than the apartheid SADF. Nothing Deon says seems an attempt to justify anything. He, I and others are addressing the issue from a military history standpoint in terms of operations, tactics, et al. Virgil61 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

that's why i have so much trouble seeing the articles merged as requested. the exiting ones are so one-sided (and partially very poorly done) that i see no way this could be achieved. in the bedinning i had considered at least to alter some sections in these articles so they wouldn't be so contradictive but that would take ages (i have a family and only put a few hours of time into wikipedia per week) and it would incite more discussions of the same, most likely with he same people. balancing an article the way you see it is putting apartheid/unita pov on one side and us, cuban, mpla and other pov's on the other. adding some sources in support of the apartheid side doesn't change much. this is not what wikipedia regards a balanced article and neither do i. obviously there is not a large enough community interested in this topic so a solution is not easy. but i'm thinking about it.Sundar1 (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest Sundar your article uses less than concise prose throughout as well as an underlying biased hyperbole. Is English your first or second language? As for a 'balanced' article. In the issue of Angola the sources are far too clear that the SADF force had at least tactical and operational dominance over a far larger Cuban opponent. It also is clear that Cuba spawned a propaganda campaign afterwards to save face. You use or rather your source's extensive use of Gleijeses is an apt example. You are unaware of the fact he's a leftist fan of Fidel's Cuba and isn't a military historian. Yet he seems to be the basis of a lot of your article. Virgil61 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that Sundar1 was still flogging a dead horse. It is simply impossible to honestly not be able to distinguish between the definitions of an invasion and an incursion. Any time a South African crossed the border the Cuban/MPLA (and Sundar1 of course) refers to it as an invasion. And you are simply lying or uninformed when you , they are, the WP article is in fact called 2003 invasion of Iraq, how much clearer can that be??? And the WP article for D-Day/Normandy... drumroll... Invasion of Normandy. 0/2 Sundar1, both were invasion and both articles are named as such!!! Please check your facts before you make false claims. And once again, I must point out how absurd it is expect an SADF force of 2,500—5,000 men (depending on the operation) to invade and occupy a country. Please compare this to either the Iraq or Normandy case where in excess of 300,000 (yes, three hundred thousand) troops were involved. One of SA's few "allies", the US, wouldn't even support some of the simple operations, why would they —let alone the international community– allow a full-scale invasion??? How would it be funded??? How would so few troops actually accomplish this??? How would SA protect an additonal 1,600 km of coastline and an additonal 1,246,700 km² (11 times the size of Cuba) with hostile communist-backed neighbours all around??? — Deon Steyn (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

how right you are, deon steyn: the actions in normandy and irak are invasions indeed. i did not say otherwise. you're flogging a horse that's not even there. again, i must point out that i always stuck to the term used in the source. if the source used a different term, like incursion, i used that. my opinion is not even relevant and actually, neither is yours. nevertheless, i don't see what the size of the invading force has to do with the definition. if there is no opponent a small army can occupy large territories which is what happened in angola. in fact, most of the "battles" during the whole war only involved hundreds, or at the most a few thousand. had it been otherwise, south africa would have been hard pressed to cough up more troops; after all, they were busy in a number of other "cordon sanitaire" countries. you should read more carefully before responding because i did not write the US operations in Iraq aren't referred to as invasions. and even if i had it would not be correct to call it lying. i thought i was the one who lacked good faith. Sundar1 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

This article has turned into an absolute Fidel Castro love fest with major inaccuracies and a hack job on history. A disgrace and embarrassment to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. I'll find time to make major changes later this week. Virgil61 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the recent drastic changes. Any source or statement supporting a view opposite that of Piero Gleijeses, a Castro enthusiast, had been eliminated. Indeed Gleijeses seems to be the major source. Other 'sourced' works being hijacked from his and other writing then inserted as independent sources. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Citing sources:

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

A drastic reduction in 'sources' with only the original book or webpage used is called for to make the article correctly sourced.

The revision, even more so than the article it was revising, is replete with weasel words and peacock terms. This style of writing is below standard for Wikipedia and formally counseled against in WP:AWW and WP:APT.

No attempt at discussion nor moderation was done, only slanted, inaccurate and partisan input was included in the reversion. I'm prepared to withstand a revert and start the Wikipedia intervention process if there is change with no discussion. Virgil61 (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

this procedure by virgil is unacceptable since i changed very little of the original article. instead, i changed a few things around and added a lot more info. therefore there i see no reason to discuss anything before it is disputed. everything is sourced, perhaps not 100% correctly, but to an extent that it's almost silly, but if requested, it can be done 100%, no problem. whatever info is disputed, e. g. slanted, inaccurate or partisan statements, must be countered by other sources. simply pointing at them won`t do and reasons must be given for removals. if anyone doesn't like gleijeses, he or she must state and source where he is wrong. i also stongly object to the changing of my spelling - this is not an article about the u.s.a. if i did "eliminate" other views "opposing gleijeses'", it was intentional in very few cases, if at all, e. g. the part about cubans being in cabinda again. yet, this also is no justification to put the old article completely back into place. Sundar1 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you, Sundar1, are using the article as a soapbox, your edits are not neutral and you repeat the propaganda (per definition not neutral) of one side in the conflict. The language edits are also correct, apart from the "z" versus "s" The rules is that articles with strong subject matter American should use American spelling ("z"), but articles not so related and started with British spelling should remain as such ("s"). — Deon Steyn (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the reasoning again Sundar, I don't think you are on very solid ground. As I wrote above the revision contained far too many weasel words, peacock terms and used grandiose terminology written in triumphant praise of the Cubans. Not very encyclopedic to say the least and, I think, far below the standard demanded by Wikipedia.

You seem to have read one book on the subject and used it as the sole basis for the article. The 'sources' you list aren't independent they've been lifted from Gleijeses' and perhaps one other book. He doesn't just favor one side, he's a flag-wavingly partisan pro-Fidel writer. Nothing wrong in with that in principle, but used as the main source for an encyclopedic article not acceptable.

The criticism of sourcing is not 'silly', it's a violation of Wikipedia sourcing policy and goes to the integrity of the article. You must actually have gone to the source and seen them yourself, if you didn't then you must use the book which quotes that source as the source document.

In other Cuba articles I've included the opposing POV when possible--though I disagree completely--because the disagreements and POVs themselves deserve to be documented in an encyclopedia article. They are themselves instructive.

We're writing an encyclopedia not a partisan document. You knew there were drastically opposing points of view and didn't think it appropriate to start a discussion before a major revision documenting one side. In the past I've certainly been approachable to change and integration of the two POVs but opposed to partisan recounting of Cuban propaganda. Virgil61 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

at this moment i am not disputing that your criticisms might be correct but that you must point to which statements you critisize and give reasons why you consider them pov, not neutral, weasel words, peacock words, grandiose terminology, triumphant praise, partisan etc. i have not put any of my own terminology into the article and stuck quite meticuously to the terminolgy in the sources. i accept the criticism concerning the sourcing, i intend to correct it and i certainy can expect to be given some time to do so. i did not say that criticism of sourcing is silly (if you read more carefully); nevertheless i indeed considier the criticism silly compared to the total revert without any reason. this wasn't even on if there initially were no sources at all. if such "violation" (nice club, isn't it?) justified erasing or reverting articles to such an extent, at least half the wikipedia articles would have to go. putting the whole article in one box with all these general statements and calling it propaganda is not an acceptable reason for a total revert. an article based on one source, which this one certainly is not, does not automatically make it unfit for wikipedia. it has long been clear that you have trouble with one of my major sources but then you should point out where it is wrong and source it. it certainly won't do to slander it because you don't like it.

it's even less acceptable to revert an article with the reason: "idiocy undone"! before you point out all these wikipedia rules you should make sure you stick to them yourself, especially in an agrument. basically the article is a timeline with few detectable evaluations, if at all. again, i did not do a major revision of the older article but mainly added more info. actually i threw a number of things out that were marked to go into other articles. i also left out descriptions of battles. so we are not talkiing about "revision" but the adding of info that i must assume you don't like.

it is not possible to change history: if i clobber you on the head and someone writes an article about it, even if they found out that i was mistreated as a child and grew up in a home, i will always be the guy who clobbered you on the head and it will always look bad, no matter how you put it.

as to the spelling: only minor parts of the article deal with the us - after all it is basically about cuba in angola and has strong cuban and angolan subject matter. and to my knowledge south africa doesn't use us-spelling either. and last but not least, the article was certainly not started with us-spelling.

as to cuban propaganda: as far as i can see, all participants in this debate so far grew up in the "west". you will need to explain where any one of us was ever exposed to cuban propaganda. it was certainly not in the "fee" society of apartheid south africa or any other of the free western societies with their totally unbiased mass media. at least i do not recall ever having been exposed to cuban propaganda or to any other "eastern" propaganda for that matter. i also never encountered such propaganda as a visitor in eastern europe at the time or in cuba. what kind of propaganda do you think we are constantly exposed to? it certainly isn't cuban. but of course it's easy to call anything propaganda that doesn't fit in one's picture - it's a very old game, by the way.Sundar1 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

starting the intervention process is fine with me. i will return the former article and as far as justified include the latest changes. not included are editions that are unsourced or have no obvious reason. i started re-doing the sourcing as far as indirect sources are concerned- most likely not to your satisfaction and possibly not correct either. i would very much like to keep the link to the original source, which i find very important. i will find out if and how this is possible. as to british and a few south african publications, i was able to confirm a number of them through the local university and state libraries. i will need more time and seek out as much as possible. leaving it they way it is now will not do any damage.Sundar1 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what you seem to have done so far, 'quoting X, quoting Y' fulfills if not the letter of the Wikipedia guidance on quotes certainly the spirit. I think it's a fine approach. Virgil61 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The terribly fatal flaw isn't the secondary sources being confirmed then quoted as primary ones, it's that 90% of the article seems based via one source, Gleijies' book. He then 'leads' you to the secondary sources with his own very biased POV. It's academic and scholarly dishonesty to use this one source and it's research as the primary foundation for this article. Virgil61 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

This article is much more balanced and documented from reliable sources than the articles it is being

compared with, for example the article on the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, which relies on SADF estimates of Cuban casualties, obviously unreliable. That article also violates Wikipedia standards in that the citations from opposite points of view are not equally detailed, quantitative, and substantial. Whereas this article chooses reliable and relatively neutral citations and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.29 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's rather bizarre how you completely disregard the partisan tone of the article or the use of only one primary source. I notice that your IP resolves to Kingston, Canada. While I try to attribute good faith I wonder if you're up to something. Virgil61 (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arnaldo ochoa

"In 1989 the former Expeditionary Force commander in Angola Arnaldo Ochoa was arrested by the Cuban government accused of drug trafficking and corruption. He was executed by firing squad on July, 12 1989." i'm opposed to the death penalty and it certainly is sad what happened to ochoa. nevertheless, i removed this recent addition for 2 reasons: it has no relevance to the article except that ochoa was in angola (so were 450,000 other cubans) and it is not sourced. there are a number of countries that give the same punishment for this crime. although i can guess the reason, perhaps it can be explained why this was added.Sundar1 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It has relevance because 1) Ochoa was commander in Angola for much of this period. To white-wash his sentence of death is pretty suspect. To think his death sentence isn't suspect is white-washing as well. And 2) a thirty second google could source it <http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS251US251&q=ochoa+angola+trial+death&btnG=Search>. Again this article needs drastic revision in terms of acceptable encyclopedic English language usage. Whenever I can find time...Virgil61 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit reversion

If you're going to do a mass revert or undo of my fixes than explain it on the discussion page. The English you use, such as 'dispatch' rather than 'deployment' is stilted and rather odd; it reads like a strict translation from another language (which I suspect it is) or as if written by someone who uses English as a second language.

The 3 'results' (The Cuban involvement in Angola had a number of further reaching repercussions) I deleted were editorializing and opinion not encyclopedic analysis. I'll stand by my reversions. Can we expect more visitors from Ontario? Virgil61 (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Word usage such as 'found themselves confronted', 'suddenly and unexpectedly', 'granted without much ado', 'they all had enjoyed', etc., is embarrassingly poor English usage for an encyclopedia in the context in which they are written.

As another example the following phrase; The transitional government this agreement provided for, equally composed of the three liberation movements and Portugal is striking in its poorly written English. Again, it doesn't look scholarly but rather like a translation from one language to another by a college sophomore not terribly fluent in one of them. Virgil61 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

before i reply i must point out that my three previous edits and re-edits did not appear in the article because at one stage by mistake i used the “undo” function. thus i reverted most of the changes into a state i had not intended. sorry for that. here are the reasons i gave for my reverts:

• (Undid revision 210698231 by Virgil61 (talk) no reasons for deletions given)
• (→Cuban Military Mission: dispatch and deployment not the same, only most urgently needed specialists used intl. flights)
• (addition not supported by given sources)
• (→The Carnation Revolution and Independence negotiations: partially redone changes because of loss of some info, cabinda "enclave" in congo but exclave of angola
• nothing wrong with "transpired", word also used in source

if i did a "mass revert", then it was the revert of an unexplained mass revert. i certainly did not add or revert more and i did not revert everything. as to virgil's unhappiness about my english, you are invited to improve it without changing the sense. virgil, do you have a problem with "second-language-users" and "visitors", especially from ontario? what is one to make from all these haughty remarks?

I don't have a problem with 'visitors' from Ontario. It is a wonderful place, I especially enjoyed my stay in Toronto. I did find it suspicious though that two editors with only IP addresses to ID them came from Kingston-Queens University within a day or two then immediately engaged the articles on CC, attempted to sharpshoot my own use of English and that you yourself are from the same area. It's not prohibited by any means of course, but then again neither is pointing it out. Virgil61 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

However sockpuppets and meatpuppets are a different issue.

WP:MEAT Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.

WP:SOCKS Virgil61 (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

the word "dispatch" refers to the time the units left the country, which is what is meant in this article. deployment refers to the actual time of arrival in a country, which, in this case, is not what is meant. the term is taken from an english source and not translated.

Dispatch? Deployment sounds far better but fine. Dispatch is not used as often and deployment's meaning isn't as narrow as your definition (for ex. see: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/deploy?view=uk)Virgil61 (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"'found themselves confronted', 'suddenly and unexpectedly', 'granted without much ado', 'they all had enjoyed', etc., is embarrassingly poor english". virgil, i'm really sorry for your embarrassments and i can assure you i will do my best to avoid it. nevertheless, if i fail, please improve the language, even if it was from "a college sophomore not terribly fluent in one of them", but again, without changing the sense or dropping content. it is absolutely clear what is meant and it is also correct. the same applies to "the transitional government this agreement provided for, equally composed of the three liberation movements and portugal..." which you find "striking in its poorly written english". language improvements are welcome but not deletions.

when is an analysis "encyclopedic"? opinions are admissible and well sourced. other ones with sources can be added. perhaps the sources could be directly mentioned in the article.

Surely you can figure the answer out. Virgil61 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

virgil, i'd very much appreciate if you kept any remarks referring to language, language knowledge, origins, and what you deem scholarly in that respect, to yourself. if imperfect english is something you cannot handle or cannot understand because it requires some kind of flexibility, wikipedia might not be the right place for you.Sundar1 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

More than anything I think I hurt your feelings for being blunt rather than appropriately diplomatic. Virgil61 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The imperfect English was the slanted and biased nature of the remarks as much as their awkwardness--and there are more changes needed. I will of course explain them more fully, that's a valid criticism. I'd wrongly assumed the reason for the changes were obvious.

Part of the problem is that having one book on the subject and using it almost exclusively for the article then using it's sourcing simply reorganized to look as if taken from the original is fraught with issues. Nonetheless I'll attempt further changes with less blunt language. Virgil61 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

virgil61, you bring in feelings again and i can assure you, they are not at issue, although, perhaps, they should to be taken into account when critisizing something. i must point out, as i did before, that you keep referring to wiki-rules and good faith, not much regarding them yourself. etiquette and manners also have their place in wikipedia.

it is only now and by coincidence that i went through all the discussions since january and discovered the comments of may 1 you are probably referring to. i neither invited these contributions, although i really appreciate them and i'm delighted they come from canucks (for which i only have your word), nor do i have other accounts. obviously you are not happy with what these contributions contain. i don't know where you get the idea that i come from the area of kinsgton, unless you consider the province of ontario "the same area", but i doesn't matter anyway. what matters are your insults to which now you add suspicions. in order to attack this article you certainly don't shy back from anything. but very few of your "arguments", if any at all, directly deal with the contents, which would be much more helpful and which i would be glad to talk about.

i don't see why the issue of sources, which you bring up again, is part of the problem. you need to keep apples and pears apart. we were just taking reverts and manners. nevertheless, since you're so unhappy with one of my sources, in your eyes, what percentage of one source is permissable in an article before you consider it being used "almost exclusively"? just for interest, i'll be content with a rough estimate.

why don't you stick to the article and change it, of course giving acceptable reasons, and if you like, with blunt language. just keep the personal things out. Sundar1 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath redux

In the Aftermath portion the three reprucussions are editorializing using Gliejes sources as 'sources' and assuming facts in dispute; 'Retreat without gain', 'Cubans...defeated white troops', etc. Incendiary, biased and needless as presented. Perhaps rewording it? Virgil61 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Took out a few of the more partisan statements leaving more factual data. Virgil61 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

13dble's introduction--which has been reverted by Sundar1 twice--is far superior in its clarity of English and its non-POV stance. Virgil61 (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)