El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
An event on this page is a April 17 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment) [edit] Exiled CubansFrom what I have read there were more like 1500 not 1200. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.218.217 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Back to the futureQuote: in a future interview with CNN, he said ... could someone who knows what is meant by this phrase please correct it, thanks. Maikel 09:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US involvment in related eventsWhat about a small background on other US funded "terrorism"/guerilla warfare (usually in order to overthrow dictators). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.160.16 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Overuse of the phrase "the invaders"Repeatedly in the section mentioning the battles, the article refers to U.S. forces as "the invaders". This isn't very neutral. JonJ (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weird quote box
What is with the weird right-justified quote box? (I copied and pasted it over to the right.) I have not seen anything like it on Wikipedia. Why does it exist? Why this quote in particular? Surely there are more interesting quotes, if for some reason this 'quote box' should exist. Tempshill (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Non-neutral sources.I notice that a few of sources in particular are used for a great deal of the most controversial and non-neutral analysis in this article -- many statements of what happened and why the invasion failed are attributed to them, usually to blame the Kennedy Administration. Their interpretations also seem to go against most of the remaining sources in the article (compare vs the well-sourced "CIA Report" section", which places the blame on internal CIA incompetence.) The sources I object to, to varying degrees, are these:
While they have their place in the article, they tend to have clear political agendas and interpretations of the invasion that are not universally accepted; it would be better to find more neutral sources for the things that they are used to cite, or to qualify the positions they take and the incidents the comment on as either not universally accepted, or not universally accepted in their significance to the degree that those sources frame them. --Aquillion (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] Casualty FiguresI improved the box with the casualty figures. Before it listed government forces losing only around 170 men but I believe this is good enough. The previous edition lists only caaulty figures for the regular army and fails to give even an estimate for the losses that the Cuban militias sustained. The new figures, I think, provide the reader with a better understanding of the battle. The old casualty figures listing 176 dead for the Cuban government is misleading becuase it fails to take into account that massive numbers of militiamen also took part in the battle. I ask other contributors to keep the accuracy of the casualty figures in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.232.37 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] Soviet Tactical NukesIt's my understanding that there was a Soviet advisor on the scene with tactical nuclear warheads ready to go and full authority to use them. Does anyone know anything about this? Oh, here we go. "USSR, draft directive, Directive to the Commander of Soviet Forces in Cuba on transfer of Il-28s and Luna Missiles, and Authority on Use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons, September 8, 1962." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/620908%20Memorandum%20from%20Malinovsky.pdf AThousandYoung (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The above directive, if genuine, was issued in September of 1962, in the month before the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was not part of any planned or authorized response by Soviet forces to the anticipated Bay of Pigs invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.146.91 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC) [edit] NPOVThis article seems to have been written by a handful of people with a strong inclination toward cuban exiles. It places all the blame of the "failure" on Kennedy administration and goes to the extreme to prove that cubans wouldn't have resisted if it weren't for "foreign advisors", place of landing, lack of air support, you name it. Same comment goes for the article on the "War against the Bandits", to which this article refers countless times: the views of the Cuban government are "partisan", the reaction of the cuban side was "cruel", their leaders always followed the "tactics" of others, the sources to that article are divided between "Pro-cuban government" and "Others". In this article, for example, people dead on the US side did not die, they "lost their lives". The British intelligence, reporting on popular support for the government, was not mistaken, they "choose to ignore reports". The number of cubans dead is ludicrous, most web references I find give a number in the hundreds, for example http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/the_bay_of_pigs_attack.html. The references are commented, for heavens sake, and many of them are pamphlets written by cuban exiles or obscure books without an ISBN. I fail to find a single reference to the Cuban government opinion on the issue. Apparently Cuba had no army at the time of the invasion: the forces that resisted are named in a thousand ways, but they're not the "Cuban army". The article repeat itself up to three times on the same issues, trying to avoid mentioning the merits that the cuban army could have had on the result of the operation. There are no references to the reject this "operation" created among other countries and the public demonstrations against the invasion in Europe or Latin America http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0806555.html . The issue of the US government hiring mercenaries to invade a country with which it was not at war is not even raised, nor the denials by Kennedy himself 5 days before the invasion about the United States having "no intention of intervening in Cuban affairs". Most of the criticisms to the article in this discussion page are immediately answered by El Jigue or El Jique (he doesn't sign with his user name and it varies), whose point of view is evidently sided toward the exiles: his answers in this page are incorpored verbatim into the article (I've never seen that in Wikipedia, btw). Its a shame for Wikipedia to have an article like this and it shows how NPOV policies are not enough in the face of persistent editing from people with an agenda. Even criticisms about the poor english of the article are confronted with "please, be specific". This article shouldn't be included in the calendar until totally rewritten by someone who has a clue on how to write history, a simple editing is not enough. I tried to start, but I throwed up my arms in despair, it's a task that easily can take days. --Ciroa (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mario Zuniga FlightIn this article, under "Invasion", the following quoted section does not seem to be related to the account of Mario Zuniga's deception flight, within which it is embedded. "This account differs from Cuban government reports that Sea Fury, B-26 fighter bombers and T-33 trainers flown by a few Cuban, notably Rafael del Pino, and some left-wing Chilean and Nicaraguan pilots[24][25], loyal to Castro attacked the older slower B-26s flown by the invading force.[26]" I suggest that this comment may have become orphaned from another account. The "Cuban reports" text agrees with most accounts I've seen - Any comments ? PeterWD (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC) After more searching, there's lots of data, including names, about Chilean and Nicaraguan pilots already training FAR pilots before the attacks. I also plan to amend Zuniga's destination to Miami International. Another B-26, damaged while attacking Cuban targets, diverted to Boca Chica, and a third diverted to Grand Cayman. The latter two B-26s were apparently allowed to return to Puerto Cabezas and took part in further attacks in days following. Comments welcome PeterWD (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Embodied changes to main article, relocated passages to fit chronology better, more changes and cleanup to follow.PeterWD (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I have added a passage about a battle-damaged B-26 that arrived at Boca Chica on 15 April, and it would be useful to learn the identities of the B-26 and its crew. That might help resolve the question of whether eight offensive B-26s were launched that day, as quoted by many sources, or just six that is now suggested, ie two for each target. PeterWD (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC). Update - I'm guessing that the Boca Chica B-26 was probably serialled 923 or 929. Can anyone confirm either? PeterWD (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] Tanks and ShipsCuban tanks are variously referred to as T-34s or Stalins. The shipping data also needs clarifying:- three LCUs or LCIs (Blagar, Barbara J, ANOther?), four LCVPs?(coded P-3, P-7 etc), four freighters, one LSD (USS San Marcos), but what sort of vessel was the Marsopa? Perhaps tank/ship nuts might like to investigate? PeterWD (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] Reintegrate the unrecht with justice, the civil way to resolveThe Bay of Pigs was the consequence of the expropriation lands and properties, on Cuban territory by Fidel Castro and many people have suffered for the loss of their property. Fidel Castro is a lawyer with a sense of justice and consequently in a manner consistent, he must compensat the unrecht (apropiado indebidamente). CUBA: In Transition?, Pathways to Renewal, Long-Term Development and Global Reintegration. Edited by Mauricio A. Font with the assistance of Scott Larson [1]
for Expropiation see
Perhaps in this way it is possible suggest a compromise.
Right: we identify the central question(s) of the historical narrative addresses.
[edit] AssassinationIn Hersh, Seymour M. (1997), The Dark Side of Camelot, the author makes the case that an assassination attempt on Castro was fully intertwined with the invasion. I see no mention of that in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.40.15 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC) [edit] US Department of StateDid the failed invasion weaken the DoS standing with the President, and when and how did the DoS involve itself in the plans for the invasion ? Also I do not understand the apparent upset with John F Kennedy for stopping the second wave, it was McGeorge Bundy who told JFK to do that; it was Bundy had been increasing the influence of his NSC post in the few months before the invasion, and it was Bundy who benefitted from the failure of the attempted invasion as he and the NSC gain more influence. My understanding is that JFK appointed McGeorge on the recommendation of Robert A. Lovett who no doubt had a host of overseas projects that would have a advantage if young McGeorge was able to influence US foreign policy as needed. From April to December 1961 the NSC for example got the US to support the Indonesian colonization of the Pacific people of West Papua whose Gold and Copper Lovett's Freeport company had wanted to mine for some years. Today it still brings in $billions each year. Página espejo de la WikipediaDirectorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
