Content deleted Content added
2a02:c7d:b5b8:da00:340f:ed72:37a1:4b3d (talk)
No edit summary
rmv duplicate search box, + tp header, not forum
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Cold War|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Cold War|class=C|importance=High}}
Line 25: Line 24:
|archive = Talk:Fulgencio Batista/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Fulgencio Batista/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Not a forum}}


Essentially a Marxist agitprop article.

The article pretends that the Cuban economy was "stagnating" in the mid 1950s. And it makes no real mention of the American Arms Embargo that fatally undermined Batista. The article implies that the Eisenhower Administration wanted Batista to stay in power - which is just not true.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:340F:ED72:37A1:4B3D|2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:340F:ED72:37A1:4B3D]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:340F:ED72:37A1:4B3D|talk]]) 12:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


== Wrong place of death ==
== Wrong place of death ==

Revision as of 09:55, 1 December 2016

Wrong place of death

Batista died in Guadalmina a place in the city of Marbella in Spain. In the article it says 'Guadalamina' instead of 'Guadalmina' which is the correct way to write it. I'm 100% sure because I live in Guadalmina in the city of Marbella and it is well known that the correct way of writing it is 'Guadalmina' and not 'Guadalamina'.

Carlos Manuel de Céspedes

FYI, the link to Carlos Manuel de Céspedes points to an article about the father of the person that this article refers to.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fulgencio Batista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban pro-Moscow party in 1940

The Cuban pro-Soviet party that supported Batista in the 1940 election was then titled the Partido Socialista Popular (People's Socialist Party). This may be confirmed at this wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Socialist_Party_%28Cuba%29

The PSP was not the party of Julio Antonio Mella at that time. Mella had been murdered in 1929, as shown at this wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Antonio_Mella

SuleymanSchwartz (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History is written by..

It's a fiery article. Weather it was 100 people or 20,000 I don't know.

But the mob and foreign businesses extracted massive amounts of money from the economy. This crashed the country. What Batista did was irrelevant. Countries crash without cash. After the fall soldiers looted those who had anything.

So, why would a man with 300 million dollars work for an insurance company? Batista's 300 million then was like a billion dollars in the 60s. He could have bought a new villa every year for a thousand years.

Tim

Nobody can explain why my search listings are missing. Today in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.236.164 (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR? and dateforms?

An editor just made a bunch of edits making the article a Commonwealth WP:ENGVAR. Was this established anywhere? Given Cuba's and Batista's ties with the US, I imagine there's an argument for maintaining US styling. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of reverting them when I had an edit clash with your recent edits. The changes are at best unnecessary tinkering to perfectly valid MOS:DATE and ENGVAR forms, enough for me to revert on principle whichever way the changes go (and in this instance a revert would be away from my native formats). The US ties argument may also be persuasive but I don't think we need to have it. I'd be glad to see you revert it to the pre-IP-edit version (although they did make a couple of arguable improvements to phrasing which could be retained). Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ENGVAR and dateforms are separate issues—DMY dates are valid in many AmEng articles (lots of US military articles use that form, for instance). Before reverting I'd like to see a consensus on both issues, and I'm altering the section title to reflect that. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the point of view of discouraging warring over unnecessary changes between perfectly valid forms and the ensuing waste of time engendered in discussion - time that could be much better employed by editors - the argument is exactly the same. My preference is that, unless there is internal inconsistency within an article, if valid and appropriate MOS stylings have been employed, any pointless tinkering with them be reverted on principle and we get on with the important stuff.
The IP's rationale for changing the date format to that used in Cuba is either a misunderstanding or spurious as it is has nothing to do with our MOS and if the logic was fully applied the article would have to be written in Cuban Spanish. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the ENGVAR and dateforms were inconsistent and that the IP chose to go with Commonwealth forms. That doesn't appear to be the case—it was all AmEng before. I've reverted, and I'm adding {{Use American English}} and {{Use mdy dates}} templates to the top. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out there already was a {{Use mdy dates}} template on the article. Guess it didn't help. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No valid reasons have been given use anything other than the following:
  • Name of 26th of July Movement is per that used by Wikipedia, reference: 26th of July Movement
  • Date format is per that used in Cuba, reference: [1]
  • Spelling, as per ENGVAR, reference the earliest version of the article, for example the 3rd paragraph 'gained control of labour groups, reference: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.115.56 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No tags for this post.