Talk:Bay of Pigs Invasion

Casualty and prisoner numbers

I think the various numbers of casualties and prisoners in the article have always been a problem, and we may never get a really accurate analysis. They also attract the attention of (usually IP) editors who seem to think their reading of some undisclosed source is better than studies of our carefully assembled list. For example, the combining of killed, missing and wounded numbers seems to be unnecessary and clumsy copying of lazy authors' verbals. I suggest Cuban casualties could be just 176 killed and c.4,000 wounded, with derivations and brief explanations in a footnote. However, nesting current footnote ref tags within a new footnote is not allowed by mediawiki software. I have seen an example (Battle of Cuito Cuanavale), where this is done (but not elegantly) by use of a ref group= tag. In WP:NOTES, Jane Austen is given as an example, but I don't yet understand how that example works. Personally, I'd be a bit confused by two sections Notes and Footnotes, but perhaps Explanatory notes and Reference notes might suffice. Perhaps refs could be manually inserted eg Fernandez (2001), where BTW there is a breakdown of the 176 number. If anyone knows of really good examples we can copy, please advise here, or any other comments. MTIA. PeterWD (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No responses so far. This out-of-practice code monkey has tried the magic word #tag:ref mentioned in wp:notes in a first experiment, but it fractured the Infobox Military Conflict. I have now tried the Jane Austen method, using basic Template:Cref2 tags in place of ref and /ref pairs, then Cnote2 template constructs in the new Explanatory notes section. See my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PeterWD/Sandbox&oldid=400215056 for 2nd experiment. Wikilinks intentionally neutralized; details of refs and numbers for test only, will review before any addition to article. Any comments welcome here.PeterWD (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Update. I have briefly checked casualty numbers in all the sources readily accessible to me, but I've also found additional data that will be useful for the article, and not just numbers. I plan to copy and check passages in the Schlesinger book next week; the Lazo and Dreke books are unseen by me, but ordered loan copies should arrive in January. I now propose to add the 'Explanatory notes' section with only minimum citation changes, then new data to follow later. The new source code, and any new data, will of course add to the stored file size, but I think there's still scope for a bit more tidying of grammar to trim back some of that. The Lynch book has many 'interesting' first-hand accounts, but contains gratuitous personal attacks (eg on Schlesinger) plus estimated numbers that don't stand up to (my) analysis. The Lynch citation can not be validated, and I propose to remove it in the first edit. It seems very lonely in here, but I'll wait for comments before proceeding. MTIA PeterWD (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

PeterWD, I agree there is no need for POV pushing from an author (or anyone) in the article and it is good to cross-check what you can. Go ahead with your edit plan; it can always be tweaked, as needed. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek, first stage now done.PeterWD (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

External links issues

At this time, we have four external links in the BoPI article:

• 1.Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs Invasion from the JFK Library
• 2.Bay of Pigs: Invasion and Aftermath - slideshow by LIFE magazine
• 3.Digital Images from the Cordovés and Bolaños Collection regarding the Bay of Pigs Invasion
• 4.Footage of anti-US protests in Moscow in response to Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961

Generally, I leave them in place if I think they help with stuff not in the article, particularly rare contemporary images, that otherwise can't be used in WP. Other times, I extract nuggets and put details in the article. Personally, I judge recent item 4 above to be a bit unnecessary, having no significant text beyond the description of Russians protesting, but I'm happy to leave it for a while for interest. One recent addition was removed by an admin under WP:SPAM:

• Kennedy, Bundy and the Bay of Pigs

Personally, I thought that it was an interesting source of extracts from a relevant book that I have not had a chance to access, but I haven't yet analysed it for stuff worth using in the WP article. The spam issue is presently under discussion elsewhere. I welcome comments from other editors on my approach and actions generally on external links. MTIA. PeterWD (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• • If the book is worth a damn then we should use it as a source. If not, a link to a page of excerpts does little for the reader. The link is to a new website developed to flog books for St. Martin's Press, and the person who provided the link has tried to add more than a dozen such links to various articles. Rklawton (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Background Inaccuracies?

I came to this article to check out a claim that Eisenhower never had an invasion plan for Cuba and that the prevailing view amongst historians that the Kennedy administration was saddled with his plan. Some claim that this was purposeful misrepresentation by members of the Kennedy administration following his death.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article did little to answer this question, and in fact, seems to confuse it further. The article states that Eisenhower did approve the "PROGRAM OF COVERT ACTION AGAINST THE CASTRO REGIME". This document is available online and concerns itself with creating an expat political opposition organization, intelligence capabilities within Cuba, and propaganda/dissemination capabilities. It does not include any plan for invasion.

Yet, after quoting the document, the article continues... "The outline plan (code-named Operation Pluto)...". After some preliminary checking, Operation Pluto seems to have been initiated in Sept. 1960 - Six months after the article says that Eisenhower approved the program. And in fact, the article states that the first plan was rejected.

Eisenhower emphatically denied that his administration had any 'tactical or operational' plans for an invasion in a Newsday interview in 1965. I don't think this necessarily absolves his administration, but given the historical implications, I think it's important to get this section as close to the objective truth as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.242.23 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a few more dates might disambiguate (trendy WP word for 'clarify') the Political background section. There is plenty of stuff in the GWU/NSA chronology reference, and further details in sources cited there, particularly Gleijeses 1995. If you accept those refs, I don't see how anyone could make the claims mentioned in para 1 above. It's good to read of your interpretations, and I'll put some thought into some re-drafting; perhaps "plan" is a bit too solid and static to describe an evolving CIA operation spanning 12 months. PeterWD (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

JFK Emotional Response

There is recently released info from Jackie Kennedy's oral history tapes that I had posted:

In private in his bedroom, his wife later recorded in a taped interview (in March 1964, released in 2011) that he, "...just put his head in his hands and, ah, he started to cry... ...he cared so much...".

This got deleted with the justification that it belongs elsewhere. I agree with this editor that the "Political reaction" section may not be the best place for this. Someone may find a more appropriate place for this info.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis , and see also: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy PeterWD (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing 23 September

Today, IP editors have been attempting to add POV stuff into the lead section of the article, finally adding a citation to globalsecurity.org, that I judge to fail verifiability criteria. The source does not appear to support the sole cause-and-effect link claimed between the defeat and JFK's actions (or non-actions). I know of no evidence that JFK intended or promised anyone that US military forces would fire upon Cuban forces or citizens, since that would be an explicit act of war against Cuba. Some CIA employees and mercenaries (eg Alabama ANG irregulars) did attack and kill Cuban citizens, but they were not authorised to do so by the US president. The addition also fails WP policy on lead section, in that it fails to summarize claims made in the body of the article. I am not free to continue edits, so perhaps fellow editors can help to deal with the evidently poorly-informed interventions. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Distinguished Intelligence Cross

I would like to point out that Thomas Ray and Leo Baker were also awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Cross, not only the Intelligence Star. Either that, or Wikipedia's page on the Distinguished Intelligence Cross is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.187.10 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)