Talk:Guantánamo

Untitled

Some people seem to have difficulties with reality!

:) Well, looking at your edits to Siegerjustiz, I would say you have an anti-American slant. I honestly could care less about your ideologies, but Wikipedia has an NPOV for its articles. -- Notheruser 06:41, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It would be very interesting if someone describes the (hi)story of how the heck US have a base on Cuba. It does look strange, doesn't it? Like if North Koreans had a base in San Francisco or something.

• Please see Guantanamo Bay.--Pharos 10:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Why was this page moved from the correct Spanish spelling of "Guantánamo"?--Pharos 00:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to the spelling which seems far more common in English, where the article originally was, and where most links still pointed. If this is controversial, perhaps we should list this on requested moves. Jonathunder 01:10, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I deleted from here a comment I wrote before reading down. I'm of the opinion it should be under Guantánamo. Many English-language sources use the accentuation. Many other Wikipedia articles have correct accentuation (See my reply to A.D.H.'s vote below). Unfortunately I missed the vote so that's that, and the IMO wrong decision stands. - PhilipR 15:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

• Guantanamo, Cuba → Guantánamo, Cuba The accent is part of the correct spelling. —wwoods 18:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~,

• Object. common usage -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support — note that this is a move back to its original position. Spanish placenames elsewhere in WP are spelt with the correct accent as a rule. Surprisingly, Wikipedia:Naming conventions doesn't really cover this. Gareth Hughes 14:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would not be a move to the original position; it has been moved twice, and is now where it started, which is the name most common in English. Jonathunder 15:15, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
• Support. This article is about the Cuban city, not the U.S. naval base.--Pharos 22:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Common usage is w/out accents--see Montreal for precedent. Niteowlneils 02:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the English-language Wikipedia. It's not Québec and it's not Zaïre, and it's not Guantánamo. Local form ≠ English form. A.D.H. (t&m) 09:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• • Contrast, however, Camagüey, Pinar del Río, Guantánamo Province, Raúl Castro, Cádiz, Cádiz (province), Ávila (province), Bayamón, Puerto Rico, São Paulo, Brasília, Île-de-France (région), Midi-Pyrénées, Lübeck, Travemünde, et al.. Apparently many of us have a lot to learn about Wikipedia standards for Anglicization! Quebec is a flimsy precedent: check out the reasoning in the analogous discussion there, none of which applies to Cuba because the only English speakers there are at the naval base. Issue long since decided, I know, but I couldn't let this pass uncommented (and no, I don't think any of those need the accent deleted, nor did Gtmo.). - PhilipR 15:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Additional comments:

• I don't think the city gets referred to often enough for any usage to be called common. Of the top 50 pages Google found for "guantanamo -bay -base -XP -naval", only three were about the city; "common usage" would make Guantanamo a redirect to Guantanamo Bay. —wwoods 18:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This article currently says it's about the Cuban city, but then about half of it is about the U.S. naval base. About half of "what links here" seems to be looking for the base. In fact, the article started (without an accent) as a duplicate stub for the base. Maybe this would be a good place for a disambiguation page, and the article about the city could go to Guantánamo, Cuba (with accent). Jonathunder 04:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

• • I've been going through the links, changing them to Guantánamo or Guantanamo Bay when it's clear if the city or base is intended. Those submarines should almost certainly go too.
    I don't get the significance of Guàntanamo, for which Google only finds two pages. —wwoods 08:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That was a typo on my part, which I corrected above. Jonathunder 18:43, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Decision/American Naval Base

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 11:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I think it is unclear for many readers why there is an American base on the territory of Cuba. Is this base rented from the government? What's the history of this place?

• • I agree, the history of Guantanamo could be included.

• • • I think the bigger question is why you'd be writing about the Naval Base in this article. Only its relevance to the city and municipality of Guantanamo matters in this article. Specifics about detainees and what the US President is planning to do with them really belongs in the article about the Naval Base itself. Consider this, you wouldn't write about New Jersey politics in an article about New York, unless the politics of New York directly affect New Jersey. I think the same applies here and will delete the irrelevant stuff on the Naval Base from this article. Goeverywhere (talk)

• • • • Doesn't the Naval Base interfere with the ability of the people in the City to get to the ocean from their port? A question - how does that work? ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

History of Guantanamo

When I was in Cuba arround year 1999 I was told about this little piece of US in CUBA. Of course most american will never hear the story because they are not authorised to go in CUBA, only american cars from the 50's are.

The story was that Guantanamo military base was given for 100 years to the american at the Cuban independance. At the time I noticed that very soon that place should return to Cuban.

It was a surprise for me to learn after Iraq that the US was still having a base there.

Anybody with more knowledge on the real history and the secret deal that make this base still exist should update the page.

The article about the naval base is at Guantanamo Bay.

—wwoods 17:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The article about the naval base is titled Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. It includes a little about the lease, and a link to more. There is no expiration date stated in the lease. The Treaty of 1934 says the base will continue unless abandoned, assuming that the lease is not abrogated or breached. ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

Wrong map

The map highlights Guantanamo Bay, not Guantanamo. I won't remove it, because it's better than nothing, but it should ceratainly be replaced. Is there a place where maps are kept? DirkvdM 18:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Taken care of - Pollodiablo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move/redirect/what EPA said. =] —Nightstallion (?) 07:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move: the revenge

• Guantanamo → Guantánamo, then Guantanamo/Guantanamo Bay → redirect Guantanamo (disambiguation) — In light of recent moves and redirects/DABs: the city in Cuba is properly spelled with the acute accent and the proposed move harks of the rendition Guantánamo Province; see also São Paulo and Brasília. After this, both Guantanamo and Guantanamo Bay should redirect to Guantanamo (disambiguation), since all of these terms are invariably related (bay, city, province, base) and the unaccented versions can be ambiguously (and easily) construed as any or all of the items in the master DAB. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~,

• Support as proponent. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose seems to be more common without accent in English use. Thumbelina 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article move is primarily for the city in Cuba, not other interpretations: most atlases and compendiums – like the US CIA World Factbook entry for Cuba w/map, National Geographic (map of Cuba), Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, and Encyclopædia Britannica – clearly render (and distinguish) the city with an accent. Once moved, common use would be reflected with the redirect to Guantanamo (disambiguation) without the accent. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nomination -- Mareklug ^talk 00:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support and if you're inclined to oppose, please read the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base talk page first. This a second (?) step of a major move project. AjaxSmack 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support per discussion on other page, as this will simplify many, many references throughout Wikipedia. More below. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Full support. Let's have things at their proper name whenever possible. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support — this makes sense to me — Gareth Hughes 13:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Use correct accents in all names whenever possible. MikeZ 21:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) has been debated numerous times and is not policy. Diacritics may be used with appropriate caveats. In this case the need for disambiguation trumps Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), as I see it. It is arguable whether Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) applies to the mere use of diacritics. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• For rationale and recent discussion (of related moves), consult the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base talk page with germane discussion ... which has not been contested. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with the first part of this move. Even though it reverses or reinstates moves that have been done in the past, it meets the common names standard. Almost all of the references to Guantánamo will be to the city. On the other hand, almost all of the references to Guantanamo will be to the naval base, not the least for its recent notoriety. As a matter of simplicity, I think that should redirect to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, but this is just something I highly recommend. I think non-base references (province, natural bay) will be so few that a top-line DAB should be sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Decent arguments put forward on both sides and clearly no consensus either way. However, there does appear to be agreement that the target of Guantanamo should be changed. It might be worth trying to move the DAB page to that title. Number 57 14:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• Guantánamo → Guantánamo, Cuba
• Guantánamo (disambiguation) → Guantánamo

– When English speaking readers search this term, they less likely to mean the Cuban city than the detention camp or US naval base. For example, the first ten Google Books results for a search of "Guantánamo" relate to Guantanamo Bay detention camp or Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which also have more views. It's not a WP:PTM issue because books are published under such titles as "Guantánamo: Why the Illegal US Base Should be Returned to Cuba", "Guantánamo: Violation of Human Rights and International Law?" and "The Guantánamo Lawyers: Inside a Prison Outside the Law". (Compare Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_4#Dachau.) Therefore, Guantánamo should be a disambiguation page. (t · c) buidhe 02:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support For me, what's most important is that the city is clearly not the primary topic of Guantanamo (without the accent). We could split it based on WP:SMALLDETAILS, but probably easier to just disambiguate everything on one page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom and per King of Hearts above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The majority of usage on Enwiki is not for the city. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Excluding the province, there is no other topic on this Wikipedia that could reasonably be called "Guantánamo". Not the base (which no one has ever shown to be written with an accent"), not the prison camp (ditto), nothing. There is literally nothing to disambiguate. No one arrives on this page by accident; accent marks do not spontaneously attach themselves to search terms. This article is, as far as I can see, the only one (again, barring the province) called "Guantánamo". The article should remain. Red Slash 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Please see above where I have quoted the titles of multiple books which refer to the base or the prison camp exactly as "Guantánamo". (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  1) Do you believe that the Cuban city is the primary topic of Guantanamo (without an accent)? 2) If not, are you OK with Guantanamo and Guantánamo having different primary topics? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't like to differentiate by small details, but it's policy, and it works here. Yes, Guantanamo absolutely should not take you to an article. Red Slash 20:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per each of User:Red Slash's arguments pretty much verbatim. —  AjaxSmack  02:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The presence of the accent doesn't change the support arguments; Guantanamo lands here, and both accented and unaccented should be disambiguated, per King of Hearts. Note to closing admin: there are 363 incoming links to the page that would have to be cleaned up. Even though that cleanup doesn't require the admin bit, somehow it's the admin's job to fix all of them before one of the disambiguation-link-fixers admonishes them on their talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  I volunteer to clean up the dab links if the closer doesn't want to, let me know on my talk page. (t · c) buidhe 11:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• oppose: per Red Slash. Also: there is world outside the states, and wikipedia is a global platform which should serve entire world, not just USA. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per comparable instances such as Subic Bay (which is an article the bay, not the eponymous U.S. naval station). BD2412 T 02:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)