Talk:Exploding cigar

(almost a year later)

Hi María. It's been quite some time, but if your remember, you did the GA review of the above article. You'll recall that you questioned comprehensiveness based on a lack of a history section and other matters, and I advised that I had searched and could not find the material. I later withdrew the nomination, pending a second look for material. I have made many improvements since then but I'm afraid I have found nothing further on the framed issues. Specifically, tonight I finished going through every single Google book and news source found for "exploding cigar", "exploding cigars" and "prank cigars" and have looked at web sources as well without luck. Furthermore, I have found ancestry.com's database incredibly useful in researching certain topics, as the site provides access to a vast newspaper archive, scanned and searchable, and I found bupkis there as well. Further, I have had no any luck checking Chronicling America and a few other digital library projects I consulted. In short, I have exhausted all resources at my disposal. You stated you wanted assurance that everything that could be covered has been covered, and I am here for that purpose. You had also suggested stating something in the article to the effect that the origins were unknown, but to my mind that is squarely original research in the absence of a reliable source so stating. So, that leaves us... somewhere, but I'm not sure exactly where. So I guess I'm asking if you want to take a look again, or if you want to pass if off to someone else, in which case I'll resubmit at GAC, or whether you think it cannot pass without the requested information, in which case I'll accept that as well. I will duplicate this note at the GA talk page. Thanks in advance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit, thank you for your message. I'm very impressed with the fact that you exhausted every imaginable source, and I appreciate you taking my concerns so seriously. Because it has been so long since the original review, I think it would be best if the article were resubmitted to GAC. I would review it again myself, but I'm afraid I don't have the time for an in depth look, which every article deserves. I'm sure the next reviewer will be satisfied with the comprehensiveness of the subject matter, but good luck nonetheless! María (habla conmigo) 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Dykes

Not sure where to fit this in so place it here for the moment. [[Jimmy Dykes]], <personals> was incredibly fond of exploding cigars, passing them out like candy. "James J. has passed out a million of them but always laughs best when he recalls how he blasted himself with one that was meant for a Chicago sportswriter—in full view of the intended victim. "Got my hand crossed" Dykes explained."<ref name="Baillie">{{cite news|title=Sportrait For Today|last=Baillie|first=Scott|date=March 29, 1954|publisher=Coshocton Tribune (Coshocton, Ohio)}} Accessed through Ancestry.com database, June 7, 2009</ref> Fuhghettaboutit

Wikiprojects

I propose the addition of the two Wikiprojects above. Any feedback? Hekerui (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Exploding cigar/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'd like to see another notable story, but three is plenty.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very good article. Good job editors. Now it is time to shoot for FA. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

GA category

I put the article under North American history for now unless I can decide upon a better one. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 21:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Attempts on Fidel Castro's life

It's not necessary to list other "silly" designs on Castro's life - especially not in an article that is a) not dedicated to Fidel Castro, and b) not dedicated to attempts on his life. This is an article on Exploding Cigars, and the fact that they may have been relevant in an attempt on Castro is mentioned adequately in the paragraph below:

"While numerous sources state the exploding cigar plot as fact, at least one source asserts it to be simply a myth, and another, mere supermarket tabloid fodder. Another suggests that the story does have its origins in the CIA, but that it was never seriously proposed by them as a plot. Rather, the plot was made up by the CIA as an intentionally "silly" idea to feed to those questioning them about their plans for Castro, in order to deflect scrutiny from more serious areas of inquiry."

a_man_alone (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fidel

Regarding this edit, one article saying an exploding cigar was "perhaps the best-known of the attempts on his life" does not establish "'the exploding cigar CIA plot is the most well known of assassination plots on Castro", period. This sentence should most probably go away, since simply copying the "perhaps" would also not be much encyclopedic. --Damiens.rf 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not what your edits claimed. Your edit summary stated "Not said ther [sic]" thus implying that the reference did not say that the exploding cigar was the most well known. I reverted you on the grounds that the reference does indeed say that the exploding cigar is the most well known attempt on his life. Your argument now appears to be that you believe the exploding cigar not to be the most well-known attempt on his life, which is a different argument to the one I reverted - and one I again dispute given such things as the MAD Magazine cover - which certainly give some credence to the well-known status of the plot.

Anyway, your above comment is oddly worded, formatted, and mixes tenses - possibly typed in a hurry - however, I understand the gist of your argument so I have reworded the statement instead of a blanket reversion.

As a final point, I take issue with your edit summary; see your talk page. a_man_alone (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference does not says "the exploding cigar is the most well known attempt on his life". What's your problem?

We would need a world poll to establish such a fact. It's better to remove it altogether. --Damiens.rf 19:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My problem is that you changed the goalposts - the ref does confirm the statement (admittedly with the qualifier "perhaps") in the third paragraph: "While the exploding cigar that was intended to blow up in Castro's face is perhaps the best-known of the attempts on his life, others have been equally bizarre" - something you were in fact aware of, because you commented on the use of the word "perhaps".

So you are aware that there is a reliable source stating the well-known status of the plot, yet you refuse to acknowledge the validity of it.

We don't do world polls here at Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources to do that sort of thing for us, then we include their statements, and put the references in to show where the information came from. In this case, the statement came from The Guardian newspaper, which is itself referencing a Channel 4 documentary[1][2] - both are reliable sources, hence the quote goes back in. a_man_alone (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not changed my "goalposts". My point is and has always been that the article used as a reference does not supports the statements that the exploding cigars is the most well known Castro assassination plot.

I'm not suggesting a "world poll on Wikipedia". (please, make a better effort to understand what I state). I'm claiming that the only valid source for any sentence of the form "x is the most well know X" is a poll run in the world population, asking "Which Xs do you know?" and counting the results. The point is that sentences like these have no place in Wikipedia. It was used in a informal fashion by The Guardian, and it was never expected to be taken as a factual literal declaration. --Damiens.rf 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Again. Your original point ("Not said ther [sic]") was that the claim was not made in the reference - it was. Then you said that you were contesting the validity of the statement, not the existence of it. That's a change of goalposts. I did not suggest that we conduct a world poll, nor did I suggest that you do so, I suggested that we do not need to do so, and instead rely on tertiary sources to do so for us. It is only your opinion that the Guardian is making informal statements in their published works, and that they should not be considered reliable or repeatable. Anyway, I'm tired, and this is just circular - neither of us is likely to agree, so I've taken it to ANE, and will abide by their detached decision. a_man_alone (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

For god's sake I'll try to make you understand it for a last time:

A news article that says "the exploding cigar is perhaps the best-known of the attempts on Castro" is not a news article that says "the exploding cigar is the most well known of assassination plots on Castro".

The sentence the article used to contain was not in the reference.

There were many other sentences on the reference saying different things. Some of them resemble what was said in the article, but non of them really support that.

THAT SAID, even if the reference news article said it was really the most well know plot, it would be just a silly unsupported claim by the article's author, and we shouldn't repeat it here in any case.

Only a fool would take that sentence to be interpreted literary. --Damiens.rf 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

For God's sake, I'll try to make you understand it for the last time.

A news article that says "the exploding cigar is perhaps the best-known of the attempts on Castro" is not a news article that says "the exploding cigar is the most well known of assassination plots on Castro", so I changed it to say "the exploding cigar is the most well known of assassination plots on Castro", which even you agree is stated in the news article.

You are in no position to cast doubt or critisism over an author of a reliable source whether his comments are "silly [and] unsupported"

I assume you mean "literally", not "literary", when you say "Only a fool would take that sentence to be interpreted literary". I am no fool, and your implication that I am is near enough to a personal attack.

I've had enough of this. You obviously have no intention of any kind of compromise - phrases on your talk page such as "Unsourced information is to be ruthlessly removed. The tag is just an optional exercise of mercy" show an absolute unwillingness to enter meaningful discussion with anything other than a complete agreement with your own opinion. Congratulations, you win, boy. a_man_alone (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exploding cigar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019230402/http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/ to http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Exploding cigar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510031924/http://games.ign.com/halloffame/maniac-mansion-ii-day-of-the-tentacle.html to http://games.ign.com/halloffame/maniac-mansion-ii-day-of-the-tentacle.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715193650/http://www.rocketsuperb.com/lout_shelter/mad_fidel_021908.jpg to http://www.rocketsuperb.com/lout_shelter/mad_fidel_021908.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615235556/http://www.638waystokillcastro.com/about.asp to http://www.638waystokillcastro.com/about.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)