Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Off-topic

Early years in power

On January 15, 1956, Castro's forces entered my butt on January 5 the liberal law professor José Miró Cardona created a new government with himself as head stupid man and Manuel Urrutia Lleó as evil man.

Has anybody else noticed that there's a section entitled "Life as a gorrilla"? I found that amusing. --71.48.177.245 20:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from book

Moved to: Talk:Cuba#Excerpt_from_book

Political beginnings

Is that a green baretta that Castro is wearing? The same as Guevara used to wear. I'd like to get one and scare the finnish bourgeoisies on the street. Teemu Ruskeepää 16:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Castro's Corruption

Werlau, Maria C. (2005). "Fidel Castro, Inc.: A Global Conglomerate" (PDF). Cuba in Transition. 15: 376–395.

• "What is striking about defectors’ accounts is their consistency, which is impressive because they originate from independent sources, who have had dissimilar access to the structure of power, and whose testimonies cover different events and stages and have been collected over a long period.
• "Since the 1990s Fidel Castro is said to have a fund called “Fondo de Divisas del Comandante en Jefe,” into which 15% of all hard currency revenues generated by Cubans overseas—trainers, artists, professionals, technicians, and so on—is deposited"
• "in the 1980s Fidel Castro received suitcases full of hard currency as “gifts” for his birthday each August 13"
• "Jesús Marzo Fernández reports that he witnessed a birthday party for Castro in the 1980s when a prominent government official gave Castro a suitcase with US$10 million."
• "Manuel de Beunza, who managed Cuban businesses in Canada, reports having on one occasion personally delivered US$2 million to Fidel"
• "a meeting in the late 1960s with Raúl Castro, at the time when del Pino was in charge of the commercial airline Cubana de Aviación. Raúl instructed him to open a bank account in Zurich, Switzerland, to deposit all the fees received from foreign airlines for air passage over Cuba. The accounts were opened in the names of Vilma Espín, Raúl’s wife, and Rodolfo Fernández, the right hand man of Celia Sánchez, Fidel’s longtime friend and confidant"
• "Castro allegedly makes loans from his overseas “reserves” to the national economy to cover hard currency shortfalls at an interest of ten percent,"
• "Fidel’s daughter, Alina, mentions several “Protocol Houses” used for dignitaries and friends of Castro, information that is confirmed by other defectors.56 The long list includes anywhere from 25 to 37 homes57 all over the island; many are said to be used only occasionally for shortrest periods during travels throughout the island or to entertain guests. These include a number of recreational residences at beaches and in the countryside, ranches, hunting grounds, specialized fishing and cattle reserves, a shrimp breeding facility, and luxuriousunderground bunkers outfitted with the latest technology.58 Some have their own electric generation and water plants, sophisticated communications’ command facilities, and enjoy amenities such as pools, tennis courts, marinas, and even golf courses."
• "Among Castro’s overseas properties is said to be a castle in Austria,59 and large ranches in Galicia, Spain; Monterrey, Mexico; and near New Delhi, India."
• "The involvement of high-ranking Cuban government officials in international drug trafficking under the orders or with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Castro brothers has been long alleged. Consistent reports abound from former regime insiders, members of Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, from intelligence officials of the former Soviet Union and its satellites, and from journalists, governments, and even world leaders—including the Presidents of the United States and Colombia."
• "Fidel’s approval was won with the argument that it would not only weaken the United States, but also bring in funds for international subversive activities and hard currency for Cuba.64 Rodríguez Mernier relates that drug trafficking became a substantial source of hard currency revenue for Fidel Castro.65 Major Florentino Aspillaga explains that millions of dollars in cash delivered by Cuban intelligence agents to Castro were to be deposited in his Swiss bank accounts “in order to finance liberation movements."
• "Roberto Ampuero, a Chilean revolutionary who in the 1970s married the daughter of Cuba’s Attorney General, in a biographical novel depicts the privileged lifestyle of a select few in Castro’s inner circle. Ampuero soon became disaffected with the Cuban Revolution as he witnessed rampant corruption by the Cuban political elite living in the mansions of those who had fled the country, with servants, drivers, and plentiful access to food and all sorts of consumer goods while the Cuban population was under strict food rationing and material deprivation. See Ampuero, op. cit."

Just some morsels. Read the best details in the article. :) Ultramarine 03:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently to be with Castro is lethal

I had not realized that Castro had been with Chibas when he died. It would seem that Castro is a plague carrier contaminating those presidents or presidencial candidates who associate with him, and then die violently. This list is long working up from Manolo Castro, Student President of University of Havana, Leonel (what's his name Gomez?) another student president, to Salvador Allende of Chile, Chibas Cuba, Gaitán Colombia, Maurice Bishop Grenada, Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado Cuba, Prime Minister Olof Palme of Sweden etc. Then there is the suicide of Carlos Prio Socarras, who once supported Castro financially. 5-31-06 El Jigue

Cuba is not even a pseudodemocracy

Guey!!!! Cuba is not even a pseudemocracy...Senator Lugar calls pseudo democracies [1] those lands which now live under masked tyranny. However, given their recently past history of turning into real democracies, these pseudodemocracies are now under far tighter control. El Jigue 6-9-06

Eisenhower and Bay of Pigs

Halberstam: The Fifties gives us to understand that Eisenhower didn't think Castro's Cuba would be easy to topple, but his administration's early successes in Guatemala and Iran got a lot of his military staff thinking that Cuba would be easy too. And then JFK had much less military experience than Ike, so he thought Bay of Pigs would work just fine for the US because his military advisors told him so. Is Halberstam right?

No Halberstam is incorrect. Castro who had advanced warning was obliged to arrest about 300,000 before the landing. Kennedy did not choose the correct place which was Escambray Mountains not the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy blocked a second airstrike, and he denied US air cover which could still have saved the day. Note that the Anti[Castro rebels in the Escambray fought on for many years afterwards. El Jigue 6-10-06

Forgive me, but I don't see the relevance of your answer to my question. I ask: DID Eisenhower think attacking Castro wasn't a clever idea militarily? DID Kennedy go along with the idea because his military advisors suggested it? You answer: No, Castro arrested a big batch of people and Kennedy botched the invasion.

He is the longest serving Prime Minister

[2]BruceHallman 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

you do know that in theory

communism IS better than capitalism, right? it's just that no one can actually do it right.

"Power currupts, Apsalute power corrupes absalultly" because this will alwas hold true Communism can never be better than capatilisim where there are restrictions on power.Ken 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To all discussers

Please don't be so fatalist in engaging a rather irrelevant and abstract conversation, fail to discuss contructively with your opponent and then crash and burn and "archive" the discussion. All you need to do to be constructive is to express the problem and suggest an alternative. Don't try to prove everything by going into off-topic. Teemu Ruskeepää

The problem is as follows, this fatalist attitude and use of force according to the POV of just a few participants pushes people away. People don't even want to try to discuss things, and they just come to Wikipedia to force articles for a while. The same people insult their views calling them "laughable POV's", fail to listen to others, perhaps because they think than others "only" want to annoy them, and then fail to see that the discussion has failed due to their own prejudice and arrogance, and then kill the discussion by moving it to the archives. This way nothing gets solved, everything is exactly how KarenAnn and BruceHallman likes it, and everything is taken up in an endless cycle of unconstructive prejudice and arrogance. Why don't you grow up, people!

Teemu Ruskeepää 19:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Additions and general quality

This article needs a rewrite

It's horrible just in terms of the quality of writing. 172 | Talk 21:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That is because, like just about any controversial subject, it has been re-re-re-re-re-rewritten in an ideological warfare. You could gice it a go but it will probably be reverted in no time. Alas. I have stopped contributing to anything relating to such subjects and so will many other neutral editors, which of course does not help. This is a major problem with Wikipedia. I suppose edits in such articles (the ones related to communism for starters) should be limited to people who have proven to have a neutral pov. Until then, I only use Wikipedia for non-controversial technical stuff. At least in that realm Wikipedia rulez! :) DirkvdM 18:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the articles that weren't about Castro in person and I added links to their main pages at the "see also section". There, it doesn't need much more change now. Teemu Ruskeepää 12:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to move "foreign relations" and "Castro and Soviet Union" entirely to "Cuba - government and politics" and I have asked that there, while the article is closed "until disputes are disolved". Teemu Ruskeepää 12:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is also redundant; how many times is it nessacary to mention who Castro's pairents were? --71.48.177.245 20:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a long list of what I believe to be factual inaccuracies and grammatical errors as well. I'll try to summarize them and post some suggestions for the editors online in a few days. I'm swamped with exams right now.

Cuba definition

Just making sure everyone on this page is OK with definitions of Cuba.--Zleitzen 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic Of Cuba

• Cuba's official name as identified by all nations and international bodies is "The Republic of Cuba"[3]. The first Republican administration began on May 20, 1902.

• The United Nations invariably refer to Cuba as The Republic Of Cuba [4] in official documents. This differs from other United Nations official definitions such as Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka , Socialist Republic of Viet Nam , Lao People's Democratic Republic [5] or Islamic republic of Iran.

Socialist Republic

• The Cuban constitution states that Cuba is an independent and sovereign socialist state [Article 1]... the name of the Cuban state is Republic of Cuba [Article 2]. In 1961

• European Union official documents describe Cuba as "one of the last committed Socialist republics in the world"

• Encyclopedia Britannica describes Cuba as the The socialist republic of Cuba

• Encarta encyclopedia states that Cuba is a Unitary Socialist Republic

• Atlapedia encyclopedia states that Cuba is a Unitary Socialist Republic

Communist State

• The United States CIA Factbook states Cuba's Government type as: Communist state

The term "Communist State" is often used as shorthand for a state where the Communist Party is the sole political organisation. The term is most commonly in use in the United States. However there are particular issues with this description. Use of the term here needs to take careful account of context.

1. The definition of a Communist State is in itself difficult. This term is technically an oxymoron, because Communism's theoretical goal is "the creation of a society that is stateless". See Communism.
2. According to Marxist theory the intermittent stage where the state assumes near total authority as is the case in Cuba, is known as the construction of socialism.
3. Constitutional amendments of 1992 in Cuba recognised forms of non-state owned property (joint ventures between Cuba and foreign entities, corporations, other economic associations). These liberal amendments meant that Cuba moved away from Communist goals and towards a more multi-tiered society. [6]

Request for Copyedit

This article no longer seems to need copyediting, and I think the copyedit notice should be removed.Emmett5 17:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There are still sections though that have no citations.KarenAnn 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Hitler

The comparison to Hitler is a laughable POV with no real sources that serves absolutely no purpose to the article. Comandante 13:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It may technically be POV and of course should not be included if it is not cited, but it is hardly laughable and not so far from the truth. I can see by your name where your loyalties lie. --Mcmachete 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro $\neq$ Hitler

--The Mad Bomber (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

_ It might at least be better to make a comparison to some other "communist" since Hitler was completely opposed to land reform, and limitations of the private ownership of factories and other means of production, as well as the standard "socialist" reforms that take place after "leftist revolutions". In Mein Kampf Hitler often shows his disgust for Marxists and communists. You might find Castro to be similar to dictators like Stalin, but a comparison to Hitler seems silly and lacking in an understanding of what kind of social and economic policies separate the two men. Donald628

~I agree with Donald628, Castro may not be a saint but hes not Hitler, eiter in political outlook or crimes commited. Ken 21:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What is reasonably substantiated fact about Fidel Castro?

I would like to copy edit this article on Fidel Castro. However, it is impossible for me to tell fact from fiction from innuendo without references.

I have no particular bias, but some of the writing seems outlandish. I am not interested in producing a biased biography but rather something straightforward, yet representing various views (as I know there is no one truth.) I need some cooperation from some reasonable thinkers. Please?

Thank you,

KarenAnn 00:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. There is no point in trashing Castro, regardless of your point of view. He is an important historical figure.

Suggestions

Sorry I made my huge structural alteration with out asking you guys. I believe it is good though.

In the paragraph "Assumption of power" the lines are untidy, because the index numbers make the lines wider than usual. Wikipedia needs to create a new set of index fonts, which are as small as ² (alt + 253), ¹ (alt + 251) and ³ (alt + 252). However, you can still use those characters for some numbers to make the line compact and tidy. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to restore some of the content you deleted, hope you don't mind. But not mentioning things like the missile crisis during the Cold War or only touching the subject of the 26th of July Movement, Bogotazo or other things which are major events in the life of Castro and only referring to them in the "See also" section seems a bit strange to me. Now I know that a lot of these sections I restored are still in need of restructuring or downsizing, but I think they should still be in the article for the overall completeness. I think the article as it was earlier only reflected part of what the article about Castro should look like. mensch • t 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the future I hope that all things are discussed before being realised. I was trying to make the article a biography of Fidel Castro. Do you think it should be more than just a biography? How do you think your changes relate to this idea? Teemu Ruskeepää 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your idea of a biography? Would you write a biography of Theodore Roosevelt or Aldoph Hitler without discussion of multiple aspects of World War II? Or would World War II just be in the See also section? NothingMuch 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Or his little practice murders with Emilio Tro's group when he was at the university. xe xe El Jigue 5-24-06

Ai caramba! Teemu Ruskeepää 08:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article has to cover every aspect of Castro, including his personal life, life as a politician, revolutionary, etc. So things like the 26th of July Movement need to be in the article about Castro. The problem with that particular paragraph is that it's more or less a direct copy of the 26th of July article. I think it needs a rewrite. mensch • t 09:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how it turns up. I may have had been better to read the discussions first before I made my changes. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Material

KarenAnn has removed some of her added material, which is a shame because there was some really good material in there. Does anyone object to reinstating it to raise the quality of the article? --Zleitzen 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'am not against it (I know KarenAnn is), because it's good content. Also, questionable mass removals, as Teemu Ruskeepää did, need to be discussed on the talk page of the article first, I think. Although it's a Wikipedia policy to be bold, the recent removals crippled the article. mensch • t 11:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm too for putting back KarenAnn's material. I really like what she did of the article, her additions were quite good. And, yes, removals should be discussed first, not done unilaterally. --RockyMM 12:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

This aritlce was relatively good a few weeks ago. Is this anarchy? The inmates have taken ove the asylum. Marat de Sade? Or foolishness? NothingMuch 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

NothingMuch. Does it mean that it isn't as good now? Teemu Ruskeepää 08:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It got destroyed about three days ago. People have been working hard to restore it, much to their credit, but it certainly isn't as good (or as interesting) as it was before the destruction NothingMuch 11:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I think this version by KarenAnn, has the original, better sections. It's better to restore the section parts of that version with the current ones, as they read as a series of dates and numbers. The old version is better, maybe a bit dense, but better. Anyone feels like restoring? mensch • t 11:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, I'm for it! The amount of time and research invested by KarenAnn should not be wasted, especially if the result of that hard work was as good. Maybe we should make a voting here? --RockyMM 13:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was about to restore the content today, but I'll wait for a little while longer. If there are no massive objections the next few days, I'll restore the deleted parts of the article. mensch • t 13:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored all the content which was lost about a week ago. I left some paragraphs (about Cubas economy) out of the article, because they don't deal with Castro and his direct influence on Cuba. I also removed the "copyedit" notice on the top of the article. For some parts of the article this notice is still in order, but the notice should be put there, I think. mensch • t 11:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Castro's murders as a student are covered up now

Interesting how well Castro's student murders (Manolo Castro, etc etc) have been covered up here. I checked the reference cited

found it was:

1. ^ Mathews, Herbert L. (1962). Fidel Castro. New York: Simon and Schuster.

and burst into gales of laughter apparently the contributor wishes to ignore the fact that Herbert Matthews (it is spelled with double t) is not "quite" the most reliable source for this kind of thing. Of course scholarly books dealing with Matthews white washes of leftist atrocities have been published recently. One might read:

Depalma, Anthony. The Man Who Invented Fidel: Castro, Cuba, and Herbert L. Matthews of The New York Times. PublicAffairs Perseus Publishing New York 2006 ISBN 1586483323

Koch, Stephen The Breaking Point: Hemingway, Dos Passos, and the Murder of Jose Robles. Counterpoint Press, New York 2005 ISBN 1582432805

As to the actual murders one might read Ros, Enrique. Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus Años Universitarios (Coleccion Cuba y Sus Jueces) Ediciones Universal Miami 2003 ISBN 1593880065

El Jigue 5-25-06

You are quite right about Herbert Matthews. I found old articles from the New York Times that he wrote at the time. KarenAnn 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Karen Ann, if my memory of such does not fail me, even the New York Times wrote a favorable review on the Anthony Depalma book (see above) El Jigue 5-25-06

See this review on the same book: From The International Herald Tribune (owned by the NYTimes)

• Review: The Man Who Invented Fidel KarenAnn 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

KarenAnn although this review presents some aspects of Matthews pro-CAstrp bias my own judgement of Matthews is far harsher, given his history in Civil War Spain, his treatment of Ruby Phillips (the NYT editor in Havana), and the favorable comparison with Duranty. This review reads as if Matthews went up the mountains alone and as if he had no prior contract with Castro. El Jigue 5-25-06

Well, Matthews was a reporter for The New York Times, so what do you expect? I'll look in my archives and so if I can come up with something better for you. KarenAnn 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

KarenAnn DePalma has a number of appropriate comments on Matthews bias. I have a few but they are not for polite company. El Jigue 5-26-06

I'll soon know for myself. I have now ordered the DePalma book, since the library refused to cough it up -- too long a waiting list. KarenAnn 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And the whitewash continues

I note. with not a little amusement, that in Revision as of 14:20, 28 May 2006 (edit) Maester mensch (Talk | contribs) eliminates any references to the murders Castro committed as a student, even to the point of eliminating the pallid words of Herbert Matthews a well known Castro apologist. 5-31-06 El Jigue

First of all, let me make it clear that I'm not a Castro supporter nor a communist, I'm just interested in the subject. I deleted those lines, because I read on the talk page that Matthews is an unreliable source. I think there should be a reference to those murders, but if such a story can only be backed up by a flimsy source, than I think it's better not to mention it until a better source is found.

So please, I you've got a reliable source backing up the claims concerning Castro's murders in his student days, post it here. I think that's a far better approach than telling us that it amuses you...

And "whitewashing", are there other facts that should be mentioned in the article? If so, please add them. mensch • t 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mensch if you are not aware of these murders (which I, among others, had carefully cited to references way before you arrived on the scene, and subsequently saw this information removed by others) one might be excused for assuming that this merely shows how much there is to learn about Cuban History. Hint you might find these references still attached to the Cuba article. Still after all this it seems preferable to me to leave such deletions and omisions as they are, since such a circumstance clearly signals the discriminating reader that this article is not by any measure accurate nor NPOV. El Jigue 6-1-06

Unesco and AP foul up Cuban Slave history

Unesco [7] and VANESSA ARRINGTON of the Associated Press [8] have really fouled up Cuban slave history. Dates are wrong and events in the wars of independence including Cespedes and other Mambi emancipating their slaves in 1868, Spanish recognition of rebel slave freedom in the Pacto de Zanjon in 1878, are forgotten. El Jigue 5-25-06

Making a comprehensive discussion tree

I think that rather than burying old discussions into an inaccessible archive, the list should be organized. This way the discussion could expand without the need of archives. Make a categorial order which deepens in an orderly fashion. I've thought of a basic root of all the present headings in the article and a two permanent "control" categories: 1. Off-topic and 2. Additions and general quality. Depending on the article, the discussion categories should include all the present titles in the article and if necessairy, categories for "photos" and "sources", which are not displayed in the article's tree of contents .

Please express your will freely at the appropriate category of your choosing. Please do not add new discussions outside the discussion tree. You can also suggest new categories at "additions and general quality.

DECIDED THINGS

This is a new feature to my discussion tree structure, which makes conclusions valid and repetition unnecessairy. It improves my design, whose purpose is to eliminate the need for discussion archives. This will be added, I hope, at the end of every paragraph, where there will be a copy of the present section of the article. Decided things will be highlighted and the others are not. New articles will always be highlighted (decided) at first. If a user wishes to re-open discussion, the part will be unbolded, and futher arguments ensue at the end of the old discussion.

The discussion tree should be maintained simultaneously with editions of the discussion as well as the article. When editing the article, the "decided things" should be edited to correspond with the article. When editing the discussion, the "decided things" should be edited (highlight - unbold ) to show what is under dispute and what has been concluded. The editors may do this themselves, or then observers can do it, voluntarely.

The Wikipedia structure should be modified to include the present discussion headings in the discussion page, so that when a user starts a new discussion, he could choose a present heading, which together form a universal category. Also the "decided things" at the end of every main discussion heading, should be programmed to appear automatically every time someone adds a new heading to the article, along with the new heading, of course. Teemu Ruskeepää 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the good intentions, but I find that the sorting of the talk page into a discussion tree makes the talk page nearly unusuable. Please do not do this sorting. It makes the page far too hard to read. BruceHallman 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just think the part of the article you want to discuss. All the comments on that very part are in the same category as the part in the article. Please have an open mind for new suggestions. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we archive this page and start over?

I replied to something on this page that showed up on my watchlist and found that my reply was surrounded by posts in April.

We need to have things in chronological order (at least I do -- as I am easily confused! KarenAnn 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of discussions on this talk page which are quite old or not relevant anymore and can thus be archived. The topics which matter should remain here in chronological order. I think that's the best solution. mensch • t 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how to accomplish that? (I haven't the foggist.) KarenAnn 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just create link to a new page (Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive_11) and start the page. I'm afraid we'll have to remove the content manually. But let's wait a bit until there is some consensus on what stays and what's going to be archived. mensch • t 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that you will save my discussion tree and all the active debates? Is it necessairy to move anything to archives, when you can browse all the old and new comments in chronological order, but just in a subject based category? KarenAnn, the only difference now is that the chronological order exists separately in all headings, not simultaneously based on the entire article. You shouldn't quit trying to learn my discussion tree. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This difference now is that I can't find anything anymore on this Talk page. It's become useless to me. This morning I had a orange banner saying there was a message for me but where? I browsed the Talk tree a while but got tired and confused. I found this message from you here accidently because am sticking to this heading as I can converse with mensch here. KarenAnn 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just think the part of the article you want to discuss. All the comments on that very part are in the same category as the part in the article. Please have an open mind for new suggestions. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Is he the head of state of the longest duration?

Is Castro currently the head of state who has been head of state for longest among all nations? Would be a notable stat to mention in the intro paragraphs if so.

Tempshill 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence of the last paragraph

is ridiculous. "Free health care and free education", please! This country is in total shambles. I just read that his personal fortune is estimated at 900 million. We should have taken him out years ago. The people of his country suffer in dire poverty while he is worth so much. Secondly, I thank God I was born in the U.S. and not in Cuba. Finally, the spirit of the last sentence in the third paragraph makes him sound like a saint. This bio was obviously written by a socialist.

Yes, good idea, I encourage you to edit that into the article. BruceHallman 16:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not. He did not offically become head of state until 1976. 172 | Talk 21:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought we decided on "publically funded" instead of "free" at some point. There is a whole discussion on that subject somewhere on this talk page. KarenAnn 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Castro referred to as 'leader' in the first sentence rather than his office or political status? Couldn't leader be misinterpreted as non-neutral?

Go ahead and change it to "ruler." BTW, that's hardly the biggest problem with the article. 172 | Talk 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it but previously it has been changed back rather quickly.

has been changed back today, will change it again but can we get any enforcement from this vandalism?

Opening paragraph

Current form: "This partnership resulted in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Cuba's military intervention in many countries of the third world."

My suggestion: " This partnership realised in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Cuba's military intervention in many countries of the third world.

Argument: The former assigns blame on Castro's allying with Soviet Union. That he shouldn't have allied with communists that don't exist anymore and that Castro isn't any good himself. We don't want to suggest or take sides in anything but just to tell what happened in history. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement no longer applies as the article has become a battle ground of political viewpoints, with little to no referencing. There is no leadership. The kindergarden has no no supervision. The Fidel Castro site will go down in flames. NothingMuch 03:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, bitch all you want here, as long as you don't bitch up the article ;) Teemu Ruskeepää 08:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the Fidel Castro history, it is clear that Teemu Ruskeepää is the one that bitched up the article -- although that's really not using the word "bitch" correctly. I've never heard anyone say "bitched up" before. NothingMuch 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You will find no such things. I last modified this on 18:17, 22 May 2006. This low-level english term describes well what an internet troll or a bitch does to articles. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights violations in Intro Paragraph

Hey all,

I'm putting back the sentence which reads "while silencing political dissenters and quelling challenges to his rule." You said it's not cited or in the right place. Nothing in the intro paragraph seems to be cited; it's merely introducing topics which are then backed up and expanded upon in the following article. I agree that the sentence was unveriafiable before the addition of the section on Human Rights, but as that has been added (by TDC) cleaned up (by Mensch) and cited (by me), the sentence makes sense now. Likewise, I think the sentence should be in the intro paragraph. Again, the intros serve as a general summary of the topic and/or articles, by way of an introduction. When giving a (very brief) overview of the topic of "Fidel Castro", I think it important to mention his human rights violations (as documented), which are multitudinous, extensive, and a key to understanding many of the issues facing Castro and his regime today, both domestically and internationally. Certainly as important as the other things mentioned, such as free health care and education.

Korossyl 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"while silencing political dissenters and quelling challenges to his rule" is just too POV, read it again, and compare it to other world leaders and youll see it even fits the description of "Cold Reading". We cant deny Castros crimes, perhaps justify them as the natural outcome of a revolution, but not deny them, but then again to not place them as a fact that "the tyrant castro" is behind every silenced political dissident, when all in all, Castro is just a small part of what its a whole machinery, the cuban goverment works much like a parliamentary goverment, there are elections that are surprisingly more democratic than in most countries (no propaganda for example, their biographies are released and its the voters responsability to see who is he voting for), if the representatives would want it they could take castro out in any minute, but hes an icon for most cubans, and their way of thinking is that the revolution just keeps going, so any dissident is at the end an enemy of the revolution, not Castro himself.

K: I like what you said, although not for the same reasons as you. To me it shows how much the extreme left has taken over this article and thus how this article, in its present form, cannot be considered a reliable source. El Jigue 6-1-06

Well, it's true that it can't be said that it is Castro himself who personally pulls the trigger on every execution, nor that he is fully aware of every arrest. However, if the political machinery that he put into place is to blame, it functions with his approval, and that makes him responsible for his crimes (which, as you state, we can't deny).
I wouldn't know about the status of parliamentary elections in Cuba, or how democratic they are. But there is much, much evidence that Castro has a grip on his current position that he would be unwilling to release. A good example of this, actually is exactly the subject in question: human rights violations. They are many and well-documented, as seen in the human rights section. I do not see any evidence that the majority of the Cuban population supports the current political situation. I do see plenty of evidence to the contrary, based on my personal experience with Cuban ex-pats and from what I've read of others' accounts online.
I tried to make the statement as neutral of POV as possible; I purposefully avoided using more colorful adjectives (compare with something like "killing dissenters and crushing opposition", or indeed, your own example of "the tyrant Castro"). Yes, this is a very negative statement to make, but it's also the truth. I just don't really see how that statement reflects my personal point of view. EDIT: I think this is even more true, with BruceHallman's new edit. Korossyl 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You just sayd it, let me quote here: "I wouldn't know about the status of parliamentary elections in Cuba, or how democratic they are". Wich makes me believes that indeed, you just know the bad parts of how Cuba really is today. That is usually seen as "Confirmation Bias", wich means that you pretty much go through Castro information just looking for bad things about him. Such a mistake for any researcher, such a mistake that so many wikipedians do, to see history as a one sided story, when all in all, its far more complicated than that. The intro is better than before, perhaps a little bigger than before, but much better. Although it says "some", instead of naming that "some" as a group perhaps, or an organization, for example Amnesty International.

Hey now, no need to get personal. All I meant by that statement is that I don't really know much about parliamentary politics in Cuba, one way or the other. By extension, I don't know how democratic they are. Frankly, I don't much care -- despite my activity in this article, I have no real specific interest in Cuba or Castro. Yeah, I believe he's an evil dictator. No, I never wrote that into the article. I happened to chance upon this article, noticed that there is absolutely nothing in it to indicate that Castro is anything but a normal, run-of-the-mill political leader, and then made two minor changes to the intro. These changes were negative towards Castro, but not really inflammatory or POV -- they survived several days, and the version that's online now is actually more critical than I was. My only interest was to show that Castro is no political liberal, or that there is at least some controversy over whether he is or not. That's reflected in the article now, there's healthy discussion going on, and I'm more or less satisfied. Where the eventual balance ends up doesn't matter that much to me, as long as there is an indication that Castro's a controversial figure (which is indisputable). So, that's why I'm not really active around here anymore.
Other than that, I have no vested interest in Castro (beyond my interest in world politics in general). I'm not Cuban, he has had no effect on my life in any way. I certainly can't be bothered to actively "go through Castro information just looking for bad things about him." Best of luck to you all.
Korossyl 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

His partnership with the Soviet Union was close until its collapse in 1991.

His partnership with the Soviet Union was close until its collapse in 1991. This relationship resulted in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Cuba's military intervention in many countries of the third world.

The way this is worded makes it sound like the partnership collapsed, when surely you must mean the Soviet Union collapsed

I changed that line into this: "His partnership with the Soviet Union was close until the collapse of the USSR in 1991." mensch • t 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Free Health & Education

Peterperfect 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC) There's no way it can stand fairly that Cuba offers free health & Schooling without relating it to salaries. Added reference to Saleries from BBC report.

That might be the case, but the way it's described and argumented now doesn't help the tone of the article. An in-depth view as to how Cuba finances its public services somewhere in the article (and not in the introduction) is better than just stating that a $15 salary has got something to do with the public services in a country. It's not clear how those two things relate to each other and the BBC article doesn't make that clear either. mensch • t 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair point about tone. However, repeating the myth that Medical & Schooling as relates to Saleries is free shows undue bias. The goal was to balance the statement. I suggest at least the word "Free" be replaced with "Public Funded" as the underlining artical on "Free Health care" is so named. Peterperfect 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stop adding those lines. They do not express a neutral point of view and are unsourced (although the BBC article mentions the $15 salaries).

Fidel Castro was not president in 1959

Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado was. --TJive 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Leader, president, supreme being, commandante, ruler, dictator...

Currently the word "president" (or leader) in the first paragraph of the Castro article has been changed on an daily or even hourly basis... Technically speaking Castro is the president under the Council of State of Cuba, see this article for more information. He may be more than that - a usurper to some and a messiah to others - but one is never going to catch the complete Castro as a statesman in one word in the opening paragraph of the article. I think he should be mentioned as a president, nothing more. The explanation about his rule as president can be done in the main article. The way - the everchanging first line of the opening paragraph - it's going now is a bit daft. mensch • t 15:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed "president" to "head of state", because TJive is indeed correct. mensch • t 15:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

He was not head of state in 1959 either. I appreciate your attempt to control NPOV issues, but the introduction clearly needs to specify what he has been since 1959 (in which case "leader" is inadequate), or merely mention what are his present official titles. --TJive 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First we need to establish what he has been since 1959, because I haven't got a clue what titles Castro has possessed during his life. Right now the opening paragraph reads "premier". mensch • t 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that premier is correct, but don't hold me to it. --TJive 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Castro was premier of Cuba from 1959 and president of the Council of State and of the Council of Ministers (head of state) from 1976. Premier generally means head of government - not neccessarily head of state. ie. Tony Blair is the UK premier but is not head of state. The term can also apply to Castro post 1976 however where Castro remains the premier, and is in my view the most accurate. --Zleitzen 15:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Castro is both head of state and head of government (President of the Council of State and President of the Council of Ministers). However, the post of prime minister or premier was abolished in February 1976, which is an arrangement different from most Communist systems. I don't think we can describe Castro as premier. Similarly, no one describes the president of the United States as premier, although the U.S. executive is both cheif of state and head of government as well. At any rate, these descriptions are somewhat irrelevant, given that Castro's real position of power does not rest in the Council of State and Council of Ministers, but as head of the Communist Party. 172 | Talk 16:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

True enough, 172. Actually I didn't know that no one describes the president of the United States as "premier". Though Chirac often is - despite being head of state and not head of government. Have added a line for clarity.--Zleitzen 17:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard Chirac described as the "premier." Villepin is the premier. Chirac used to be the premier in the mid-1970s, and once again in the late-1980s. 172 | Talk 03:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro intro badly written

I can understand the desire to be accurate, but isn't it important also to maintain a high quality of writing?

This intro is getting worse with the quality of writing falling off precipitously. CaseyCastle 11:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't particuarily like the wording myself (and I wrote it), but it's a move towards accuracy. Users should feel free to change the wording, but should ensure that the intro doesn't leave itself open to ambiguities and future edit warring.--Zleitzen 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Transformation of Cuba

Hopefully we can work out some neutral wording for this sentence, and avoid an edit war: "He mandated the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba." BruceHallman 13:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? CJK 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just ditch it, you're never going to explain accurately in one sentence the complex relationship as you're talking about 47 years of change in a vastly contradictary framework. Keep it as it was - "He mandated the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic". Which is true. There's enough complications in that first paragraph without adding ambiguities that could prompt more problems. I've already tried to clarify the "leader" - "ruler" - "premier" to halt one such ambiguity and edit war (not entirely to my own satisfaction I might add). There is no need for another.--Zleitzen 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I even think that 'he mandated' is POV, because clearly he did not act alone. He acted as part of a coalition. BruceHallman 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In Socialism it is put this way: "Lenin's regime brought all the means of production (except agricultural production) under state control, and implemented a system of government . . . "

So even Lenin didn't "mandate" anything. KarenAnn 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. let's leave out "mandate". On the other hand, it would be almost criminal to leave out Communist party rule. Read it. It sounds like something someone would say about Hugo Chavez, not a dictator. CJK 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My version is both true, short, and verifiable. CJK 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

CJK...

• socialist republic has been explained to you many, many times. See above for the encyclopedic standard for the description of Cuba. You have changed this consistently on both the Cuba and Castro pages mulitple times to suit your own wording - now you have changed it to "socialist state". This is not helpful.
• Cuba is governed by the 1976 constitution and subsequent amendments in keeping with many other republics. Whether that reminds you of Hugo Chavez is neither here nor there. Your statement is simply inaccurate. The CCP were the smallest and least influential Communist party of the old Warsaw pact countries - often subsumed and subjugated by nationalists. Non-Communist Party affiliated bodies and citizens also play a major role in the governance of Cuba as I have also explained elsewhere. So we are presently drifting away from accuracy, which should be our goal, to vague assumptions which wouldn't wash amongst serious scholars of the subject. Feel free to write what you like, but be aware that inaccuracies compromise the page and wikipedia.
• You have added a source from Freedom House the well known American government sponsored group that gave Cuban human rights a lower points total than China, against all evidence to the contrary. Can we please be serious about NPOV here?--Zleitzen 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Socialist republic can be negotiated
  • I don't deny that non-Communists officials exist, it's just that they are under control of the Communist Party since it is the sole political party in the National Assembly and the National Assembly + Castro controls the country.
  • Freedom House was demonstrate Communist Party control of Cuba. If you actually disbelieve that, I will find another. CJK 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, (1) Socialist republic should not be negotiated. Editors should stick to the correct term as applied and checked by encyclopedic proof readers from all mainstream encyclopedic sources. There should be no need to contest this again and again and insist on a less accurate description, when I understand that people are working hard towards the opposite. (2) The Communist Party is not the sole political party in the National Assembly - the Communist Party do not even participate in the process, and at least 50% of the Assembly has nothing to do with the CCP. As observed by all serious scholars on the subject, echoing Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada when he was asked about Soviet communism - "Those countries had completely different models, and none of them had anything to do with ours." (3) Freedom House is not a reliable source on Cuba. You can find a thousand American sources that will tell you similar misinformation. The most reliable source on Cuban constitutional governance - is the document itself. Sure, some of it may be wishful thinking - but so are all constitutions. What you're doing is, in effect, going onto a US page and writing "The US is controlled by the Republican and Democrat parties" running roughshod over the tense relationships and historical ambiguities. This has nothing to do with POV or NPOV, it's to do with plain standards of accuracy. Besides, I'll get it in the ear from the Cuba boffins at the London Institute of Commonwealth and Latin American Studies if I don't point such misunderstandings out:( Keep working on it or just ditch it entirely.--Zleitzen 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What other party is in the national assembly besides the Communists (or Communist-approved)? What other party is legal besides the Communists? If you answer that question with citation, this can be settled. CJK 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does the Cuban government=the truth while a US gov. funded organization is not? What other sources are acceptable to you? CJK 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do most people in the U.K. have the same opinion on Cuba as you? CJK 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why ask about political parties? The Cuban law does not allow mass media campaigning by any political party consequent to Article 53 of their constitution which limits free speech/press to state and social purposes. Cuba is a socialist republic and your question fails to accept that fact as a premise. It appears you are trying to measure a socialist republic with a liberal democracy measuring stick. BruceHallman 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CJK asked "Why does the Cuban government=the truth...?". Per Wikipedia:policy, we should not accept, necessarily, that it does. Who said that it did? BruceHallman 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzin here says The Communist Party is not the sole political party in the National Assembly - the Communist Party do not even participate in the process, and at least 50% of the Assembly has nothing to do with the CCP. I want to know what the other parties are and whether or not they are pre-approved. CJK 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CJK, Why do you ask about political parties in the context of a socialist republic? BruceHallman 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You appear not to understand CJK. I respectfully ask you to do your homework on what is a complicated subject. The Communist Party is not the "sole political party" in the National Assembly. There are simply no "parties" in the National assembly. As for your question, I have no idea if most people in the UK have the same view about Cuba as me, but I imagine it would be pretty similar given that Cuba is popular tourist destination. My view is that Cuba is a unique, contradictory, fascinating country in the Caribbean - the rest of my involvement is academic. Also, a comparison between a US view on Cuba vs the Cuban Constitution is a false one. By that premise we could then use a Cuban views of the United States to inform all US political articles, we could claim in those articles that America is "an imperialist state" and other such baloney, rather than refer directly to accurate analysis or primary documents such as the US constitution. In other words - we could waste our time and reduce the credibility of the encyclopaedia. Please move on from this. --Zleitzen 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The article National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba disagrees with you. Also, it hardly matters considering they only meet a couple times a year, while the Communist-run Council of State of Cuba fills in the rest. CJK 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it does disagree with scholarly work on the subject. That's because it's wrong.

Plus, you can't get nominated if you oppose the Communist's policies. CJK 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true either, many of the members of the assembly have been critical of the government since the revolution including the recently elected Silvio Rodríguez. Besides, which "Communist policies" do you refer to?--Zleitzen 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I'm sick of this stuff. You aren't going to disprove that Cuba is run by the Communist Party any more than you can disprove it for Laos, Vietnam, China, and North Korea. I'm not aware of all the facades the Cuban Communists creates to fool the gullible, but the fact is that one party monopolizes the power. There is something wrong with you and these un-named scholars if you believe that any other institution runs the country. A citation would be nice for your above claim that nominations aren't curtailed. I want to ask for the last time: what source would be acceptable for you to show the Communists control Cuba? CJK 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't added anything to this article to require citations. There are no sources acceptable to show "the Communists control Cuba" because it's inaccurate. That's why it shouldn't be put in the article in the first place and you've opened up too many ambiguities with your edit - ditch it. It should be dealt with correctly and accurately in an encyclopaedic manner on the correct place, rather than your problematic brief sentence, which attempts to convey 47 years of contrasting policy and governance in a few words. --Zleitzen 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So because you say it's inaccurate, that means no sources are good enough for you. Fine. I have no more to say on this. There are no meaningful free elections in Cuba. Period. No one except for the Cuban government, Hugo Chavez, you, and some misguided scholars believe that. Not the worldwide non-Communist media, not the human rights organizations, not the U.S. or EU government, not the vast majority of independent observers. CJK 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we'll leave at that, CJK. Me with my wish to apply encyclopedic standards and accuracy (see britannica entry on Cuban politics) and you with what ever point you want to make.--Zleitzen 01:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Will you accept the jist of this intro? CJK 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Touche, CJK! Good one. Though it contradicts this - and doesn't really make any sense. Mr Britannica deserves a stern ticking off from yours truely. Proceed as you see fit, though as KarenAnn asks - why you are so fixated on this issue? No need to respond.--Zleitzen 01:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

CJK, for the life of me I cannot understand why you are so fixated on this issue. The article which, theoretically we are all working on, is about a man, a human being, not a political party or a system of government. Granted, the man of whom we speak participates in the politics of his environment. probably manipulates them. But who can for one moment think that one individual, no matter how powerful, can control a whole country (a mere 90 miles from the U.S.) single-handedly for half a century? We are talking about human beings. This article, I thought, was about Castro as a human -- that is what is so fascinating -- a man with fantastic charisma, yet ruthless, cunning and instinctively politically astute. Evidence is that he is not so much an ideologue but a pragmatist. Lets get interested in him! Go argue politics on some Cuba or Socialism page. KarenAnn 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he controls the country single handedly--I said he and the Communist Party did. Hitler and Stalin didn't control their nations by themselves either. CJK 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, did you reach a conclusion here? I can't find the decision. The text now says "Since his assumption of power, he has led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic, with a legally enshrined Communist Party.

My suggestion: "Since his assumption of power, he has led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic."

I left the last sentence off, because the notion of the legitimate and monotonic party system can be added elsewhere in the article, or in some other form after my suggestion. Do you agree?

Why is this discussed again? Perhaps because the last versions are buried into the inaccessible archives .) Teemu Ruskeepää 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As said earlier the complex situation in Cuba and Castro as a politician in particular cannot be grasped in one intro paragraph. Information on the political structures should be in this article, I think, as long as they deal with Castro. There are now some parts in the article (notably the Embargo bit) which don't even mention Castro and just describe the embargo in full. While the embargo should be mentioned I think the technical details which do not necessarily involve Castro should be in the Cuba embargo article. So basic information and possibly how the embargo affects Castro as a politician. mensch • t 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, see previous comments above. CJK 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You said a lot of things, CJK. Please tell your counter-suggestion. By the way, I modified the "decided things" for you. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I want the added text that you want to delete. Castro's Communist affiliations are extremely important and should be in the intro, considering they have governed Cuba for the past 47 years. CJK 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you accept this: "He has led the Communist Party of Cuba since 1957". What has the transformation of Cuba got to do with Fidel Castro, anyway?

Intro

TJive just reverted the article with the comment: "this is the most appropriate reference to the communist party; the other paragraph is overkill for sentiments already discussed in the intro." Discussion of communism in Cuba belongs in the Cuba article, this article is about Fidel Castro, so it does not actually appear to be 'most appropriate'. Second part, the paragraph deleted in whole is not 'already discussed in the intro'. TJive, please explain these inconsistencies. BruceHallman 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not an accurate representation of my remarks. There needs to be some reference to the Communist Party of Cuba in the context of his politics and his actions in Cuba. I was attempting a rather sterile compromise from CJK's previous insertions. Thus "most appropriate" of any proposed wordings so far. As for your paragraph, there is no need for it. The various views of this man are already discussed and there is no need for a colorful retread. --TJive 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note, this talk page is bewildering. --TJive 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "enshrined" is a rather odd choice of words in the very first paragraph. My dictionary says: "To charish as sacred." Is that what you mean? KarenAnn 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The word has been ripped from its context. The phrase "legally enshrined" (as well, "enshrined into law") is commonly used to refer to the instance of making a part of, or codifying, a behavior, practice, group, or individual into the legal system. --TJive 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it used that way and I am a forensic specialist in my field. It sounds rather religious to me, and someone was saying Castro wasn't at all religious. KarenAnn 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with religion and Castro is not religious. --TJive 23:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"With a legally enshrined Communist Party" sounds a bit weird to me, as if Castro alone forms the party. I think "as leader of the legally enshrined Communist Party" sounds better, but I'm not sure if that's a correct statement.mensch • t 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the upper branch with the same subject matter. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Hallman's removed paragraph in intro

I like your paragraph, Bruce. It is lost somewhere up there in the restructured talk tree and hope it gets back in the intro:

Castro, in his long tenure as leader of Cuba has been variously described as a totalitarian despot and a charismatic liberator, both widely hated and widely popular, courageous and cowardly, a benevolent dictator, an astute politician and an autocratic totalitarian murderer, a dedicated socialist ideologue and a pragmatic nationalistic power monger. Few leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism

The point to get across in the intro is the wide range of views about Castro. It doesn't matter if this or that particular view gets mentioned in the intro. The article itself can explain the details. KarenAnn 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you KarenAnn, but it was removed for some reason by another user.--Zleitzen 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

In an attempt to avoid edit war with CJK, I offer to compromise. I accept that the label 'communist' is important to include in the introduction of the article. I have problems in describing Cuba as communist (as CJK persists to revert) in an article about Fidel Castro, but describing Fidel Castro as such is appropriate. I copied the phrase from the Britannica citation by CJK and added it to the second paragraph. By the way, that second paragraph has repeatedly been deleted without any comment, which is inappropriate. If there are problems they should be discussed. Unexplained reverts should be avoided. BruceHallman 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest persisting on finding a diplomatic solution. Please observe our discussion with CJK. Let's also try to convince CJK to discuss changes first, please. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph

It says "Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies which saw the rapid centralization of Cuba's economy - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries."

I'd like it to say "Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies of centralization - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries."

Reason: The tone is blaming. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Decided things -full-speed experiment going on

This is an experiment of my discussion tree structure. The bolded are the article's content which is not currently disputed. Read about it at "Making a comprehensive discussion tree" or on my user page "Improvements to Wikipedia" Teemu Ruskeepää 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926) held the title of Prime Minister [1] of Cuba from 1959, after commanding the attack that overthrew Fulgencio Batista, until 1976, when he became President of Cuba. Since his assumption of power, he has led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic.

Castro first attracted attention in Cuban political life through his nationalist critiques of Batista and United States corporate and political influence in Cuba. He gained an ardent, but limited, following and also drew the attention of the authorities.[2] His leadership of the 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks, his subsequent trial, incarceration, and planned departure for Mexico[3][4] to organize and train for the guerrilla invasion of Cuba that took place in December 1956. Since his assumption of power in 1959 he has invoked both praise and condemnation (at home and internationally).

Outside of Cuba, Castro has been defined by his relationship with both the United States and with the former Soviet Union. Ever since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 by the United States, his government has had an openly antagonistic relationship with the US, and a simultaneous closeness with the Soviet bloc. This was true until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, after which his priorities shifted from supporting foreign intervention to paternalistic partnerships with regional socialist and left wing figures such as Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia.

Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies which saw the rapid centralization of Cuba's economy - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries. The expansion of publicly funded health care and education has been a cornerstone of Castro's domestic social agenda. Some credit these policies for Cuba's relatively high Human Development Index. [5] Others see Castro and his policies as being responsible for Cuba's general economic depredation, and harshly criticize him for the criminalization of political dissent and free speech.

Castro and religion

Moving this here from the article per WP:V, this is uncited and appears POV.

"All public displays of religious devotion were outlawed. Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, practicing Catholics and other religious were considered counterrevolutionary subversives or "gusanos" (worms), and subject to be sent to the UMAP camps. Religious services were routinely interrupted by government agents, and religious observers were routinely arrested, expelled from universities and schools, or terminated from employment. "

BruceHallman 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, moving this uncited sentence here per WP:V. Also, it is unclear why this sentence pertains to Fidel Castro, indeed the entire section 'Human Rights in Cuba' appears to confuse the topic of the article with is Fidel Castro, not Cuba.

"Since the January 1, 1959, there have been at least hundreds of confirmed extra-judicial killings of political criminals, some after well publicized show-trials. "

BruceHallman 16:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Bruce, Castro had nothing to do with this and the moon is made of green cheese. El Jigue 6-16-06

The content isn't being removed because it makes Castro look like a regular, nice old grandpa who happens to wear a green army uniform, it's being removed because those bits are unsourced claims. If you can find sources backing the claims up they will be re-inserted. You make it look like everybody who's editting along Wikipedia guidelines is some sort of secret Castro supporter, desperately wanting not to get the truth about their revered saint out in the open... mensch • t 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mensch. I am quite sure that personal observation of this will be considered irrelevant here probably because it will be claimed that this is "new scholarship" or some such. So let us start with references [9] "In response to this confrontation, Castro launched a campaign against the Catholic bishops and attempted to create a national Church. By late 1960, mobs organized by the government began to harass church services. The botched Bay of Pigs invasion led to a more open and direct repression, with mass arrests of clergy and desecration of churches. In May, 1961, the government confiscated the vast private school system and many seminaries in an attempt to deeply strike at religion. In September, the traditional procession in Havana honoring Cuba's patron, the Virgen de la Caridad, in the church of the same name, was violently repressed, resulting in the death of one of the Catholics. Incredibly, the government portrayed the victim as a martyr of the revolution... That incident prompted the immediate expulsion of 131 clergy on board the Spanish ship Covadonga, including an outstanding bishop, Boza Masvidal and Father Goberna, a renown hurricane expert."El Jigue 6-17-06

Of course then somebody will say words to the effect that "well that was then and this is now" and quote some reference to the effect that: "Over the years since the day of the revolution, Cuban Catholics have endured a deliberate and pervasive de-Christianization campaign sponsored and carried out by the Cuban government. Almost since the day of the Revolution, the Castro government adopted a militantly atheist stance to eliminate any religious competition with their own influence. Cuban Catholics have been at the front to observe Castro's own tablet of ideology. Believers of all faiths, including Cuban Catholics have been jailed, executed, defrocked, and exiled. Recently cornered by a resurgence in Catholics, the Castro government is re-recognizing the Catholic Church since the '80s. Restrictions on certain Church activities were eased, facilitating a reorganization of Catholic Church structures." [10] El Jigue 6-17-06

Of course this was only temporary "The Church in Cuba was hoping the papal visit would pave the way for changes in government policies, allowing a return of religious education, giving Church leaders some access to the media, or at the very least easing the process of obtaining official permission to hold public religious gatherings such as devotional processions. Castro, however, has granted none of this. The only result of the Pope's visit was that Christmas was reinstated as a national holiday." [11] El Jigue 6-17-06

Ok Mench and Bruce so now you have the references do you wish to reinstate the removed section? I am not holding my breath. El Jigue 6-17-06

Castro and religion

Wow no only has the deleted section on religion been removed, and not replaced see above, but the official government apologia has been left unchallenged. Not that I expected any change. El Jigue 6-18-06

Castro as a public figure

Fidel Castro's popularity with the Cuban people

An Elephant in the room (which this article evades) is the fact that Fidel Castro has significant popularity with the Cuban people. This fact is a sore point with many expatriates. Do some Google searches and see that this fact also easily meets WP:V and therefore should be included in the article. Here are two Wikipedia references, paragraph seven in this article: Richard Mervin Bissell Jr., and paragraph seven in this article: The Cuban Project Obviously, there are also many articles that describe people that hate him, some in Cuba. Here is a semi-random, seemingly credible neutral source, that describes his popularity in paragraph five. With this 'Elephant' in the light, I think the use of the word 'autocratic' in the lead paragraph should be tempered as it appears very much one POV. I raise this issue on the talk page first, because there is a chance that we can reach a consensus and not engage in an edit war about this. BruceHallman 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! Yeah, you're right... it's a good idea to talk this out first. I guess my main objection would be that it's incredibly difficult to get an accurate reading of the legitimacy or popularity of a regime when it does not guarantee freedom of speech, or adds penalties (official or unofficial) to the any exercise thereof. I dunno; holding the views I do and visiting the sites and sources I do, I get the overwhelming feeling that Castro is hated by his people, and they are simply not free to express it. I imagine that if I were to poke around on the other side of the spectrum, I would find equal evidence that Castro is truly a beloved leader and there are just some bad apples who he's irked, for some reason or another. Ultimately, I just don't we'll be able to know the truth about this until after Castro either falls, dies, or retires. I don't think that we can put our full trust behind either viewpoint just yet, because we simply don't have much beyond anecdotal evidence that's acutally reliable. On the matter of that particular site, I would point out that it's talking about Castro's popularity in the past, not the current Cuban mood, and that while it certainly seems reliable, it doesn't very well back up or source its claims. Korossyl 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Living there I don't know a Cuban that is not Sh1t scared of him to the point whenever he is discussed the people refuse to use his name but rather nervously look around then make a downward stroking action from their chin indicating a beard. On the other hand anyone under the age of say 60 years has known no other leader so it could be argued that it's he is popular by default. Peterperfect 11:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Peterperfect, I too was tempted to cite original research about his popularity in Cuba, but we should stay away from original research. Also, I agree that the accuracy of reading his popularity numbers is not possible, but reading the rough amount of his popularity is possible. [Perhaps some research has been done on ballot spoilage?] And, being scared of an autocratic ruler doesn't mean that he isn't popular, because a people could also believe that an autocratic ruler is likely to keep them safe, proud, strong, better than the alternative, (etc.) and give him their popular support anyway. [Consider global phenomina of the relative popularity of war time leaders versus peace time leaders.] I think that it also is true that Castro was more popular in 1960 than in 1994, by a degree. Indeed I think that researches were surprised at the popularity of Fidel Castro through the 'Special Period' when many expected a greater decline in popularity during those difficult times. Also, I wonder to what degree Fidel Casto hold power through the use of autocratic power versus the use of his political skills? BruceHallman 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Korossyl, You write how it is not possible 'to get a reading' of his 'popularity'. The opening clause of the article declares him 'autocratic'. Do you otherwise believe it is possible 'to get a reading' of his 'autocracy'? Are they not considered by many to be opposite sides of the same coin? BruceHallman 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the 'freedom of speech' issue if a very complex topic which we should be careful not to over simplify. Another view on that issue is to treat it as analogous to political campaign regulations, and indeed most (all?) countries allow active and passive regulation of political campaigning to some degree. BruceHallman 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just floated a rewording to capture the range of POVs, from love to hate. I tried hard to meet WP:V, WP:NPOV AND WP:NOR. BruceHallman 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Howdy. I really like the new wording; it's fair and accurate, and also hints at the fact that there is, indeed, a great debate over the virtues of the subject. I'm not very much in favor of taking out the word "autocratic" from the intro. I think there should be some explicit mention of Castro's status as ruler who could not really be removed by democratic means (do we all agree on that? I'm not saying it here as a condemnation). I think "autocratic" summed that up pretty neutrally. Are you adamant about not including it?
Korossyl 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Answering your question involves accepting assumptions (and disambiguation) of the definition of the word Democracy (disambiguation). I take it that when you use the term you mean Liberal democracy, and/or perhaps Market democracy? And, Cuba has neither of these types of democracy. I disagree that 'autocracy' is neutral or accurate, because I see that there are open opinions to what extent Castro is truly autocratic, and to what extent his hold on power comes from other sources such as deft political maneuvers, public popularity/charisma, etc.. BruceHallman 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Korossyl, I just re-read your question and see that I failed to address it directly. I don't see that the Wikipedia definition of autocracy is: "(a) ruler who could not really be removed by democratic means". Further, although I grant that the election system in Cuba makes it very unlikely, it is technically possible for Fidel Castro to be rejected (not receive 50% yes vote) during the nomination process which is held by secret ballot. BruceHallman 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Castro, in his long tenure as leader of Cuba has been variously described as a totalitarian despot and a charismatic liberator, both widely hated and widely popular, courageous and cowardly, a benevolent dictator, an astute politician and an autocratic totalitarian murderer, a dedicated socialist ideologue and a pragmatic nationalistic power monger. Few leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism

That's a fantastic paragraph Bruce, and basically sums up the man for me - it also infers the strange, contradictory paradox that is Cuba. Cuba does seem like a nation where nothing is what it at first appears to be. I hope the paragraph survives. --Zleitzen 21:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah; sorry. Should've checked that definition first. Alright then, going by wikipedia's page on Autocracy, an autocrat is a "single individual" who holds "unlimited political power." Is this not true of Castro? (Synonyms offered "tyrant", "despot", and "dictator" -- I figured that of these, "autocrat" was by far the best). I guess what I'm asking is -- is there some sort of consensus on the extent of Castro's power, and if there is, is there some way we can incorporate it into the article?
Korossyl 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Per one legitimate view, the Constitution of Cuba is a limit on Castro's power, in other words, not autocratic. Doubtlessly, another legitimate view disagrees. BruceHallman 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry "What Lola wants, Lola gets" from the Damn Yankees (Lola by the way is the devil). None who have defied Castro have stayed in a position of power in the Cuba, few (I cannot recall any) have survived without execution, jail and/or exile. Right now a wide reaching purge of Cuban officials is going on. El Jigue 6-7-06

Private life

===Deleted crap about Hitler===; and about castro having extramarital kids

Castro was not born "into a wealthy family" at all. You keep reinserting this. He was an illegitimate son, one of seven children, whose last name was not even "Castro" until he was 17 and who was raised in impoverished conditions in his maternal grandparents home (until they died) and then in various foster homes. Fidel was not even allowed near the Angel Castro home until much later, when Angel's first wife finally left. This is just plain wrong. See Serge Raffy's recent book, or Brian Latell's book.

Of course, of course, the private boarding schools Castro went to were really secret rundown centers used to house underprivileged kids. And Castro’s illegitimate children do not exist they are merely CIA funded authors who write propaganda. And Castro is a benign leader who gently and carefully takes care of “his people” while flying around the world with three large new jet planes and an entourage of perhaps 200 bodyguards. Now I have the bridge for sale in Brooklyn. El Jigue 6-2-06

Recommend deleting first paragraph under Family and Health

This first paragraph has nothing substantial in it. It has way more detail than is needed, even if it were sourced correctly. KarenAnn 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Family

Ramon and the "Family Estates"

The article states that Ramon is said to manage the family estates, and there is no citation indicating where the author has found such a claim. It is my understanding that there no longer are any family estates and that the former family estates were appropriated and deeded to workers during early land reforms. It is now my intention to find supporting documentation for this, and i hope someone can attempt the same for the claim made in the article

There were no citations, as you say, and I have not found any information on the subject. You are right. It doesn't belong there anyway.KarenAnn 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So sorry there are no Castro estates, merely memorial sites. And for a long time Ramon was in charge of these. As to Fidel Castro's illegitimate children this is widely recongnized except by prudish communists, xe xe El Jigue 5-24-06

References

Reference section

Would anybody be opposed to converting the current plain hyperlink references into footnote references which are becoming increasingly common on Wikipedia? mensch • t 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I started converting all the links to reference tags and I encountered a lot of references to articles in Cuban or Spanish. Are they valid sources for an English article? Just wondering. I took out some of the links, but as I encountered more I stopped doing this. Feel free to re-add the sources I deleted if they qualify as reliable sources for this article. mensch • t 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

re Mensch about Reference section

I have been removing nonsensical links in body of article (links that go nowhere or to some irrelevant place.) Like you, I'm wary of messing with links to sources in Spanish. I consulted with a Spanish-speaking person who looked at a few of them and said they were extremely biased. But someone who knows Spanish needs to evaluate them. KarenAnn 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

All the links referring to non-English sources are removed from the article. If necessary I can compile a list of the resources taken out of the article for Spanish speaking people who would like to validate them. But still, I'm unsure if non English sources qualify as material for an English Wikipedia entry, so it's probably better to find equivalent English sources. mensch • t 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they are legitimate I think they do. Wikipedia says that it wants to appeal to a more gobal audience in a article in the Community Portal yesterday. KarenAnn 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do. English-language sources are preferred on en.wiki, naturally, assuming equal quality and reliability; but if there are better and more reliable sources in another language, they're the ones that should be used. See for instance this recently Featured article, where all the main sources are in Swedish. That's not an ideal situation, but since there are good books on the subject in Swedish and only pretty feeble and error-ridden websites in English, that was the way the article had to be written. The relevant guideline is here. Bishonen | talk 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC).

Reference to Castro wealth estimates

A reference to estimates of Castro's wealth is found at [12] El Jigue 5-25-06

I think that the wealth section is exceptionaly pointless. As the head of a country with a state run economy it is NOT his wealth! Technically any Cuban could claim that as their collective wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.34.6 (talk • contribs)

Riiiight. --Kbh3^rdtalk 21:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Riiiight! It is not his wealth! What's he going to do with it? Cash it in and live in Miami? That's a very odd way of establishing someone's wealth. If all the hospitals in the UK were sold off would Tony Blair pocket the money? (he'd probably try) but no, it's not his, and nor is every enterprise in Cuba Castro's personal plaything. ((Belaruski))

No the Canary Islands. BTW I suppose you have not noticed that there is a difference between British Law and Cuban "Law." El Jigue 6-18-06

Sources

Deleting sources written in "native language" is mashugana

Mensch wrote: "I started converting all the links to reference tags and I encountered a lot of references to articles in Cuban or Spanish. Are they valid sources for an English article? Just wondering. I took out some of the links, but as I encountered more I stopped doing this. Feel free to re-add the sources I deleted if they qualify as reliable sources for this article. mensch • t 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)"

There is no such language as "Cuban," and deleting entries in the Cuba's "Native" language (Spanish) (Technically Taino or Neo-Taino Siboney is closer to being Cuba's "Native" language; however at present there is very little written in Taino) makes no sense at all. If one were discussing Yiddish culture and one deleted all references that were not in English one, would be not a "mensch" but a "mashugana." A far wiser procedure would be to leave references in "native language(s)"; and add, when ever possible, equivalent citations in English. Taino-Ti! El Jigue 5-26-06

Of course that's a far wiser procedure. So please, start providing equivalent citations and translations in English, instead of just stating that somebody else should've done this or should be doing this. I don't speak Spanish and have little knowledge about the linguistic side of Cuba, so adding references in "native Cuban languages" is not my cup of tea. The references which were in the article at some point however, were far from neutral and not very reliable, according to somebody who had more experience in translating Spanish texts.

Furthermore, I don't like to be called a "dumbass" or a "stupid person", even though you try to insult me in Yiddish. mensch • t 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

El Jigue, steady on old chap and don't bite the workers. Meet me over at History of Cuba where your considerable knowledge of the subject matter would serve a more excellant purpose. Take a look at that page and see what you think needs to be expanded - removed - check dates etc. --Zleitzen 13:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: "Dunno" it was the deletion of references without being able to read them, and going on the word of another who thought they were not neutral just seemed to be the act of a "mashuguna" to me. Sorry for mal adroit comparison which could be taken, an unintended insult. Now I am trying to find a link between "Fabio Grobart" and the death of Julio Antonio Mella. Castro who reputedly met Grobart after, apparently distinguishing himself, in the Bogotazo said [13]: "As Flavio (should be Fabio) Grobart explained in a brilliant historical analysis, this all went back to the end of the last century. He was referring to 1898 when a Cuban newspaper began to disseminate Marxist ideas. He was also referring to the socialist concerns of some of the workers who assisted Marti's revolutionary work in Tampa and in Key West, the founding in 1899 of a party that was already based on Marxist ideas and headed by Diego Vicente Tejera and which later, early this century--for the party had a very short life--was to become the Cuban Worker Party, and then the Socialist Worker Party, and finally, was to be known as the Cuban Socialist Party which was headed by Valino (should be Baliño), or of which Valino was one of the principal leaders. Because of our country's objective and subjective conditions early this century, that party was not able to unfold its action fully. However, in 1923 the socialist group in Havana broke with the Second International, supported the Third International, and became the communist group in Havana in which the revolutionary life of Julio Antonio Mella began." All this seems to be mere pronouncement of the official Cuban line on the foundation of the Cuban communist party, e.g. Martí, who was never communist,is mentioned as such and Trotsky althought aluded to here, is never mentioned by name. El Jigue 5-29-06