Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

I am gonna ask the Fidelistas one thing

Please prove that the following groups/people do/did not follow a Marxist-Leninist ideology:

et. al.

Until then, please stop reverting this section. J. Parker Stone 05:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond in the interest of reaching a compromise. I've mentioned before that a detailed descussion of Cuba's foreign policy belongs on the Foreign relations of Cuba page. You could cover the general support for third world liberation movements in the Fidel Castro article one sentence and include a link to the foreign policy page. Since the Castro article is already too long, this seems like an obvious place to cut back. DJ Silverfish 20:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Cuban literacy

If Cuba has not "greatly" improved its literacy, I'd like to know what would qualify as greatly improving it. Almost all, if not all, young Cubans are literate. Nowhere else in the region and no other developing nation can come anywhere near matching literacy in Cuba. Grace Note 07:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Cubans were 76% literate in 1958. That's not great, but relative to the region at that time, it wasn't bad. J. Parker Stone 07:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, 12 years old source (1992): [1]

Grenada and Jamaica: 98%

Uruguay: 96%

Suriname, Guyana, and Argentina: 95%

Cuba: 94%

Even by your very old source (kof, the CIA, kof -- very much not biased about Cuba, of course), you are suggesting a 20% improvement. Viva Fidel, I say. That's a huge improvement. Grace Note 07:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's fucking statistics, champ. And if the CIA World Factbook was so "biased" it could easily bump that 94% down to a 90 or 88.J. Parker Stone 07:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

And I doubt the other countries were in the 90th percentile 35 years before 1992, either. J. Parker Stone 07:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Here you are, champ. Here's some fucking statistics that are a bit more up to date. Even the CIA thinks Castro's done a bang-up job in educating the proletariat. Grace Note 14:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks like ol' Fidel's overhauled the capitalist running dogs in Jamaica and Suriname. Viva la revolucion, hey, Trey? Grace Note 15:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NationMaster.com provides some fair, unbiased statistics that display the "revolutionary" advances in literacy in Cuba are more a regional trend than some good government management of education (nonexistent in Cuba). Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Grace Note. Unless you're a rabid fidelista who claims a 4% difference over Venezuela, Colombia and Suriname is a "revolutionary" or "dramatic" difference, you gotta accept it's a moderate change and not a result of a successful government strategy. Kapil 20:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

So what is causing this "regional" trend? Something in the water? Clearly Cuba made enormous strides in literacy. Even by Trey Stone's reckoning it overhauled nations in its region that were ahead of it. Perhaps your grasp of statistics isn't too good, Kapil, and you don't know that improving a figure that is close to a maximum is more difficult than improving one that is far from the maximum. If so, you've just added to your stock of knowledge and may thank me. Grace Note 02:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, not decisive enough. Rather, it would appear Cuba's "strides" have been mediocre and have allowed the rest of the non-communist countries to catch up to a once mighty nation. Kapil 02:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

All right, enuff useless bickering - would somebody just give us the facts, please? What was Cuba's literacy before the revolution, and whatsit now? And what are the before and after numbers for some comparative countries? Yes, I'm being too lazy to weed through the references that you're citing, but just summarize here.

I gotta disagree with Kapil on four points being minor - four points is a serious difference - if literacy were to drop by that much in the US, for instance, you'd have reason to think that American civilization was about to collapse. Plus, some of those countries were way more than four points below Cuba.

However, it's going to take a lot to convince me that we should use the word "greatly" unless Cuba's literacy improved greatly both with respect to pre-revolution numbers as well as the rate of change for other nations. Now then, let's have some cold, hard numbers, shall we? --Rroser167 04:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone claims 76% in 1958 to current 97%. If that's not "greatly" improving literacy, I would like to see a suggestion of what is. To use Rroser167's smart comparison, imagine that my home nation, the UK, saw its literacy drop to 79%! Would anyone even begin to question a description of that as "greatly reduced" literacy"? Of course not. All Cubans aged 15 to 24 are now literate. Kapil's argument is the square root of bollocks, since there is no evidence to suggest that the noncommunist countries had lower literacy than Cuba in 1958 and now have higher. In any case, even if literacy had been greatly increased in some other place, that does not mean it wasn't also greatly increased in Cuba. Literacy increases because of government action, not because everyone in a region catches a vibe or something. Grace Note 04:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

And that trend just doesn't seem to have spread to Nicaragua or Honduras. Good job we worked so hard to keep the commies out of those places, huh? But look, Costa Rica is doing well. That's pretty pink by the region's standards, no? The vast majority of the very highly literate places, a careful reader will have noted, were British or Dutch colonies, which we left fairly highly literate. Grace Note 05:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Literacy % increase by country from 1950-53 to 2000:

1) Haiti (mostly rightist dictatorship) (345.5%)

2) Guatemala (rightist) (130%)

3) Dominican Republic (rightist) (95.3%)

4) El Salvador (rightist, center-left, center-right) (88.1%)

5) Brazil (rightist) (73.5%)

6) Ecuador (que?) (64.3%)

7) Colombia (rightist) (48.4%)

8) Paraguay (rightist) (36.8%)

9) Cuba (Communist) (26.3%)

10) Costa Rica (center-left) (21.3%)

11) Chile (mix-and-match) (18.5%)

12) Argentina (etc.) (11.5%)

Countries with comparable before and afters from 1950-53 to 2000:

1) Ecuador (56-92%, +64.3%)

2) Colombia (62-92%, +48.4%)

3) Paraguay (68-93%, +36.8%)

4) Panama (72-92%, +27.8%)

5) Cuba (76-96%, +26.3%)

6) Chile (81-96%, +18.5%

Top five Latin American literacy rates in 1950-53:

1) Argentina (87%)

2) Chile (81%)

3) Costa Rica (79%)

4) Cuba (76%)

5) Panama (72%)

Top five Latin American literacy rates in 2000:

1) Argentina (97%)

2) Cuba, Chile, Costa Rica (96%)

3) Paraguay (93%)

4) Colombia, Panama, Ecuador (92%)

5) Brazil (85%)

In conclusion and in summary, I hereby decree that GN is a deluded Fidelista who should go hang out at the Isle of Pines. J. Parker Stone 20:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Grace Note, you succeed at irrelevance. Kapil 22:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

By Trey's own reckoning, Cuba went from 76% to 97% literate. How that squares with his percentage rise is a mystery only he can resolve. In any case, genius, 15->55 would be 300%+, and is a lot easier to achieve than 95%->100%, which is what, 5% or so increase. Why's that, statman? Because you can achieve the former by not enlisting all your nation's children in an ongoing civil war. Percentage increases from a low base are easier to achieve than they are from a high base. Three to 9 is a greater percentage increase than 16 to 22, and yet both involve the same number of things increased. Getting it?

The bottom two lists are quite interesting. Trey's "proof" that Cuba has not greatly increased its literacy is to show that it has risen up the league table, increasing its literacy in simple percentage terms by more than any of the other nations that were relatively highly literate.

In any case, here are two things you boys ignore: one, even if every other nation greatly increased its literacy in this period, it would still be true that Cuba had done so. Showing that some other countries also did so doesn't mean that Cuba did not! That's like saying that India's population didn't grow much in the twentieth century because, look, Nigeria's grew a lot and so did Indonesia's. The increase cannot be explained by outside influences (and certainly you don't suggest any). Two, there are no claims that Cuba didn't actually increase its literacy. There are plenty of revisionists who try to argue that it's no big deal to increase your literacy into the high 90s (although, as we've already noted, a similar move the other way would be taken to be a calamity) but none that you've been able to source suggesting that it had declined. Grace Note 03:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is that Paraguay, Costa Rica, and Chile had similar increases without any extensive literacy program. And yes, that does raise questions. Quit being so goddamned condescending. J. Parker Stone 04:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You think maybe there was a magic literacy cloud that rained the ability to read on the lower Americas? Grace Note 04:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You're not going anywhere. I don't know exactly how literacy improved as well as Cuba in the Southern Cone. I do know, however, that it was done without a mass govt.-sponsored literacy campaign.

And BTW I get your point about the upper list wiseass (though I do note that Haiti was not undergoing a civil war in the late '50s.) But the comparison to Paraguay, Costa Rica, and Chile stands. J. Parker Stone 04:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to go anywhere, Trey. Your position is nonsense. Cuba had a massive literacy programme and its literacy greatly improved. End of story. Grace Note 23:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Because you can achieve the former by not enlisting all your nation's children in an ongoing civil war -> Entirely. Cuba should've declined support to guerrilla groups which enlisted a majority of the nation's fighting children (considering as how the government has nothing to do with enlisting children under 18 in the army, as it's highly illegal and we have such a thing as laws and a constitution, at least the areas where the guerrillas aren't destroying police stations and the judicial system). Stop being so left wing and accept a goddamn fact when it hits you in the face, Castro's achieved nothing and you're repugnant for saying otherwise, even when presented with facts (like the fact that Colombia's literacy was raised by almost double during the same period, having to fight at the same time against Cuban-sponsored and trained terrorist guerrillas that go around enlisting children and blowing up bridges and electricity pylons and such). Ah, and stop calling it a goddamned civil war, a junta of 500 people bullying 17,000 kids around into tending for their coca crops is not a civil war, it's a mafia and a narcoterrorist ring. Read up on the Colombian conflict before rearing your hideous left-wing 'intellect' into a rational conversation. Kapil 05:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to be messed up with all this, but you are all probably missing the point. Did Castro improve the literacy? Yes. I don't see any problem adding that. The fact that other countries improved their literacy too doesn't make cubans more stupid you know? I can't understand why a person that violates human rights can't improve education.... And all the criticism about kids fighting in Colombia is pretty sterile since it's another topic and should be handled elsewhere. Y'all are here to write an enciclopedia, not to pursue your political ideas. Thanks CarrKnightCarrKnight

Talk deletion

Whyja delete this page, Trey/J.? If this page is getting too long, it can be archived. If you did it because you're just embarrassed about all the times your ass got smacked in discussions, don't worry, you smacked almost as much ass in return. --Rroser167 14:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Article Introduction Debate

I find the recent actions of a few users extreme to be POV pushing and especially disgusting with regard to the opening paragraph.

points of contention:

1. Labeling Batista a dictator: it has been generally agreed that term "dictator" is to be steered clear from.
2. Removal of political repression from article lead: if Castro is know for the warm fuzzies of free health care and literacy in some circles, is most certainly notable in human rights circles as a brutal tyrant who squelches dissent at drop of a hat. If one is to be included, then the other most certainly can have a mention.
3. The removal of "forced" in describing the UMAP labor camps: factually accurate description of Castro's concentration camps for "queers" and other "deviants". The whole idea behind the camps was that hard labor would turn them into "real men".
4. Continual revisionism on human Rights section: once again, along with the shiny happy "social justice" programs, Castro is infamous for his human rights record. The bulk of this section is a half assed attempt to apologize for it, and attempts to correct this imbalance are stonewalled.

TDC 22:34, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

1 Has it? That's what he was though. Would you like sources for saying it?

Yes, it has. Dictator is not used to describe Stalin, Mao, Hussien, Hitler, and so on, so yes, there is precedent for this. TDC 03:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

2: Castro is accused of all sorts of things by American rightists. You can put in appropriately sourced material in the article. The intro is already appropriately balanced. Adding more of your POV would unbalance it at this point.

"American rightists" and the UN, Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch, OAS, and most civilized nations. There is no balance in the intro paragraph, its all roses and no thorns. TDC 03:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

3 Source it.

Source what, that it was forced? That it was for deviants? That there were labor camps? Whatcha want here?TDC 03:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

4 Source it. Not to your friend's blog. Okay? Grace Note 00:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not a sourcing issue, this is a balance issue. The Pinochet article does not have near this amount of whitewashing his human rights record. TDC 03:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

You officially suck, Grace Note. You're an inmensely, embarrasingly and repugnantly left-wing fidelista apologist and your "contributions" to this article are severely uninformed (or rather, uninforming), misleading, unenlightened and (above all), unwelcome. Kapil 01:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What is unwelcome at wikipedia is a personal attack like Kapil just made against Grace. Please keep your frustrations to yourself, concentrate on content, and do it in a friendly way. What you just said is plain rude, --SqueakBox 01:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rather, what is unwelcome is delinquent behaviour from users such as Grace Note and Comandante, who keep reverting to a misleading previous version when data and sources have been provided that prove otherwise (about the literacy thing). Kapil 01:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's a good article about a mexican university professor personally telling us what the UMAPs are for, and how familiar they are to the russian gulags. I'm guessing you'll just dismiss it as "American rigthist" mis-information or whatever (if you actually understand the article, as I'm guessing most of the delinquent reversion going on is mostly done by champagne communists with funky sources), but it is a source. Kapil 01:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's some more sources (just google for it, there seems to be plenty of "american rightist" misinformation telling us lies about these heavenly places of bliss named UMAPs): http://www.futurodecuba.org/Cuba-U_M_A_P_.htm http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagaq003.php http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/clark12298.html
Kapil 01:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that wikipedia can be a frustrating experience but by being rude you will alienate potential supporters and end up achieving precisely the opposite of what you want. Being nice to people and sticking to the rules is the only way to get things done here. otherwise (POV wise) those you claim to oppose will get their way because you are rude, and therefore nobody will listen to you, regardless of whether or not you may actually be right, --SqueakBox 01:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think the page will go back to their version regardless, as no moderation is done and reversion to the Castro-biased version is constant and unstopped. Kapil 01:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In that case you need to write it in a way that it won't be reverted. Editing something that just gets reverted is pretty pointless, --SqueakBox 01:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Or, the reverters could just stop being childish and reverting back to using the word "greatly" when a group of realist users has already provided proof that their claims are false. Kapil 01:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

On the off-chance that you want to be constructive, I'd suggest taking points one by one and being neutral rather than reverting to batches of POV commentary. Mark ¹ 02:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You are talking to a guy who wants the article to say that it's arguable that literacy has improved in Cuba under Castro. Nuff said. Grace Note 02:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm merely reverting to a non-POV version (from a fidelista one). That, and I happen to be talking to a person who admires Castro, and denies the human rights violations in UMAP camps, which is repulsive. Finally, I reverting the picture of Castro in front of a socialist star to one in which he (sadly) appears as a hero smoking a Cohiba is the definition of POV-pushing. Nuff said. Kapil 02:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to say that the issue with literacy rates has to do with causation. Was it Castro and Castro alone whose programs raised literacy rates, or was it combination of factors. I mean, I know he is Superman and all, but who or what is primarily responsible for the raise in literacy rates. TDC 04:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Initially popular amongst Cubans and still admired in more limited circles is vacuous nonsense. dramatic political and social repression is illiterate and pejorative. regime is pejorative. most people still view Castro is vacuous nonsense. partial destruction is illiterate. Try again. Mark ¹ 02:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, no, you're not reverting to the fidelista-POV version. If you wish to revert point by point, with examples, you may do so. But reverting based on defining something as "vacuous" is stupid. Furthermore, the use of the word "regime" is perfectly fine when used to describe his grotesque dictatorship, and if you're so against using pejorative terms, don't call Batista's regime (which was certainly more benevolent) as a dictatorship. Partial destruction is partial destruction, independently of if you think it's an illiterate term. Finally, I can't possibly begin to imagine why you would place the picture of the cocksucker sucking on a Cohiba back on (and justify removing the other with him as a head of state). Wait, I'm guessing that by using your logic it perfectly makes sense, I mean, it's not vacuous or anything. You try again. Kapil 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted Kapil as he has now reverted more than 3 times, so the rv shouldn't be allowed/is not valid, whereas Mark didn't rv 4 times, --SqueakBox 03:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to add that until a hand full of Castro sycophants came here, the article was fairly stable. TDC 04:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

As per literacy rate, I thought there was consensus for greatly, but Trey Stone continues to diminish it. El_C 02:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said, PARAGUAY improved similarly and yet was ruled by a rightist dictatorship. clearly, during certain periods of prosperity literacy is able to improve without massive govt. programs. you have to provide some (non-Cuban govt., plz) sources that the increase came solely from the campaign, and also how quickly it occurred. J. Parker Stone 02:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I find your point of contention to be counter-factual and POV, and I'm not inclined towards such circular arguments as I believe this will invariably lead towards. Your request for these 'precise' sources is simply not credible and it's a method that isn't employed anywhere else. That's all I have to say for now. I have no intention of becoming deeply involved with this article at this point/beyond this point. Sorry. El_C 03:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

WTF? i just asked for proof that the literacy campaign was the only factor contributing to rising literacy, as like i said, other countries have achieved similar gains without such programs. J. Parker Stone 03:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

No, no WTF. I said all I wanted to say at this point, I leave the rest for other editors. El_C 03:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Its a valid point El C; were the gains in literacy due to actions taken by the cuban govt, or were other factors in play here. As Trey has pointed out, other Latin American Nations experienced similar growths in literacy withouth command economy literacy programs. Source it from an agreed upon source, or it seems clear that it cannot stay in its present form. TDC 04:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very mystical factors. The revolution was so inspiring, the people decided to build schools, train teachers, etc., with revolutionary goodwill alone. Amazing times these were. El_C 06:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Grace Note's definition of "revisionism" is the classical Marxist one --that is to say, anything that contradicts Party dogma. J. Parker Stone 04:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure GraceNote appreciates this goodfaith characterization. El_C 06:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

i apologize if i have a hard time finding "goodfaith" with Grace Note's edits. J. Parker Stone 07:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite moved actually. No one has called me a Marxist since I was 14. You've made me feel young again, Trey! Grace Note 07:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

an obnoxious knowitall kid leftist, to be sure. J. Parker Stone 07:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Adhere to Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks policy, J. Parker Stone. El_C 08:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Minor changes (only)

The footnotes didn't make sense, which to say, they were grossly inconsistent: starting with the un-linked footnote 5, then moving to the linked 1,2,3,4. I fixed these following the last edit 01:10, 18 May 2005 Markalexander100 (rv undiscussed changes, back to compromise text) — so I did not revert at that instance. I also fixed the links which were denoted as [#] into (url), because it's too confusing for the reader to encounter what appears to be two sets of footnotes with ¹ and [2] along one another. These are minor changes, please do not remove them unless you object specifically to them (if so, please bring these strictly stylistic issues to discussion here). Also, whomever is familliar with the reference work needs to lookover to make sure that the switch I made with footnote 5 and 1 is correct (I'm not sure in the course of which edit war the order of these was disrupted, nor do I care, but I hope it could be avoided in the future by all parties who actually bother reading this note). El_C 06:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone did not read the above

After I made the above note, which depicted my minor fixes to the last version at the moment, that of Markalexander100, and requested that any reverts include these minor fixes or discuss them: Trey Stone reverted without keeping any of them. So whereas, with my minor fixes the first footnote was ¹, with Trey Stone, it was ⁵. This (and his continued personal attacks against GraceNote) reflect poorly on him. Did he even bother reading it? Is he interested in collaborative editorial work based on civil, intellectual discourse? I would like to assume goodfaith. El_C 08:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Next he keeps the urls with his (I'm not sure which number this is) latest revert, but neglects to keep the switching of the un-linked footnote 5 with 1, nor the bottom footnote section fixes. And he is surprised I need to write in all caps in my edit summary when I write: READ LAST EDIT SUMMARY tdc, and make sure you preserve minor fixes after TDC ignored all my fixes in his revert. Perhaps I should have written it in all-caps, as obviously neither of them is bothering to read, or at least read closely what I write. Albeit to me to presume that a Wikipedia article should serve the reader first and propagandists second — by having the first footnote start with 1 and not 5. Too grand of expectations, I suppose. El_C 08:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Argh, am I talking to myself here? Now on the other side, WebLuis ignores my comments and the first footnote remains 5. El_C 08:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

He is still not listening to me

Trey Stone reverted (yes, again) WebLuis, and (surprise-surprise) the first footnote remains 5, and remains un-linked, and remains pointing at the wrong source (as I suspect 1 and 5 got switched prior). J. Parker Stone, are you reading any of this? El_C 08:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, note my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Trey_Stone_2 (yes, 2 — within the same current page!). El_C 08:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think, El_C, that maybe, maybe, we wouldn't have to revert to our version if you leftwingers didn't continuously revert to yours, which is just as biased? You're engaging in the exact same attitude, all of you, especially Viajero and Comandante, so stop acting as if you're the bigger men for some reason or another, you're just ganging up so nobody has broken the 3RR. Kapil 17:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

No, sir/madam, I most certainly do not think that maybe, maybe. My fixes were to an uncontested section, they had nothing to do with the ongoing dispute and reversions. Surly you wish to have the first footnote to be denoted as 1 and not 5, when it has absolutely nothing, zero to do with any dispute and is just common sense. And it is unfair that I have to go through such lengths (including re-entering the info manually) after I explicitly request, re-request, and whine to retain these purely technical fixes no matter what. Sigh. Lastly, I'd like to thank GraceNote for dragging me into this "discussion." :p El_C 01:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How can you possibly dare to call it "uncontested", considering the constant reversion not only by me but by other users? Oh well, then, have it your way, it's not uncontested, I contest it. Kapil 01:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That is untrue, at the time of writing the above, this contesting was limited to the intro. Also, regardless, the point is adhering to minimal professional standards whether the contesting takes place or not. I'm not sure why anyone would object to that, yet here we are. El_C 01:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Lead and image dispute

I have protected the article, plaes discuss suggested edits to the text here--nixie 03:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The revert war seems to have involved mainly KapilTagore, who I think is still blocked. Unprotected to give editing a change. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Fidel's Cohiba

Castro is famous for his smoking cigars, so much so that the CIA is supposed to have wanted to kill him by using an exploding Cohiba. Maybe you rightwing POVistas can fantasise that he's smoking a CIA one and that will make you feel better about the picture of him with a cigar. Grace Note 04:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Cut the "cohiba" reference. Without a cigar in the photograph, how can we be sure he isn't breathing smoke? DJ Silverfish 21:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

May I congratulate you on being the first editor to suggest Castro is a dragon? He's been accused of just about everything else, so it's about time. Grace Note 23:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure even the most die-hard fidelista can be contented by the fact that the Cohiba picture is now not the centre of attention, nor is it out completely. Kapil 02:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

And we tobacco haters can be happier too, --SqueakBox 02:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Intro

All right, I don't understand the objections to "he overthrew the regime of General Fulgencio Batista" or "His leadership has been marked by the implementation of programs that substantially boosted the nation's literacy rate " in the intro. In particular, I think that was generous for Trey to have left the literacy statement there, unless, of course, he did it by accident.

Can someone also provide enlightenment on the use of term "dictator"? I don't think that this is pejorative in its common usage, and wikipedia's own page on "Dictator" lists plenty of examples of dicatators, including Castro. If Castro and Batista don't qualify as dictators, exactly where is the line drawn?--Rroser167 13:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, as far as the picture of Castro is concerned, can someone find an up to date one that doesn't look so - dramatic? --Rroser167 14:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think all this debate about the disputed "great" increases in literacy (to be sure, a result of policies from a crosseyed dictatorship?) would be better off included in the main page, so as to let regular users decide if the increase was "great", if it was a result of the "revolutionary skill" of the regime, and most of all, to remove the term "greatly" which is entirely POV in that context. Kapil 16:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Dictator stresses the following: In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. This would be true about Castro, then, as he holds effective control of the nation having been president all his life, and having never had any contention from the National Assembly of People's Power (which has never declined any laws put forth by him) nor from any effective opposition (which he jails and tortures). It can't be disputed that he doesn't have extraordinary personal power, seeing as how he's been the only president in post-revolutionary Cuba and how he has no restraint, therefore he is a dictator. Also, from the wikipedia article on "regime", Castro's Cuba is a regime alright. Kapil 17:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

We don't source articles to other articles, Kapil. WP is a tertiary source. You are of course welcome to source others describing Castro's government as a "regime" but your opinion on whether it matches the description in another WP article is not worth the pixels it was written with. Your argument about literacy has dwindled into simply whining about whether it was a product of the programs or not. There were programs and literacy greatly increased. We don't know what would have happened had there been no programs, because there isn't another Cuba in which they didn't bother with the programs. Comparing Cuba with other nations is ridiculous because their circumstances are different. Are you quite certain that none of its neighbours had literacy programs? You just seem to be bullshitting on that score because you don't give sources. The sources that Trey did give just go to show that Cuba has made a marked improvement in literacy, far more so than other nations that began with a similar rate to it. It cannot be compared with nations that began from a lower base, for the reasons that I gave. Grace Note 23:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm merely giving the definition for the word "dictator" and "regime". To be called a regime or a dictator, it should fit the description given in the Wikipedia context to those. Whether you think it's not worth the pixels it was written with or not is not your choice, as it's entirely apparent that you're an equally inappropriate person to be filling in Wikipedia articles with info. There were programs, sure, but programs existed in every single other nation, and the end result is very similar in Cuba and elsewhere (even though elsewhere you can "whine" without being labelled an antirevolutionary and having the living snot kicked out of you by some communist secret police). I maintain that your contributions are entirely unwelcome, as you're merely labelling other people's contributions as false and name calling euphemistically. I changed the article to a more NPOV version and I'm betting everyone else agrees, if you're gonna change it I suggest you pick up where I left off and give some good sources, instead of removing a good explanation to innocent (read: not communist) users who don't know a damn about Cuban literacy. Don't revert to your POV version, it's useless. I propose you shut up. Kapil 00:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Give us some real data for your own claims, Grace Note, or else it's entirely appropriate to leave the more NPOV version (over yours, which is disputed and quite irrelevant). And leave the picture alone, the Cohiba one is inappropriate for a biographic article. Kapil 00:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Trey provided data above. Even the CIA think literacy increased by 21 percentage points to 97%. That's fantastic in anyone's terms. Grace Note 00:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

And Kapil, it is you who disputes that the literacy rate increased. Your opinion is, as I've explained to you, worthless. Source it or it stays out. I'd be delighted to accommodate you if you can find anyone who isn't a screaming rightwingnut blogger who disputes that Cuba's literacy has greatly increased in the past 45 years. Grace Note 00:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No, "greatly" and "fantastic" are your opinions, leave it alone, I dispute it. Kapil 00:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Independently, why the fuck do you keep reverting back to the Cohiba picture? It's sordidly unprofessional. Kapil 00:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, I'm going to have to insist you talk to me like an adult, or suggestions about "professionalism" are going to be laughed out of the playground. Grace Note 00:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to insist then that you do the same, and give me one hell of a good reason why you're still going on with the stupid Cohiba picture. Kapil 01:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm gonna have to decline on your suggestion to treat you as an adult, seeing as you called me a "rightwingnut blogger". I demand you provide adequate data which describes Cuba's literacy growth as "great" (no, you don't count as a reliable neutral source), else you leave my NPOV tag there. Kapil 01:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You do understand that 'great' can simply mean 'large in size', right? It doesn't necessarily mean 'wonderful'. One could say 'The group suffered great hardships' and not necessarily be implying that their suffering was deserved or a good thing. -jbm 3 June 05

NPOV

I support the NPOV tag. Please edit war around it, if you have to. There clearly is a dispute going on, and I believe it should be easier to put on an NPOV than to take one off, --SqueakBox 01:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The following are the reasons why I propose this article is not neutral:

The article can simply be biased, and express viewpoints as facts.

"Greatly" is Grace Note's view, not really a fact. Unless a couple of good, neutral and reliable sources are provided which define the cuban literacy rate rise under Castro as "great" or some similar term, this is not fact and therefore is bias.

While all facts might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

The introductory paragraph boasts about Castro's "achievements" as head of state, yet it misteriously leaves out other universally known facts (such as political repression and the like). Sources on these are infinite, and an attempt to include a balancing line which described this problem was removed and reversed by Grace Note, Viajero, El_C, Comandante and other users.

Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others.

Same thing as the above, the introductory paragraph leaves out a wide and universal debate over human rights in Cuba (and their continued violation by Fidel Castro as head of state)

The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

"Greatly". That definitely insinuates greatness.

The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.
A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.
The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.

The use of the term "great" is seen as "obvious" by Grace Note, the author of the current version.

Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.

There's not even comparison in the first paragraph, as cons are not presented to balance the pros of the Castro "administration".
Kapil 01:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I believe the Fidel Castro picture is neutral, the Fidel Castro smoking a Cohiba picture aims to display Castro in a "revolutionary" manner (as it's the way "revolutionaries" portray Castro, not as a head of state but as a guerrilla, a hero and a martyr), which could bias a user. Therefore I believe the first picture to be more appropriate, as it displays Castro as a head of state, and doesn't immortalize him as a guerrilla. Provide good reasons for keeping the other picture, else the first one should go back. Kapil 01:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we should try to find a different photo from either oif the 2 controversial ones, preferably as up to date as possible, certainly within the last 2 or 3 years. He gave up smoking ages ago, so that photo is too out of date for the first pic, but choosing the other (or either) photo doesn't satisfy both sides,--SqueakBox 02:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The first one was taken in 2004 and shows him in front of a socialist red star. This is very representative of his ideology and is a current picture, therefore I think it should remain. Kapil 03:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's recentness makes it much more suitable. Why don't soome people like it? SqueakBox 03:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

He is renowned for smoking cigars. It's immaterial that he gave it up. It's a great photo anyway. The other one's rubbish. This is just pettiness on the part of the rightwing trolls. They're only tolerated because it would be a waste of time sending them to arbitration. Grace Note 06:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually both Kapril and Trey are under Rfc's, so where grace gets her info from I don't know. i totally disagree that such an old photo is appropriate. if you don't like the other fiind a new one. I think the cigar smoking one is pretty rubbish myself. I am neither a right wing troll or being petty, and I strongly advise Grace not to label me. Indeed her attitude at this point seems to be of non-cooperation, totally contrary to wikipedia spirit. Lets have a debate, not a slagging match, --SqueakBox 16:31, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, you have a debate, SqueakBox, and I'll revert the trolls on sight. Their "discussion" is entirely spurious. They are on a crusade to smear leftwing figures and they litter talkpages with bullshit in pursuit of it. I know that both have RfCs, thanks to their atrocious behaviour, more of which is on display here. I'm more than willing to cooperate with good-faith editors on all the articles I work on, but do I think that trolls should get their way because they can shout louder than most? No way. Kapil's idea of consensus-building seems to be to call anyone who disagrees with him a cunt and revert their edits endlessly, backed up with a complete lack of sources on the talkpage. You are welcome to support that approach, SqueakBox, if you like, but I don't. I certainly don't think it is "the Wikipedia spirit" or anything like it. Grace Note 01:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Threatening to revert people on sight is against wikipedia policy. I am doing my best to try to get Kapril to change his ways, which is more than you are doing. Why are you inserting an article with the same photo twice? What does that do for the integrity of Wikipedia? I have kept out of the political debate, and only reverted because you and Comandante reverted to a version with one photo twice, so I didn't bother reading the content, just reverted to avoid photo duplication, as Wikipedia matters more to me than these political arguments, SqueakBox 01:36, May 21, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 01:36, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

He is renowned for smoking cigars, yet he stopped smoking several years ago. It's a hideous, out-of-place and propagandist picture, and I prefer the other one which is regular and neutral. It's rubbish, to be sure, because it features Fidel Castro, a virulent dictator with a loyal gang of accolyte followers such as yourself, a marxist delinquent. Whether you think I should be sent to arbitration matters as much to me as whether a little kid in Burkina Faso cuts down a tree. I certainly don't care at all, especially coming from useless garbage, and let me tell you, Grace Note, you are useless garbage. Discuss the article in an appropriate manner or just be silent. Kapil 17:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Can both sides PLEASE try to be civil to each other regardless of political disagreements, --SqueakBox 17:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hey if Grace Note chooses not to be civil and ignore all the consensus building, actions should be taken against her, seeing as how I was banned and such when I was also being a pig. Also, I reverted to the other picture while a more appropriate one is found, as it's apparently only Grace Note who opposes the current picture, and no serious objections for leaving the current one have been given other than me being a "rightwing troll". Kapil 17:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Can people please join the debate here rather than just revert the photo without bothering to explain their reasons, --SqueakBox 21:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Mark, please. Bloody suppression is a POV term. Ruthless coldblooded repression is POV. But "repression" by itself is not POV any more than "greatly increased" is. J. Parker Stone 04:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course repression is a POV term: it means roughly "political control of which I disapprove". Political control of which an American disapproves may be political control which a Cuban thinks is necessary in the face of US imperialist aggression. ;) Mark ¹ 04:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This supposed "imperialist aggression" is discussed further down in the article. Regardless of whether you see it as justified, it is a fact that the Cuban government does not tolerate opposition. Excluding it from the intro is patently dishonest. J. Parker Stone 04:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not dishonest: not every fact can or should be mentioned in the lead. If you can find a neutral way of mentioning it though, I'd have no objection. Mark ¹ 04:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Not every fact can be mentioned, but an important fact like human rights issues (which is what he's widely known for in the West as well as his government programs) should not be excluded. "Repression" is used all the time in other strongmen's articles to no objections. Like I said, you can think it's "justified" in some far-fetched way, but that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't allow opposition. J. Parker Stone 04:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Cuba is officially a Communist state -- this is the proper phrasing. I doubt you could get even Castro to deny it. J. Parker Stone 04:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Article 1 of the 1992 constitution says Cuba is an independent and sovereign socialist state. What's your source? Mark ¹ 05:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Article 5 of the constitution: Artículo 5.- El Partido Comunista de Cuba, martiano y marxista- leninista, vanguardia organizada de la nación cubana, es la fuerza dirigente superior de la sociedad y del Estado, que organiza y orienta los esfuerzos comunes hacia los altos fines de la construcción del socialismo y el avance hacia la sociedad comunista. Basically, article 5 prohibits all opposition as the only allowable party in Cuban politics is the Communist party. Repression right down to the constitution. Kapil 05:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, whilst religion is supposedly free constitutionally, it was persecuted up to a few years ago (until Pope John Paul II visited Cuba and lambasted the US embargo). Therefore, Castro's government qualifies both as a dictatorship (as the constitution itself was being violated by a person with great personal power - Castro) and as a regime. This also qualifies as repression. Further proof Castro is a dictator: Artículo 25.- Se autoriza la expropiación de bienes, por razones de utilidad publica o interés social y con la debida indemnización. La ley establece el procedimiento para la expropiación y las bases para la determinar su utilidad y necesidad, así como la forma de indemnización, considerando los intereses y las necesidades económicas y sociales del expropiado. Whereas the law dictates that expropriation should be indemnized, the hundreds of millions of dollars of american property expropriated at his command at the beginning of his mandate was not indemnized at all. Kapil 05:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing a one-party state (a political characterisation) with a communist state (an economic characterisation). Mark ¹ 05:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but we agree that as per the constitution, Cuba is a one-party state. However, I misread your argument about socialism/communism, but here's the answer as well: Article 5 says Cuba is a socialist state, and uses socialism as a medium with which to one day reach communism. Therefore Cuba is socialist. Kapil 05:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to the term "socialist state" in the lead except Trey. Mark ¹ 06:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It is agreed, socialist state it is. Kapil 14:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Corrections

I removed the term "greatly" as in the literacy debate inside the article itself, the term is disputed, therefore I pointed this out with a link (inside the article). Also, I changed the style from "he provided such and such" to "such and such was made available", as I think this is a bit more neutral, don't know what you think, did this mainly because gramatically, after the link change, I didn't know how to write it correctly. Kapil 14:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the page as it is right now has corrected the reasons why I disputed the NPOV in the first place, perchance it is time for the tag to come off? Kapil 18:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The term is only disputed by you. Your personal agenda is of no value in this article. I know you have difficulty understanding that, Kapil, but it's a fact of WP that editors' personal theories are not welcome. Grace Note 01:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether you believe it is of no value is of no consequence. The term "greatly" is a POV term therefore, unless properly supported, it is the term (representing your personal agenda) which is of no value, therefore it must come off. The compromise is that while the word "great" remains, the dispute is mentioned and a link is provided. Stop demonising my opinions and calm down. Kapil 01:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The figures were provided for you above, Kapil. There is absolutely no dispute that the literacy rate was increased, and only you dispute that the large increase seen cannot be characterised by "greatly". You do not provide sources for your disputing it, so suggesting that it's just your opinion is justified. I'm not "demonising" your opinion, Kapil, just pointing out to you that it is worth nothing here. Grace Note 01:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

If you may, head to the place linked to after the word "disputed". Remember the data tells a different story, with greater literacy rate hikes in other, non-communist nations. Whether it was a "great" increase is entirely your opinion. Kapil 02:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The basic idea is that the definition of the increase as "great" depends entirely on the person: If the entire region increased its literacy rate, such a modest increase from a high starting point isn't universally recognised as "great", or rather, the definition of it as "great" is entirely left to a person's opinion. As the term "great" is your own opinion, it should not go in the paragraph. Perhaps the term "disputedly" shouldn't go there, but neither should the characterisation of the increase as "great". Kapil 02:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at my latest version, perchance it is acceptable to you as well? It removes the term "disputedly" and "great" and just states that programs were created to provide universal healthcare and increase literacy rate. I think it's a good middle ground. Kapil 02:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Comandante

Please note how this rude user completely ignored the discussion and attempts at consensus building, and reverted back to the version agreed to be POV. Kapil 00:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What I do note is that Comandante cretaed a version with 2 cigar smoking identical pics. Sloppy edits will be reverted without explanation, as we must always have a good version (ie without duplicate photos, etc). be careful, SqueakBox 00:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Just change the picture. Personally, I'm removing Kapil's POV pushing and I'll leave it to you to fix the pictures. The "discussion" is simply Kapil's yelling his POV. That doesn't need to be taken into account here. Grace Note 01:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Please-we do not want 2 photos of Castro smoking a cigar. This is tantamount to deliberate vandalism even if it is actually laziness, SqueakBox 01:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

"HThen change one. Change it now and you'll have created a version that comandante and I can revert to without reinstating the duplicate pictures. And I'm getting fed up of your approach, man. You are supporting Kapil and Trey and denigrating editors who are trying to work in good faith. Why? Grace Note 01:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to accept GN's sanitized intro. It is not "extreme right" to say that Castro has committed human rights abuses -- unless everyone except the most left-wing of Democrats in the U.S. is considered "right-wing," which is absurd. J. Parker Stone 01:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

We've shown that the literacy rate has greatly increased. Thanks for the figures on that, Trey. Please confine your ranting on human rights abuses to the talkpage. You can add what you want to the article when it's appropriately sourced, not just your opinion. Remember, "appropriate" != "rightwing blog or hate site", okay? Grace Note 01:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

"Hate site," OK -- any more gems you'd like to share with us? I still have not received an explanation on how Paraguay, which was ruled by a military dictatorship until 1989, managed to increase its literacy rate roughly the same amount as Cuba despite not having this glorious Revolutionary tool used by the Castro government. I have never stated that the literacy campaign had no effect, I am merely disputing the extent of its effect, and apparently that is "right-wing hate." Whatever. J. Parker Stone 02:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I agree with your claim that the picture is too communist but I do not agree with you lambasting my comments. Kapil 01:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, you've tried to add to the article that the increase in the literacy rate is "disputed". And you've called me "useless garbage" among other things. And you've described other users as "communists", "cunts", etc etc. "Assume good faith" does not mean "bend over". Grace Note 01:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I was blocked for 48 hours and an RfC was opened against me. Also, I have desisted in calling you rude names for nearly three days. You also insulted me in many ways, remember that. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The "dispute" is not my imagination, and the paragraph the link points to mentions the dispute. Therefore, mention of the dispute remains, lest it violate NPOV by telling a half truth in the introduction and disputing it in the middle of the page. Kapil 02:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I still don't particularly like the intro. "Communist state" needs to be included, even if it didn't happen until the early '60s. Furthermore, even though certain users may wish it, healthcare and the literacy increase is not what he's primarily known for. And the Cuban emigration has been an important phenomenon during his rule -- one user pointed out that several people have fled Mexico; however, as the former have been militantly anti-Castro and influenced U.S. policy, I think it's a somewhat inaccurate comparison, because they're two entirely different groups of people. J. Parker Stone 06:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I would agree with the "systematic repression" bit to be moved above the "literacy and healthcare" line and to be expanded to better balance the intro, which is too benign in my opinion. Kapil 06:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Response to last Grace comment

I am trying to not get involved in the politics and edit at the same time. I notice noone is reverting my content edits (early life). All I really wanted was a modern pic of him at the top, and I hope we are all going to search for a new one. I would have reverted any text put in with 2 duplicate photos. I don't know why Comandante and Grace did not revert to an acceptable, non duplicating photo version, but was not endorsing the text I reverted in any way. I would have done the same the other way round. I do have an anti tobacco POV, but otherwise I believe I am one of the least politically biased editors who edit Latin American bios, and am more interested in the person and his life than in the politics. I endorsed Viajero's Rfc on Kapil, so I can hardly be accused of supporting him. I am trying to get him to behave better, with, I believe, some success. I certainly wasn't clamouring to see you banned at 3RR, and if you get into trouble in this article, as Kapil and Trey have done, I will do my best to keep you on board as well, but I hope your 3RR is a once and never again (as was my only 3RR, for which I did not get blocked, SqueakBox 03:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Photo

My own choice is the health care section photo of him looking old and waving a Cuban flag. Fits in with the patriotic side of him which, as I put in the article the other day, was a dominant part of his political persona as a young student, and is a critical part of his resistance today. Sovereignty is very important in all Latin American countries, so the nationalism is also a side to him that is neither right wing nor left wing, SqueakBox 03:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Kapil 03:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't like the new pic too much, as it doesn't show Fidel Castro up close (portrait shot). Kapil 06:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced that photo with a recent head/shoulders portrait. I think it is more appropriate, but I am not going to get into an edit war over it. -- Viajero | Talk 18:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Great photo. It fits my desire for a modern photo, and doesn't seem to have the associations of the 2 warred over photos. It is also much better than either of them, or the flag waving one; indeed the perfect pic, so a strong keep from me, SqueakBox 18:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Kapil 19:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

172 just put one of the 2 old, edit warring pics back as the opening one for the article. Given the controversy that it and the cigar smoking pic generated surely it is better to stay with the new photo. Though it is nice to see 172 and Trey Stone agreeing about something. Long may it continue! SqueakBox 22:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I like Messhermit's new pic, and think the box brings the article more into line with other current leaders of nations, SqueakBox 00:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to the new pic. Kapil 00:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chronology

I think this article lacks chronology. It should primarily be a biography rather than a piece aboout the Cuban government, and I believe part of the problem with the piece is the way it is structured. A while back I slightly restructured the article, demoting the foreign policy, but I am now convinced that making it chronological is the way forward. Most bios follow a chronological sequence. Changing the structure of the article may help to calm some of the controversies, --SqueakBox 05:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

It is a tough call. Many if not most biographies are indeed linear, but it gets complicated with heads of state, especially those, like Castro, where the distinction between the líder máximo and the government is vague at times. Inevitably there is going to be a lot of politics in this article, because Castro is a politician. That being said, much of the material in these sections:

5 Health care
6 Education and the literacy campaign
7 Foreign policy
7.1 Cuban Missile Crisis
7.2 Relations with The Soviet Union
7.3 Human rights and relationship with the United States
7.4 Criticisms of the United States
7.5 Worldwide revolution
8 Asylum issues
9 Religion

might best be attended to in a separate article, whether the History of Cuba or in a new article like Revolutionary Cuba. Obviously, some of the issues should still be addressed here, but perhaps it would best to do so by means of judicious quotes of Fidel's own (copious) verbiage. -- Viajero | Talk 18:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

To chronologise Fidel while retaining an encyclopedic standard at any given moment would indeed be a mammoth task. At the moment his life post 1959 gets completely swamped to the point where it is impossible to get any sort of a handle on how his life and career have progressed. I think Viajero's idea of an article on the Cuban government is an excellent one, and fully justifiable given the length of the article (over 32 Kb). For instance in the Road to power section I would move the last paragraph "at this point.....alienating people" to the new article, as an example. While the opening is always going to be difficult when people have such differing political views, other contentious issues such as the literacy campaign would be better treated in the government article, as his life and career doesn't really hinge around such issues. So I am going to go ahead and do it, just because this article desperately needs to get a greater handle on the man himself, and on his life (plus noone has objected to the idea in 24 hours). That way I can remove a lot of material from this article before getting down to the task of chronologising it, SqueakBox 20:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have now created a The Revolutionary Government of Cuba article and will be putting material from this article there, SqueakBox 20:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the chronologising hasn't been as difficult as I tho8ught it would be. It seems the article was originally chronologised, and then got reworked into policy sections: something I feel ultimately made the article worse. I now we have a basic chronological structure, and I can work on pullin a better bio out of this slowly but surely. The Revolutionary Government of Cuba also needs a lot of work, SqueakBox 21:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Communist state

I should point out that the only qualification we need to deem a country a "Communist state" is if they have a Communist Party as the only legal political entity. China and Vietnam (to a lesser extent) have introduced market reforms but would still be referred to as Communist states. J. Parker Stone 04:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Why would anyone call China or Vietnam today communist states? Mark ¹ 04:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Because they are ruled by the Communist Party which has a monopoly on power and pledges allegiance to Communist principles. They are Communist in political structure, if not entirely in economic policy. J. Parker Stone 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What is a "communist political structure"? Again you seem to be confusing economics and politics. Mark ¹ 04:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between uppercase Communism and lowercase communism. Communist states have historically been one-party, dominated by a Politburo or something similar. J. Parker Stone 04:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of one-party states. The term is not synonymous with communism. Mark ¹ 05:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm obviously not talking about every one-party state, just those ruled by the Communist Party, whose General Secretary or Chairman usually has most of the power. J. Parker Stone 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

please can we unprotect the article. there was virtually no edit warring last night and I cannot understand why it has been protected. iMeanwhile I cannot do my legitimate editing, and am very unhappy about that. Please sort your problems pout on the talk page, SqueakBox 14:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Done. It is not entirely clear to me either why it was protected in the first place. -- Viajero | Talk 15:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Opening

To me it feels wrong to describe batista as a dictatorship and castro not. it feels paradoxical. I would rather describe them both as dictatorships (due to the lack of what is considered democracy in Cuba) or neither of them as dictatorships. By implying that Castro's gov is better than Batista's was (as only describing Batista as a dictatorship does) we are bound to have a conflict of opinion between pro and anti factions, SqueakBox 15:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the person who reverted my edit, saying:Raúl Castro, will assume authority over Cuba should he become ill, as it implies we are talking about something that will happen. He would assume authority were Fidel to become ill is all we can honestly say without trying to predict the future. Fidel may well outlive Raúl, SqueakBox 16:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Question

Can anyone remember the name of the little boy who generated so much controversy, and is now back in Cuba? He needs to be talked about in the asylum issues section, SqueakBox 15:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Elián González. A tu servicio -- Viajero | Talk 15:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Asylum section really belongs in the Rev. Gov. article, as there is no explicit reference to Fidel. As far as the Elián case went, IIRC, he pretty much stayed out of the limelight. I think this article should focus as much as possible on Castro's personal ideas/politics, as for example is done in the case of the section after it, on religion. More general policy matters should go in the new article. -- Viajero | Talk 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Remaining in power

I am moving this meager section here. I have no doubt that the subject deserves serious analysis, but this isn't it. It is, at best, a highly simplified, ping-pong approach to a problematic issue. -- Viajero | Talk 16:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Castro's leadership of Cuba has remained largely unchallenged. His supporters claim this is because the population believes Castro is responsible for improved living conditions. Castro's opponents believe his continued leadership is due to coercion and repression and jailing of dissidents.

Czechoslovakia

I remember watching a documentary film fragment (in The Grin without a Cat) of Castro's speech in reaction to the 1968 Czechoslovakia coup. It certainly seemed more conflicted and nuanced than the account that is given here. Does anybody have access to a text of his speeches on the subject? Hasdrubal 01:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the life of me

i cannot see how the inclusion of the fact that Cuba is a one-party state and the emigration during Castro's rule as a result of his economic and political policies is any less relevant to an intro than the issue of human rights abuses in articles like Augusto Pinochet. J. Parker Stone 05:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One involves the killings and dissaparence of tens of thousands, the other does not. But you don't intend to follow historiography's own standards, so what is the point of employing scholarly references? And whereas I find it to be reactionary, you on the other hand seem to find mainstream Western academia, not only radical, but outright revolutionary. I'm wasting my words though, I strongly suspect. El_C 06:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't really know what you're babbling about on the academia thing, but your comment on Pinochet is factually inaccurate (thousands, not tens of thousands) and i'm sure a scholar such as yourself would know that Castro has summarily executed/tortured/imprisoned more than a few thousand Cubans, regardless of whether you think such measures were "justified" J. Parker Stone 18:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and 172, good job with the ceaseless condescension. i don't give two shits how much time you've spent in grad school. plenty of "intellectuals" who get basic stuff (like this) wrong all the time. J. Parker Stone 05:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. [T]wo shits is out of line. El_C 06:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from lazy reverts. Constant reverting is also out of line. Kapil 06:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I'm guessing all your time at "grad school" was in Cuba or something, 172, cause your POV pushing is astonishing even for a Fidel Castro page.

Unfortunately El C is probably one of the few people around here who would understand the absurdity of that comment. An educated editor could take at some of my articles (e.g., Bretton Woods system, George Kennan, History of Russia, et al.) and see that my sources, along with the approaches where my background would seem to lie, are squarely in the mainstream of Western academia. These articles directly cite texts found in just about any undergraduate survey in the U.S. A scholar from (say) the ASA Marxist section here in the U.S. would likely be able to present far stronger arguments against my own work than any of the people constantly sniping at me on Wikipedia. 172 07:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, have more faith in the rest of us, 172. It's simply the case that some of the trolls here think that anything that is not written from an extremist right POV is "communist". It's a sad truth about the interwebnet that its loudest, emptiest vessels are boys like these. Grace Note 07:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That has been my experience for the past two and a half years, so it is nice to be reminded that these users are not in the majority, despite the fact they make the most noise. 172 07:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't think i need to point out the absurdity of the Chomskian logic that labels any anti-Communist or non-leftist a "far-right-winger" (i suppose Democrats and Republicans all follow some crypto-fascist ideology) J. Parker Stone 18:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who seems to be spending the most time reading and thinking about Chomsky. Personally, I'd never cite him for anything outside his area of expertise (linguistics), and I discourage students from using his work. 172 18:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i wouldn't refer to him so much if this place wasn't primarily editted by people who follow his line of thinking. J. Parker Stone 18:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The notion of when a revert is lazy or necessary depends on the vantage point. I suggest you adhere and limit yourself to policy. El_C 06:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, El C used advanced words like "reactionary". Well, you're nothing but an anti-revisionary. Your contributions are unwanted, as you seem to prefer using wikipedia as a left-wing propaganda machine and not an encyclopedia. You, viajero, 172 and Grace Note are a disgrace to this page. Kapil 06:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that I am ~~nothing but~~ an anti-revision[ist?], but I am entitled to my beliefs as you are to yours. And whether my contributions are or are not wanted also depends on one's vantage point. I suggest you limit yourself to policy, and to less innunedo. El_C 06:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm delighted to find myself in the company of such thorough disgraces! You could almost say I'm tickled pinko. Grace Note 07:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing Wikipedia if you are unable to control your temper, KapilTagore. "Everyone hates you" is an unaccpetable personal attack. If you feel 172 violated policy, please submitt a user conduct RFC, otherwise I expect you to act professionally. El_C 06:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This encyclopedia, anyone can edit. I don't buy your bullshit about being a historian or whatever simply because you shun every shred of evidence presented anytime about Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro, universal truths which you just so happen to ignore. That, and you don't have the decency to either check people's editions and delete some points (as in my edition, it wasn't all bad) nor to change everything but the pictures reached by consensus (therefore pissing on everyone else's contributions and the consensus reached). If you want to be a "scholar" prove it in the talk pages and show proof in order to reach a consensus, as we did before you came and spoiled it all. But your attitude is hardly that of a "scholar", I'd be surprised if you were anything more than a teenage anarchist who happens to use the word "reactionary". If you carefully read the Hugo Chávez page you have to agree it's filled with left-wing bias and half-truths (unless you consider Juventud Rebelde, ABN, Argenpress and Indymedia to somehow be "reliable", much less "objective" sources). This goes for both of you, but especially you, 172, the Request for Arbitration opened on you (which is filled with a cornucopia of proof of your antisocial, radical POV pushing and delinquent revertions of valuable information). I would suggest you drop the "I'm a scholar and demand respect" bullshit, 172, this encyclopedia is for everyone and you're just gonna have to stop being so damn condescending and actually read a little before destroying other people's contributions. Kapil 07:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not even worthy of a response. 172 07:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still opted to respond. El_C 08:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's funny how Grace note considers a gang of her, 172, Viajero and El C to be a "majority". Oh yeah, and "Comandante", how could he not be a communist? The point is, whatever your personal beliefs or whatever you think of yourself, the vast majority of us think you suck and you must discuss your changes in this talk page before changing anything, cause that was what was agreed upon. Got it? Worthy of a response, loser? Kapil 07:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course Castro is a Communist. Who is saying otherwise? I have no idea about what on earth you are rambling on about. 172 07:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The user Comandante, you cock, the user Comandante. User:Comandante. Way to go, scholar. Kapil 07:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does he really claim that Castro is not a Communist, or are you just using a strawman? I can't imagine anyone making that claim, considering that he is the general secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba. 172 08:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For someone who supposedly studied a shitload of time, you're about as intelligent as a grapefruit. Kapil 17:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a scholarly response on why Cuban flight to Miami following Castro's consolidation of power and establishment of ties with the Soviet Union, as well as the radical nature of his economic reforms, does not merit mention in the intro. also why the fact that it is a one-party state that suppresses opposition apparently isn't worthy of mention but advances in healthcare and literacy are. J. Parker Stone 18:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you're not going to get a reply. No one has taken that position; that's a strawman. 172 18:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that's funny, because it's the exact edit you were doing just a while ago. and there is still no mention of the style of government headed by Castro J. Parker Stone 18:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is. I added it. Earlier, you and Kapil were restoring a version that referred to Cuba as a "Communist-led state," which is gibberish. I changed it to Communist Party-led state, which, by definition, is a single party state. 172 18:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not a simple definition, that's an euphemism. There's a radical difference there. Very different to tell an uninformed and innocent browser that a country is a "Communist party-led state" and not a "one-party state where all opposition is illegal", even if they're both the same. Kapil 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, simple understanding of the english language reveals that a "Communist-led state" is a state led by communists. Hardly gibberish, at least for those of us who understand basic english. Kapil 05:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there are differences in Communist states, just like there have been military dictatorships with different degrees of violence and repression. by this logic we can edit any article relating to a dictator so that it just says they're a dictator and leaves out "unnecessary" facts like press censorship or crackdowns on opposition. J. Parker Stone 18:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) and actually, i was changing it to "Communist state," which is more succinct and factually accurate. J. Parker Stone 18:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All Communist states are single party states by definition and all single party states maintain this monopoly on power by suppressing the organization of other parties. This is the case across the board, from relatively liberal Communist regimes, such as Tito's Yugoslavia, to the most repressive and ossified Stalinist regimes, such as North Korea. So what you are saying above is already implied in the intro. Also, do not conflate the term "Communist state" and dictatorship. Some Communist regimes have well institutionalized collective leaderships, such as China today, but others are clealy dictatorships, such as Ceausescu's Romania. 172 22:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and you may know that because you are (supposedly) a scholar. But a neutral, innocent reader doesn't necessarily know, therefore he may think (as most people do) that political repression in these places ain't as bad. Also, Fidel Castro is more widely known for supressing every kind of liberty existing in Cuba than creating some mediocre literacy and healthcare programs. Kapil 23:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If an "innocent reader" does not know the status of political pluralism in a Communist regime, he can click on the hyperlink. This is a Wiki. 172 01:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about hiding all the facts using such a system? Why mention the very fact that Cuba is a communist country when they can scroll down to "politics of Cuba"? Why say Castro is the president when they can just read it in his "rise to power" in the middle of the page? It's important information which should be mentioned to give a clear view. Kapil 03:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in a reply, please rephrase your questions above. I'm not understanding the point you are making above at all. 172 05:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not interested in a reply. Just telling you that mentioning facts euphemistically and assuming the user knows the innuendo they carry, can be misleading. Not everyone (in fact, very few people) know that a communist state is also a one party state, and even fewer people know that this means lots and lots of political repression, for example. If it is not mentioned in the introductory paragraph, it doesn't sound as an important issue, though it is. Kapil 05:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The notion that Kapil genuinely believes most people don't know that Communist states only have one party tickled me pinko again! Hilarious. Next Kapil will claim that most people don't know dogs have fur. Keep it up, Kapil. I like you a lot better in comedy mode than when you do the aggressive teen thing. Grace Note 06:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad it tickled you pinko. That's a personal opinion and you said it yourself, it doesn't amount to jack shit in the Wikipedia (or in your case, in real life, to the people who surround you). Kapil 06:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article seems to be edited only by staunch haters or followers of Castro. How about a bit of neutrality, eh?

Now, what is the problem with a photo of Castro looking good? We don't demand that other leaders not look too dashing. If you are confident in your knowledge that Castro is a bad guy, then you won't need to prove it by making sure that he doesn't look cool in his pic.

Also, I see no problem with mentioning that he established a one-party state. I'm not convinced by the idea that "Communist Party-led state" makes such a reference redundant. The same argument could be made for things such as land reform, but we mention that. It is perfectly possible to conceive of a Communist Party-led state with multiple parties, perhaps in an initial stage before they managed to consolidate power. If you are confident in your knowledge that Castro's policies are justified, then you don't need to minimise references to bad stuff in order to prove that. — Chameleon 06:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem was that "Communist-led" was ridiculous. The rightist trolls kept putting that for "first socialist nation". The distinction is not between "Communist Party-led" and "one-party". This is one of those problems where POV pushers mangle the text so much that it no longer resembles English. It is not a question of minimising bad stuff. It's simply that it stresses a POV to say one thing and is neutral to say the other. It's not the case that the rightists have some value to their POV and must be accommodated. They are trying to push a POV and bias the article.

Still, if you'd like to point out a Communist state that has tolerated opposition parties, please do so. I'd be glad to look at your sources. If you're just having a "be nice to the rightists" day, then let's hope that will pass. Grace Note 06:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A compromise? You basically pushed their POV for them without actually bothering to substantiate any of it. Grace Note 06:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny, now you're battling the neutral people. I also see you're referring to us still as rightist trolls. You've got that "teen thing" nailed down, huh? How about you start acting like a decent human being and begin showing a little respect to people who at least try to make this encyclopedia much less of a propaganda machine? Seem fair? Or are you so much of a fascist that you can't possibly conceive the idea of other people making contributions? Kapil 06:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon will be delighted to be described as a "neutral" person. It must be just about a first. The delicious irony of your suggesting that others are wishing to insert propaganda, when you refuse to source any of the stuff you want to push into this article, is tremendous. By the way, I'll be referring to you as a "rightist troll" until the day you are banned, Kapil, because that is without doubt what you are, and I'll refer to your reincarnation as one as soon as you come back. Grace Note 06:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm absolutely possitive this comment will have you banned before I am, fascist. I will no longer discuss anything with you, but rest assured, my defense of this article's neutrality will continue regardless of your regard for bias. You're a disgusting human being, a terrible editor and quite surely one of the reasons the wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Consider yourself ignored. Kapil 06:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The venezuelan communist party is currently part of a coalition government. Same thing, historically, for the communist party of Italy. There. Two communist parties in power, in a democratic system, sharing power with other parties. Hardly the definition of a one-party state, fascist. Kapil 06:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Venezuela is, it is tiresome to have to relate to you, Kapil, not a communist state. Grace Note 06:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One that has a communist party sharing power. It is, by definition or in part, a Communist party-led state, but it is not a single party state. An exception to the rule, as you requested, yet you still continue to bitch and whine uncontrollably. Kapil 06:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Venezuela -> Read the second line. If you don't believe wikipedia, proceed to the website of the Communist party of Venezuela to certify they are, in fact, part of the current government. But they share, and Venezuela is not a one-party state, even if it is in part communist party-led. Kapil 07:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. Western political scientists refer to Leninist regimes in which the state and party are embedded in each other, with no room for responsible opposition parties, as Communist states. Communist Parties have shared power only when they have won it through the ballot box when they have formed coalition governments in parliaments (e.g., San Marino on multiple occasions, Nepal briefly in the 1990s, and Moldova today). However, electing a prime minister merely reshuffles state leadership, and does nothing at all to modify state structures. Hence the fact that Moldova today is not included in any lists of Communist states. 172 07:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But they're Communist Party-led, which is different from Communist state. Kapil 18:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say "Leninist state" or "Communist state"; it says "Communist Party-led state", and so if there are examples of states that have been led by parties called "Communist", and opposition parties existed at some point in those states, then it is not redundant to say both that such a state is "Communist Party-led" and that there has been "repression of all political opposition". I think that such a state is at least perfectly possible. — Chameleon 07:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The link is to "Communist state." It is entered in as "Communist state|Communist Party-led state" to appease those users who object to the term "Communist state" because it is an oxymoron in orthodox Marxist theory. I am not one of those users, as I find the fact that "Communist state" has emerged as a common term in Western academia sufficient enough reason to use it as a name for the government-type. At the same time, using the term is not worth chance of triggering another fight with Marxist users. In short changing the way the link to this article appears is the only way of maneuvering between the Marxist and rightwing partisans on Wikipedia, which, as you have seen is often quite difficult. 172 08:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to add... Re: ...I think that such a state is at least perfectly possible. This confusion is cleared up by the fact that it is called a Communist Party-led state, not "government." Communists have formed governments under parliamentary and parliamentary-presidential systems, but at the same time they were classified as "republics" in the case of San Marino and Moldova, and as a "constitutional monarchy" in the case of Nepal. 172 08:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think the problem is the "easter-egg" link (i.e. one not linking to what it is labelled as). I've changed the wording so that it directly says what it means. By the way, it's not just Marxists who don't like "Communist state" being used to refer to dictatorships. Communism means a peaceful, sharing society. There never has been any communist state. Cuba is a state like any other, with some good characteristics and some bad. — Chameleon 09:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The distinction is made apparent by the use of the proper noun. "Communist" with a capital "C" refers to something or someone of a Communist Party; the small "c" refers to the idea of a society based on common ownership or an ideology. The term "Communist state," as it is used, e.g., in the CIA Factbook [3], refers to a regime characterized by a parallel structure of party organizations and the state administrative hierarchy, with state organs taking direction from parallel party organs, and with appointments of high state officials requiring the approval of party organs. What determines whether or not a regime is a Communist state is structural; so whether or not someone feels that these regimes truly adhere to their guiding ideologies is a moot point. 172 09:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Putting a capital letter on it doesn't stop it being a misnomer. And now we are back to the easter-egg link, which says something that doesn't necessarily mean a one-party state, but links to an article that does talk about one-party states. — Chameleon 09:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no misnomer. The term "Communist state" is a standard definition for this sort of regime type in reference resources and in political science literature describing the regimes that put together today rule over a quarter of the world's population. In this context the term "Communist state" gets far, far more usage than conjectural discussions of "communist" societies. 172 11:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't in common use with that meaning. I said it was a misnomer, and it is. — Chameleon 12:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not a misnomer in that it refers to the state's official guiding ideology, which is Communism, and its relationship to the Communist Party... 172 12:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The state's guiding ideology is Marxism-Leninism, one communist ideology amongst others. The fact that such parties call themselves "Communist" doesn't make communism equal their form of Marxism-Leninism. I recognise that in common parlance "communist" has taken on connotations of evil, dictatorship, un-Americanism, military and moral threat, etc, but this doesn't mean that the rest of us have to pretend that it is the real meaning of the term. If you google for "republican" or "democrat", you get vast amounts of results about US politics, without this having any bearing on what democracy and republicanism are. — Chameleon 12:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And political scientists and editors of just about every authoritative sourcebook do not have to pretend that about a third of the planet has not been ruled by Communist Parties. These parties describe themselves as "Communist" and that's exactly what an encyclopedia has to report; but the thesis that they corrupted their professed guiding ideology is a topic for a essay or opinion column, not an encyclopedia. 172 14:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That (virtually) all those parties leading those countries which ammounted to this one third of the planet 172 speaks of claimed to follow Marxism-Leninism, including those hostile to one another such as the Soviet Union versus the PRoC, etc. (though I'm not sure what the Chinese Communist Party claims it is today) is something that needs to be noted in Communist State (which I have not read; still, in principle, it limits these broad qualifications to a few designated articles of a broader topic, rather than a relatively wide host of other articles whereby these would be repeated superfleously, i.e. it being a wiki and all). El_C 15:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Chinese Communist Party claims to follow "Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, and the Three Represents." The party line since the 16th Congress of the CPC is that each new theory was as theoretical innovation in the same strain as Marxism, gradually forming the 'scientific theoretical system' of Jiang Zemin's "Three Represents" important thought. So officially the CPC has have attempted to keep pace with the times and build "socialism with Chinese characteristics" without formally repudiating Marxism-Leninism. So, in short, the CPC still claims to follow Marxism-Leninism... BTW, if you're going to be taking a look at the Communist state article, I must warn you, it's in horrible shape. 172 19:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They may call themselves Communist, but we are talking about states, and they call their states "Socialist". In any case, I detect axe-grinding here rather than interest in facts, so I'll leave to last word to whoever wants it. Enjoy reverting between each other's versions. — Chameleon 18:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally prefer the term "socialist state" for the reason that you bring up above. But "socialist state" has not entered the political lexicon in the West to refer to regimes like China, Vietnam, Cuba, et al., making its usage for practical purposes meaningless on Wikipedia... BTW, the axe that I have to grind is against efforts to disregard standard usage of terms in encyclopedias and academic literature. You seem to be insinuating that my motive is to discredit communism by associating it with Communist regimes, which is really something that I could care less about. 172 19:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon (who should be careful with that Axe) is correct that it is an absurdity to use the term Communist State, since according to Communist theory, the (final stage of) Communism can only take place after the dissolution of the State. Still, I'm uncertain how this applies to or impacts the accuracy of using "Communist party-led State." (this is, in fact, what Communist State should be named if NPOV mattered in its case). El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)