Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Infant mortality in the intro

Does this belong here? At best it is misleading; I'm thinking of rewriting or removing as its not an accurate comparison (no matter how much Moore wants it to be) as the statistics are calculated differently (what is considered a "live" birth) between the US and just about everywhere else (including most of europe), and if you read the literature almost all of the US rate is due to infants that other countries would not even list in their statistics (see PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 6 December 2005, pp. 1487-1491 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0392)The Contribution of Withholding or Withdrawing Care to Newborn Mortality Lorayne Barton, MD, MPH and Joan E. Hodgman, MD ). Gtadoc 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Also wanted to point out that the referance cited actually disproves the CIA as agreeing with the infant mortality rates cited by Moore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.228.13 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Any truth to Fidel and baseball?

I forget where I heard it, and I'm not sure of its legitimacy, but is it true that Fidel actually tried out in the '50s as a pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles and was rejected? If that's the case, can we blame the O's for the Cuban Missile Crisis? Is there any information regarding this anywhere, or has this been misinterpreted/fabricated throughout the decades since? EaglesFanInTampa 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no truth to that. He wasn't a very good baseball player in the first place, and he was never given the opportunity to try out for any professional baseball team. 68.155.127.112 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Heard it was the Cincinnati Reds in the 40s. Londo06 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make more sense — he was kinda busy in the 50s. Grant | Talk 21:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Played in the Pitsburg Pirates organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Snopes on Fidel and Baseball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.241.162 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, while Castro did pitch for his school's baseball team, he never played professionally. (Note that I've added an edit here.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked the refs, and they are speculation, stated as a trivia question. Snopes debunks and seems definitive, so I have changed the text and added the Snopes ref. Rees11 (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm unable to access the following bookreview itself, its title doesn't look promising!

The Hoak Hoax by Santamarina, Everardo J.
Book Section from The National Pastime -- p. 29, 2 page(s)
Cleveland: Society For American Baseball Research, 1994 (Vol. 14)
Stats: n Photos: bw:(1)
Bibliography? n Footnotes/Sourcenotes? n
Named people: Hoak, Don; Castro, Fidel
Topics: Journalism; Lore

So I have moved the following text from the article to here for the time being.

On January 22, 1951, Don Hoak is said to have batted against Castro after Castro, while a law student, and friends had commandeered the Cuban Winter League ballpark in Havana where Hoak's team was playing.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fidel Castro played on the Pirates in the '50s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.126.69 (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

JP II is dead...

"Later in the day, though, the pope also made his most critical reference yet to the American economic embargo of Cuba." I doubt JP II will make any further such references.

Guess not. GoodDay 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the intended meaning is that JPII made his most critical statement up to that point, not until the present. Nicolasdz 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro/Che Guevara song

There was a song sung by one Christy Moore involving both Fidel Castro and Che Guevera. It praises them for "freeing" Cuba, and is called "Companeros". So shouldn't there be a mention of that in the "Public image" section? Thanks. 81.145.240.114 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Only in the trivia section. If there's no 'trivia' section, then mention it at Christy Moore. GoodDay 21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't a "trvia" section, but can you explain to me why you believe it shouldn't be featured in the "public image" section? It wasn't Christy Moore himself that wrote it, but he obviously supports Fidel's Communist beliefs, at least to some marginal extent. It's as relevant here as it is at Christy Moore. 172.202.142.240 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC) For the record, the song you're speaking of is called "The Companeros", and was written by Ewan MacColl, the Scottish Communist playwright, songwriter and singer. Ewan MacColl's wife Peggy Seeger wrote a separate song about Che Guevara and both songs, as well as "The Ballad of the Big Cigars" appeared on Seeger and MacColl's 1973 album "At The Present Moment" Ken Burch 4:39, 22 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.91.224 (talk) hasta siempre by carlos puebla would be a good choice. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Other women, other children

For years now diligent "editors" have been erasing reference to Castro's other women and other children. And yet there is considerable evidence that there are such. El Jigue208.65.188.149 01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

EJ - do you have some references that we can cite ? -- Beardo 03:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Will post when I recover them again....perhaps they are in the Fuentes "Auto" biography but that is an iffy book and will look for a better source. El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fidel 'Casanova' Castro? His beard must have been ticklish. GoodDay 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically, what you're trying to tell us is that Fidel Castro has had other women and other children and you have sources to back them up, however, all of a sudden, you've lost those sources and we'll just have to take your word for it? No thank you. Until you can actually find some sources, the article will remain as it is. 172.202.39.42 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To "anonymous coward" at 172.202.39.42: I don't believe El Jigue asked for any such thing. Are you demanding for there to be no discussion on the topic? Do you have information on this one way or the other? How about contributing to the discussion instead of making personal intimidations. As to the article remaining the way it is, as an "anonymous coward" I'm not sure for whom you might be speaking.Aki Korhonen (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually El Jique only gave on source, that being a biography of someone unrelated. He posted that several months ago, and has come back with no reliable evidence. So be civil. 172.213.50.232 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry. (For those who care, we talked about this on my talk page.) But it would have been nice for you to speak in a civil tone to EJ, too. Ultimately this topic revolves around lack of information, and you could simply state what would be helpful. E.g. replace the part after "however" in your earlier post with something like "however, we can't edit an encyclopedic article based on unsubstantiated information. It would be helpful if you can locate these sources so that we can all review them." Now that would have been fabulous. And I'd still like to attach a name to 172.213.50.232. Aki Korhonen (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reports on Castro's health

According to some exile sources Castro's condition is worsening rapidly [1] El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Coma Andante", "Caga Andante" and "muerto-vivo" you got to give that to the exiles they are ingenious, however I doubt we can use this as a reliable source because of the nature of it, en otras palabras los gringos se van a quejar si la informacion viene de una fuente que ellos no consideren "confiable". -- Caribbean~H.Q. 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's waint until he's dead, before adding further 'health' imformation. Afterall, he won't recovery at that point (though he's doctors might dispute that). GoodDay 20:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A letter to Fidel Castro

Excuse me, I want to write a letter to Fidel Castro. I am from Europe, from Bulgaria. But I don`t know the exact address which I am supposed to write to. Please help me! bulgaria. Please tell me how to find the address or tell me it. Thank you beforehand!!! Ivan from bulgaria bulgaria bulgaria.

This isn't the correct place to make that request. This page is for suggestions on 'improving' this article. GoodDay 17:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well -- you are, of course, correct GoodDay, but since time may be running out [or perhaps already has], why not help out this would-be correspondent? Here is the address to which you can write, Ivan, assuming your intended recipient is still in this world -- but you would probably be well-advised to send your letter via DHL Express:

Dr. Fidel Castro Ruz

Presidente del Consejo de Estado

Palacio de la Revolución

La Habana - CUBA.

Thanks a lot, but do i have to write a postal code???:)

No postal code is necessary, but be sure to put your return address on the envelope if you send it via regular mail. -- Polaris999 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polaris999 (talk • contribs) 07:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Castro is dead?

I just heard Castro died from someone that knows someone in Cuba. Cannot verify it. BrknPhoenix 01:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Not a verified source, but perezhilton.comand many other news mediums are reporting that Castro is dead.

If he is, I'm sure his doctors will tells us he'll recover. GoodDay 16:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your comment, they can't hide something like this for long its not like they can rebuild him. Or have the technology or the capability to make the world’s first bionic man. They can't turn a dead man into that nor they can make him better,stronger or faster.”. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard the Miami Rumor: Castro is dead, Raul and Ricardo Alarcon feuding. Arrests in the department of the Interior ("secret" police), and regular police gathering to prevent riots. El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Reddit has picked the story up and a conversation is starting there. TheArcologist 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound American biased, but we should wait until CNN confirms Castro's death, before adding it to the article. GoodDay 20:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, although it is something to watch. I haven't heard much about this since yesterday and nothing has been confirmed. We'd have nothing to source but PerezHilton if we added it today... TheArcologist 20:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Castro has been rumored to be dead since 2006, anyways if he is the goverment wouldn't let the public know at the moment because the island is on a category 4 huriccane alert (see Hurricane Dean for more info) and doing so may result in a civil crisis. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Norra Skåne", a Swedish paper with supposedly good sources has just recently published (!) Castro's death. Norra Skåne is a serious and reliable albeit very small Swedish paper based in the Scania region. Wouldn't it be quite a sensation if a minor Swedish paper is the first one to break the news. I'm not suggesting we change the article or anything. Check http://www.nsk.se/apps/pbcs.dll/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.242.190 (talk) 20:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC) An Announcement will be made Friday 8/24 about his death.

And when it is we will add it here. I have opposed Caribbean's full protectiuon request because if this is true we need the article unprotected. So please help by not adding this until it appears on a page like this. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I´m Alex, I´m cuban and I´m writing from Cuba, and I´d like to tell you guys that Fidel Castro is not dead, CNN and other news agencies around the world are always speculating about that, but they have been saying nothing but lies. He hasn´t been shown in television since a couple months but I´m pretty sure he´s not dead. The cuban authorities can not keep that as a secret, you can bet on the fact that when that moment arrives (it´ll arrive, it´s a natural thing) we´ll all know, without having to be whispering, or speculating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftus (talk • contribs) 04:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC) He's alive, and met yesterday with Lula, Brazil's president, that said that Castro is in good wealth, and in the 2 and a half hours of the conversation, Castro talked 2 hours, and Lula just half hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.116.185 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Need help with opening box

Could a more tech savvy Wikipedia user alter the article's opening box to add the fact that Castro is the head of the Non-Aligned Movement. You know, create one of those categories that has listings of predecessor and successor and whatnot... It would be much appreciated. Nicolasdz 14:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets see I can probably give it a try, now who was his predecesor? - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The head of state of the country where the immediately previous NAM meeting was held would have been his predecessor in this post which is sometimes called "president", sometimes "chairman". Judging from http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200609/16/eng20060916_303402.html, it would seem that this person was the Malaysian prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. -- Polaris999 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1927 not 1926

I can't believe I appear to be the only one around here who knows Fidel Castro was born in 1927, not 1926. Here's the proof: [[2]] [[3]]

I think Castro & Cuba disagree - remember the 80th birthday party bash, in 2006? GoodDay 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes his letter to Roosevelt (dated November 6, 1940) "aged 12" all the more curious: with birth year of 1926 or 1927, 12 doesn't compute at all – he would have been 13 or 14 at the time. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fidel Castro is dead?

Hes dead today. August 24, 2007 2:45PM (EST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.165 (talk)

This source seems pretty shaky, first of all why would the University of Miami know if Castro is dead? second why of all publications would they select a swedish one? Nope not reliable at all we better wait until BBC or CNN report something if they do. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

to the above comment: What a stupid. Stupid. STUPID. thing to say. That really ranks up there as the stupidest thing I have heard all year and probably will remain so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone change the DATE OF DEATH on the page? Even if he happened to have died today, the death is listed as taking place last week on the page.71.56.34.233 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of death and any claims on the page that he is will be treated as simple vandalism just as this thread is trolling so lets not feed them, SqueakBox 19:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

dude castro is truly dead sorry Apelike 20:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well when it comes out it'll dominate every newspaper in the world so we wont have any problems sourcing it. Until then we wait, SqueakBox 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I already requested full protection for this page as a result of all the speculative edits going on in here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as of today, August 24, 2007 there have been several rumors circulating here in Miami, Florida that Fidel Castro has died. Reportedly, several people from Cuba have called their families here in Miami telling them that Fidel Castro is in fact dead, although it has not officially been announced to Cubans. Nothing has been made official yet, and since these reports on Castro's death began just today the news sources have not begun to pick up the story. In the coming weeks news sources will probably pick up the story, but I doubt the Cuban government will make an official announcement any time soon. Until then, I don’t think this rumor belongs in the article, but of course they are coming from reliable sources directly in Cuba. He’s dead, we’ll just have to wait and see for now. 68.212.153.60 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Wiki user: Chris150x

If there are rumours in Florida I suggest you folk go tellt eh press. personally I dont believe it but whatever this will be treated as trolling without it first dominating the news, SqueakBox 20:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't undestand what you suggested, can you explain it again? - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That if people believe genuinely that Fidel is dead they should report it to the press not wikipedia, SqueakBox 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. These kinds of rumors have been so rampant the past year, that we should wait for a picture of the corpse. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted the local media here in Miami, Florida. They are well aware, but for now it is just simply a rumor and they don't want to start talking about it on the news because that would cause chaos here in South Florida since a great majority of our population is Cuban. I don’t think we will get a picture of the corpse or confirmation from Cuban government any time soon. It could be months until they know for sure. Agreed, the rumor does not belong in the article yet until news sources pick up the story. 68.212.153.60 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Wiki user: Chris150x

the rumour is genuine but without a proper source even that should not be mentioned, some fascist Swedish newspaper wont do (as was inserted). As an encyclopedia we are fine to just wait, SqueakBox 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What fascist newspaper?? Cite? --85.164.185.108 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Norra Skåne[4] reported that Castro was dead yesterday, or at least so I read in another Swedish newspaper (probably Expressen[5]). Now I can neither find the original report from Norra Skåne, nor the quotation in Expressen, so maybe they were taken off the Internet sites of the respective newspapers. I guess I could go to a library to check if there is anything in the paper edition of either newspaper, but since it seems to have disappeared from the Internet altogether, I would presume that everything is a hoax. I think that Expressen wrote that Norra Skåne had got the information from an unspecified source in Miami. Norra Skåne is a very small, regional, Swedish newspaper, so it would seem highly unlikely that they would be the only one to receive any information about the death of Fidel Castro. Maybe it was just something they came up with in order to sell some extra copies of (presumably) yesterday's issue of the newspaper. (Stefan2 12:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Here is the link to the Norra Skåne re Fidel Castro article which was available on the internet as of 30 seconds ago. The article clearly states that the story is totally based on rumors circulating in Miami. -- Polaris999 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We are still missing a cite for that newspaper being fascist. It is a very serious allegation and as such a proper cite is called for. --22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.185.108 (talk)

I don't regularly read that newspaper, so I can't tell if it's fascist or not, but Swedish Wikipedia states that the newspaper supports the Centre Party (which isn't a fascist party) so I would assume that it's not a fascist newspaper. (Stefan2 08:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

FIDEL CASTRO IS NOT DEAD!!!!! Brazil president Luiz Inácio da Silva even met with him on February 15, 2008. [6], [7], [8], and [9]. --Nadir D Steinmetz 21:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Fidel Castro is still alive. Last February 19, 2008, he announced, "I neither will aspire to nor will I accept, the position of president of the council of state and commander in chief."[10] Alexius08 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He "sent his resignation" by letter. He hasn't been seen in months. Would you not say that it's at least POSSIBLE that he has died, and they have made him "resign" to deny that fact till later? 72.178.246.124 Morte42 (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Prepared to apologize?

User:Caribbean H.Q., et al: Are you prepared to apologize to your fellow editors when you are proven wrong? --Namescases 21:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Apologies will not be necessary. Rumors are not verifiable. android79 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• (ec)Under no circumstances. We report sourced and notable information we do not break ground on new stories or use rumours to support our artiicles. Whether he is dead or not has no relevance tot his stance right now, SqueakBox 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • False. It is more than a rumor and an apology will be necessary. Its been cited by several sources. Given that we have now established that it is not a rumor, are you prepared to apologize to your fellow editors when you are proven wrong? --Namescases 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • • Lol, come on, mate, dont take us for fools. Until its in a reliable source (for me that would be the BBC and I am sure my fellow Americans have their own equivalents) it wont be here, we are an encyclopedia not a news agency, SqueakBox 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To the British reams of incest above and below, I have heard more intelligent words in the phrase "Heil Hitler". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Exactly, mate! Wikipedia should not be a news ticker, where rampant speculations can make their way. I believe that many of us, the readers, are very grateful to you for your conservative and firm stance on this matter. Wikipedia should be a reliable souce of information, not some tabloid rushing to announce "the breaking news"! Who cares if it is not updated until even the day after? It would be a much more serious trouble if false information were introduced into the text! Encyclopedic work is all about facts and verifiable information, preferably from several sources; there should be no room for any speculation whatsoever! Let's remember that it's better to err on the side of caution. 78.98.57.74 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Links, please? Keep in mind that sources need to be reliable. android79 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • [11] for one of many. But I am tired of asking if you will apologize or not. We will find out soon enough if you will apologize by yourself, or if we have to go through arbcom. We *will* be made whole. --Namescases 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Er, no, arbcom wont take any case re the actions of folk like me on thios one, believe me, SqueakBox 00:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
      • • a) That's not a reliable source. For news of this magnitude, only a major newspaper or other news outlet will do. b) What's been done here that's actionable by the ArbCom? android79 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, you are entitled to your opinion on the reliability of that source. Secondly, as of this moment you have not done anything to warrant seeking relief from arbcom. What will be actionable is if you fail to apologize to us once it is crystal clear that he is dead. --21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • • Apologize for what, exactly? I think you have some serious misunderstandings about what ArbCom's function is. android79 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
              • User conduct, for one. An apology is not at all burdensome. --Namescases 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Okay, you are not making much sense, so I'm going to stop trying to figure you out. android79 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • How is it confusing? We simply stated that when it is crystal clear he is deceased, we will expect an apology. --Namescases 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Me apologize for enforcing the project's policies? hahahahahaha! - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There is this little thing called humility. But again, we'll see what the arbcom results are. --Namescases 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Perez Hilton is not a notable source! WP:V and WP:RS is what guides here. If it is true, it will be added and sourced. Until a reliable source publishes it and verfication can happen, this needs to be sat on. Spryde 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Castro is dead and brother is with him, Police departments in FL getting ready and news will break.

Not on your life kid I won't apologize for enforcing the rules, the request is quite pathetic by itself. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That is most disappointing, but we will proceed accordingly. --Namescases 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the first step will actually be an RfC, not arbcom. Sorry for any confusion. --Namescases 21:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think you need to hold off. I have no stake in this fight but wait until something more reliable and verifiable is published! Spryde 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course we will hold off. At this point, the misconduct is only potential. --Namescases 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, User:Caribbean H.Q., et al are following the rules. There has been no misconduct yet. A little borderline WP:CIVIL maybe but until a reliable verifiable source comes along, this bickering is all for naught. Spryde 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, we never asserted that there was any misconduct, nor are we seeking relief beyond an apology. --Namescases 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for my clairfication, who is "we" :-) Spryde 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you work at perezhilton.com? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Me? Heck no. Spryde 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not you they, your reply just got in the way, sorry for that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This case wont be going to Rfc or Rfa. Caribbean or I might persuade an admin to do a little blocking but it wont go further than that. I recognise I am a controversial editor but there isnt a single admin that wouldnt support not only my and Caribbean's actions but any reverts of any attempts to Rfc let alone Rfa on this issue. So please stop trolling as it is getting tiresome thias "you've got to apologise if you are wrong". Wrong in what? Fidel may be dead and perhaps not but the line Caribbean and I have taken up is pure policy either way and trying to troll us or anyone following actual policy will just end up in indef blocks for the trollers. Please dont take that path, help us make a better article instead, SqueakBox 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We will bring it to RfC if needed and start that process rolling. I honestly doubt I will be blocked just for suggesting that I bring a matter up for arbitration, as that will be a disastrous precedent indeed. --Namescases 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in this case. Please read our policies before doing anything else, i'll give you a link to a few. Whetehr Fidel is dead or alive has no bearing whatsoever in this case, oyistes? SqueakBox 00:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, what we are seeking is an "Sorry we doubted you" from certain editors. This is not earth shattering; don't you apologize when you accidentally step on someone's foot? --Namescases 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If I doubted that there were rumours, well I was wrong and quickly made up for it. The runmours are genuine. And no, they dont have a place on wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, what I said was we should receive an apology from the editors who removed mentions of Fidel Castro's death from the article on the grounds they are rumors, and said apology should come if and when such a fact becomes crystal clear. I never said Wikipedia was a place for rumors. --Namescases 00:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Namescases you can open a RfC if you want, I'm not sure what you are going to debate there but sure go ahead and open one and tell them that you opened it because you demand an apology, but before that make sure you make yourself familiar with WP:HARASS, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is premature to open the RfC (see my earlier comments), but if necessary we shall. We shall argue that, as editors we should give and expect apologies when required. Read the relevant article on apology. --Namescases 00:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Great this just keeps getting even more hilarious, Names you (whatever ammount of people that might be) can't do anything, its that simple, you can ask for an apology but if the user(s) don't give it to you there is nothing you can do there is no policy that states someone has to apologize if they offend another users, actually the best you can get is a block for trolling and harrasing other users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that isn't how the world works. I know I've been forced to apologize before, so if I can do it so can you. --Namescases 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I for one know how wikipedia works (and the world too as it happens, its the price one pays for being middle-aged), if you have apologised before you can do so again. please do so, your attacks on Caribbean given his record today are well out of order because he was never sceptical of the rumours, SqueakBox 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Names, that my apology didnt sink in isnt to your advantage, and Caribbean was actually more on the ball than me, ie he picked up that the rumours were genuine more quickly than I did. And, hey, we are both Caribbean people who speak Spanish so we really care about this issue as I imagine you do, albeit knowing nothing about you, SqueakBox 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am not Spanish. To be honest I wish nothing but the best for the Cuban people. --Namescases 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Me neither but I am a businessman in the Caribbean so I do care about economic growth, and yeah the Cuban people deserve all the best, as do all the Caribbean peoples, SqueakBox 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Names it won't happen, that's about it. I will leave it here, if you do open a RfC let me know so I can laught a little. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was tempted to delete all of this. Anyway Fuidel shouldn't apolligise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andmark1996 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Purported death

Alright, The Miami Herald is now reporting on the rumors that have been circulating today regarding Fidel Castro's death. You can find the article here: http://www.miamiherald.com/581/story/214415.html Would it be OK to add the information to the Fidel Castro page now that an official media source has reported on the story? Its not official yet, but at least we have a solid news source reporting on the matter. 68.212.153.60 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I don't think WP does rumors. Let me check policy on that. Spryde 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rumors have circled at various times over the last decade or so that Castro is dead. If it's for real this time, Wikipedia can wait for a reliable source to confirm the rumors. Wikipedia is not a news service. android79 21:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Miami Herald is reporting on the rumours themselves, not the content of the rumour. I should think that the MH is exactly the reliable source needed if there were legitimate reports about Castro's death - they would be amongst the first to find out - and by their expressed view I would think that they are giving little credence to the rumours. I think it is still too early to even note this recent rash of rumour. LessHeard vanU 21:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Facist newspaper? Cut the bullshit ok? I honestly think it's true this time. Something is going on. Citing "reliable" sources at the Miami University, the Swedish broad sheet newspaper Norra Skåne reports that Cuban leader Fidel Castro is dead. (Norra Skåne)

Hmm, I don't know what to say, but the Norra Skåne newspaper is not known for making false claims, so who knows... --Camptown 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The journalist at Norra Skåne newspaper that wrote about it was later threatened to death by several cuban journalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namram (talk • contribs) 22:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

"We received the news from a very reliable source in Miami", the chief editor of Norra Skåne says, adding that the Mr. Castro's death is expected to be officially announced shortly... Well, well.... (The Expressen) --Camptown 22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Another source [12] --Charitwo^Talk 05:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Blogs aren't a reliable source. The only legitimate source that are reporting on this are simply reporting on the phenomenon of what Perez Hilton's blog started. Nothing is confirmed yet, and it has been almost three days since they have been saying "they will announce it in a few minutes". 72 hours later, nothings announced. Castro just released another essay. From the grave? Wikipedia isn't going to put up blog articles OR news articles that are saying he MIGHT be dead, thats for the premature death rumour section. - IamMcLovin 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I have been asked to protect this page and have (for the moment) declined, because I want us to be able to respond quickly and make rapid updates if Castro's death is announced. However, if people continue to add it to the page, in violation of WIkipedia's rules, I will fully protect the page. Please, understand that we don't have to be the "first" to report it. We're not a news service. Everyone take a big deep breath and let's wait and see. If the edit war continues, I will protect the page. - Philippe | Talk 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Death

I have, on very good authority, learned that Castro died today (24 AUG 07), sometime before 1430 hrs EST. Rodak1 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC) do you or do you not have any good source? 23:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.203.24 (talk) He's dead. No credible source yet. Give it a day, max. http://www.nbc6.net/news/13972518/detail.html --Camipco 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I don't believe Perez Hilton is a credible source. 69.183.31.4 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A good source is the BBC, CNN, Granma etc, nothing less will do, SqueakBox 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing less will do," So nothing less than "et cetera" which means "and other things" will do? I realize you didn't want to box yourself in, but perhaps you should not have used a definitive closing statement such as "nothing less will do", rather than water down your first statement with, "etc". 69.215.149.16 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The et cetera was refering to credible sources.Karpeth (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone suggested that if an announcement of this nature were about to be made, we would see a lot more police on the streets of Havana. No sign of any such yet. -- Beardo 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro appeared on TV again. The argument is over, Castro is alive, don't bother typing incoherent messages on this page that you know are not true. Give it up, you know he's alive and well (or at least you should). 172.202.39.42 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) The sheer idiocy of the comments in this section of the "talk page" alone would lead one to question most debatable points in the entire article... why don't you start using citations from Perez Hilton.... jajaja! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.124.209 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC) FIDEL CASTRO IS NOT DEAD!!!!! Brazil president Luiz Inácio da Silva even met with him on February 15, 2008. [13], [14], [15], and [16]. --Nadir D Steinmetz 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Phenomenon of death rumors

I think a section of the very phenomenon of the continuous rumors of Castro's death might well be appropriate. --Camptown 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Forbes is reporting on the phenomenon. Rumors on Castro's Health Swirl in Miami TransUtopian 23:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just an event. Making a phenomenon out of it would be WP:OR --lucid 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And a POV. --Boricuaeddie 23:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm...k, can we have a more reliable source than Perez Hilton ..such as AP or Miami Harold on the Castro death rumors going on today. I dont think Perez is a very reliable source, he's just a blogger, put up Miami Harold or AP as a source, they had articles on the matter too. 68.212.155.163 02:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a death rumours section already, and it wouldnt be inappropriate to add to it, but do sensitively and using good sources, SqueakBox 02:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez has just announced that not only is Fidel Castro not dead, he will "never die". A somewhat confusing statement (at least as reported) that perhaps raises more questions than it answers. See Chávez re Castro immortality for details. -- Polaris999 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if its sourced we must add that he will never die! lol, SqueakBox 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What he said was: "For those who want Fidel to die, they are going to end up frustrated because Fidel Castro will never die. He will always live on." I think he meant that his "ideals" would live on, not necessarily himself. IamMcLovin 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps he meant something like this: Sharon's condition unchanged after 2 years -- Polaris999 22:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Added the story about him publishing an essay on August 26 (today) from the International Herald Tribune onto the premature death rumors section. - IamMcLovin 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[unindent for readability]

If this topic were being debated in an oral forum, I would probably say something like this: Anti-Castro crowd, sit down. Pro-Castro crowd, get back in your corner. The poor man isn't dead until he's officially declared so. If you don't trust information emanating from Cuba, and there's strong published evidence (not just opinion pieces) that he's no longer with us, then write about the information, not the conclusion. Thanks to digital technology, canned footage and pictures of Castro shaking hands or reading a recent newspaper don't make him dead or alive. Writing opinion pieces makes him neither one either. However, sooner or later he will be dead just like everyone, and that event will be made official sooner or later afterward. Until then, let's focus on real information and not rumors. (And in case someone is wondering, I don't take Cuban state propaganda as real information, but neither the tea-leaf reading of rumors.) Aki Korhonen (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Looks like we owe the editors that doubted us an apology. Speaking for myself, I am sorry about it. --Namescases 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, mate. Appreciated, SqueakBox 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to do with doubt. It's about WP:RS, even if we had seen it with our own eyes --lucid 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Death of Castro just announced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.118.231 ([[User talk:{[[User:68.221.118.231}|68.221.118.231}]] ([[User talk:68.221.118.231}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/68.221.118.231}|contribs]] · WHOIS)|talk]]) 03:20, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

No...it wasn't. - IamMcLovin 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Again (as I requested before), let's wait until CNN reports & confirms Castro demise, before adopting it to the article. GoodDay 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We certainly will do...well I'll be waiting for the BBC, but that is the same thing really, SqueakBox 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not Reuters or the Associated Press? That's where everyone else gets their news anyone --lucid 08:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with 'SqueakBox'; let's wait until international news coverage - confirms. GoodDay 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IT IS NOT A RUMOR CASTRO HAS BEEN DEAD FOR OVER A WEEK I HAVE A FAMILY FRIEND FROM CUBA AND SHE HAS TALKED TO HER RELATIVES WHO ALL SAY CASTRO HAS DIED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.83.72 (talk) 22:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't a rumor, and all your Cuban relatives are in the know for some reason, there are other people that aren't Cuban's, including news correspondents. These correspondents know people within the Cuban community and it isn't possible for something like that to be kept quiet except for all the Cuban families. The only source that actually reported it was PerezHilton.com and Castro has also been public last Sunday and Monday. CNN and all the other have simply reported on the rumor. Get over it, without any really sources, even if we don't hear about him for thirty years, we need SOURCES. IamMcLovin 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Castro is not dead until a body is seen. It doesn;t matter who says it, I will not believe it until I hear it from a reliable source, accompanied by a picture of him, dead. Until then, he is alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.142.244 (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Afterall, he's gonna live 'til 150 (so his doctors, once predicted). Anways, nothing will be changed until international news networks confirm his demise. GoodDay 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just "(born August 13, 1926)"?

Is there any kind of policy on what follows DOB in an article on someone who may or may not be dead? Does it just read as any other article on a currently living person? I don't belong to any side of this "Is castro dead?" debate going on, but I'd say the rumours are too strong to just ignore the possibility that he is already deceased in the opening. 75.69.110.227 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Castro is alive until proven dead. Besides which, he's not dead. Grandmasterka 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what WP:VERIFY says, thank you very much.

Think of it this way. If someone was lost at sea, you might never prove when or if they died. However, you use the knowledge that they were lost at sea to come to the reasonable conclusion that in all likelihood they are dead. Would you leave the opening of their wikipedia article with just a date of birth? Based on a substantial amount of information from various international media sources over the past year or so, we know that it's very possible that Castro has died (or that his health is continuing to fail). This isn't original research, but it is speculation. But my point here is that it doesn't matter whether he's dead or not, it matters that his health is the subject of widespread rumors and speculation. It's unlikely that so many people would pick up on whispers of Castro's death if the claim had absolutely no basis of merit. Rather than leave the article in the state you would find it if Castro was in perfect health like any other living person article on wikipedia, I feel like something should identify this in the opening. You can add speculation about pretty much anything to wikipedia as long as it's properly sourced. Why can't you add speculation relating to one of the simplest pieces of information in the entire article? 75.69.110.227 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of people that think that the earth is flat, too. That doesn't make them correct. Until an official or extremely reliable announcement is given, Wikipedia should assume they are still alive. If someone was lost at sea, we'd wait at least for a formal funeral or such before we add anything, and we'd still only put it down in the death section. Right now, they're nothing more than rumours, and shouldn't be treated as such. --lucid 06:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Osama Bin Laden has been reported dead for awhile now but Wikipedia still does not have a date of death because there is no verifibility of it. Spryde 11:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Has he? I suppose several magazines have claimed that over the years, but how would they know? do they have a special correspondent in Al-Qaeda or something? did they find his body in a river? My point is, just because someone says a person dead, does not prove in any way he is actually dead, so until then lets just keep it as is. IamMcLovin 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This talk page appears to consist almost entirely of speculation.What happened to facts?--Sandbagger 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

example AMELIA EARHART,DEATH DAY AND WHAT NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-Aligned Movement

Why did the Non-Aligned Movement select Castro as its Secretary-General in 2006, at a time when Castro was unable to carry out his functions as president of Cuba? --Metropolitan90 04:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

They didn't. It was Cuba's turn to take the helm. From a news report of the time:

"Cuba assumed the leadership of the Non-aligned Movement on Friday, with acting Cuban leader Raul Castro standing in for his brother Fidel,"

MichaelW 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• But Castro had previously served a term as secretary-general, and there are over 100 other member countries which have not had any of their leaders serve as secretary-general. --Metropolitan90 06:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As explained at Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba was chosen for the secretary-generalship at the 2003 meeting, long before Castro's incapacitation. Algebraist 14:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Explaining my changes

A couple of wiki moderators here have been reverting my changes, but I feel this has to do with inadequate definition of the changes I've desired to make.

First, there's the third paragraph. It had four sentences dedicated specifically to saying "opponents view him this way," and then one following sentence saying, "supports think he's a charismatic liberator." How can anyone call that neutral or balanced? I tried to add one more sentence, simply adding a few more adjectives to Castro, but that was apparently undoable. Instead, I deleted three of the unnecessary sentences saying he's a dictator. One is all you need, just as one sentence supporting him is all you need. Repetition is just annoying and, framnkly, biased.

Second, their's the economics side. We have it established that opponents say he ruined the country. Better yet, the sourced link for that is a "www.state.gov" offshoot. So, for neutrality, I added a sentence explaining that supporters attribute the blockade to Cuba's shortcomings, but maintain growth has been occuring anyway, citing Granma as my source. Yes, Granma is the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba. Is that a biased source? You bet it is. But isn't www.state.gov also biased? There's no establishment that either source is factually incorrect, but opinionated. If that's a crime, wikipedia needs a complete overhaul.

And third, these changes might be going less noticed, but there's a sentence where it says "opponents believe that infant mortality rates were the same if not better befote the revolution than after." Before, I had changed that to "similar before the revolution." It wasn't trying to diminish the meaning, but make the sentence read better. To avoid being seen as making POV edits, I changed it to read the same except without the "than after" line, since its gramatically unnecessary (since its established that the comparison is with post-revolutionary Cuba) and, honestly, sounds kind of silly.

I also added some to a line regarding Castro's regional allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union didn't force Castro to find local allies. He had a local ally, Nicaragua. But it also collapsed, and that was more what forced him to look for other regional allies. Additionally, I thought it was misleading to describe Chavez and Morales as "nationalist" leaders, since that makes it seem as if Castro is just settling for anybody. Chavez and Morales are both leaders of parties that have "Socialism" or a variant thereof in the name, so why not describe them as such? It speaks more correctly for Castro, who has sought Socialist allies, not just nationalist ones. Although I added Socialist while keeping nationalist, just because both adjectives are correct.

And finally, there's a line that stated "Under Castro, housing and public works have declined considerably." This is a partial truth. While it has occured under him, it hasn't been a constant decline since he came to power. In fact, following the revolution, there was a significant surplus of housing, since nearly all the wealthier Cubans abandoned their mansions and luxury houses. Its been particularly since the collapse of the USSR, which I later substituted with "since the onset of the Special Period," (which are synonymous items, essentially, but sounding less biased, I guess) to be more accurate on that subject.

Please, stop reverting and undoing my edits with only a line that they're "ridiculous." I think I have perfectly logical reasons for my changes, and I've done my best to explain them all here. Please, at least help me to make them wikipedia approved, instead of shooting them down entirely. I think these edits deserve far more consideration than what I've been given so far. Comrade Martin 11 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comrade Martin (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the edits that you have made are perfectly legitimate--particularly those with regard to Cuba's allies--and are not disputed (at least, not by me). However, some of the other edits are far more problematic. First, Granma is not an acceptable source, because it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Cuban government. It is not objective or impartial. Conversely, the same cannot be said of the State Department link which you malign on various occasions, has numerous independent sources (the UN Statistical Yearbook).

Likewise, there was a housing "surplus" in the aftermath of the Revolution when a substantial chunk of the population (rich, middle class and poor) left Cuba. However, there was no new construction in the subsequent years. I do not remember off the top of my head, but I suspect the housing shortage began prior to the special period (sometime in the 1970s?). Freedomwarrior 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As in the former Soviet Union, to some unknown but apparently considerable extent, major housing estates have become residences of those favored by the Cuban government. Photographs and locations of some of these residences have been placed on the web.[17] El Jigue208.65.188.149 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The State Department uses U.N. sources, eh? So does Granma, all the time, for various issues. In that particular article, it has the Economic Affairs Commission, and the ratification by the National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba, as its sources. Do you expect Cuba to ask the U.N. for its own statistics?

Until proven to be false, Granma is a perfectly acceptable resource as a source of facts - or at least, as it was used here, as statements by opinionated persons - regarding Cuba. The fact that the State Department is so easily accepted yet my information required me to seek out CIA verification (quite an impossible standard in any other situation) leads me to seriously question the editors involved. I'm not creating biased information, I'm stating - and citing - facts, or at least as interpreted by supporters of Fidel Castro.

Regarding housing, I've provided a citation. Comrade Martin 11 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.252.116 (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Granma is the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party." That is how the wikipedia article on Granma begins. Granma doesn't even make a pretense of being impartial. As such, it does not meet the Verifiability requirement. Indeed, the so-called "sources" that it cites are about as trustworthy as any of the stuff that came out of Goebbel's Ministry for Propaganda and Enlightenment. There is a clear conflict of interest between its role as the "official newspaper of the PCC" and its coverage of Cuba under the PCC. No one is entitled to be a judge in their own case. You can use Granma to defend the government line or whatever other opinion you want; nonetheless, I object to it being stated as fact or represented as fact (which is why I changed the wording on the main article to reflect its "unique" methods for determining that Cuba experienced 12% growth).

I do not expect Cuba to ask the U.N. for its own statistics (and am quite willing to accept them, because they generally reveal the ineptitude of the Cuban government); nonetheless, I will treat the numbers that it produces to be treated with the degree of skepticism that the product of a government that does not tolerate opposition (see the Socialist Constitution) deserves.

I, and most other editors, will treat some of the State Department's papers differently because they cite independent sources that do not have a conflict of interest (and meet the verifiability requirements of this article). The State Department itself might have a conflict of interest (and most editors might agree on that point), but you will be hard pressed to find people who would claim the same of the U.N.

Regarding the housing situation, the BBC article is not clear on the time frame of the Cuban housing crisis, which is why I choose such ambiguous wording in the first place. If you want to claim that it originated in the Special Period, you are going to need to provide a Verifiable source that corroborates that claim.Freedomwarrior 06:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue surrounding Granma is whether or not it is credible. While I concede of course that it is biased, because its the Communist Party's newspaper. However, the State Department is no more or less credible than Granma, and I'll tell you why. You see, there's such a thing as selective quoting of statistics. Whether the State Department is using U.N. statistics or not, they may just as easily be skewing the facts. Have I tried to remove State Department citations as invalid based on the fact? No. Instead, I've attempted to counter-balance the weight of the State Department's biased and possibly misrepresented facts with the same sort of information from Granma, on the other end of the pole. Honestly, I believe both sources are correct, but all I'm attempting to persue here is a logical view of both of them being of equal trustworthiness as sources. The State Department using U.N. statistics is no different than Cuba using the Cuban Economics Commission's data.

Regarding the economic data itself, however, your edit was unnecessary but respected, simply because I've grown weary of fighting for neutrality. The 12.5% figure isn't that unusual; it simply includes trade and social services. As Granma states, and the CIA accepted, removing trade and social services from the calculation leaves us with 9.5% - the growth rate by traditional analyses.

On housing, I've already settled that issue. And, in response to your statement on caloric intake (coincidentally from the State Department again), I've also added some about Cuban agricultural changes. Comrade Martin 13 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.235.93 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary deletions need explanations

IamMcLovin's continued deletions of the above material need explanation, especially so since this editor has no Wikipedia history on matters related to Cuba. In addition, IamMcLovin is a pseudonym. apparently taken from a very recent film suggesting he is either a novice, or a more experienced contributor using another identity. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the way we work is you have to explain arbitrary additions not their subsequent deletions, ie you have to justify the inclusion of material not its exclusion, SqueakBox 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

SQ this is the discussion section, and in ADDITION if you do not understand the correlation between what was placed here and the topic discussed, then perhaps you need another area to work in..El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the edit summary, you would of saw it. You don't just add random stuff that doesn't mean anything notable onto a TALK page. You need to have an explanation or at least a recommendation why you put it on here and what you want us to do with it. Give me a reason or a suggestion, right now, or I will delete it again. IamMcLovin 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

IamMcLovin go ahead and delete it and you will expose your ignorance of Fidel Castro and his history. Angel Castro was Fidel Castro's father, a man notorious for his land grabbing, and his riotious life. He is said by a number of historians to have been one of the soldiers of "butcher" Weyler and is a model on which many authors believe Castro Fidel formed his character. Read IamMcLovin, read... until you finish your reading please refrain from further disturbance here El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I read it, and I deleted it. It isn't worth inclusion on the talk page. It is pointless, you haven't provided why you put it on here or what you want us to do with it. IamMcLovin 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

IamMcLovin: Since your response lacks logic and scholarship, thus I have restored it. Nowadays nobody turns a hair when we say such, why even Willam the Conquerer was iIllegitimate El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Given your insistance in "cleaning up" the factual documented origins of Fidel Castro one is forced to contemplate that your actions may well that of a Castro apologist, more interested in polishing a public image than in historic reality. El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a place to gossip or blog about unverified facts. You have yet to provide a reason why you put it on here in the first place, instead just sending nonsensical and uncivil replies. Get a good reason, or suggestion about what we can do with it in the ARTICLE in question, not the talk page, thats all i ask. Thank you. IamMcLovin 23:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of doing all this reverting on the Talk page, why don't one of you simply put a sentence into the main article page (with the proper citation of course) about the naturalization issue. Then we can all move on........ JXM 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

People let the anon explain his intention instead of edit warring with him, and lets keep the civility here, Jique provide a explanation for the addition of the information instead of just reverting and IamMcloving don't act in an uncivil manner, don't provoke a flame war as you did with your "one small island in the Caribbean" comment here, that is offensive remeber that El Jiques isn't the only user that comes from "one small island in the Carribean" here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Caribbean thank you. One might recall that the Island is 760 or so miles long, and thus not a "small island." I have a quote from a "certain naval person" to that effect, which I will post later. I do not have access to the Fidel Castro page, strangely enough IamMcLovin does, My point is that a number of Castro's biographers have pointed out that his illegitimacy influenced his view of the world, not only as a child but also for the rest of his life. Angel Castro was Fidel Castro's father, a man notorious for his land grabbing, and for fathering illegitimate children. He is said by a number of historians to have been one of the soldiers of "butcher" Weyler and is a model on which many authors believe Castro Fidel formed his character. I will document the Winston Churchill quote on Cuba and add cites to these biographers later.

This is what I have now:

According to Castañeda Katiuska, Blanco 2003 (accessed 9-10-07). Todo el tiempo de los Cedros. Paisaje familiar de Fidel Castro Ruz. paginas 497-501. Casa Editora Abril. La Habana. 2003. ISBN 959-210-300-3 http://www.xenealoxia.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa

By 1941 Angel Castro (Fidel Castro's father) had fathered five children with his first wife Maria Luisa Argota. These were: Pedro, María Lilia, Antonia María Dolores, Georgina de la Caridad and Manuel, only first two survived to date of this naturalization document (January 2nd 1941). Fidel is not mentioned, this demonstrates that Fidel Castro was born out of wedlock and was still unrecognized at age 13. Raul (although commonly believed not to be a son of Angel) is also not mentioned although he would be about eight at this time.

Of additional interest Angel Castro is said to have arrived in Cuba the third or fourth of March 1899. There is no mention of military service in the Spanish Armed forces in Cuba prior to this date. However, this book was printed in Cuba and thus such things could have been covered up. El Jigue208.65.188.149 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So all I'm asking is, why is it notable? He was born out of wedlock? His father didn't have any military service prior to arriving in Cuba...what is the big deal, at best, this deserves a sentence or less in the article. IamMcLovin 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro's illegitamcy is mentioned. Meanwhile, most of this information is about Angel Castro. It belong in an Angel Castro article (if one is created, it would surprise me to see it survive an Afd, thought). GoodDay 21:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What IamMcLovin fails to understand it that "Butcher" Weyler was responsible for the deaths of perhaps 400,000 Cubans, and that Angel Castro is believed to have belonged to a military group that specialized civilian murders. Angel Castro is reputed to have been close to the center of these murderous operations. What GD is perhaps not aware of most biographies of Fidel Castro recognize that he modeled himself after his father. Essentially what is being said is that Angel Castro was a war criminal. Not only that but Angel Castro, although only by repute, is said to have murdered several of his workers and others who opposed his illegal land takeovers, There is no dispute that Angel Castro used foreign contract labor and treated them badly, since these were mostly if not exclusively Haitians under harsh migrant contracts and thus could not complain. Cuban workers would not tolerate such treatment.Some of this money is that used to support the education and expenses of Fidel and Raul Castro. Raul is generally believed to have been son of a high ranking Batista officer of Chinese ancestry, and to have spared his father from execution instead holding him in prison until he died many years later. There is no line in this biography which states that Angel Castro was a person of bad reputation who supported Fidel Castro in a life style that did not require him to work until Fidel received his law degree and perhaps beyond that. There is nothing that states that the Castro and Batista families were close enough to protect Fidel Castro in several circumstances and that Batista gave Fidel Castro a large cash wedding present. This like the murders Castro committed as a "student activist" as those that Raul did just before the Granma left Mexico are omitted from this biography. There is no mention of the life long relationship between Fabio Grobart, senior stalinist agent in Cuba, and the Castro brothers, although there is clear evidence of that such as Raul's statement that Grobart was his teacher, and a picture of Castro tightly hugging Grobart. Do not ask me to change that I do not have access to this Fidel Castro page, since it seems clear that apparently contrary to Wikipedia policy most if not all who know such historic details are also not allowed access. El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is all true, but like the rumours of Castro's death, they need to be properly verified, the link you provided above did not link to anything substantial that i could find, nor your ISBN number point to the book, Todo El Tiempo De Los Cedros, which I subsequently looked up, and through about 5 web pages that i looked through, most seeming to be cuban, there was no mention of Angel Castro involved with a massacre. I further looked up the "author" and couldn't find anything about Katiuska Blanco Castiñeiras. If you can verify it with reliable sources, it still does not deserve inclusion into the Fidel Castro article, at the very most, a sentence or less. However, if it is deemed notable then you are free to include it on to the Angel Castro article. Thank you. IamMcLovin 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

IamMcLovin that is a Cuban government authorized book I doubt you will find anything in it. Other Castro biographies do mention the putative link to Valeriano Wyler you might spend some of your time researching him....However, there seems to no valid motive for me to educate you further about Cuban history, since your actions here seem to indicate much bad faith on your part and a less than scholarly tendency to assume if you do not know something it is not true. El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil, and do not throw insults at me. I have spent hours looking up Castro biographies, english or spanish, authorized or not, which suggest nothing to do with a Valeriano Weyler. In addition, why did you cite a book when you are saying it is in fact government authorized then why are you putting it on here if you are so anti-castro? None of your references point to anything as well. As I said before, please be civil and provide adequate resources that actually mention something about the connection, or don't post this useless information. Thank you. IamMcLovin 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I guess there is an Angel Castro article. GoodDay 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several dozen entries in Wiki such as Sarah Bernhardt, Cesare Borgia, Richard Wagner and Adolf Hitler (especially controversial bastard children) where there is no use of the word "illegitimacy".

Why is this info included here with Fidel? Is someone making an antiquated, irrelevant point?

You must be joking. Who doesnt know and recognize that the UN is quite obviously influenced by Western interests, read the US. Who has veto power in the UN?

Meraloma 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead section is too long

This section is way too long; it should be three medium-sized paragraphs at most. I would like to clean it up, but I would like others input on what parts of the lead section should be removed before I make any changes. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fidel Castro article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

...Thats what he's doing. IamMcLovin 21:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that comment was originally following a post where a SPA expressed his fellings for Castro, [18] I have no idea how it ended up here. Actually it was because you deleted the SPA's comment but not mine [19], trying to hide the evidence of that crime? :p - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The French version of this article, fr:Fidel Castro, has a pretty good lead section. Should this lead be re-written in that way? --Agüeybaná 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He's right. There's no way that is a justifiable intro section in length, it's basically a biography of his political career. 128.113.195.102 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the letter from Fidel to Roosevelt forged?

Read the letter,it was written in 1940,and Fidel states he is twelve years old,at the date the letter was written he was 14.How can that be possible?Can anyone provide a link from any US government website that confirms that this letter was really given access by US government?If that's the case,how that can be possible?I do not doubt that this letter was forged by US government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerBR (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Castro now admits to a heck of lot of children

Despite hasty and irate erasures in Wikipedia, Castro has a lot of children. Apparently to counter recent biographies especially those of Norbert Fuentes, Fidel Castro has given his imprimatur to a new biography see:

"Vanity publishing, Cuban style Fidel Castro's My LIfe, written with Ignacio Ramonet, soon descends into hagiography Jason Burke Sunday October 28, 2007111" [20]

"Family: Fathered six sons: Fidel 'Fidelito' with his first wife, Mirta Diaz-Balart, from whom he was divorced in 1955. Then followed Alexis, Alexander, Alejandro, Antonio and Angel with his second wife, Dalia Soto del Valle. Daughter Alina Fernandez-Revuelta, whose mother Naty Revuelta was his mistress, sought asylum in the United States and is an outspoken critic of her father's regime. Fidel is reputed to have several other illegitimate children."

El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

EJ, could you please post stuff where it is supposed to go? Karpeth 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean? "Where" does it go? Proxy User (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Karpeth I do not have the access required to edit this page. El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, why not register? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpeth (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First section

I propose that everything after the first 2 paragraphs is removed or integrated into the rest of the article. The lead section doesn't need to cover his life in any detail. Perhaps a sentence or two could be added to those first 2 paragraphs, but otherwise they'd be fine as the lead section. SteveRamone 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious weasel words

"Castro is largely recognized as a dictator, he has not risen to power through open, public elections..."

Must change that. 172.200.212.240 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Inserting "since" might be a patch until he dies and then the appropriated word would be Dictator. Or we could go back to English history and a la Cromwell call him "Lord Protector." BTW will it take the succession of two relatives to make Cuba a monarchy, or will it be like the Roman Empire when an adopted son is designated as successor. Strangely enough it is commonly believed that Batista was Raul's godfather...(:>) El Jigue208.65.188.149 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why must that be changed?Freedomwarrior 01:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry FW I was trying to point out how absurd it is to call Castro anything but a dictator. El Jigue208.65.188.149 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jigue, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I was asking 172.200.212.240 why it is that "Castro is largely recognized as a dictator, he has not risen to power through open, public elections..." needed to be changed. I, like you, think it's non-sense to call him anything but a dictator. Still, despite the countless efforts to deny reality on this page, I think that most readers will be smart enough to figure that on their own (even if some of the editors don't)Freedomwarrior 03:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has chosen not to use dictator in the bios, see Augusto Pinochet, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein for these examples. GoodDay 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't trying to argue the point that Castro was a dictator, and neither am I a supporter of his...it's just "largely recognized" sounds a little too against the man...still, it's been reverted now, so if either of you want to turn me into an enemy for no logical reason, be my guest. 172.143.185.131 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler came to power with public elections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.58 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

you can't call castro a dictator, as he has a lot of support as well as opposition, he's more of a divisive figure, mainly americans dislike him and the rest of the world are either neutral or pro-castro, and a ot of people would argue ove rhte use of dictatorJimjom (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of public support is not a necessary characteristic of a dictator. Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First attracted attention

This now reads "Castro first attracted attention in Cuban political life through nationalist critiques of Batista and the United States political and corporate influence in Cuba." One might substitute other prior events e.g. Fidel Castro's failed attack on Rolando Masferrer, or his involvement in the murder of sports minister Manuel (Manolo) Castro (no relative) then one could mention Castro's escape from the aborted massive Cayo Confites expedition or his envolvement in the Bogotazo where he was selected to represent Cuban Students in a trip paid for by Juan Peron. Better still it might be wise to lift the editing block and allow contributions from some other informed people. El Jigue208.65.188.149 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

POV

We really need to get somebody that lacks a particular pov about Castro's methods to work with this article, I just reverted a version that was rather obviously "anti-Castro" but the current revision seems the opposite, that being "pro-Castro", I am not particulary prolifc when handlig copyedits but I was thinking that we could ask help of a user that recides in a neutral region of the world probably a European or Australian user to handle this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. A murderous criminal is just that, a murderous criminal in Europe, Australia, as well as anywhere else. You don't need "neutral" Martians to assess the "merits" of Fidel Castro. --AVM (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And in Iraq, I know, but despite the theoretical rule of law, Dick Cheney is still in office and not being prosecuted for causing the deaths of a few hudred thousand Iraquis. Revolutions, be they French, American, Russian, or other are messy bloody things that involve a considerable number of people getting killed, more or less at the instructions of the people who end upon top in the end. I think even his detractors would agree that Castro is more of an "end justifies the means" thinker than a real psychopath like Idi Amin who actually enjoys seeing people suffer.

Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler created the Volkswagen, the Autobahn, and DIN, and Castro has done awful lot of worthy things in his 50 years in power. He has merits. They may be outweighed, but they exist, and anyone who has trouble acknowledging that should not be editing the article. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• The subject of this article has just been associated with a current event. Could we table the POV discussion for now, as we work toward including recent info? We can keep the POV tag on the article in the interim. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Why is it that people think that opinions are suppoused to be included as facts, and that facts are opinions that are not noteworthy? We seriously need to revise this article, without demeaning words such as slum or regime, and without pro-castroism. Karpeth 20:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Um yeah, see above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

you argue in favor for anti-castroites, so I didn't really want to reply to that...

I myself is a european, and I know my facts and I know how to be an editor for both political magazines and scientific reports... An encyklopedia i more of the latter...</bragging>Karpeth 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't argue in favor of anti-Castrism, I noted that I was forced to revert a obviously anti-Castro edit, one wich included terms such as "slum" and "regime" exasively (you are familiar with it), it appears you misinterpreted my message. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I have been taught the way of Occham's razor, simplicity, and neutrality in politics... You know that the Hitler article doesn't say dictator, regime, nor anything else demeaning... Karpeth 21:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This problem began when Ejército Rojo 1950 began to make bad faith edits on this article. This is not the first time that he has done so, and I doubt it will be the last time he does. I reverted his edits, which were previously discussed on this page, because I disagreed with his modifications. I felt that they were merely made to sway the article in a pro-Castro direction. Since then, numerous editors have insisted in preserving his edits. None of them have made a justification on this page for keeping them.

Karpeth, through my previous edit, I eliminated all usage of "regime" in this article, which was the Major issue in question. You have undone what I did, and re-inserted those references with regards to the Batista government. Why?

Second, there was a consensus reached on the question of expropriation vs. nationalization. You insist on us using a loaded word, "nationalization," which gives the actions of the government the air of legal sanction. I have objected, on previous occasions, because I do not believe that the actions of the government were in accord with the pre-existing law at the time. Ultimately, whether I can back this claim or not (and I can), the question of whether the government's actions were appropriate or not are a matter of opinion Why are you forcing your opinion on this article?

Third, I object to Ejército Rojo 1950's addition that it is specifically the US State Department, claim that these changes have had disastrous consequences and transformed Cuba into a third-world nation. While the State Department is no doubt an integral part of the opposition to Castro, to say that it is specifically and exclusively the State Department which claims that the government is an abject failure is a laughable proposition. Why then are you allowing this article to belittle the opposition to the Cuban government and claim that it is just limited to the US State Department?

Finally, how is Cuba's method of accounting not unusual? Thanks,Freedomwarrior 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not do anything but revert, as more than half of the facts you reverted to are acctually opinions. Opponents 'claim', not 'note', for one. Also, I would like to see that consensus, as I have not found it, nor ever seen it, as I have been monitoring this article and talk page for a time longer than my account is old.Karpeth 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I had that argument on another page. However, what are the opinions that you object to? Freedomwarrior 23:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

'Nationalization' is not a loaded term; it is the common English word used when describing, umm, nationalization. Expropriation is a related term, but has a different meaning. Neither 'nationalization' nor 'expropriation' implies whether the action is appropriate or inappropriate, legal or illegal. Dlabtot 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant difference in connotation, As Ludwig von Mises, suggests in his book Socialism. I object to the usage of nationalization because socialists use it to mask the nature of their actions. Regardless, if you have no problem with using the term expropriation, which I find to be more neutral, I don't see what the problem is...Freedomwarrior 23:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the term 'expropriation' is that it doesn't actually mean the same thing as 'nationalization', and since nationalization is what is being described, that is the word that should be used. Dlabtot 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The denotation of the term nationalization is to "to bring under the ownership or control of a nation," [21] while the term expropriation can mean "to take possession of, esp. for public use by the right of eminent domain, thus divesting the title of the private owner" or "to dispossess (a person) of ownership" [22]. What's the difference? I don't see one... Freedomwarrior 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "repossesion"? that may be a happy medium. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The opinons are those that claim Cuba has faltered.

Masking ones true actions sounds a lot like the black book of communism, a book that has been heavily criticized for it's incorrectness. What the revolution did, like Marx spoke, was to reposses their land, not to steal as a soveirgn (I am to tired to type correctly) state, as expropriation means. Cuba was mostly sold to USA during batista, Illegaly, so repossession is acctually the best word.Karpeth 23:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it all. Karpeth, you seriously don't know what you're talking about. That's about the most xenophobic and ignorant claim that I've heard, perhaps, ever. The percentage of properties that were owned by Cubans continued to increase under Batista because continued to grow affluent.

I object to repossession because it gives the reader the wrong impression that the state originally had title to the lands which it confiscated from the Cuban people, because it did not have such a title. The best term to use is "expropriated," which allows for multiple interpretations--i.e. that it was done in a legal fashion or that it was done in an illegal fashion.

Finally, the claim that Cuba has faltered isn't an opinion, it's a fact, which the government itself has admitted to. Even the Cuban government doesn't go so far as to deny the fact that Cuba's situation has worsened considerably recently (they wrongfully blame it on the United States instead). You've really drunk the koolaid. Most of those studies are conducted using impartial sources and the government's own sources. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

Therefore, I ask again, to someone less ideological and perhaps more rational. What are the opinions in this article?Freedomwarrior 00:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one thing that should be changed is the Hitler article... As to Castro taking property that was never paid for (with very few exceptions), frankly I like the word stolen but that will never fly here. So rather than say stolen one could say "appropriated without compensation." Anything else is merely a white wash,but of course it would not be considered NPOV here. Lewis Carroll would have understood (:>). El Jigue208.65.188.149 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what I talk about. My source is used on the swedish Wikipedia, and unless you tell them to remove it, I will not change my opinion. I am no xenophobe, nor ignorant, and I dislike when people are so strict in their views as you are. I was once like you, you know, until I got acess to more litterature and sources.

Unfortunately, I don't speak Swedish; if I did, I'd clean up the article. The fact of the matter is that you are justifying the Cuban Revolution's xenophobic policies towards the people of the United States, and accusing the people of the United States, supposedly in the name of the Cuban people, of being thieves. How is that not xenophobia? Freedomwarrior 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The percentage of properties that were owned by Cubans declined under Batista's second rule. At least according to the source litterature.

It is an indisputable fact that Cuba was one of the more affluent countries in Latin America (and the world) under Batista (and prior to him, too). While I will grant that there were some sectors where domestic ownership decreased, the percentage of domestically owned enterprises continued to grow under Batista. For instance, domestic ownership of Cuba's sugar mills reached close to seventy percent under Batista--unquestionably, the highest rate of domestic ownership in over a century.Freedomwarrior 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know who the state is? If you knew the answer, you would not have complained here. The state, per definition, is the people living within the borders of the state. Either word your complaints better, or accept the fact that nationalization or repossession are better words. Legal or illegal, one could both nationalize, repossess, and expropriate, but as stated, expropriation is NOT the word that is best for this article.

I know what the state is. You are putting forth an inane Socialist definition of the state, which I reject. I use Max Weber's definition of the state, which is the one that is used in most western political science courses, as a set of institutions (that is, I don't confuse the state and society, because they are not one and the same as you seem to believe). As I've said before, I object to the word "nationalization" because of its connotation (I know better than to accept a loaded term). I also object to repossession because that's a term which does not apply in this case, since the government did not originally own what it took.

Here are the definitions of expropriation [23]: 1. to take possession of, esp. for public use by the right of eminent domain, thus divesting the title of the private owner: The government expropriated the land for a recreation area. 2. to dispossess (a person) of ownership: The revolutionary government expropriated the landowners from their estates. 3. to take (something) from another's possession for one's own use: He expropriated my ideas for his own article. [Origin: 1605–15; < ML expropriātus

I prefer this term, because it is not loaded, allows the reader to come to their own conclusion (to use definition 1 if they think that the regime's actions were legitimate, or use definition 2 should they think otherwise) and saves us the trouble of an edit war. Freedomwarrior 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And lastly, if Cuba has faltered, why does the source used by the sv.wikipedia claim otherwise? Go on, prove a well accepted book false. What Cuba blames on the USA, is that the embargo has made it hard to make trade goods, Lessening growth rates. You claim impartial sources, and I cite rightwing sources. You refer to the US government, which is the most partial source. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

The sv. wikipedia claims this because it's wrong. Cuba has faltered because of the embargo that the Cuban regime has imposed on its own people. There is no such thing as a real US embargo. The US has considerable trade with Cuba. For instance, the United States is the seventh largest exporter of food to Cuba. Cuba can purchase many goods from the United States, as long as it pays up front, and anything it wants from any other part of the world. There are restrictions, but nothing as drastic as people pretend. Freedomwarrior 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PS:I would also like someone less ideological and more rational, while using the demeaning words the other way.

PPS::One person, and one person only can be called a dictator, and that person was Pinochet. Hitler got to power by elections, and making legal changes in the constitution. He was neither a monarch, as Rudolf Hess, for one, acted as an expert to him. Castro repossessing property, was, by the way, an action for the people. If a hated dictator sells your country, and makes it an intergrated part of the USA, you would also want to take it back, as it was never legitimately sold to the US.Karpeth 18:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler may have won the elections of 1933, but how can you do away with the democratic process make and be anything but a dictator? I find it incredible that you would attack and malign the man responsible for Chile's incredible economic growth and democratization while defending a man who's been responsible for committing far greater atrocities and transforming Cuba into a third world slum. Pinochet may have been a dictator, I certainly won't deny that, but at least he knew when to step down. Freedomwarrior 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Karpeth: hmmm! so when you say: "One person, and one person only can be called a dictator," it reveals an interesting point of view, but one committed to a POV so dogmatic and pro-Cuban government that it leaves no room for discussion. It does not even allude to the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." For instance I am completely unaware of the slightest factual evidence that Batista sold any Cuban property to the US. However, please continue to elaborate, for I find this POV fascinating in a clinical sort of way. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Respond in nice way, freedomwarrior. You just broke two policies, No personal attacks and civility. In the swedish wikipedia, we also have a rule about not messing with peoples serious talk page edits. Put everything right, and put your response below, or else I am not going to respond.Karpeth 20:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not responding unkindly, nor am I engaging in personal attacks. I am just calling a spade a spade. You have maligned the people of the United States and equated us with thieves. There's nothing quite as bad as ascribing a fault to someone because of their national origin, particularly, since no one has control over that. You can respond at your leisure, but I'm not going to go through the needless effort of bundling a response.Freedomwarrior 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for your information, calling me a xenophobe IS a personal Attack, and unkind, as I am not one, nor do I like being called that. I did never EVER call equate you with thieves by the way... Karpeth 21:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

and for the record, look at te top of the page. PUT NEW TEXT UNDER OLD TEXT.Karpeth 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You said that "Cuba was mostly sold to USA during batista, Illegaly, so repossession is acctually the best word." While whatever was purchased in Cuba was purchased in accord with the legal regime existing at the time (that is, through the laws established under the 1940 Constitution, which the Revolutionary government violated), you claim that citizens of the United States who purchased something in Cuba engaged in "illegal" actions. That is, those purchases did not have the sanction of law. I'm not certain, but last I checked that's tantamount to accusing us--well, those people who purchased "parts" of Cuba--of theft.

Since you insist, here is the component of the text that is at issue: "I object to the word "nationalization" because of its connotation (I know better than to accept a loaded term). I also object to repossession because that's a term which does not apply in this case, since the government did not originally own what it took.

Here are the definitions of expropriation [24]: 1. to take possession of, esp. for public use by the right of eminent domain, thus divesting the title of the private owner: The government expropriated the land for a recreation area. 2. to dispossess (a person) of ownership: The revolutionary government expropriated the landowners from their estates. 3. to take (something) from another's possession for one's own use: He expropriated my ideas for his own article. [Origin: 1605–15; < ML expropriātus

I prefer this term, because it is not loaded, allows the reader to come to their own conclusion (to use definition 1 if they think that the regime's actions were legitimate, or use definition 2 should they think otherwise) and saves us the trouble of an edit war." Freedomwarrior 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. It is called good faith. The only ones that would be thieves, would be CIA, but as far as I know, they did not buy anything in Cuba. 2. Of the three words, europeans only class expropriation as a loaded word. The other two, are neutral.Karpeth 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will take your word for it. Notwithstanding, if some Europeans class expropriation as a loaded word and Americans and some Europeans would class the first two words as loaded, then we're in a bit of a hard place. Do you have a source, other than yourself, which would vouch for the term being controversial in Europe? Freedomwarrior 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Nationalisation-The action of bringing land, property, an industry, etc., under state ownership or control." Oxford English Dictionary, which most would agree is the single most authoritative text in matters of the English language. This fits Castro's acts quite well indeed; hence there is no reason not to use it. Also, can we please try to keep to the matters at hand? Wikipedia was not designed so that we could call each other xenophobes and murderous criminals.3fingeredPete (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I could try to find a good source, as an oral word from my highschool english teacher ( a brit ) won't suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpeth (talk • contribs) 07:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationalisation vs. expropriation

I understand that this topic is loaded with passion for various reasons and various points of view. However, Castro did take over several private industries, which is appropriately called expropriation if done without compensation. It would be nationalisation if done with compensation. No compensation was made, hence expropriation is the more appropriate term. Call it what it is, and stop mincing words. Aki Korhonen (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

From webster.com:

expropriation
Main Entry:
ex·pro·pri·a·tion
[zip]

the act of expropriating or the state of being expropriated; specifically : the action of the state in taking or modifying the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty

Aki Korhonen (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the discussion above?Karpeth (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I did. Did you read mine? It seems that the argumentation had gone nowhere, and become a mess with several individuals responding emotionally/ideologically to this topic, and others who are not that familiar with the English language. It seemed to me, having not participated in the discussion before now, that the arguments for "expropriation" were based on the definition of the term, and the arguments for "nationalisation" were based on emotional feelings and scare of sounding unbalanced. At that point I opened up the definition for the two words from the WEBSTER DICTIONARY (www.webster.com) and it was obvious that expropriation is the appropriate term. It is not the purpose of a encyclopedia to avoid calling things for what they are. If private property was taken without appropriate renumeration, it's expropriation. Based on that, and the fact that you couldn't wait for us to continue this discussion before undoing my change, I will be undoing your modification. Aki Korhonen (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The catch is of course that compensation was offered and rejected. And then there's those campaigns here in the UK which have called for "nationalisation without compensation"...

And then there's Freedom Warrior's point (20:19, 14 Nov) - "The denotation of the term nationalization is ...while the term expropriation can mean ... What's the difference? I don't see one...". The difference is subtle and ideologically tinged. IMO can only be dealt with by the creation of a new wiki entry describing the process of expropriation, the negotiations, their breakdown and the ways the issue has been raised over the last 50 years. MichaelW (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the issue. Let's not confuse the improper use of a term by others with the need for an encyclopedia to use the most authoritative and accurate terminology. Webster is a very well established authority on English definitions, and I used its definitions to determine which is the most appropriate term to use.

If you insist on including the term nationalisation, then an appropriate synonym for expropriation is "nationalisation without compensation" as you were saying this campaign in the UK was demanding. But mere "nationalisation" is not what Castro implemented.

As to what lead to the act of expropriation, that should be in the article if it fits with the flow and purpose of the article. I'm not trying to say such discussion should or should not be present. However, the act itself remains expropriation, because that is what took place. Aki Korhonen (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the government offered compensation is irrelevant. The fact remains that "the state took or modified the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty," that is, expropriated the properties. The problem is that the government's actions also "invested control or ownership of in the national government (I'll grant, for the sake of argument, that Fidel's was the legitimate government at the time)," that is, nationalized the properties. As such, the government's actions could be said to amount to "expropriation" or "nationalization." I object to using the latter term, however, because of its implicitly socialist connotation. The term "expropriation" is better because it does not bias the article to favor one interpretation or another (since the term can be used to describe a taking with just compensation or a taking without just compensation). Freedomwarrior (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean this in a bad way, especially since we both seem to agree on what the word should be ("expropriation"). However it seems that you ascribe meaning to expropriation that it does not have. Expropriation refers to an unjust event, where property ownership is simply reassigned with little or no regard to chain of ownership. Expropriation does not refer to an ordinary financial transaction in which both parties agree to transfer ownership of private property to the government in exchange for appropriate renumeration, as this is simply nationalisation.

Nationalisation does have all kinds of connotations, but such connotations are formed by emotions, and are individual experiences. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to attempt define new words whenever the appropriate word has bad connotations to some. If nationalisation were the correct word, regardless of how it makes someone feel, it should be used. (But for the reasons stated above and below, it's not.)

Since we are discussing the terminology here, I believe Karpeth was promoting the use of "repossession". This is not appropriate for several reasons, of which the most important is that repossession requires the transfer of something back to its original owners. Assuming arguendo that Castro was repossessing property, it could only be called that if he immediately handed the property to those to whom it had belonged prior to whatever unjust event justified such repossession. However, Castro retained control, hence he could not have repossessed anything, but merely took possession of others' property without just compensation and with little regard to the wishes of the original owners, i.e. expropriated it. Aki Korhonen (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "expropriation" is the correct term here and that it can refer to an unjust taking (as was the case in Cuba). There are some dictionaries, however, which equate it with a taking under eminent domain, that is, a just taking. For instance, the third revision (8th Edition)(1914)of Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines expropriation as the "taking of private property for public use upon providing compensation. Brownsville v. Pavazos, 2 Woods 293, Fed. Cas. No. 2,043. It corresponds to the right of eminent domain in our law." The fact that this term can be read to mean that the government's actions were just or unjust (let's not forget that whether or not a taking is just is a subject of dispute) is what makes it a better fit in this article.

On the question of "repossession," I am in full agreement with Aki Korhonen. The term does not fit.

Cheers, Freedomwarrior (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not want to get involved in this discussion because I am a Cuban-American living in Miami, so anything I say will be considered biased. BUT my family owned a vast ranch lands in the Oriente province near the town of Mir and a company "Vinagre Portillo" that we "expropriated" by the Cuban government without offer of compensation. Additionally, all of my grandmother's rental properties were also "expropriated" again without compensation. Since we were never given any monies or offered any monies for those properties I think the word nationized would be wrong to use here. Nor would the term "repossed" be good here since none of the properties were ever purchased from the Cuban government. You cannot reposses something that was never yours in the first place. That is just my opinion, but then again many may consider my opinion is baised, even though I have traved to Cuba 12 times since 1994. Callelinea (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Castro denied he was a Communist

There is no doubt that Castro denied being a communist in 1959. There are plenty of references to substuantiate that he said this and I have seen the videos, which are copyrighted, so can't be presented. My summary is very close to what he actually said in New York in 1959. It was recently re-aired on NBC's Meet the Press by Tim Russert. Someone with a POV want's to keep that off Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeamays (talk • contribs) --Zeamays 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall Castro ever denying that he himself was a communist or Marxist, I do recall that he said the Cuban revolution was not communist at that time. Basically at that time it was a national liberation movement. If you understand Marxism-Leninism at all then you should know that there are two stages of revolution: national liberation (i.e. anti-imperialist/colonial) and proletarian (i.e. socialist). So in that sense, Castro was practicing MLism by directing the movement down the correct path. You can't go from a colonized country straight to socialism, as it's contrary to dialectical materialism. --Mista-X 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

<n|f|m> I cant belive that you think that Cuba was a colony.Do you know about 1933 revolution? Do you know about the 1940 constitution?

The problem with the previous note is that Castro was speaking to general audiences in Cuba and New York, untutored in the arcane terminology of Marxism. Therefore, since Castro is a very intelligent man, it clearly can be understood that his purpose was willful misrepresentation. --Zeamays (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Castro did deny he was a communist to the American media to gain support in Washington - I know that to be true. I'll look for sources soon. Thanks! Sporker (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

JettaMann changes (2007-11-23)

In case someone's fingers are itching at editing away the changes that JettaMann added today, I hope that you defer, as it seems they are adding accuracy to the article. If someone can add someone else other than the BBC reporter to the list, it might be helpful, but please do provide references. Aki Korhonen (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Some members of our armed forces have a pretty weird idea of what Castro is like

According to the NY Daily News, people in our army decided that Mr. Castro was a "transexual (sic)" and edited Wikipedia accordingly. LOL, he doesn't look very transsexualish to me.... — Rickyrab | Talk 02:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's more info at [25]. The relevant edit for this article is [26], made by 130.22.190.5. Mdwh (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Castro a transexual?

Can we have a citation or remove this, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.33.116 (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't been on the article since January 2006 as far as I can tell. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Article in BBC about Castro's plans on retirement

Here, it has some interesting points: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7149170.stm 71.102.74.156 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of irrelevant material undone

In an effort to deal with the intro length tag posted on this article, I deleted some material that was about Cuba, but didn't mention Castro. It may be relevant to Cuban history, but it's relevance to the intro is unclear. The person who undid my edit had the option of moving it to the body of the article, but didn't. I wish to resolve this without a "undo" war. I hope that the editor who restored the apparently irrelevant material will deal with the substance of the intro length issue and not just undo a good-faith edit. --Zeamays (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Qualifications?

The article does not really provide any specific information about what Castro accomplished from his formal education...

I have seen before on the internet, sources claiming that he attended the University of Havana and graduated with a PhD in Law [27].

Can anyone confirm or deny this - are these the usual rumours that float around the internet? What qualifications does Castro actually have? AJMW (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Castro did graduate from the University and opened an unsuccessful law firm with a degree of some sort in law, though he primarily did it from lack of focus on anything else. ISBN 0-595-03485-2, can cite other sources if needed. Celinayi (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

This is a loaded and disputed concept, and its application here is POV. I don't think WP should take a stand endorsing the concept, at all. This goes for all the articles.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not endorse anything. Wikipedia does not take a stand on anything. Wikipedia is a record of fact.Roger (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with OP Giovanni33. Wikipedia ought to stay away from classifying certain political leaders as totalitarian, dictators, etc in controversial cases such as Castro, Pinochet, etc. Ledenierhomme (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My teacher told me " F like Fidel" , "R like Raul". I was about to be a TV show on one of the only two chanels(now ~30 they cancel the show and brodcast a 4 hours speech. People feel fear of just saying anything against him. My aunt used to tell us "speak low please". The majority of the population (against or favor) refer to him as "el caballo"=thehorse. Do you know what that mean in hispanic countries?. Violated the 1940 constitution. Supress all TV chanels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines like Bohemia, who's director later comited sucide becasue all the help Bohemia gave to him. Do you read Gramma newspaper? Is it that free press?You could called leader, and I know that some historian prefer that term. But from my experience since 1970-2000 living there he is a dictator, and that is a totalitarian regime. It is sad how people use sutilmente the POV thing to express their POV.

Controversial cases???????? Wow, the fools reign supreme. Talk to Cubans that escaped from his rule and ask Them if Castro is a dictator. Facts are facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.206.177 (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

i can confirm this i also seen it on the web, i think his qualifications should be recognised —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.127.60 (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Cubans that "left" Cuba are often former prisoners who were shipped out of the country to the United States. This is like saying "Ask those who left the United States after the election of Bush if Bush is a dictator." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.126.69 (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rich List

The very last paragraph of the article reads:

Maria Werla, a Cuban-American anti-Castro activist, claims, partially based on the testimonials of defectors who were close to Castro, that Castro and his loyalists control several billions of dollars in real estate, bank accounts, private estates, yachts and other assets — called “the Comandante's Reserves” — in Europe, Latin America and Asia - and a luxurious lifestyle for the top Cuban leadership.[171]

Is this really worthy of inclusion? It seems like speculation by bias people as to his corruption. The part before this does a good job or explaining his listing the the rich list and his response to it but this just seems POV and speculation.

Thoughts on removing it?

CaptinJohn (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. It has many supporting sources.Ultramarine (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Werla's sources are not unbiased, and we cannot be sure if they are accurate or if their conclusions are based on assumptions and/or hatred of Castro. If the sourced rich list in the wiki article admits that the calculations are simply based on an assumption that Castro owns or controls income from public/state-owned enterprises, then we have to question Werla's sources for similar assumptions, biases, etc. Werla herself is anti-Castro and seems to have agenda in her article (to portray Castro as some profiteering despot), and thus her choices of sources may not be objective but rather ones which support her agenda.

I dont object to listing the Forbes article becuase that happened. Same goes for Castro's/Cuba's reply. What I find weird is that the last paragraph which (after reading the source - http://info.lanic.utexas.edu/project/asce/pdfs/volume15/pdfs/werlau.pdf) still seems like speculation by someone who is anti-castro. The source says that no one knows how much Castro has hidden away and that all estimates are really just guess work (I can agree with that). Then in the next sentence it says all estimates are clearly too low (I am getting this from the first 2 sentences on the second page). So what? Everyone else has been guessing but there guesses are much to low. WE KNOW it must be much higher becuase our guess is much higher and we are right! (obviously our guess is special duh!). It even goes on to say that he draws income "from drug trafficking and criminal activities perpetrated by subversive and terrorist groups with the help of Cuban agents or coordinated by Cuba.". So he is involved in state sponsored terrorism and he is a drugs baron? (Page three, right column, point number 5).

What if: the first two paragraphs of the section stay (as they just show claim and counter claim without saying either is fact). The third paragraph goes (as it makes the above source's claims sound like fact which they are not and it does not contain anything balancing it) and is replaced by something along the lines of:

1. Castro's STATED assets are pretty tiny (maybe he is lying, who knows, but that is what he is saying)

2. Many people argue that as much of the Cuban economy is state owned that should also be counted as his (which is obviously a lot of money) some people dont agree.

3. A FEW people claim that he and his cronies have also stolen many millions, billions etc and hidden it in foriegn banks and other places.

As well as that I think that the source is bias, so if we are using it to show one groups POV then thats fine but if we are presenting it as factual thats not. We should either use it to show anti castro opinion or remove it completly, anything else is undue weight.

Thanks, Sorry that was so long.

John

CaptinJohn (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with CaptinJohn, a lot of speculation, little fact. Ledenierhomme (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A claimed POV is not an excuse for deletion. WP:NPOV:"The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." Instead, if a view missing, then add it. The article cites numerous sources including many testimonials from defectors who were close to Castro. If arguing that the sources are unreliable, please add such criticisms to the article.Ultramarine (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct to say that we should not delete the last paragraph simply because I think it is POV. What I don’t like is the idea of leaving it as it is. It makes the claim that Fidel et al have stolen large amounts of money and stashed it away in foreign accounts sound like a well sourced widely accepted fact when actually it is no more than a rumour. I think the last paragraph should say that it has been claimed ... but there has never been any evidence and it is not widely accepted.

I also think that the source is poo. If we were to decide it is a good source then we must also include that Castro is a drug smuggling terrorist (see the above exert from the source) since that must be just as true, which is non-sense. If we decide it is a bad source we should cut it completely and get something better. The main sources for the source are “Cuban exiles”. They don’t provide evidence, they just claim things. Its hear say, like me writing a report about how I once met this guy from cube called Bob something and he said Castro likes to tell racist jokes. If they had brought evidence then we would see it. Just don’t leave it in, it sounds like it is being endorsed as truth rather than opinion which is what it is

John

CaptinJohn (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was published in a scholarly journal: [28]. Since it is impossible to see Cuban archives, the only thing available are the testimonials of persons close to Castro. As the article states: "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 andhave been collected over a long period. Over the years, many of these accounts have appeared in low-profile media reports in different countries or have been published as memoirs written almost exclusively in Spanish and widely ignored by the international mainstream media. In systematically compiling this assortment of tales, a coherent story emerges of a vast international conglomerate sustained by sophisticated financial dealings in world capital markets."Ultramarine (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be scholarly but its also POV:

"At the time of its founding, in 1990, its most important goals were to study the elements and processes involved in the expected transition of Cuba to a free-market economy and a democratic society, as well as to promote scholarship, research, and publications on economic studies by its members"

(from: [[29]])

So its purpose is to examine how Cuba could be turned into a free market economy (not sure what this has to do with Castro stealing millions and running a drugs empire but what the hay, its up to them what they publish right?) AND to "promote the publications of its members" (Ive got some stuff about the moon landings I want published, maybe I should join).

If my humour does not sway you to thinking that this is not a credible source then fine. We should also add his drug business and terrorist sponsorship to his assets (and my moon landing stuff once I get them published in scholarly theories about moon landing hoaxes!!!)

I appreciate that its not just some Miami based "down with Castro" blog but published or not its obviously hearsay theory about how castro i) Stole a lot of money ii) Is a drug baron and iii) Funds and tollerates terrorists. It seems to me that its all 3 or none. Maybe that convinces you that we at least need a better source.

John

CaptinJohn (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article cites numerous other published sources for its claims. Again, claimed POV is not a reason for deletion. If you want to add the other claims from the paper, feel free to do so. You seem to think that the claims are proven invalid by their own absurdity. I do not. Many Communist states have sponsored terrorists, like Stasi did with the Red Army Fraction.Ultramarine (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

On 18 february 2008 Fidel Castro resigned from his post as Cuba's President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarlen (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he has resigned or just said he won't continue as president. Here's the developing BBC article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7252109.stm MatttK (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's the same thing either way, I guess, since he's not really president right now anyway. MatttK (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

His brother is technically the president of the country at the moment. Regardless, 49 years of Castro leadership have officially come to an end. Vgpclub (talk)

I think it is an important difference. Headline writers are writing resigned, but the official announcement is only stating that he will not accept a new term as president. That seems to imply that he is still technically president (although power is in the hands of his brother) until the 24th.. if he resigned that would mean he gave up the title today.XinJeisan (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

yes all the news says that he is resigned,but mabye he will take another task..i wrote it in the article --O.waqfi (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a horrible, horrible entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.180.177 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Granma has the following statement: http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/febrero/mar19/mensaje-i.html He says "I am saying that I will neither aspire to nor accept, I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief."

...

"Therefore, it would be a betrayal to my conscience to accept a responsibility requiring more mobility and dedication than I am physically able to offer. This I say devoid of all drama."

...

and

"This is not my farewell to you. My only wish is to fight as a soldier in the battle of ideas. I shall continue to write under the heading of ‘Reflections by comrade Fidel.’ " 86.149.178.228 (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This news has come as a complete surprise to many: Wow, he does have a conscience! --AVM (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Although the news that one of the longest-serving leaders in the world was announced, his resignation announcement barely registered in Cuba." The second part of this sentence is unnecessary and pure speculation. I think it should be taken out.

Resigning or retiring?

It seems some media is reporting resign, although other media is reporting retire. The Miami Herald, which I would think would have the most authoritive coverage of Cuban politics in English is stating "Cuban leader Fidel Castro has announced he will not seek reelection after 49 years in power and nearly 19 months sidelined by illness, marking the first official step in a long-awaited succession in the island's leadership."

The reason I think the difference between "resign" and "retire" is important is because using resign and not retire actually shows bias. Since the actual date of the next presidental election is Feb. 24th, and all Castro has done is state that he is not running for office again, he has basically announced his retirement. By saying he is resigning implies that the process is not as important as Castro's wishes. Probably this is true, however wikipedia policy is WP:NPOV and therefore retire is both factually correct and the proper word to use in this context. XinJeisan (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Castro resignation effective immediately? or only upon the assumption of office of the next President?. If the later, F.Castro should still be listed as President (at least as outgoing President). GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think that he is stepping down upon the next reelection. It doesn't look like he is resigning as of now, as he said he is not going after a reelection. IronCrow (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Although the news that one of the longest-serving leaders in the world was announced, his resignation announcement barely registered in Cuba." The second part of this sentence is unnecessary and pure speculation. I think it should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.59.49 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Letter to Roosevelt

Out of interest, does anyone know if the letter to Roosevelt was successful? Did he get a reply? Did he get $10? ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it, how much mail does a President like Roosevelt get a day? In the middle of WWII? He had enough trouble replying to all the important things, let alone some kid on some godforsaken island. He probably never even saw the letter, someone clerk responsible for such things probably read it and put it in the "not important" file. As I recall, hes the president who died in office from a heart attack, I rather doubt tat letter did him in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather late answer, but he received a short response from the president. However, if I remember correctly he never received any money. Celinayi (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dictator?

Castro not referred to as a dictator but Batista is? Isn't that a bit of POV?--72.191.31.112 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the claim that he is a dictator. Castro was elected president every five years since he became President by the Cuban Parliament, whose members were chosen by the people of Cuba in general elections. Sure, a person from the US would not call that democracy, but the fact is that it is a democracy, if only a limited one. --Agüeybaná 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, I'm not from the US and I can say that he was a dictator, he didn't let people leave the country and he made laws instead of making bills and voting them. Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I remind you that the power to sign decree-laws is granted to any President of Cuba (not just Castro) by the 1976 Constitution of Cuba, which was approved by the people of Cuba in a referendum. This power will also be granted to the next President (Carlos, Raúl, or some other person). --Agüeybaná 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ironic, how many Presidents of Cuba have there been since 1976? — Κaiba 23:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not see any irony. I clearly recognized that he has been elected president by the Cuban Parliament every 5 years since the ratification of the 1976 Socialist Constitution. --Agüeybaná 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I think I knew you were going to say that. — Κaiba 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting about Castro, I recon that Batista is mentioned as a dictator because he took control of Cuba in a coup, never being officially elected for a second term. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is mainly the point I was making. How the person is elected is not how to define a dictator. Dictators can be elected. — Κaiba 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, what is your definition of dictator? --Agüeybaná 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See dictator, modern usages. May not apply to all of the definitions of a modern usage of the word dictator, but he fits a few. — Κaiba 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm personally here on pins and needles before Cuba's upcoming election: Although Cuba's one-man, charismatic executive and its National Assembly's 614 candidates run unopposed, by what margin will Raul be able to beat the electoral validation wherein "Fidel got 98.2% of valid popular votes"?

--Justmeherenow (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that he is definitly a dictator according to that article. He'd power in the military, has a authoritarian rule, verging on totalitarian a fair bit. Rule by decree without an effective legislate to hold you back is still a dictatorship. With a controlled media and killing those who flee, it's hard to see how he isn't a dictator. Larklight (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Less spacing please... Of course a dictator can be elected. Hitler was nominated then elected, and he was a dictator. Not only that, I fail to see how Castro ISN'T one. He has held power since his "takeover." Not only that, but how many groups within Cuba actually oppose him? Opposition to Fidel Castro is illegal in Cuba. See Opposition to Fidel Castro. IronCrow (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at that article, I don't see a reference to a Cuban law that outlaws "opposition to Fidel Castro". Am I missing something? Grmdy (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Opposition to Fidel Castro" is not "outlawed". It has been , and still is, customarily exterminated by Cuba's criminal regime, undeniably a ruthless dictatorship. --AVM (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Surly this all depends on what you mean by opposition and dictatorship. Non Communist parties are allowed in cuba and have been since 1992 but exactly what they are allowed to do is not clear. As for him being a dictator thats quite questionable. He is not directly elected but neither are many EU heads of government (eg the british PM) and he does (did) hold a very high approval rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinJohn (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia definition of dictator seems pretty clear. What we might think about Castro makes no difference. If you want to call him a dictator, you need a verifiable reference that says Fidel has (had) the power to make laws with no effective legislative oversight. Since there is a legislature, you also need a verifiable reference that says it's not effective, that is, it is a "rubber stamp" legislature. However obvious it might seem that he was a dictator, nothing carries as much weight here as a verifiable reference. Rees11 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A dictator is someone who often goes against the will of his people. If everyone loves him so much that nobody opposes what he did, no, he isn't a dictator. I'd say it's pretty ambiguous in this case, though, as it is generally in socialist states. Deng Xiaoping, Saddam Hussein, Putin, Ahmadinejad - they all went to power with overwhelming support of the people with virtually no opposition. There's nothing to "dictate". The leaders of these states sometimes do suppress opposition, sometimes not, and most of the times there isn't much opposition. Remember that Castro was elected. Yes, Hitler was elected too, but Hitler turned the country into a police state after he was elected. Castro didn't. 202.40.139.170 (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fidel Castro was elected every five years since 1976 by Cuban National Assembly (the Cuban parliament), which is elected in general elections by the people. No parties run in elections, not even the Communist Party. Any person can be proposed as candidate in neighborhood open assembly, independently of party membership, political opinion, or religions believe. So, if communists are represented in parliament and the so-called dissidents are not, it is decided by the people. It's demonstrated that communists maintain the support from the people, and the people prefers to propose candidates with a revolutionary background than those who oppose to the government. This is why the Cuban parliament is composed primarily by people who supports Fidel Castro and Raul Castro. So, neither Fidel or Raul are dictators, because (at contrary to what is always said by international media) they still are backed by the majority of the Cuban people. BTW, I'm Cuban and I live in Cuba, so my opinion is based in what I see every day. This doesn't mean that Fidel is not been criticized sometimes by the Cubans, but you can't definitely compare him to Hitler, who caused terror and a strict police state in Germany. You can read in Cuban history books about the fights of Cubans before 1959. Don't you think that if we were in such bad conditions, we were fighting against such a regimen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.140.181 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, only free elections count. So your post is irrelevant.

Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Article hacked

I see a lot of penises in the article, fix immediately!! ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when the article loads I can see a picture of a penis behind the left hand links, and a picture which seems to be floating above the main body of the text with a picture of a guy being hanged and some offensive language....have had a quick look at the page history to see if I can spot where it came in, but I can't, and I can't see where the image is when trying to "edit this page"....can a more experienced wikipedian help here? ColourSarge (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone vandalized a template, which caused these disgusting images to be transcluded here. --Agüeybaná 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It happened again. someone needs to ban whoever is doing that. 66.27.68.85 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism issue  resolved. Both involved users have been banned. --Agüeybaná 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone put the caption "n**** got owned" with a huge close-up of a penis. How do I undo that? Josh (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, someone pointed it out. Apologies. Josh (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the vandalized template: Template:Cleanup-rewrite. But I can't get it to its normal state. Administrators???? ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor who did this last is User:Ruddigger. He needs to be banned -- but this is also occuring on other templates as well, so, admins, have fun.66.27.68.85 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism issue  resolved. Both involved users have been banned. --Agüeybaná 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This incident only makes me wonder why a template that is used on countless articles has been completely unprotected until today, when the the ammount of pages using it should at least guarantee semi-protection. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing of section about Bay of Pigs Invasion

"It expected Cuban military and police forces to refuse to fight against the CIA's 1,400-man mercenary invasion force."

I disagree with the phrasing of this quotation, especially the word "mercenary." These were expatriate Cubans for the most part, not a for-profit band of soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.28.142.181 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Clearly the the Cuban ex-pats who participated dont fit the definition of a mercenary, per wikipedia: A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and "is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party". - 74.173.24.147 (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am taking the liberty of changing the phrasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.28.142.181 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Up until today, President of Cuba was kept in this article's introduction. Why is it being continously 'removed'? Castro is still President of Cuba until February 24th, 2008. Is it asking too much? to leave it in the introduction 'til then? I'm seriously considering request Page Protection. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose page protection at this time but we should combat vigorously any inaccuracies. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Its already semiprotected wich should hold off all the anons that will surely want to vandalize it at this moment, but further protection isn't needed particulary when this is a ongoing event. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ive been reading the talk page and cant help but notice that some contributers are incredibly POV, couldnt POV editors be politely asked not to contribute! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.171.94 (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is Cuba's leader?

The article says he was the leader, ending today. Who has taken over and is that really correct? Thanks--nyc171 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fidel is the leader until February 24th; Raul is likely to succeed him. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Fidel is the leader at this moment (see timestamp), and the "constituent session of the new National Assembly of People’s Power" (as Granma words it) has convened to select Fidel's successor. It probably will be Raul, but at this moment it's not entirely clear when Raul will actually succeed Fidel. (Later today? Next month?) -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Sigh... The lead section used to be too long now it is, too short. Isn't there a single person in the whole Wikipedia project that is familiar with the lead section guidelines? This is particularly frustrating, because I know that, even if this is fixed, it will likely end up the same again later on. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the guidelines that the lead has been trimmed too much, so I can only conclude that either nobody takes any serious interest in the article, or there is mass ignorance about what a lead should be like. I will assume the latter to be true. Richard001 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not assume the former? In fact, why not assume good faith and consider that the editors have worked to best cover an extremely controversial subject. Better yet, why not fix it? Ursasapien (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: The Attack on Moncada Barracks section

The section states:

Although there is disagreement over why Castro and his brother, Raúl, were not executed on capture as many of their fellow militants were, there is evidence that an officer recognized Castro from his university days and treated the captured rebels compassionately, despite the 'illegal' unofficial order to have the leader executed.

Could the order to execute Castro be both illegal and unofficial? Doesn't this need a comma? The link to the source was just an abstract, so it was not particularly illuminating. Ursasapien (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The infobox states that his religion is "None (Atheist) {probably Catholic}". This cannot be correct. Either he is Catholic, or he is Atheist, or he has no religion at all. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion, my brother. --Agüeybaná 19:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about his religion or lack therof but I'd just like to point out that "Atheist" and "no religion at all" is the same thing. Roger (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I changed the infobox to "None (atheist)", and asked for a citation. Looks like User:Silly rabbit just removed it entirely, which I also support. Let's not put it back until we can cite sources. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any definitive statements either way, and I see no reason to have an infobox caption if it is potentially uncertain. He probably is an atheist, although he was raised Catholic. But I don't think he necessarily advertises the fact. He does seem more sympathetic to Christianity than other Communist leaders have been in the past. So I think the issue is best left to more carefully sourced discussions in the text. (Aside: Similar questions of religion have been addressed at Albert Einstein, where the consensus was that the topic was too multifaceted to summarize in an infobox caption.) Silly rabbit (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He's a Catholic.- read it in the Economist I think. Can't source it at the moment tho, sorry. Larklight (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the US hate Castro?

It's not like he invaded their country - I mean does the US hate all Communist countries or former Soviet allied countries? I know it may sound crude but watching Michael Moores new documentary Sicko the US still propogates Castro and his country - even though Cuba's healthcare system is better than the US's and none of the countries have waged a single war on themselves...Is everybody in the US brainwashed by their government? LOTRrules (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, my friend, this is not the place for general discussion about the subject of this article. To answer some of your questions, though, there is significant antagonism in the US toward communist countries. See Cold War as a starting point for more research on this. However, speaking as an American (and a Libertarian capitalist at that), I can tell you that I am not brainwashed by my government. I love Cuba (the culture, people, etc. more so than the current government), and will visit there after my country removes the restrictions it has imposed upon us citizens for travel to, and trade with Cuba. Additionally, while I was opposed to Fidel Castro's policies, I do not hate Castro, and I wouldn't even say I want the dissolution of his government. I simply want relaxed relations between these two countries, the US and Cuba, which are as historically linked to one another as the US is to its other North American neighbors. I suspect many Americans feel the same way, given recent calls in the US to end the embargo. -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and please forgive my ignorance - I'll stop it in the future. LOTRrules (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In a side note, and to be helpful, we're still a little pissed off that he nationalized several American interests.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Current-related

I placed the "current-related" tag on this article, and linked it to 2006 Cuban transfer of presidential duties. However, that may not be the best article to link for this current event. If there is an article dealing specifically with the election of Raúl Castro, feel free to modify the tag. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 Linked to Cuban presidential election, 2008. --Agüeybaná 00:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Agüeybaná! -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I can see why some people might think neutrality is lacking in this article. The treatment of Castro as an icon rather than firstly as a living human being (good or bad) is ill-advised and the long "Abstract" section typifies this by beginning with opinion before fact.

• Opponents claim that these changes have at best maintained Cuba's pre-1959 level of development, but at an "extraordinary" cost to the overall welfare of Cubans.[12]

where [12] is Contacto. A poorly sourced claim such as this should barely make an article, much less a summary.

Supporting statements are also curiously uncited for the generalizations they make.

• Conversely, supporters attribute the U.S. embargo for some or all of Cuba's shortcomings, but maintain that Cuba's economy has expanded and grown at a more than acceptable rate since the revolution.

What these economic apologists (forgive me, I've been editing religion) claim and why they go so broadly unattributed and uncited leaves much doubt about how pervasive and notable these "supporters" are and how realistic or far-fetched their claims are. If we had sources, could we rely on them? Would they say 15%? Would they say double? Sure puts a damper on writing a good article.

Proper attribution allows the editor to distance him/herself from an appearance of non-neutrality. If you can bang out 5 citations which all make similar claims which clearly support Castro, then great, those sources are "supporters". This is a living person (for the moment) and all unsourced statements by all rights should be deleted. Similarly criticisms of bare note and unknown reliability should be vaporized. And without question never used in a summary. I hope that's not too abstract. Did we forget how to write a biography? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Economy

Why is there no section about his economic impact? Or on society as a whole?Larklight (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because that would be more appropriate to an article on the Cuban economy? Grmdy (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

lets answer more questions with questions, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.58 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Are billboards with Castro's picture very common in the island ?

I have been to Cuba twice and never saw images of Fidel on billboards, as the article states. The source of this information apparently is a Miami Herald's 2000 article. However the article does not say that at all. It mentions nothing about billboards.71.246.248.207 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

I've noticed the same thing, although he seems to be on TV a lot, or was before his current illness. If there is no reference stating that he's on billboards, I would say remove that statement. Rees11 (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is one. Larklight (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been in Cuba, and I never saw a billboard with Fidel on it. In fact, the alleged source article for the statement, says "Few public images of El Comandante are visible around Cuba, and his Aug. 13 birthday is not a holiday". I don't think the Miami Herald is a pro-Castro source, on this or anything else... Unless it can be reliably sourced, it should be removed IMO. Grmdy (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been to Cuba, but I do have access to Google. DBaba (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"very common" is a bit subjective, and the source doesn't say that. It's hard to tell from a google search just how common they are. In fact most of the search results are not billboards with Fidel on them. Maybe we should just say what the source says. Rees11 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DBaba - Ah, I see you've fixed. I think it's much better now, thanks. Rees11 (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

castro is dead Mark Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.238.105 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced material regarding wealth

See this edit: [30]. The source is a scholarly paper. It cites many published accounts by defectors who were very close to Castro. WP:BLP does not prohibit criticisms of living persons. Only that sources must be reliable which is the case here.Ultramarine (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The source you provided later is scholarly source, not the previous Castro.archive which was personal hate site of certain anti-Castro activist. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

First of all, I dispute the fair use rationale of Image:Castrocover2.jpg to identify the subject of this article. This is a copyrighted image, and we should only use non-free images in infobox if absolutely necessary. Having said that, I don't know what the copyright status is of the image formerly in use in the infobox, but I don't agree that this former image is "unflattering" as is Redthoreau's assertion. Perhaps a more recent image could be found, but there is no problem with defamation stemming from this image. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the former photo (which had questionable sourcing) unlike the new one I added, which is clear where it came from ... Castro looked half dead and emaciated. (Now I don't dispute that there are scores of people already dancing on the mans grave, but Wikipedia should be fair and display the most presentable photo available - as is done for all world leaders - usually their own created official portrait.) He was not in his trademark military fatigues (which he has almost wore daily in public for 50 years, before he recently switched to adidas track suits), he was not wearing his signature hat, and you didn't have to be an admirer of Castro to see that the image used was unfavorable. Also why is it not appropriate to use the image off of his new memoir, which obviously must be of high quality as it was chosen?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The image immediately prior to the one you added was this one: Image:Fidel Castro5 cropped.JPG It was produced by Agência Brasil, and was published under Creative Commons. It is not a "non-free image"; Wikipedia violates no copyright by using this image. I don't agree that Castro "looked half dead and emaciated" in the photo, however, this is not a valid rationale for using a non-free image. It is not appropriate to use the image off of his new memoir, because that image is protected by copyright. Wikipedia strives to allow people to use its content for any purpose whatsoever when possible. Copyrighted material does not allow this. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that using the image from Castro's new book is a violation of copyright. The image is not being using to illustration on article on the book, which would be the only valid rationale for fair use of the copyrighted image. Using the book cover for a general article on Castro is not a valid rationale per Wikipedia fair use rules for copyright violation. –Mattisse (Talk) 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have replaced the aforementioned image in question - with another one.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks, Redthoreau! -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I placed Image:Cuba.FidelCastro.02.jpg in the infobox for now, but I would encourage finding a better free image to replace it. I simply intend for some photo to be there for now, under the theory that this photo is better than no photo at all. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bogotazo incident

This summary intimates Fidel Castro was involved in the assassination without any significant evidence presented whatsoever. The only source sited is a source from the right-wing political organization, The Heritage Foundation. And even here, the "evidence" is rumor, innuendo, and generally without tangible evidence for a claim so controversial. Note: The Heritage Foundation has a history of funding anti-Communist paramilitary organizations. The Heritage Foundation is hardly a non-partisan, objective resource, to say the least. Evidence that Fidel Castro assassinated or played a major role in the political assassination of Gaitan should be provided strongly. Without it, the summary should be minimized or deleted altogether. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajax381 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights record

A biography of a Cuban politician is not the proper page to discuss observations of human rights in Cuba. There is another page specifically devoted to Human Rights in Cuba where the topic is extensively discussed.

Another problematic aspect of this recently added section concerns the dubious sources that have been employed in violation of the Wikipedia guidelines. The name Armando Lago does not exist in scholarly discourse concerning Cuba. Nor does Lago seem to have the credentials necessary to analyze history. The very first sentence of the page linked to Armando Lago says that the text is derived from a manuscript for publication. Wikipedia does not rely upon unpublished material. Cuba Archive describes itself as an organization to 'promote the understanding, recognition, and observance of human rights.' Wikipedia guidelines restrict the use of material published by advocacy groups when it comes to the analysis of history. Nierva (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I reverted this blanking originally, I then noted it discussed here. I thus have reverted my edit and leave the decision up to those actively editing this article. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that section belongs in the article, and question the reliability of the "activist" reference.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A Castro biography is not the right place to discuss Cuban human rights in general. It is the right place to discuss Castro's human rights positions and policies. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a complete biography that failed to address this. Cerberus (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the human rights records in a country there a politician ruled for many decades is important part of his biography. I am restoring it Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that none of the sources cited in this section are actually authorities on human rights in Cuba. The opening sentence, in violation of Wikipedia rules pertaining to attribution, on the basis of spurious sources decides for readers that thousands of people have been executed in Cuba. But as is cited in the article Human Rights in Cuba, the most prominent human rights group Amnesty International confirmed that death sentences in Cuba in the entire period 1959-87 amounted to a little over 200. There is not an explanation as to the perspective of Cuban scholars who have confirmed that that death sentence was necessary against the torturers, bombers, and other criminals long employed by the Batista gang. For example, see this study by Raul Gomez Treto But of course, the observation of human rights does not belong in a biography pertaining one of thousands of Cuban politicians. Former President Fidel Castro is not a country or society but is an individual. Observations of human rights have a place in a historical survey of a country or in separate articles that deal specifically with human rights, but not biographies. Nierva (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate, the section in concern does not have a place in this article because of its violations of Wikipedia guidelines concerning Neutral Point of View, Attributability, and Reliable Sources. In addition to being unqualified to write about the Cuban Republic, the sources that have been cited are not authorities on human rights and do not even purport to address the issue. The topic is extensively discussed in another article and is out of place in a biography of a politician. Nierva (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. Despite his lengthy dictatorship, Castro's human rights record is *not* the same as Cuba's human rights record. It is an important part of his biography. Please explain how this could *not* be an important part of Castro's biography! It is certainly *not* a requirement that a source on Castro's human rights record be an expert on human rights, unless you are ready to count all serious historians as experts on human rights. Please be specific about what sources you object to and why. Cerberus (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means please balance the section but we cannot completly blank it. Not mentioning Human Rights Record in Fidel Castro biography is like not mentioning Iraq War in George Bush article Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no necessity for such measures, for the section does not have a place in the biography of a Cuban politician. Refer to Human Rights in Cuba where the topic is thoroughly discussed. As discussed above, the sources that have been employed in this section have neither the competence to write about human rights, much less Cuba. Nierva (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The word 'necessity' is a weasal word in this context. The handling of human rights issues is a core part of Castro's biography. Please explain how this could be otherwise. Asking for improvement, or showing that a particular source lacks NPOV, is one thing. But you are simply blanking a whole section. Cerberus (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Activist sources

It is my evaluation that this article should seek to remove "activist" sources. A wikipedia article should only rely on published material from 'established' news sources, academic/scholarly material, and credible published books. Activist or partisan lobbying groups/societies for a "Democratic Cuba", "Free Cuba", “Real Cuba”, "Castro-free Cuba" etc etc are not credible objective sources for an article on Fidel Castro. There are plenty of reliable sources which provide both complimentary and negative evaluations of Fidel Castro the man and politician, without having to rely on advocacy material.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Then feel free to remove the anarchist criticism section. I will not object. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and shortened the section instead ... but yes question its overall relevancy.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will also not object as long as you treat the "Viva Fidel!" "Fidel is the greatest!" "Comrade Castro is Infallible!" sources with equal scepticism - I notice you only criticise the anti Castro sources. Roger (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course my statement would also apply to "Viva-Fidel" sites as well.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that your right with one small proviso: Lets not remove sources without replacing them. Its better to have activist sources than none at all. Also I think there will have to be at least a few activist sources as he is such a controversial figure, that said you are right that we should minimise them.CaptinJohn (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I wish to se the opening sentence changed. Castro is NO "a revolutionary leader". Castro is "a former head of state, who originally achived power via armed revolution". Either he's retired or he's not... if he's retired, he's no longer a revolutionary leader. Or else, what did he retire from? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fidel Castro died on 16 June 2008 ???

According to South America radios, he is dead, a friend told me. My friend is 100% reliable, no doubt about it, but are these news reliable?... It could just be rumors, once more. --Kenelm Erfith (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rumors probably. --Izno (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why Batista is listed as a "dictator" and Fidel is not

"If Castro's regime isn't going to be labeled a "dictatorship", then neither should anyone else's." ~ Mike18xx

My comment here is directed towards Mike18xx and his continued insistence that Batista not be described as a "dictator" because of the fact that Fidel is not. Setting aside the logical fallacy of his argument, and the fact that Fidel does not meet the 'actual' definition of a "dictator" (that is not to say he didn't possibly rule as if he was one) whereas Batista does; I figured I would address the issue and point to its existence in the reputable Encyclopedia Britannica (hardly a "Leftist" bastion). According to their entries on the 2 men ....

Fidel Castro = "Political Leader"

Fulgencio Batista = "Dictator".

Now obviously Britannica is not the sole authority on the matter, but I do feel that from time to time, observance of long standing print Encyclopedia’s assertions can be a helpful tool in gauging the credibility of an assertion --- which someone postulates is "obvious."   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Redthoreau ("Red"+"Thoreau"? Hmm...>click<.... Woof! That's the most narcissistic user-page I've ever seen; It has ALL the "stars" except the one on the pavement in front of Grumman's Chinese Theatre. All it needs is an animated MySpace background pic. And he's a "CheBarnstar" award-winner! >guffaw< I can only imagine what worthy service rendered to the socialist cause that was received for. dig-dig-further...WTF? He created[31] the "star", and then awarded it to himself! ROFLMFAO. Yes; the very embodiment of narcissism! If those stars were actual medals, and Castro were wearing them on his uniform, he'd collapse under the weight! But, anyway, let's get back on track here....) has accused me of logical fallacies, I believe it is fair to point out that his entire rejoinder is couched upon the Argumentum ad Verecundiam logical fallacy. (I shall leave my full assessment of the general and increasing worthlessness of the Britannica's Latin American, among other, entries to another debate.) I am perfectly (in fact, more than) willing to describe BOTH Castro and Batista as dictators. Mike18xx (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)'

Since Mike18xx, ("Mike"+"18xx"? Hmm ... >click & scroll down< .... Bwahh, I get it now, you are trying to get blocked 18 times so your screen name will match. Lucky for you you only need 3 more to reach 18 ! If you want I can make you a "blocked 15 times Barnstar". Or if you like an "Meat Puppet of the Year" Award. As for the "red" that's my nickname and it has nothing to do with "communism" & Henry David Thoreau (hardly a "commie") is my favorite author ... but then again, I am apparently dealing with the "your name sounds Muslim" Mike18xx, who racks up incivility ANI's and personal attack RFC's like they were going out of style. But, anyway, let's get back on track here .... your recent pov edits have no basis and it is painfully obvious that you are only here to pov push, however I won't fall into your 3RR trap again like last time.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And what is an "actual" definition of a dictator? If he "ruled as one", he was a dictator. Just like Batista. BTW, wiki definition: "dictator is an authoritarian ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole power over his or her state". In what respect the power of Castro was not absolute? Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jakub, Most common definitions (in this context) center around an individual who "holds complete autocratic control" 1 or "holds absolute unrestricted control in a government" 2. Cuba under Castro has been a one-party socialist republic, and his role was President of the Council of State (itself a 31 member elected body) appointed by the 609 elected member National Assembly. Despite popular "demonizations" (which may or may not be justified) Fidel Castro has always been appointed by an elected body - and a "one party state" is not a predetermination of "dictatorship."   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Redthoreau, the formal mechanism of appointing of an official has nothing to do with the question, whether this official holds "complete autocratic control". It would be relevant, if the national assembly had REAL power to appoint someone else. The "elected body" argument - I don´t mean to be disrespectful, but that is almost a comical statement. I come from the Czech Republic, where we had 40 years of communist governement "elected" by 99% of voters. We are talking about real power distribution. ""One party state" is not a predetermination of "dictatorship." - true, sometimes there is a certain division of power between various groups within the party (as in my country between 1948-1989), but I don´t think that this applies to Cuba under Castro, whose position of power has been unchallenged. Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jakub, although I have no reason to doubt the hardships you may have experienced in the former Czechoslovakia, your experiences as you perceived them is not sufficient evidence to then formulate political hypothesis on the situation within Cuba WP:OR. Wikipedia relies solely on published material from reliable established sources WP:RS. If you are going to dispute the claims of the Encyclopedia Britannica, then you have a “high” threshold of corroborating evidence to surpass WP:V. Personal ruminations of what you deem “comedic” or your personal dislike for a “Communist” system (which all things considered may be justified on your part from your personal experiences) is nevertheless inadequate to alter a Wikipedic entry.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Redthoreau I used former Czechoslovakia as a historical example to reinforce my general point. I didn´t say it is an evidence of anything. My point was, that formal mechanism of appointing an official is irrelevant when judging the real power distribution. And the term dictator reffers to real power distribution (or in this case, lack of it). That is the argument you completely missed. To summarize, I don´t dispute "EB" argument, I dispute the "does not meet the definition" argument. Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Redthoreau, one more thought - I don´t believe that "dislike for a “Communist” system" is something that needs "justification" - it is a natural state of mind of any decent human being, who actually knows what "communist" systems really are. This is unrelated to the article, but you brought it up. Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What a joke. Are we going to do the same for OBL and everyone else as well? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen, I fail to see the "joke" you are referring to. Also, how is who I would assume you are implying, Osama Bin Laden relevant to the issue at hand? I am not aware of him being a dictator or even accused of being one? I would hope that other editors would review the above material and revert your recent reverts of myself (as I have no intention of a 3RR edit war with users who obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wiki policy). I have provided both a verifiable and reliable citation to describe Batista as a "dictator", and a corroborating one to show how Fidel is not identified as such. You have yet to provide any of the above, and your contributions to the discussion consists of an immature: "what a joke".   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I just finished reviewing "your" source - encyclopedia britannica entry about Fidel Castro. It states the following: "In the meantime Castro created a one-party government to exercise dictatorial control over all aspects of Cuba’s political, economic, and cultural life. All political dissent and opposition were ruthlessly suppressed." Since, as you very correctly put it, "from time to time, observance of long standing print Encyclopedia’s assertions can be a helpful tool in gauging the credibility of an assertion", I suggest that the assertion that Castro is a dictator, who ruthlessly suppressed political dissent and opposition, should be included in the article. Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone uses the nom-de-plume "Redthoreau" they are making their POV quite obvious. Anyone who has anything positive to say about any aspect of communism has obviously been living under a rock for the last 20 or so years. Roger (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Roger, nowhere here have I said "anything positive about communism" as you imply. My personal views towards communism are irrelevant to the edits I make, as they should be for yours as well. All wikipedia additions are supposed to be the verifiable and published ideas "of other" reliable sources, not ourselves ... thus your own "beliefs" should be a non-issue WP:SOAP. Apparently you see it differently.        Moreover, thank you for the "ground breaking" revelation that the Detroit Redwings, Cincinnati Reds, and Washington Redskins are in fact secretly "Communist" enterprises. It's nice to know that you are looking out for us. :o)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to protest "and ruled it as a dictatorship" that is shown in the top of this article. His offical title was "President of Cuba" and he was not officially a dictator, just because many in the main-stream media label him as such does not mean that he is. These complaints belong in a "Criticism and Praise" section and not in the introduction. It should be noted that there have been many commentators who have described modern Cuba as a "revolutionary democracy" or a "grass-roots democracy" (See the Article: Elections in Cuba) and as such there is not even a widespread consensus of people calling him a dictator. To note another thing discussed alongside this debate, Batista did officially call himself a dictator and so he can officially be called one. I also wish to protest the tone of the introduction that hints that Cuba was a Soviet satellite state, the two nations where military and trading allies but Cuba was independent in its own right. As can be evidenced by Fidel and the government of Cuba's continued support for the Non-Aligned Movement, calling Cuba a satellite of the USSR is like calling Canada a satellite of the U.S.A (something of an opinion and not an offical statement). I hope that my protests are noticed and taken seriously, thank you. Comrade Graham (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comrade Graham, all of your critiques have merit, and match the overwhelming preponderance of reliable historical evidence ... however I expect that a few of the more (let's call them) “spirited” editors here are going to discount your views carte blanche because you have the suffix "Comrade" in your name. Hell, they were ready to recommend my inclusion onto the Hollywood blacklist for simply using the ambiguous and apparently sinister color "red".    Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Graham, two points:

• I would agree to a dispute as to whether Castro ruled as a dictator from the government inception in 1959. However your fine distinction as to what the ruler was termed (essentially by themself) is not particularly relevant. Wikipedia is all about what most people would recognize as the correct term and in particular what reliable sources can be found in support of the term. To that end, the sources in the thread above do support the application of the term "dictator". Qualitatively, Fidel at some point moved beyond ruling as chairman of a Council of State into the position of sole voice of the government, thus a dictator. Did anyone in a position of power oppose him after the revolution? Did they get put in jail? That's how you begin to define dictatorship - and I won't even try to define it! We have to look to reliable second- and third-party sources, neither my opinion nor the official title of the President are definitive.
• Satellite state - I could understand your objection if that were the actual wording in the article. I checked that out carefully myself, the actual wording in this article is "client state". The underlying link goes to satellite state but reading of the linked article leads to a definition for client state which I for one agree properly defines Cuba over some decades. To me, "satellite" state implies being subjected to influence, i.e. some other country interferes with the choice of government or constitution and I rather doubt anyone from the Soviet Union ever told Castro "do X or else Y". In economic terms however, Cuba certainly qualified as a "client" state. As I've noted elsewhere on this page, the USSR was definitely a satellite of Cuba, but equally, Cuba was a client of the USSR. The term is properly defined within the link, so I think client state is appropriate wording.

Still room left for my signature :) Franamax (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Client State, does seem to fit the description of Cuba's trade and military roles with the USSR but we do not want Cuba to be confused with some of the Eastern European states where they had to listen to Moscow or else. However I am willing to let that one slide, people should be smart enough to notice the difference. I will also concede that Fidel Castro held an extreme amount of influence over the government of Cuba since the revolution until last February, and his vast powers should indeed be mentioned. Maybe instead of "who became that country's 22nd president and ruled it as a dictatorship from January 1959 until his retirement in February 2008" it could be "who became that country's 22nd president and held an extreme amount of authority over the countries affairs (which some have classified as a dictatorial) from January 1959 until his retirement in February 2008"? Or something like that, that shows some public opinion but also the offical stance of the Cuban government. If it was entirely based on public opinion then it would be possible to ascribe anyone as a dictator, from Margaret Thatcher to Hugo Chavez. I would also like to thank both of you for your objective take on my protests, very well spirited and a compliment to Wikipedia. I am aware that I use the user name "Comrade Graham" at my own risk, but the way I see it: it is their problem if they look to deeply into a title and not the words of my argument. Thank you again. Comrade Graham (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has gone over the introduction to this article. I am happy with it now. Thank you guys. Comrade Graham (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not. That is just RedThoreau starting another edit war. One would think that one block was enough... Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.88.50 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Absurd

Batista was "a dictator" and Castro "a revolutionary leader"? How neutral... It is also interesting to compare the tone of this article with the tone of Pinochet article. Wikipedia is really pathetic when it comes to modern history.

Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected leadership (and democractic country with multiple parties and free and fair elections), broke the democratic cycle in his country, and replaced it with military rule. Castro overthrew a military rule, put in place a constitution with a parliament and elections. Sure, its a one party system and I am not going to argue human rights issues but you cant compare Pinochet to Castro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.126.207 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Absurd that you feel the need to start a new thread? --Izno (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore it. Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My reverts of Mike18xx

To clarify my reasons for reversion:

• [32] Castro was involved in politics before guerilla warfare. Using the "dictator" wording is POV and unnecessary for both leaders. The reader can draw the conclusion from the facts. Furthermore, to state that Castro ruled as a dictator from the beginning in 1959 would need better references than those discussed above - the Britannica ref discussed above does not support Castro having ruled as a dictator from January 1959.
• [33] Again, Castro did not rule a Soviet satellite in January 1959, this is a bald distortion of history.

Yeah, those MISSILES just showed up courtesy of Santa's sleigh one night. Gimme a break. The Soviets didn't make Castro, but he was theirs nonetheless.--Mike18xx (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the 1400 men the CIA helped land at the Bay of Pigs were just tourists. What else do you do to protect yourself from a foreign power that you know is willing to mount invasions? And considering the vast economic benefit Cuba gained from the relationship, I'd say it's more like the Soviet Union was a satellite of Cuba. :) I'm OK with your current wording, "client state during the Cold War" - I think that expresses it quite well. Franamax (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• [34] The dab of a redirect is unnecessary. The cited ref specifically states "sworn in as" the Prime Minister, thus this change is unnecessary. Thus I will reinstate my reversion, relying on the previous edit summary "POV, unneccessary edits + match ref 'sworn in as' ". Franamax (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am in favor of describing both Castro and Batista as dictators. I don´t see how it´s POV - next time we will call holocaust "a controversial policy regarding jewish right to live" to make it NPOV. On the other hand, I agree it may not be correct to date soviet satellite dictatorship from January 1959.--Jakub

This all got started because RedThoreau was insistent upon labeling Batista a dictator, but not Castro, a nonsensical disparity I observe Franamax wasn't in an edit-war over in the week prior to me editing this article. Obviously this is yet another instance of it being OK, in the opinion of some editors, to portray purportedly US-allied strongmen as dictators, but not socialist/communist/darlings-of-the-left ones.--Mike18xx (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you won't generally see me in an edit war 'cause I think they're mostly futile. I watched the RedThoreau thread, there were lots of people on the case. I take it you've now labelled me as a commie-lover whose opinion is therefore worthless? Maybe I shouldn't tell you then I have no great objection to the two men being either both labelled dictator or neither. Franamax (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be both or neither. Roger (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it Ruz or is it Ruiz?

My memory is from a visit to Cuba in 2003 during a museum tour. There was a document with a list of people arrested. Both Fidel and Raul were listed on the document - Fidel Castro Ruiz and Raul Castro Ruiz. Dang, I knew I should have taken a picture of the document!  :)

• [-- as a response, you can see his signature at http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/octubre/lun13/Reflections-13oct.html --] * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acomes (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To Do list edit

I am reading Castro's biography by Ignacio Ramonez and am looking for ways to improve the article. I removed "Fix discrepancy of Fidel Castro's letter to FDR. He was born in Aug 1926 but the letter is dated Nov 1940, which means he was 14 when he wrote it. But in the letter and the caption it says he is 12." from the To Do list. In the biography "My Life" Castro confirms he was born 13 August 1926 as the article says. The letter is clearly dated Nov, 1940 and the State Department stamp confirms that. (In his biography Castro recollects that he wrote the letter in 1939, so it looks like he doesn't recall the year correctly.) It seems the only explanation is that he got his age wrong on the letter. Therefore I don't believe anything in the article needs to be corrected. Zatoichi26 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)castro!!!!!

Biased This is obviously written by a Communist sympithisor as the introduction convenaintly forgot he was a dictator who brutally suppressed internal opposition, but luck it remembered he was a great revolutionary leader! Is this why it was blocked. Can you imagine someone writing an article about a Nazi and forgetting to mention he was a murderer, and then blocking users from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.100.101 (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The D word again

Against consensus, some editors seem hell-bent on calling Castro a dictator. Please justify here, with sources, the assertion that Castro was a dictator. Be sure that these sources are authoritative enough to put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt, since otherwise to call Castro a dictator is clearly not presenting things in a neutral point of view. These sources must also overcome the seemingly enormous popularity Castro had among a large segment of the Cuban population, particularly in his early years immediately following the revolution. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

describing Castro as dictator isn't an insult or a putdown, or saying that he didn't have some popularity, even a dictator needs a powerbase. Dictator is a term that is a factual description of a ruler who may or may not have seized power through a coup, but rules as absolute ruler. Also an outlawing of opposition and lack of free and fair elections also shows the presence of a dictatorship like in Cuba. It doesn't matter if some people can vote like party members, if the regime controles and limits who can run in elections that is not a free and fair election. As a rule in communist states which are one-party states are dictatorships, and it doesn't matter what they choose to call themselves, be it president or prime minister of General Secretary, they are dictators if they rule as absolute ruler over a one party state. Also, when there are massive human rights violations and the expelling of political opponents as happened in the Mariel Harbor incident in 1980, that is a good indication that it is probably not a democracy. If Battista is called a dictator and all he lacks are the windowdressing that Castro has that just enables his powerbase to vote, why is Casto called a "revolutionary leader"? (Alex2706 (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Actually, Batista is not called a dictator in this article. Nevertheless, there are exceptionally reliable sources that confirm that Batista was a dictator. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, calls Batista a dictator in the first line, whereas it does not mention this in the article on Castro. But of course, this is not an article about Batista, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. We will go with what WP:NPOV tells us to do here: go with what the majority of sources say. If the majority of sources (or a large number of reliable secondary and tertiary sources) refer to Castro as a dictator, then we can do it here. Otherwise, it is totally inappropriate to do so, regardless of your arguments about the merits and demerits of the term apropos of Cuba's system of government. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Britannica states that "In the meantime Castro created a one-party government to exercise dictatorial control over all aspects of Cuba’s political, economic, and cultural life. All political dissent and opposition were ruthlessly suppressed."

So if we did not call him a dictator, but include information of him exercising dictatorial control, would that satisfy you? Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.207 (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked around for definitions of "dictator", including our uncited but informative dictator article. Castro seems to meet some of the criteria. The question revolves around whether he was able to enact changes by personal diktat or whether he gained agreement from the co-rulers / council of state / whatever - and of course we don't have insight on this, as Cuba is a rather closed society. Since there are multiple (some being POV) sources proclaiming Castro a dictator, this information should be included, but not necessarily as the primary label. Basically, per the IP editor Jakub immediately above. Franamax (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He suks for not letting the country be free —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.81.116 (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

African ancestry?

I am not 100% sure about this one, but it is believed by some that Fidel Castro has some African ancestry from his mother's side. I am aware that his father was from Galicia, Spain, and his mother may have had Galician ancestry as well; however, this does not eliminate the possibility of her being of mixed ancestry. Here is a website that makes note of this possibility:

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/aboutacw.htm

Hopefully this will be taken under consideration.69.235.143.22 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC) James Lopez

Castro a communist, dictator, killer and violator of human rights and freedom

Batista was a President and Prime Minister. Castro is a Dictator a Communist and a Killer who violates the human rights of the people of Cuba.

Quite simply, no. Feel free to view the archives of this page if the arguments are not already laid out on this one for why this is not how the article is structured. --Izno (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

i can see the gusano liars are out tonight. your haciendas now belong to the cuban people. enjoy miami.170.170.59.139 (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Political beginnings

The 1948 Bogota incident seems to be missing from the article.
During the 9th Inter-American Conference in Bogota (March 30-May 2, 1948), there was an uprising during which Castro and team took over the radio station and announced that this is a communist revolution, I am Fidel Castro.
Suggested reading for an account of the Bogota uprising: Nathaniel Weyl, 'Red Star over Cuba' This would also put to rest the question whether it was known (or could/should have been know) in 1958/59 that Fidel was a communist. --nt351 december 18, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nt351 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any photographic revidence that Castro was still alive after the summer of 2006?

Is there any photographic revidence that Castro was still alive after the summer of 2006?

I added the category "Possibly living people" to the article because I can't find any such evidence. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. TV appearance in Oct 2007 [35] and in summer 2008 (which I just happen to remember).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. However, that is from the Cuban media, and could be older than what is claimed. Does the Associated Press have any photos of him from after the summer of 2006? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this link [36] provided below ([37]) please your concerns? Sure, it's from last Wednesday and therefore maybe not "up-to-date"?!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Excommunication

Fidel Castro was already, like all evidence shows, a atheist, when he was excommunicated, in a mere symbolic act.Mistico (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nvertheless I believe it remains a notable fact. In the Catholic church excommunication is a very serious matter and entails a formal procedure. It is not at all comparable to a church member simply deciding to stop attending. He is formally forbidden to have any contact with the church and vice versa. Roger (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable fact for whom? I'm catholic and don't see it as a big deal [oops, I just "outed" myself (I guess}]. My point is that it might be a "big" deal for the Catholic Church and some of their members but it isn't one in the mainstream.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

20,000 killed by Batista

this article should mention this crime. that way you can know why fidel felt that firing squads were needed. i have been to cuba and seen the images of batistas dungeons. that is part of the story for why castro then uses the death penalty. althouhg yes i admit he probably killed to many.170.170.59.139 (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems more suitable to edit Batista's page with such (reliable sourced?) claim's instead of giving excuses for Fidel's actions. Sure, some could be mentioned here if proper sourced. But no original research, please.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a great book out now called "How the Mob Owned Cuba and Then Lost It to the Revolution" By T.J. English. it should be used for this article. Wash Post review 137.52.150.129 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The mobsters Meyer Lansky, Santo Trafficante, Thomas Lucchese and Lucky Luciano + their goons, were the real rulers of Batista's Cuba which was America's whorehouse and casino, and thus the ones that Fidel and Che were removing from power with violence. 137.52.150.129 (talk)

this why Castro needed to fire squad the guilty gusanos. watch and learn ...

fidel punishes war criminals 137.52.150.252 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Siblings

All eight of his siblings are stated in the present tense, which, if correct, means they are all alive. However, it is statistically improbable that not one of his siblings has died. Are they really all still living? Were there ever any other siblings (half or full), in addition to those mentioned in the article, that are now dead? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Castro sends farewell message?

Just seen this in the telegraph, Castro is quoted as saying ""I'm well, but I insist that no-one should feel obligated by... my ailing health or my death." which the telegraph are interpreting as a farewell message. Martin451 (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be worked into the article although we have to be careful about describing it as a "farewell message" since this is just the opinion of the source.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mother's background

In this article is quoted that the Fidel Castro's mother, Lina Ruz, has a Galician background, like his father has. For that, the reference quoted is: Bockman, Larry James (April 1 1984). "The Spirit Of Moncada: Fidel Castro's Rise To Power, 1953 - 1959". Retrieved on 2006-06-13.

But in this book is said any details about the origin of Lina Ruz, apart from being Spanish. Actually, if we try to approach this question indirectly, searching the geographical presence of this odd name in current Spain, we found that 45% of appearances are in two Eastern provinces of Andalusia, Córdoba (33%) and Granada (11%), but in Galicia we only found no-pattern appearances, in rates lower than 0.5% in the overall Spain.

I don't know what I have to do, whether delete any reference to Galician background, because it's a very unlikely fact, or just to ask for an accurate quotation. I'll do the second option, meantime. --Xabier Cid (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got another source:- *Szulc, Tad. 1986. Fidel - A Critical Portrait. Hutchinson. ISBN 0091726026 p.59 (quote) There is something of a mystery about the first Senora de Castro, and about the circumstances of Angel Castro's second marriage. All the published accounts about the Castro family are extremely sketchy (Fidel likes to keep it that way), but they coincide in affirming that Maria Argota de Castro died shortly after her second child was born. Juana Castro, Fidel's younger sister, insists however that her father either divorced or simply left Maria (this point is unclear, since actual divorces in rural Catholic families in Cuba in the 1920s were most uncommon). Juana Castro says also that this first wife lived very long, dying well after the revolution. Angel Castro's second wife, the mother of Fidel and his six sisters and brothers, was Lina Ruz Gonzalez, a woman easily twenty-five years younger than the Biran landowner. She appears to have been born in the westernmost province of Pinar del Rio, and her daughter Emma once described her as 'a Cuban for a long time', presumably meaning that her parents were not first-generation immigrants from Spain. Juana says her mother was from 'the most humble origins', but it is unknown when and why she had come to Oriente. According to most published versions Lina worked as a cook or a maid in the Castro household while Maria Argota de Castro was still in residence. Fidel says that his maternal grandparents had moved 'one thousand kilometres in a cart' from Pinar del Rio to Oriente at the start of the century, with Lina and their other children. The grandparents were extremely poor and according to Fidel, Lina's father and his two brothers drove ox carts transporting cane from the fields to mills. It is unknown what happened to Grandfather Ruz, but Fidel recalls that his maternal grandmother lived about one kilometre from the Biran house and that she had even gone to Havana with Lina after the revolution in 1959.(end quote).Everyone happy?PeterWD (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuba under Batista

Fidel was able to overthrow the dictator Batista because of several conditions in the country. These caused widespread resentment for Batista and his US and mafia backed oligarchy. Such conditions were:

• Americans owned 70 % of the arable land.

• 1% of the population controlled 46 % of the wealth.

• Batista's goons and secret police killed 20,000 Cubans (tortured even more).

• 67 % of the population were illiterate.

• 50 % of the population lived in Bohio shacks.

• Dissidents were hung and left to dangle in the streets as a warning sign.

• The Mafia (Meyer Lansky & Co) ran Havana and used Cuba as a whorehouse for rich gringos from the U.S.

ALL THESE FACTS SHOULD BE ADDED to the article and I can source each one of them in the near future or feel free to yourself. They are easily verifiable. gracias. 137.52.150.252 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Add sources for those here, and for the number of those killed by Fulgencio Batista and his regime to Batista's article. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Corruption in Cuba AfD

Corruption in Cuba is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corruption_in_Cuba. So far it's just me (the nominator) and the article's creator. More input would be appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet split

Shouldn't we include castro's stand on the sino-soviet split and cultural revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.190.162 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is everyone silent on this issue? We should clearly state his differences with the Chinese block and mention that he helped the USSR to crush many ongoing revolutionary movements and supported Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. 203.196.190.162 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions by User:Cosmic Latte

The editor Cosmic Latte (talk · contribs) wants to delete:

• A reference to Mr. Castro's second largest foreign operation, 20,000 troops sent to support Mr. Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia. (Samuel M. Makinda. Superpower diplomacy in the Horn of Africa. / Susan Eva Eckstein. Back from the Future.)
• A reference to Mr. Castro's Latinobarómetro rating.("Latinobarómetro Poll: Latin Americans, Despite Stereotype, Are Political Moderates". January 10, 2007.)
• A reference to Mr. Castro's press freedom policies. ("The new predators of press freedom". Reporters Without Borders.)

Given that he wants to retain trivia such as "Cardinal Jaime Lucas Ortega y Alamino led the mass and welcomed Castro, who was dressed in a black suit, expressing his gratitude for the "heartfelt way the death of our Holy Father John Paul II was received (in Cuba)", deletions he has made appear extremely inappropriate. Luis Napoles (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already responded to this--somewhat preemptively, one could say--on L.N.'s talk page:

It might be good to keep in mind #13 of WP:LAWS (not official policy or anything, but a good summary of WP:NPOV by the WP:FAC director): "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." We're only human, and our personal views will inevitably shine through at times (I'm guessing that you could infer--and infer correctly--that my views on the topic at hand are quite different from yours), but we really ought to minimize their impact on the tone of encyclopedic articles. Before adding/removing/altering material, you might want to ask yourself why you want to add/remove/alter it. Do you want to sway the reader's opinion, or rather to inform the reader of enough relevant angles on a topic that the reader can form an educated opinion on his own? If your intention is the latter, then you are doing something encyclopedic; if it is the former, then, well, not so much. I'll assume that edits such as this one were intended to benefit the project, but I think that, if those edits stem more from a desire to influence people's opinions than from a desire to enable them, then the intention is misguided. Either way, this sort of edit has some serious problems. For example, you added the phrases, "Castro aided Equitorial Guinea, 'one of the world's most repressive regimes'" and "Castro backed Saddam Hussein, even after Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and the Soviet Union sided with the West", and attributed these views to one Susan Eva Eckstein. However, a single author's views on a peripheral topic (i.e., in this case, the activities of other countries) can be WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP, especially when those views shed negative and controversial light upon the actual focus of the article. The fact that one author holds negative views of Castro, Equitorial Guinea, and Saddam Hussein does not mean that a meaningful (e.g., ideological or causal) negative connection necessarily exists among them. For one thing, other authors may disagree with Eckstein about any or all of those three topics. But it is not even clear that Eckstein has meaningfully theorized about any such connections. Even if Equitorial Guinea was "one of the world's most repressive regimes", what would this have to do with Castro's "aid" (whatever sort of "aid" that might have been)? Did he say anything to the effect of, "Well, I'm a repressive bloke, and there's one repressive nation, so it's only natural that I form some alliances with them"? And how do the invasion of Kuwait or the alliances of the ailing USSR contrast with--you used the words "even after", implying that there was a paradox--Castro's "backing" (whatever that, too, might mean) of Hussein? Did Castro ever imply that the events of 1991 would temper his support of Hussein? If not, then why mention these events? Is the reader supposed to assume (on either Eckstein's account or yours) that the invasion of Kuwait was "bad" or that Castro was a hypocrite for not agreeing with the USSR's every move? If so, then the argument is at best contentious, and at worst an effort to influence opinions rather than to enable them from a distance.

I also don't see how the reaction of one notable person (Castro) to the death of another (the Pope) qualifies as "trivia", but even if it did, it would not be libellous, and per WP:BLP extra discretion must be used when adding biographical content that sheds negative light upon its subject. Furthermore, Castro's reaction to the Pope's death is biographical information about Castro, whereas the the political histories of Ethiopia, Iraq, and Equitorial Guinea are not, at least insofar as you have demonstrated. If you wish to include digressions about the nature of these countries, you should be able to demonstrate a meaningful (causal, logical, ideological, etc.) relationship between that nature, on the one hand, and Castro on the other. Without doing so, you leave it to the reader's imagination to make the connection, thereby verging on WP:OR, and most certainly violating WP:BLP when the implied connection amounts to an indictment of a living individual. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the other sources, one must always be careful when relying upon information that is primary (WP:PSTS) or self-published (WP:SPS), especially when dealing with a BLP, and especially when the biographical subject is not the main subject of the source, as is the case with the Latinobarómetro poll. The theme of the poll is that "Latin Americans, despite stereotype, are political moderates", not that "Fidel Castro is disliked in Latin America" (which was, in any case, a simplistic blanket statement that did not account for the diversity of views about him, indicate the extent to which he is "disliked", or explain what "disliked" even means in that poll). If you wish to cite the poll, you need to make it clear that it is only one poll (i.e., a primary source rather than a meta-analysis or some other secondary work that addresses the topic from a better vantage point) and that Castro's mention in this one poll is secondary to that poll's political-moderation theme. You would need to qualify and quantify the term "disliked". You would also need to do all of this without violating WP:SS, WP:UNDUE, or WP:BLP. And this, I think, could be quite a challenge. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"U.S.-backed Cuban Dictator" (Batista)

User: Luis Napoles has attempted to remove the above information recently claiming:

"Not in the journalist source and even if it was it would be far too controversial per WP:LEAD".

Now leaving aside the fact that the NPR audio report (i.e. the "Source") I utilized the given link ---> (click on the first "Listen Now") states in the first 13 seconds (00:9-00:13) this EXACT verbatim phrase ... in anticipation of a likely deletion forthcoming again, per - WP:VERIFY - I figured I would utilize this talk page to list "several" sources which corroborate the phrase "U.S.-backed Dictator" in reference to Fulgencio Batista.

The following below are all book titles (accessible by Google books) followed by the page number and verbatim phrase contained within the source:

Cuba: idea of a nation displaced - page 77 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Born in blood and fire: a concise history of Latin America‎ - Page 262 .... "US -backed military dictatorship"

The Columbia history of Latinos in the United States since 1960‎ - Page 149 .... "US -backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Breaking the real axis of evil: how to oust the world's last dictators by 2025‎ - Page 231 .... "overthrow of the US -backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista"

America's other war: terrorizing Colombia‎ - Page 27 .... "overthrowing the US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

The Puerto Rican movement: voices from the diaspora‎ - Page 39 .... "the fall of US -backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Rockets and Missiles: The Life Story of a Technology‎ - Page 74 .... "overthrown US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia‎ - Page 157 .... "against US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Encyclopedia of Latino popular culture‎ - Page 75.... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Greenwood Dictionary of World History‎ - Page 41 .... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Che Guevara: In Search of Revolution‎ - Page 46 .... "US -backed Cuban government led by Fulgencio Batista"

Perils of Empire: The Roman Republic and the American Republic‎ - Page 127 .... "the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Cold War, 1945-1991: Leaders and other important figures in the Soviet Union - Page 134 .... "Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista … against the US-backed Batista regime"

Facts about the 20th century‎ - Page 285 .... "overthrew US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Latino/a Thought: Culture, Politics, and Society‎ - Page 542 .... "oust the US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Cuba and the coming American Revolution‎ - Page 65 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press‎ - Page 122 .... "with Fulgencio Batista, the US-backed dictator"

Children of Cain: violence and the violent in Latin America‎ - Page 111 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Iraq war: causes and consequences‎ - Page 36 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Robert F. Kennedy and the death of American idealism‎ - Page 54 .... "The US -backed dictator, General Fulgencio Batista"

Changing the history of Africa: Angola and Namibia‎ - Page 105 .... "US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Endless enemies: the making of an unfriendly world‎ - Page 256 .... "Fulgencio Batista, the US -backed dictator"

If you don't prefer books, a quick web search also lists these web articles from the

Telegraph ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Reuters ... "overthrow U.S.-backed dictator"

Washington Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Capitalism Magazine = (now there's a bastion of Communism) ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Boston Globe ... "US-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

CNN ... "toppled a longstanding U.S.-backed dictator."

Irish Times ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

BBC ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

National Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator"

Miami Herald ... "U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Now Luis Napoles, I trust that you would agree that listing all of the above ref's in the lead might "be a bit much", thus if you can not provide any evidence to dispute this well known and accepted historical fact (which I document above) per Wp:Undue, WP:Verify, Wp:Reliable - and if there is not editor Wp:Consensus to dispute the above material or its inclusion - then please refrain from removing this important historical detail from the article going forward. Thanks   Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fidél Castro?

Sporadically I've seen Fidel Castro spelled as Fidél Castro. Unlike his brother's name (Raúl), I don't see why Fidel has the accent on the e. Is there any basis to this or is it just an error? --Mrdie (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Npov? Have recent additions unbalanced WP:Undue

In my view the article has never been in that great of shape, and always needed a great deal of work. However, I fear that in the last few days, the (potentially) Wp:Pov edits primarily by User:Luis Napoles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc - may be transforming this article into a partisan critique in violation of Wp:Undue, Wp:NPOV, & Wp:NOTADVOCATE. Just as the overall credibility of Wikipedia does not benefit from out of proportion hagiographic worship, it is also not served well by politically motivated demonizations in contradiction to the majority of Wp:Reliable sources. Reading the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Fidel Castro and then reading the current entry as it stands, makes it obvious (I believe) that this present version has ventured out of proportion in regards to an overall assessment of this WP:BLP (until he's confirmed to be dead) - which as you know has an even higher threshold in regards to negative attributions than other articles. What are the views of other editors on this matter?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in general agreement. In fact, if I may suggest, the entire article should be trimmed down, and not just the negative additions. There's a lot here that duplicates information you could find in History of Cuba, for example. This might be a good opportunity to narrow the scope of the article to specifically him, rather than what he's done as a leader. --Izno (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree also. My overall impression is that Luis Napoles has a personal slant things (as do we all) and inserts a little too much POV. Izno, I'm not sure how easy it will be to narrow the scope, since the man and the country are so intertwined, but I do agree that there seems to be lots of fat that can be cut - however, what Castro has done as a leader needs to stay. Franamax (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with the consensus on this. This article isn't up to the standard of BLP. The whole article looks like its been written by some really angry Cuban exile sitting in Miami thinking about his family's farm, and the latest edits exacerbate this impression. The tone should be more neutral, maybe with moving some of the negative in the controversies section. If I was a carpenter (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV all significant controversies must be included, and what most organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say about his rule is definitely significant. As you can see, Redthoreau did not make a single suggestions what he exactly wants to do, because he knows that he can't remove the short human rights section.Luis Napoles (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis is clearly an anti-Castroist propagandist. All of his edits should be watched closely. He would make Goebbels blush. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis is the only recent editor who is not a Castro bootlicker. Without his contributions this article will be a hagiography of "Saint Fidel the Infallible". Balance cuts both ways! Roger (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to just before Luis originally added the information. --Izno (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Izno here. While its fine to have some criticism those edits seemed a bit much...lets just keep it from swinging too far the other way. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty reports should be mentioned. I also agree the article could be trimmed down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtadoc (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

clean up

the attack on moncada barracks needs cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.147.218 (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fidel tried a respectable marriage, which failed; he tried respectable politics, which failed".

This is a blatant character opinion. Objectivity is at stake with the opinion of Jorge Vallis. Needs to be removed, or a more objective portray of fidel's marriage should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merixcoatl20 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this does present a POV. It is, however apparently a quote from a third party source. What the source says may or may not be true, but that is not the criterion for inclusion in wikipedia. Here is what WP: Verifiability says about the issue: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I think that if the source meets the criterion, it should be allowed to remain, but I recommend that a second, reliable source, possibly with a different POV be added to the section, if it can be found. On a separate note, the Georgie Anne Geyer footnote is imprecise, lacks proper page citation, and would need to be fixed. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Citing Oliver Stone Film

Citing an Oliver Stone film as a legitimate source of Castro's religious beliefs is like citing Alice in Wonderland as a source about the behavior of queens. Is it really appropriate to cite an Oliver Stone film in a Wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.25.123 (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not the most authoritative of sources, maybe a better one can be found. However, if the Oliver Stone Documentary showed that the quote is indeed, Castro's, it would become extremely authoritative. Problem is, the footnote does not in the least point to a source, but only a general Wikipedia discussion of what Youtube is, so it is useless and we cannot confirm the truth of the section. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

US Support for Batista

The claim of US support for Batista early in the article is tendentious and wrong. It is there only to express a POV.

Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of Cuban history knows that Batista lost US support after his second coup as that nature of his governance became clear. But for those who are unaware of this, I offered in support of my change a simple, brief, and accessible citation: http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=695

   "By the Spring of 1958 ... the dictator had
    lost the support of the US, which would not intervene.
    The US was waiting for the end of Batista's term in February, 1959,
    in hopes that a free government would be created.
    Only his army and police kept him in power."

Please restore my change, which improves both the accuracy and NPOV of the article.

Cerberus (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cerberus, despite the fact that the given link ---> (click on the first "Listen Now") begins in the first 13 seconds (00:9-00:13) with this EXACT verbatim phrase i.e. "U.S.-backed Dictator Batista" ... per - WP:VERIFY & Wp:RS - I figured I would list "several" additional sources which corroborate the phrase "U.S.-backed Dictator" in reference to Fulgencio Batista:

The following below are all book titles (accessible by Google books) followed by the page number and verbatim phrase contained within the source:

Cuba: idea of a nation displaced - page 77 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Born in blood and fire: a concise history of Latin America‎ - Page 262 .... "US -backed military dictatorship"

The Columbia history of Latinos in the United States since 1960‎ - Page 149 .... "US -backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Breaking the real axis of evil: how to oust the world's last dictators by 2025‎ - Page 231 .... "overthrow of the US -backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista"

America's other war: terrorizing Colombia‎ - Page 27 .... "overthrowing the US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

The Puerto Rican movement: voices from the diaspora‎ - Page 39 .... "the fall of US -backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Rockets and Missiles: The Life Story of a Technology‎ - Page 74 .... "overthrown US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia‎ - Page 157 .... "against US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Encyclopedia of Latino popular culture‎ - Page 75.... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Greenwood Dictionary of World History‎ - Page 41 .... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Che Guevara: In Search of Revolution‎ - Page 46 .... "US -backed Cuban government led by Fulgencio Batista"

Perils of Empire: The Roman Republic and the American Republic‎ - Page 127 .... "the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Cold War, 1945-1991: Leaders and other important figures in the Soviet Union - Page 134 .... "Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista … against the US-backed Batista regime"

Facts about the 20th century‎ - Page 285 .... "overthrew US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Latino/a Thought: Culture, Politics, and Society‎ - Page 542 .... "oust the US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Cuba and the coming American Revolution‎ - Page 65 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press‎ - Page 122 .... "with Fulgencio Batista, the US-backed dictator"

Children of Cain: violence and the violent in Latin America‎ - Page 111 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Iraq war: causes and consequences‎ - Page 36 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Robert F. Kennedy and the death of American idealism‎ - Page 54 .... "The US -backed dictator, General Fulgencio Batista"

Changing the history of Africa: Angola and Namibia‎ - Page 105 .... "US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Endless enemies: the making of an unfriendly world‎ - Page 256 .... "Fulgencio Batista, the US -backed dictator"

If you don't prefer books, a quick web search also lists these web articles from the

Telegraph ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Reuters ... "overthrow U.S.-backed dictator"

Washington Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Capitalism Magazine = (now there's a bastion of Communism) ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Boston Globe ... "US-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

CNN ... "toppled a longstanding U.S.-backed dictator."

Irish Times ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

BBC ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

National Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator"

Miami Herald ... "U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Now Cerberus,... I trust that you would agree that listing all of the above ref's in the lead might "be a bit much". Moreover, we are here to document the consensus of the reliable sources, thus if the overwhelming majority of sources reflect a general opinion i.e. “Batista was a U.S.-backed dictator", then our goal is for the article to reflect this view = that is WP:NPOV (and my view on the matter is irrelevant, as is yours). They clearly use the phrase "U.S.-backed dictator" solely (in fact I could have sourced this to hundreds more books and articles). Lastly, anyone with this "minimal knowledge of Cuban history" that you speak of, would know that Batista had U.S. support for nearly 16 of the 17 years he was in power, the fact that Uncle Sam pulled the plug at the end as his regime was about to collapse does not change the pre-existing reality that he was kept in power for many of those years thanks to large quantities of U.S. supplied military equipment.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you did not address the point made in the citation I provided. The problem is that the article says this:

     "Castro came to power as a result of the Cuban revolution
     that overthrew the U.S.-backed[7] dictatorship of Fulgencio
     Batista,"

which suggests that the US was backing Batista against the revolution (among other things) up to the time of the overthrow. But as the quote I gave you points out, the US had withdrawn its support of Batista. It is well documented for example that the US was refusing arms to Batista. (Do you dispute this? If not, what exactly kind of "backing" is that?) So the problem is that, as written, the article is misleading on this score. Please address the specific criticism. The prior support given by the US to Batista is not relevant to this specific difficulty with the article. And as you must know on such controversial topics, journalistic references are practically useless. Please cite history books or academic papers, and address specifically the withdrawal of US support for Batista. For example, on p.235 of Cuba and the United States by Louis A. Pérez we find this: "In 1958, the Batista acquired one more adversary: the United States." If you do not know this, you should. If you do know this, you are pushing POV and not facts. Cerberus (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cerberus, I more than addressed your point, and initial citation from an obscure non-notable website by what looks to be an unpublished author (the site did have a 50 % off ad for a "Murderball" DVD though). The U.S. backed Batista for all intents and purposes from 1933-1944, and then 1952-1958. The fact that they pulled military aid as his regime was on the verge of collapse from a popular insurrection, does not negate this well documented fact. When Batista bombed the guerrillas in the Sierra Maestra, he did so with U.S. supplied planes. Nearly all of the guns and tanks that the Batista regime utilized against the 26JM were US supplied as was the majority of equipment utilized by Batista's BRAC & secret police. But most of this is irrelevant, as we are only here to document what the reliable sources say on the matter with respect to WP:Undue weight. What is indisputable is that nearly all sources state (I document many above) that "Fidel overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator Batista" ... whether this is "true" according to Cerberus, or a small number of dissenting authors doesn't matter. What you are attempting to do is conduct Wp:OR which is not allowed, by "correcting" the historical account yourself (which is not what we are here to do).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The revolution began against a US-backed dictatorship. For most of the duration of the dictatorship, the regime had US backing, including recognition of Batista's government immediately after the coup. The fine details of exactly when Batista lost US support can be (and are) covered in other detailed articles. For the article on Castro, it's sufficient to recognize the overwhelming number of RS that RedThoreau presents. I fail to see how this is pushing some particular POV. Franamax (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask if you are aware who Louis A. Pérez is? If you are, then you should be very bothered that one gets a different impression reading him than reading this part of the article. If you are not, you should not be editing the details of this article, imo. A single quote from Louis A. Pérez outweighs dozens of quotes from less scholarly sources. (Of course, many decent histories supply these same facts, which are well known even outside the history books, although not well known among journalists. For example, in his book Contesting Castro, Thomas G. Paterson quotes (p.192) Ambassador Smith as saying "We are credited in Cuba with the very thing we seek to avoid, intervention". This highlights that the US was attempting to be *neutral* (i.e., was *not* backing Batista against Castro).

The quotes I have given you support the point I have been making---a point you have simply dodged. The *implication* of the article is wrong with your preferred phrasing. Since this is obvious (once one knows the relevant history) *why* do you prefer it? It is *not* a fine detail to imply that the US was backing Batista against Castro; far from it.

How does it convey a POV? I cannot tell if you are serious with this question. The vision of Castro defeating a US **backed** dictator is very different from Castro defeating a dictator that has lost US support---a dictatorship to which the US refuses to supply arms even as it is under seige. It is part of Castro myth building, which should not be a Wikipedia project. Cerberus (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cerberus, I am well aware of who Louis A. Pérez is (in fact I’ve even met him in passing at a LASA conference) - and I have not even disagreed with his statement you provide - in fact I have agreed with it. As I have said multiple times here, the U.S. pulled support for Batista in the last year of his rule in 1958 as it became evident that he was about to be overthrown. The U.S. at the time was trying to cover their bases in the eventual collapse of his regime, which by that time was a foregone conclusion - (They also did not agree with Batista using their supplied B-26 bombers which were given strictly for "hemisphiric defense" against an internal insurrection). Nobody in this thread is disputing this, what we are saying is that the majority of reliable sources sum up the nuances of the situation, by stating that Batista was "U.S.-backed" which he was for 16 of his 17 years in power (this Yanqui-backing for so many of Batista's years in power, is also what helped Fidel and the Urban 26JM -[including many anti-communists]- rally support against the regime). As for the descriptive caveats toward his final months, that can be explained in more detail later in this article or in more relevant ones.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so since you know that disagreeing with Louis Pérez would be foolish, can we agree that the article should not imply something that Pérez would not. And then, can we agree that anyone reading the current phrasing ("Castro came to power as a result of the Cuban revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista") would conclude that Batista was "US-backed" at the time of his overthrow? Naturally the evolution of US support for Batista over the decades is complex, but the *plain meaning* of the current phrasing is a falsehood. Please suggest some way for an ordinary reader not to take that as the plain meaning of the current phrasing, or be a man, and change it.

Btw, it is good to see you back away from your claim that Batista's use of US bombers against the revolution was evidence of US support. (I.e., you acknowledge that this use broke the usage rules and caused the suspension of arms sales.) What you have not yet really acknowledged is how much the US wanted to be rid of Batista (of course the hope was to replace him with free elections) and how hard the US tried to be neutral among the warring parties. Yet the history is very clear, so why do you waffle?

Finally, I explained how in addition to plainly implying a falsehood the current phrasing communicates a POV, and you did not respond. Do you understand my explanation? Cerberus (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cerberus, please see Wp:Civility & WP:NPA - comments like "be a man", and suggesting that if someone has not read Pérez that they shouldn't even be editing the article (when in fact every editor is welcome to edit any Wiki article) is not helpful or appropriate. You don't seem to recognize that the current wording is the wording in 95 % of the Wp:RS and thus that is what we go with (yes we go with the "POV" of the majority of sources, not with our own "Pov" which is what "POV" means). As for the nuances & stipulations of exactly when the U.S. pulled military aid in the last months of Batista's rule ... that can be explained in detail in the article itself. What you are attempting to do here is WP:OR and "correct" the record, which is not what we are here to do - (plus I would contend that Pérez himself would not even disagree with the statement, although yes he cites that in the last few months in power, Batista lost US support). If you are unhappy with this, you are more than wecome to make a Rfc to request the opinions of others - however at this time Franamax and myself believe it should stay as is - in the lead.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I only changed it after you failed to respond to the two questions I asked. The key question is this: can we agree that the *plain meaning for an ordinary reader* of the current phrasing ("Castro came to power as a result of the Cuban revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista") is that Batista was "US-backed" at the time of his overthrow? Do you dispute this? I take you to have already agreed that that is a false construal of the facts, so unless you can show how your preferred phrasing can have another *plain meaning for an ordinary reader*, you have no grounds to prefer that phrasing in a Wikipedia article. In which case, I should feel free to change it, right? What does the lead gain by adding this false implication? Your "majority of sources" claim is a complete red herring because, as you have already conceded, no reputable source would make the implied claim. (I.e., you are making the phrase look appropriate by discussing it out of context.) My second and less important question is whether you understand my explanation of how your preferred phrasing strays from NPOV (by being misleading about the facts of the matter). Cerberus (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cerberus, it is not our job to use WP:OR and hypothesize how the "ordinary reader" will interpret the comment. What is our task here is to reflect and mirror the WP:RS on the matter. We are here to regurgitate, not to create. Our only question should be = "How do the reliable sources describe the situation?". That seems to be clear ... i.e. the vast majority of them state that Fidel overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator Batista. Since they do so, we then follow suit and echo their findings. When it comes to more details (about how Batista was technically only backed by the U.S. for 16.25 of his 17 years in power) that would go in the article's content and can be cited to Perez and others. Also the "time of the overthrow" is not January 1, 1959 as you seem to imply (but was a continuous cycle of events). When Fidel attacked the Moncada Barracks, Batista was U.S. backed. When the Granma landed in late 1956, Batista was U.S. backed. During the Sierra Maestra campaign, Batista was U.S. backed. The fact that the U.S. tried to cover their bases and pulled support and stopped sending weapons to a regime that they correctly figured was on life support, does not refute the fact that Batista was overthrown and that he was a U.S.-backed dictator for the vast majority of his time in office, and for the majority of the revolution against him. This was a main selling point for all of the anti-Batista rebels - even those who abhorred the 26JM or communism. The current phrasing is not WP:POV because "POV" does not equate to the popular phrasing of the majority of sources (their POV is desired), what would be POV, would be for us here to contradict them (per Wp:UNDUE). --- I can't make it any clearer to you than this, if you are still unhappy with this answer - then please seek additional comment from others, or await to see if you garner Wp:Consensus for your changes ... because right now you do not have it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I understand that your strategy in this discussion is to claim that you are simply parroting the majority of reliable sources and have no interpretive responsibilities, but I find this to be a bizarre claim from an historian. 1) To write is to write for a reader, and to consider interpretation is unavoidable. Humans cannot pretend to be parrots, and any particular phrasing has a context in which it is interpreted. 2) The better one understands the *relative* reliablity of sources, the greater one's responsibility to cite the most reliable sources. As an historian, you know this. 3) Your stated concern about doing original resource is a red herring. I am not doing original research: we are both relying on secondary sources, and we agreed about which are most reliable. Indeed to a great extent we do not even disagree about the central facts in this narrow matter. 4) I have not suggested *contradicting* your phrasing, I simply removed it as misleading. *Contradicting* your phrasing would be to change "US backed" to "US opposed". Since the truth of the matter is that the US wanted Batista out via elections (not via overthrow), both of those phrasings are misleading. So again, you are insisting on maintaining a misleading phrasing, and you have failed to explain why. I find it extremely telling that you cannot bring yourself to give a simple answer to my simple question: can we agree that the *plain meaning for an ordinary reader* of the current phrasing ("Castro came to power as a result of the Cuban revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista") is that Batista was "US-backed" throughout 1958? Yes or no please. Cerberus (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cerberus, I don't find my position to be in contradiction with my role as a historian. Believe me, Wikipedia would be much easier for me if I were just allowed to write my own views and understandings of history (WP:OR) without having to source each viewpoint according to the majority of reliable sources, however this is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not for Redthoreau nor Cerberus to pontificate on their understandings of history, it is for a community of users to document and echo the published material already in existence. We are supposed to be a mirror, not a "factory" for new interpretations/revisions on history. For example, if 90 % of all the reliable sources claimed the world was flat, then that is what Wikipedia would (incorrectly) state (regardless of the fact that I personally know it is round). To answer the question that you keep repeating - No I do not believe that the current wording implies US support all the way down to the minute that Batista boarded a plane on Jan 1, 1959. This is however irrelevant to how the lead should read.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not the "plain meaning". The statement makes no such assertion. And any reader relying solely on a single sentence in the lead section of a single erticle to divine such detail on the Cuban Revolution would not be all that interested in the subject anyway. If they were, they would read other articles where the timeline is laid out in detail. Franamax (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, OK, if you wish to claim that is not the plain meaning, please explain to me just when before the overthrow of Batista would the reader conclude that US support had faded? Cerberus (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, geez, not being exactly soaked in all this specific history, having read the wiki articles and checked what cited sources I could and definitely not having read your preferred "most authoritative" source, I'd say somewhere around spring of 1958 is when it all started falling apart for Batista, and that December conversation with the US ambassador (note, that bit of the Fulgencio Batista article could use some fixing, it looks like a sentence has been removed which explains why they had the meeting) sealed the deal. But this is all somewhat like saying the regime in Vietnam wasn't US-backed just because we have pictures of helicopters flying off the embassy roof. The quote from JFK in a few other articles is rather telling as to how US involvement with Batista was sub-optimal. Franamax (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, in my view most readers will not read as much as you have and could not possibly take that information away from the lead , so I think you evaded my question. Anyway, I offer two clarifications. First, what you call my preferred source on this written by the person often considered to top Cuba scholar writing in English. Redthoreau has not disputed his account, and indeed it would be hubris to do so. Second, just to be clear on this, Smith was a Batista supporter. He was very unhappy about how the US was increasingly distancing itself from Batista.

Redthoreau, The question above is the important one: I really want a "yes" or "no" from you on this. But I realize I have one other for you. The Cuban communists supported Batista for his 1940 election and continued to support him over time. (Recall that he was once a progressive reformer.) In the 1950s the (overtly communist) Partido Socialista Popular supported him until almost the middle of 1958. Would you find it informative to call Batista "communist backed" in the lead? If not, why not? Cerberus (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If communist backing was a major feature of Batista's regime, and if multiple RS noted the dictatorship as "communist-backed", then yes of course it would be informative. As an irrelevant detail used just to counter the words "US-backed", no. Franamax (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, the history is clear, and documentation is no problem, which you should already know if you wish to discuss this. Take any standard history of the times. (Or just search on Partido Socialista Popular.) But I disagree: it is *not* informative to add it to the lead, and for the same reason as saying "US backed" is misleading. To even begin to understand what it means, one needs to know too much about Batista's history and the history of the communist parties in Cuba. (E.g., in this case, Batista's history as a progressive reformer and union supporter.) No ordinary reader should be expected to provide that kind of context. Or, to put it differently, the *only* way it would be informative is as a counter to the misleading phrase "US backed", because it would at least suggest to the reader that more investigation will be required to understand what the hell is going on. Cerberus (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the trap that many editors fall into: they wish to explain all nuance within an article lede section. But that's what the article body and linked articles are for. Sufficient here is a statement well-backed by an overwhelming number of sources, which also happens to be true. You yourself have recognized this fact, by arguing about the precise timing of when the US withdrew their support for Batista. RedThoreau has presented a quite cogent analysis just above, which you are sidestepping by asking yes/no questions about specific details. I have no problem with elucidating the facts that the US withdrew their support during the year before the Batista regime fell, nor do I object to noting that Batista was supported by Cuban communists for a period. They are pertinent facts and should be discussed (especially since Castro started out as a declared non-Communist). What I am saying is that this wording is not appropriate for the lede section of this particular article. Imagine the convoluted wording, the Batista dictatorship which was first supported then eventually abandoned by the US government which was hoping for free elections in a post-Batista government except Castro came to power so the US armed and financed an invasion force? For our summary purposes, we have a vast number of sources using "US-backed", and RT refers to this as being a uniting theme in the rebel campaign. I think the phrasing is fair in this article. The lede section in one single article does not rewrite all of history, it just aims to present what we can glean from outside sources. Franamax (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Franamax's above analysis.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)