Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 3

message: This is perhaps one of the most embarrassingly POV sections I have ever seen in this particular article, or anywhere on Wiki for that matter. TDC 19:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 
ATTN whoever keeps reverting the "totalitarian" part: it is a widespread criticism of Castro's regime (and a part of the embargo rationale,) whereas Castro will label anyone opposed to him as "fascist" and "imperialist" (read the quote on Czechoslovakia.) Stop trying to push your perspective under the guise of NPOV. J. Parker Stone 05:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relations to Foreign Political Movements

message: User:Trey Stone persists on restoring a non-NPOV, poorly written, and inaccurate section in the article, backing it up only with personal attacks.
The following is a list of just the most egregious problems:
==="Satellite state"===
Aided by a massive buildup of Soviet advisors, military personnel, and advanced weaponry during the Cold War, Cuba effectively became a Soviet satellite in the Carribean as the years went on.
*First, the correct spelling is "Caribbean." Second, "Soviet satellite" is POV. The Americans aided just about every (if not every) anticommunist regime in Latin America with advisors, military personnel, and advanced weaponry during the Cold War. Does Trey Stone consider these regimes American satellites? He will need to describe the relationship between Soviet military aid and the level of Soviet influence on Cuban politics more clearly; otherwise, we merely have his original research and personal commentary, and a clear violation of Wikipedia policies.
**That is a lie. The U.S. never gave Pinochet, Stroessner, Videla or any other right-wing bogeyman you can think of the sheer level of economic and military aid that the Soviet Union gave to Cuba from '61-'91. Even in El Salvador, we just cared about equipping their military to beat back the insurgency; we never became closely involved in their inner affairs the way the USSR was to Cuba.
***Your personal opinion on a contrast in the scale of aid and the nature of the impact on domestic politics is just that, counting for nothing more than original research. What is an established fact, however, is that both powers became involved in the internal affairs of countries in Latin America. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trey Stone, POV, and personal attacks

message: Aided by a massive buildup of Soviet advisors, military personnel, and advanced weaponry during the Cold War, Cuba effectively became a Soviet satellite in the Carribean as the years went on.
*First, the correct spelling is "Caribbean." Second, "Soviet satellite" is POV. The Americans aided just about every (if not every) anticommunist regime in Latin America with advisors, military personnel, and advanced weaponry during the Cold War. Does Trey Stone consider these regimes American satellites? He will need to describe the relationship between Soviet military aid and the level of Soviet influence on Cuban politics more clearly; otherwise, we merely have his original research and personal commentary, and a clear violation of Wikipedia policies.
**That is a lie. The U.S. never gave Pinochet, Stroessner, Videla or any other right-wing bogeyman you can think of the sheer level of economic and military aid that the Soviet Union gave to Cuba from '61-'91. Even in El Salvador, we just cared about equipping their military to beat back the insurgency; we never became closely involved in their inner affairs the way the USSR was to Cuba.
***Your personal opinion on a contrast in the scale of aid and the nature of the impact on domestic politics is just that, counting for nothing more than original research. What is an established fact, however, is that both powers became involved in the internal affairs of countries in Latin America. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Satellite state"

message: Due to this huge amount of support, Castro was able to become a major sponsor of Marxist "wars of national liberation" not only in Latin America, but worldwide.
*"Wars of national liberation" and "Marxist" are not coextensive terms, despite the impression that Trey Stone is attempting to present. For example, Castro supported the PLO, which never proclaimed itself a "Marxist" organization. 
**It's specified MARXIST "wars of national liberation" (and yes, during that timeframe, that's what they WERE.) And the PLO is NOT LABELLED a Marxist organization in case you didn't read it. Why can't you lefties ever admit to the ideology the people you sympathize with hold?
***Please read Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I find it very insulting for you to accuse me of sympathizing with Fidel Castro. I don't want to report you again for personal attacks, but I'm afraid that I'll have to. (Further, you are editing and reverting after having been blocked.) The term "wars of national liberation" in that context should not be proceeded by "Marxist" since it is misleading; he supported both Marxist and non-Marxist "wars of national liberation." WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro's support for both Marxist and ''non-Marxist'' "wars of national liberation"

message: Castro's support extended to groups such as the URNG of Guatemala, the FMLN of El Salvador, the FSLN of Nicaragua, and ELN and FARC rebels in Colombia. In sub-Saharan Africa he sent Cuban troops along with the Soviet Union to aid the FRELIMO and MPLA dictatorships in Mozambique and Angola, respectively, while they were fighting U.S. and South African-backed insurgent groups RENAMO (which was supported by Rhodesia as well) and UNITA.
*He were have an attempt at poisoning the well. The American and South African backed insurgent groups are apparently not "dictatorships," but the ones fighting apartheid are not. The lack of context also leaves this section quite biased. We have no mention of the fact that Portugal only relinquishing control of its colonies as late as 1975. We have no mention of the fact that rebels in Rhodesia were fighting white-minority rule. We have no mention of South Africa's internal policies, but the MPLA and FRELIMO militias, fighting Salazar's dictatorship in Portugal and later the possibility of white-minority domination, and insurgent groups restoring to equally violent and brutal tactics (if not more extreme violence in the case of UNITA) are maligned as "dictatorships."
**Guy, it is not a "dictatorship" if they are out of power (obviously,) and human rights abuses are detailed in those groups' respective articles. Same for MPLA/FRELIMO; describing in detail their fight is not the purpose of a Castro article, but they WERE Marxist, and had extensive Soviet ties.
***Please better explain how my version is less informative and neutral than yours. Right now, all I see is a rationale for excluding information that makes you feel uncomfortable and including information to make groups that you dislike look bad. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of context for intervention in Africa

message: He supported the Sandinista leadership of Nicaragua and the New Jewel Movement government of Grenada; following the aforementioned countries' successful revolutions in 1979, he is known to have boasted, "Now there are three of us."
*Source?
**I'll find it.
***For future reference, find sources before putting information in articles so as to avoid putting misinformation in articles. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced claim

message: Guerrilla groups supported by Castro became quite active in the '70s and '80s, particularly in Central America, with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua perhaps becoming the most unstable countries.
*Instability predated Castro's support of rebel groups. Guerrilla groups were also active going back before the 1970s. This sentence is simply inaccurate and misleading.
**Incorrect, at least in the case of El Salvador and Nicaragua, which did not become truly unstable until the mid-to-late '70s.
***At least in the case of El Salvador and Nicaragua is correct. But they are not the only countries in Central America. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Activity of guerrilla groups before the '70s and '80s

message: In the post-Cold War environment, guerrilla warfare in Latin America has largely subsided, and the region has established democratic institutions, though Peru and Colombia are still undergoing civil war and severe economic strife. Castro continues to provide assistance to revolutionary groups, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of peace in most of the developing Western Hemisphere, Cuba is not the influential Latin American power it once was.
*Has Trey Stone been paying attention to developments in Latin America in recent years? Cuba's ties with Venezuela? His strengthening alliance with China? Has he noticed that among the first actions of the other newly elected left-leaning presidents in South America (Lula da Silva, Lucio Gutierrez, Nestor Kirchner, and Tabare Vasquez) was to strengthen (if not establish) relations with Cuba? Given his ties with Chavez, and Chavez's increasing influence in the region, perhaps Castro is more influential now than ever. I'm not making this argument, but pointing out that it is one that could be made. Thus, presenting the opposing POV as a matter of fact is POV. 
**You are free to mention Castro's friendship with da Silva, Kirchner, and Demagogue Chavez knowitall, but that does not change the empirical fact that Cuba lacks the influence it once had.
***According to your Wikipedia:No original research perhaps. But your POV is not the only POV on the issue, and it cannot be the only one accepted by the article due to the NPOV policy. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim regarding Castro's influence

message: He has a good relationship with former South African president Nelson Mandela that comes out of Cuba's support for Mandela's African National Congress organization in the '70s and '80s.
*The organization of Trey Stone's section is incoherent. He was just addressing the post-Cold War international setting, but now he is back in the 1960s.
**Then reorganize it, but keep your bullshit POV out of it.
***Again, please stop the profanity and personal attacks. I have reorganized it, but you keep on reverting me without explanation, even after getting blocked. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: The organization of the article as a whole is flawed. Each section is in totally random sequence, with no coherent structure to the article apparent. Over time we will need to work to organize this article in a more pointed way, either chronologically or topically. WebLuis 19:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other problems

message: WebLuis continues to revert to his watered-down, preferred image of Castro. He has not backed up his edits with any facts, only whined about "personal attacks" (some nonexistent) and made empty statements. J. Parker Stone 04:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How dumb do you think the other users are? There's an entire discussion just above this posting making it clear that this is a complete lie. WebLuis 04:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: There is no need to call a vote. There is a need, however, for you to respond to the substance of the points made earlier. The political beliefs that you attribute to me (which I don't espouse, actually) are not the issue; what I have pointed out above is the issue. WebLuis 05:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you gave up the dicussion, apparently when you ran out of attacks implying that I am a Marxist or cliches like "call a spade a spade." WebLuis 05:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro-lite

message: Can we possibly hold a vote on this matter so we can get it resolved without having la Castroista running to the admins about the 3RR? I'm inexperienced with this stuff so if anyone could help set it up (tomorrow or something) I'd appreciate it. Like I said, I'm open to changes as long as they don't gut the article (as WebLuis has done) J. Parker Stone 05:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: I'm going to unprotect this article.  You're all going to have to work this content dispute out for yourselves. No revert warring, you've got at least two admins watching closely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: I have reorganised, putting religion well down as it's more of a personal thing, and putting the foreign policy after the internal policy sections. My opinion is this article is way too interested in US involvement in Cuba; there is a lot more to Castro than just that. We need, in my opinion, to make the article less American centred (a fault of both sides of the recent dispute). People come here to learn about Castro, not aboiut America's relationship with cuba, whicgh is anyway not that well explained to an outsider (non-American) like me who doesn't automatically know about the US embargo, etc. I agree with Slim Virginia that where there is a dispute sourcing needs to be compulsory; otherwise your stuff will eventually be edited out. The article doesn't seem too POV, pretty good on that one for wikipedia, but it needs to shift the emphasis more towards an evaluation of Castro, who isn't necessarily synonymous with Cuba, and not an evaluation of how the Soviet Union and US were in the cold war. The obsession with the US and foreign policy as the article stands makes it unbalanced, --SqueakBox 18:28, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Excellent work. You just corrected many of the problems that I was noting earlier.  WebLuis 00:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganising

message: I remember listening to Castro's speech on the Prague Spring (no, not live - I hadn't been born yet). It was heavily nuanced and almost tortuous; he called the invasion "completely illegal and illegitimate" (or something along those lines) but ended up justifying it by some Manichean argument, while sounding neither convincing nor convinced. Does anybody know where a transcript may be found? If we find a transcript and it is as I remember, we should edit the couple of sentences on the matter in the text; the impression that this was a ploy to get more Soviet support would be, if anything, reinforced, but a more accurate reflexion of what Castro actually said would be in order. Hasdrubal 23:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prague Spring

message: I have removed a statement "They point to a December 1961 speech given by Castro in which he states very clearly that he had always been a Marxist and concealed this fact to avoid alienating people" which is accompanied by an edit summary: "speech is referenced in talk"
TDC, I have no quarrel with the sense of your report, but contrary to your claim there is no reference to the speech in question and so it's unverifiable.  Secondly, "referenced in talk" is not an acceptable support for article content.  If you give references, put them into the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack Barnes Selected Speeches of Fidel Castro.  New York: Pathfinder, pp. 11-40. I should add that Barnes is most definitely not a Castro critic and is in fact the National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party since 1972.
Good, I have no problem with your edit now *except* your habit of leaving references out because they're "in talk".  The place for references is in the article.  I've added this one as a footnote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of [[User:TDC|TDC]]'s  reference to an alleged statement by Castro

message: Recently an edit was made challenging claiming that Castro and in effect Cuba only rhetorically supported the BPP. Cuba has been a safe haven for Panthers indicted and convicted of criminal charges in the US. The Cuban GDI also provided weapons, explosive and guerrilla warfare training to BPP members . This claims can be placed in the article, but I really see no reason to place and caveat on them, as no one has challenged any of them. TDC 17:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
No one has challenged it before here, maybe.  The referenced text itself includes no footnotes or citations.  The author of the linked Word Document is a Tampa, Florida lawyer named Ralph Fernandez.  His bio can be found at: http://www.fernandez-diaz-law.com/ralphefernandez.html.  I'm quoting three paragraphs from the bio which cause me to question the author's objectivity.  
Fernandez has also devoted a substantial amount of his practice to the defense of Cuban freedom fighters. In 1988 he represented ex-political prisoner Rolando Nieves Machado in a firearms prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. Nieves was acquitted. He later represented a former commander of Castro’s army, [external link removed], charged with federal violations in the Southern District of Florida. He represented Roberto Pizano Castillo in a prosecution by the Federal Communications Commission. He also represented Francisco Rodriguez for his First Amendment activities in opposition of the Cuban government when arrested and charged by the State of Florida. He was lead counsel in the successful defense of the California trio of Rene Cruz, Sr., Rene Cruz, Jr., and Rafael Garcia, in their Neutrality Act prosecution in the Central District of California. He has represented internationally acclaimed Cuban ex-political prisoners Eugenio Llamera [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369187/posts and] Eusebio Penalve in federal matters.
In 1997 Fernandez assumed the representation of three alleged Cuban skyjackers, Adel Regalado, Jose Bello Puente and Leonardo Reyes, on the night before testimony began in United States District Court. At the conclusion of trial the three defendants were acquitted of air piracy. Immediately the Immigration Service proceeded with detention and removal proceedings. In a highly publicized case in 1998 the Immigration Court ruled in favor of the three men granting them political asylum and withholding of removal. The government appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeal. A massive appellate process was undertaken. In October of 2002 the BIA affirmed the decision of the lower court. The trio was free at last.
Fernandez also assumed the representation of Jose Dionisio Suarez Esquival, implicated by the United States in the assassination of former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C. in 1976. During the process Suarez became entangled in the extradition proceedings of General Augusto Pinochet by the Kingdom of Spain and the ancillary investigation by the Republic of Chile. In August 15, 2001, Suarez was freed after nearly a decade of detention.
The writer is not a historian and does not appear to be a neutral source. I'm sure that corroborating U.S. Govt. reports could be found, but these are not neutral sources either.  Any third party reports with footnotes and references out there? DJ Silverfish 18:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuba Castro and the Panthers

message: Anti-Castro Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles has just appeared in the U.S. requesting political asylum.  Here are two news reports from the BBC and the 
Miami Herald.  Here's a more specific link to the 
Miami Herald (registration required). 
Luis Posada Carriles, although born in Cuba is the former head of the Venezuelan secret police, according to the New York Times.  He was convicted of bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing 73. He subsequently escaped from prison.  If asylum is denied, he may be extradited to Venezuela. 
In 2000 he was convicted with Gaspar Jimenez, Pedro Remon and Guillermo Novo Sampol of conspiring to assasinate Fidel Castro.  The 4 were subsequently pardoned by the Panamanian government in 2004.  Jimenex, Remon and Novo were admitted into the United States.  The Washington Post article mentions that Novo was convicted of the assasination of former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier.  The conviction was reversed on appeal, but Novo spent 4 months in jail for perjury. 
Anti-Communist Cuban activists are alleged to have carried out numerous terrorist acts over the past 40 years.   It is alleged that Luis Posada Carriles has worked for the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF), which denies any connection.  The Miami Herald has recently run articles querying CANF's ties to terrorism.   CANF deserves an article in its own right, or a subsection within Operation Condor.
For now, we ought to be able to incorporate the attempted assassination information into the Fidel Castro article in a NPOV way.  It could replace the final sentence of the Fidel Castro#Criticisms of the United States section, which reads It has been confirmed that Castro has been the target of multiple CIA-sponsored assassinations, but none have been reported since the early 1960s. DJ Silverfish 21:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luis Posada Carriles & 2000 assassination plot 

message: The first photo of Fidel Castro is not a particularly flatering image.  I wonder if this was selected as a judgement at Castro and his policies.  I have been looking for a better image and I am wondering If this one would be okay.
[
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/karsh/05350316_e.html image of Castro].  This was taken in 1971 and purchased in 1998 by the National Gallery of Canada. Many of the other images in this series are currently used on Wikipedia.  For examples please see Yousuf Karsh & Peter Lorre.  I belive when they were purchased by the Canadian government they were released into public domain.  Pherhaps this would be a more neutral image.
User:Dowew April 16th 2005.
The suggested picture is a better portrait.  DJ Silverfish 15:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first Photo 

message: I do not know about you, but I think Castro has some type of medal on his jacket. Does anyone have a clue to what medal it is. Thanks. Zscout370 02:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Painting 

message: I reverted Dagen's edit of 10:21, 20 Apr 2005, because he seemed to be inserting a lot of his personal opinions of Castro but not much in the way of fact.  I think all we got out of it was "He is one of the wealthiest men in the world, with a net worth of $550 million. ". The rest of it seemed to be Dagen's opinion that Castro was smoking while Cuba burned, that he was an "undisputed ruler and tyrant", that Cuba's dependency on the Soviet bloc was due to the "inefficiencies of the state socialist system and gross corruption", the standard of Cuban health and education "was not consistently good", WHO was "dominated by the Soviet bloc", and so on.  He also inserted the unsourced claim that "many of his supporters believe he will live for a thousand years." This turned the piece, in my opinion, into a very biased article indeed.  Perhaps someone could find a way to insert the piece on astro's net worth, which is undoubtedly encyclopedia, without all the other baggage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of revert of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of an edit by [[User:Dagen|Dagen]]

message: Dagen has edited the phrase "he helped overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista" to remove the phrase "the dictatorship of".  This seems to me to be  significant omission. Batista had been President but was forbidden to be President of Cuba again under the constitution.  He seized power and became the dictator without legal backing or democratic mandate. Thus it seems to me reasonable to refer to his government as a dictatorship. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Batista dictatorship

message: Why isn't this information being added to the Foreign relations of Cuba article?  It seems more applicable there.  There is already a section on foreign relations further up the page.   This feels like tacking on.  In particular, the first and third revised paragraph cram in too much.  It sounds like Fidel Castro was outdoing Theodore Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill.
Wherever the paragraphs wind up, creating internal references isn't the same thing as citing sources.  There should be a fuller explantation of where the information comes from.   
The information should be arranged chronologically.  Any changes in policy over time should be noted.
An internal citation for the Black Panther Party reference was removed in the edit.  This should remain with the section, where ever it goes. Please see the discussion above at Talk:Fidel Castro#Cuba Castro and the Panthers.
I've broken out the different versions for comparison.  DJ Silverfish 23:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with foreign political movements 

message: I have no problem with the above edit -- it groups it a lot better. i apologize if i accidentally RVed an edit like this. J. Parker Stone 01:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Why isn't this information being added to the Foreign relations of Cuba article?  DJ Silverfish 02:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this information being added to the [[Foreign relations of Cuba]] article? 

message: I am sick of this back-and-forth bullshit. If anyone can come up with a convincing case that
a) the majority of groups supported by Castro in the '60s, '70s, and '80s were not Marxist
b) the Cuban government did not receive massive Soviet subsidies and military assistance
c) FRELIMO-ruled Mozambique and MPLA-ruled Angola were not one-party states
d) Castro's revolutionary influence has not declined post-Latin American late '80s and '90s democratization
then go right ahead. otherwise, i'd like to have a vote on the versions (see how POV some people are if they support that sanitized crap) J. Parker Stone 02:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign political movements 

message: would say that "quality healthcare" in the intro and casting doubt on questions about the credibility Cuba's Red propagandists (sorry but I don't view the same organization who called Elian Gonzalez's family & friends the "Miami terrorist mafia" as reliable) is NPOV. what a load. J. Parker Stone 03:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only a Castroite 

message: A very sloppy deletion of the final 4 or 5 sections has been restored.  Funny how this went unnoticed for a few days.  Most editors are just looking at the most recent changes for revisions of their latest zingers. Point-scoring edits are simply making the article unreadable.  Perhaps this is the point.  DJ Silverfish 15:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring conclusion of the article 

message: Hey, I've edited the Fidel Castro article many times, initially added some "dictator" remarks (totally deletable) but then added useful information, like how Forbes recently declared his personal fortune is above 500 million dollars, and also complemented the "tensions with the United States" with reasons for these tensions. However, all these times, my edits have been reverted. Who's the idiot who keeps doing this? Are you some sort of pro-Castro communist? If there's useful information added, for the sake of not being a pro-Castro accolyte (as most left wingers would tend to be), leave my edits alone.
Kapil 17:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edition removing 

message: More than "Fidel Castro". And seem to be really too long and precise for an human biography. 82.255.21.229 14:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This articles seem to be "History of Cuba"

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&diff=13288922&oldid=13288797
I altered the introduction to characterize Batista as dictator, querying  Batista was elected, then extended his tenure through a coup, correct?. [Not exactly true, he had been president in the 40's, but was out of office when he led a coup in the 50's].  I also contracted TDC's ungrammatical interpolation on post-revolutionary repression into dictatorial political control with a more logical placement. 
TDC reverted my edit noting RV, by that logic, Fidel was never elected, so we should call him a dictator as well then)
This is sort of funny, but the language of the introduction has gotten a lot more chaotic in the succeding revisions.   Can we go back my version of the introduction? 
DJ Silverfish 15:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting without reading 

message: Don't understand how "Dramatic political and social repression" is either "severe wordiness" or "personal opinion" (in a country whose constitution bans opposition in the second or third amendment, with an unelected guy getting 75 people in jail for proposing a referendum to provide multiparty elections), but it is a fact, therefore it shouldn't be removed. Thankfully, other people think so too. So don't remove it, lest you give in to the "severe US bias" commies who keep offensively deleting facts from this page. I will keep an eye on it though, cause I won't let the more anti-US pro-Cuba elements in these page keep tampering with it to remove facts they consider to be anti-Castro. Kapil 04:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant edition