Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 8

message: I edited some points of this article maybe a year ago, and I must say that the evolution is extraordinary, the article is far more dense and at the same time focusuing on the subject. I am french, and when I took a look at the french version the differences are obvious, this article has a higher quality no doubt about it. I just wanted to congratulate all the wikiusers who have done a great job, sticking to the POV policy. I also think I 'll use the holidays to translate some parts of this article into french, in order to achieve the same quality.
Good job, and keep it so
--The trat 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations for a good article 

message: "one can only wonder if [a US invasion of Cuba] isn't an appropriate, or protective course of action."  This comment by User:68.14.191.115 seems like [personal] speculation.  If you must make this point, it would be more encyclopedic to attribute such thoughts to a political commentator, or someone who has some say in what the US military does, rather than an unnamed Wikipedia author who has thoughts on what the US military action should do.  Does this make sense, or am I just overreacting?  - Connelly 03:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I agree that mentioning such a claim in an encyclopaedic article requires credible substantiation. David Kernow 03:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate Course of Action for US military 

message: The article says that Castro has indicated that, in the event of sickness or death, his leadership posts are to be assumed by Vice President Raúl Castro (his brother) (I just added the vice president bit). But isn't that normal for a vice president? In other words, 'Castro indicated that' sounds a bit silly. DirkvdM 07:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, as a President of the United States, President Bush has no choice but to give up any official powers he has at the end of this, his second term.  In the event of his death or incapacitation before that point, the Vice President, Dick Cheney, will become the President.  Given Cheney's advanced age and health difficulties, I seriously doubt he will run for president.  It's not even a consideration.  And the succession of Fidel Castro will be very interesting indeed...unless he's indeed immortal. ;D Jachra 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor Raul Castro 

message: I wrongly accused 172 of lazy reversion. Here are his comments. Saravask 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grievances with a reversion 

message: I apologize to 172 for the extremely ugly and vindictive tone of the above comments. I apologize also to anyone has to trudge through my rhetorical slop, which is not at all fit for a Wikipedia talk page. As 172 rightly pointed out, my accusation that 172 did not understand the difference between the terms "normative" and "positive" was unjustified. I misread his comments — 172 was indeed calling for a more positivist (fact-driven as opposed to opinion-based) approach to the article. He merely obliquely referred to my paragraph on human rights violations as "normative", whereas I do not believe this to be the case. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that I wrongly attacked another upstanding and credentialed contributor to Wikipedia. My regrets, Saravask 01:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite relieved. Thanks so much for such an upright response and the kind words. I have no hard feelings at all, as it helped me better understand the need to take more time to explain my reasoning on talk pages of sensitive topics like this one. Again, I apologize for my lack of clarity. 172 | Talk 03:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret that 172 has chosen to stop his good work on this article, and I desire that he should come back soon. 172 should feel free to exercise his sound editing and POV-reverting judgment (against me or anyone else) as he sees fit. I regret any part my ranting had in his leaving. After much investigation, I have awarded 172 the Barnstar of Diligence for his contributions on Cold War and history-related subjects (see the George F. Kennan article for a superb example of 172's work). I hope such continued and sincere appreciation for his work will stop 172 from once again being forced to leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot risk losing such a prolific and fastidious contributor as 172. Saravask 15:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies to 172 

message: "His father Ángel Castro, well known for his ruthlessness, is believed to have served with the Spanish troops of "butcher" Valeriano Wyler in the last 1895-1898 Cuban War of Independence."
Hello. Though I've refrained from editing this article for a couple of weeks or so, I noticed the above has been amongst the content being added/removed/reverted recently. I'm wondering:
# What, if any, direct relevance it has to the article - and if it has, please indicate how;
# If it is relevant, whether:
::* "well known [well-known?] for his ruthlessness" is (a minority) POV;
::* "butcher" is POV or is an established moniker.
Thanks,</br>
David Kernow 03:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For comparison, the article on George W Bush doensn't mention that his grandfather indirectly sponsored Nazi Germany - as indeed it shouldn't because it's irrelevant to the person the article is about. DirkvdM 07:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What kind of influence does Geyer (or Fuentes or any other biographer) claim Angel Castro had on Fidel?  Does Geyer et al offer substantiation?  Thanks for your interest, David Kernow 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant / POV comment? 

message: Castro's claims of the U.S. attempting to assassinate him are relevant, yes, especially since such plans did exist (even if they weren't implemented.) But as it is now it's just a bunch of text dumped in there to make the U.S. look bad, and it's entirely too bloated. Dr. Trey 01:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great arguement.................not. CJK 13:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Come back when you have a serious justification.  CJK 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know who added the father stuff, feel free to modify that, but the section in question is not just "assassination plans" its about general allegations of US interference in Cuba which is off topic for a biographical article and is poorly sourced with either shaky, far-left, or Cuban government sources. CJK 13:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You have not provided sources for much of the material you attempted to put in. And most of the sources you have used are far-left pro-Cuban political organisations. TDC 19:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TDC's right to be reverting that text dump about U.S. plans

message: Since when is "not american" a nationality?  Ojw 16:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New infobox

message: Under the subject line titled "Life as a guerilla", near the bottom, the article reads " It is also claimed that Guevara received excessive credit, when in one instance it is alleged he abandoned another anti-Batista leader to fight to his death. [6] [7]." These links lead to a broken amazon handle and an unexplanatory info page to an all-spanish memoir that doesn't seem like it has much to do with Che Guevara's apparant cowardice in and of itself, though the book itself may be useful. I'm a little new here, so I'm not going to just barge in and try and fix them, I'd rather bring this matter to attention and see if I'm justified in this post. Otherwise, please, by all means, inform me of my impropriety. Whew.
Mrpickle 04:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate sources 

message: Wondering about this JONJONAUG 03:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should that header on the George W. Bush page be added here? 

message: Castro has not looked like that in 30-40 years, are you sure that is not one of his doubles Xe xe El Jigùey 12/07/05
* I have just put in more recent picture --Ehouk1 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Photo of Castro

message: * A anon ip added a wikilink to List of dictators in see also. Please, don't revert. Since Castro is listed in that list, this wikilink shall not be removed. The matter is not wheather Castro is or is not a dictator. He is listed there, so it should be kept in See also till changes in that list. For discussion, please go to Talk:List of dictators. José San Martin 00:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of dictators]] 

message: There have been almost 150 edits in the last 2 days (the history), all by anon IPs either adding the word "dictator" to the into or something very similar -- and then the edits reverting them -- with minimal discussion. I have protected it and I suggest leaving it protected for 2 days.
BCorr|Брайен 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't help, it will continue as it was after that. Gerrit CUTEDH 15:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Wikipedia's meant to be encyclopedic which means, as I see it, the range of ways Castro (or Cuba)is  seen need be represented. This whole argument expands into Castro the dictator or the popular leader. Lets either agree a week on week off arrangement - or put ruled/led and make it a link to another section or page  featuring the arguments -  and then concentrate on providing evidence to back up our particular view. MichaelW 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody says "has led" for any person in office no matter what.  I dont say "George W. Bush has led the United States, so why would you say Fidel Castro has led Cuba? Where is he leading Cuba? That is riduculous, and it is even more ridiculous to say it to someone who is on the list of dictators.  There are only two type of people that would not consider Fidel Castro a dictator and that is people that are ignorant of him and pro-castro communists. --65.2.185.203 07:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You may want to follow the discussions on the proposed policy about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Getting back towards the dispute, I believe "dictator" most accurately describes Castro's government. Words like "governed" and "led" can be widely interpreted, while dictator is quite frank. CJK 00:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but POVs can be presented if attributed. The problem is with these categories, that sometime break NPOV. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ru-led - time share

message: Please do nor delete references, neither "assign" them to pro or anti Castro. Thanks. I have renamed the inline references section as "sources" as appropriate. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: Please do not remove references from the article. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that User:Comandante does not want to discuss his deletions of referenced materials. Please do not remove material. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop reoving inline refs 

message: The Cuban government saturates the population with "revolutionary" slogans and propaganda, in the form of such items as billboards and posters.
This strikes me as being a little biased and if maintained, the opposing view should be given. That is that in the West, advertisers saturate the population with "ideological" slogans and propaganda, in the form of such items as billboards and posters. In the words of Banksy:
:twisted little people go out every day and deface this great city. leaving their idiotic little scribblings, invading communities and making people feel dirty and used. they just take, take, take and they don't put anything back. they're mean and selfish and they make the world an ugly place to be. we call them advertising agencies and town planners...
Should I remove the piece, tone it down or add in the opposing view? - FrancisTyers 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturates