Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 12

message: Recently, TJive and CJK deleted this proposed second paragraph:  
:"Castro, in his long tenure as leader of Cuba has been variously described as a totalitarian despot and a charismatic liberator, both widely hated and widely popular, courageous and cowardly, a benevolent dictator, an astute politician and an autocratic totalitarian murderer, symbol of communist revolution in Latin America, a dedicated socialist ideologue and a pragmatic nationalistic power monger. Few leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism."  
Could we discuss what is wrong with this paragraph rather than just delete the whole thing?  BruceHallman 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not intend to restate my convictions daily; I remarked on this yesterday and it has been shuffled off to the archives. All of the relevant issues - views on Castro, his effect on Cuba, nationalism, socialism, and so forth are already discussed in the introduction.  There is no need for yet another paragraph in the introduction which treads over this again. --TJive 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many items in the 'second paragraph' which are not addressed in the first paragraph.  BruceHallman 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TJive wrote: "I do not intend to restate my convictions daily; I remarked on this yesterday..."  Here is a link to what you wrote and your assertion "The various views of this man are already discussed..." is just not true.  Please explain.  BruceHallman 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe take the "cowardly/courageous" out, Bruce, to curb some of the journalistic impression of the paragraph.--Zleitzen 17:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made that change, but I am still curious to learn the real reason that CJK and TJive repeatedly delete that paragraph.  I don't recall any CJK reason given, and the TJive reason is unexplained and does not appear to be based on a true premise.  BruceHallman 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try the legalisms.  I never suggested that your paragraph violates policy.  I simply am saying that it is inappropriate, unencyclopedic, and unnecessary.  The introduction, which is already at a sufficient length, does not need yet another separate paragraph to detail varying views on Castro and his tenure, e.g. "he has invoked both praise and condemnation (at home and internationally)" and "Some credit....Others see...."  The role of socialism and nationalism is given.  That a controversial political figure is described as "both widely hated and widely popular" is nearly self-evident.  That "[f]ew leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism" is possibly tendentious and appears to be a personal observation.  There is no real value in these assertions.  The only potentially useful part is that he is a symbol of communist revolution, which is not a view per se as you are describing.  --TJive 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Fiery" is not a bad or negative word and does not give imbalance to the article.  As for popularity, were your characterizations correct, this would not be a matter of achieving NPOV, it would be a matter of giving information that is missing or better informs the reader.  In this case, that Castro is "popular" is a contentious claim that is not easily verifiable as no free and independent press and polling data by Cubans exists and information which is published elsewhere on this topic is usually very obscure or given by politicized sources; as well, it is often heavily reliant on flawed anecdotes.  In other words, it is a complicated and disputed issue that can not be summated by a small and general reference.  The thrust of the existing statement about "praise and condemnation (at home and internationally)" suffices for this purpose.  --TJive 21:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the fact that some consider that Castro has popularity (and/or has had popularity) in Cuba is easily verified.  For instance, this Google search http://www.google.com/search?q=castro+popularity+cia shows many articles that describe how the CIA has designed programs to undercut Castro's popularity.  So, at least, the CIA considers that Castro has/had popularity.  BruceHallman 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That "some consider" is not a valuable assertion here and is already effectively addressed in the aforementioned passage.  --TJive 23:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Castro has popularity and has had popularity in Cuba is not communicated in the 'praise and condemnation' phrase.  BruceHallman 23:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the fact that Fidel Castro is a charismatic leader is not communicated well, and should be included in the second paragraph.  BruceHallman 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: It says "Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies which saw the rapid centralization of Cuba's economy - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries."
I'd like it to say "Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies of centralization - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries."
Reason: The tone is blaming. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The fifth paragraph

message: I'm sorry, but Prime Minister, and President don't go together with Communist Party.  Isnt that an oximoron?Defy You 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuba is a socialist republic.  BruceHallman 14:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Republic my ass!  This is about as totalitarian as you get!Cameron Nedland 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prime Minister?!?!?!

message: I think I raised this issue on the archived talk page. The current embargo section should be rewritten I think. It reads like a summary of dates and events and Castro is hardly even mentioned. I think that the section should be cleaned up and rewritten more towards Castro as a person and how it has affected his way of practising politics. Most of the information which is there at the moment is more suited for the main article on the embargo. I'm not very acquainted with the subject matter, so the only thing I would do is remove all the content which is not directly related to Castro and add a stub tag. But maybe somebody else has a better idea. mensch • t 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, and I wrote the Embargo section. In fact, I just wrote Zleitzen about my total frustration with the whole article. One of my problems in writing the Embargo section is that there is a lack of information about what Castro has done verus "Cuba". But the Pope and Steven Speilberg, for example, would never have gone to Cuba if not for Castro. The charisma factor has to be addressed. Also, Raul.  KarenAnn 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key point about the embargo in relation to Castro is the theory that he has used it to his advantage by deflecting blame and also unifying the nationalist sentiment which he thrives upon.--Zleitzen 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! I believe I pointed that out somewhere in the article. I wish we would get more into the astuteness of Castro's tactics than what the constition says.  KarenAnn 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The embargo section is largely off-topic, yes.  That topic mostly relates to the implications of Cuban and US policy rather than Castro's biography, which is what this page is supposed to be about.  There was a similar problem months ago when some users kept attempting to insert large swaths of information about US activities in Cuba that have a barely tangential relationship with the subject.  --TJive 02:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Embargo section

message: From Wikipedia:Reliable Sources:
:There is a wealth of reliable information in tertiary sources such as the Encyclopædia Britannica. Note that unsigned Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles are written by staff, who may not be experts, and the articles may therefore not have the same level of credibility, but they are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia than those existing ones, it will not suffise to rely on the content of such tertiary sources. Therefore, in general, as also primary sources are to be treated with caution (see above), secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references.  KarenAnn 12:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsigned Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles  written by staff 

message: TJive reverted the second paragraph again.  Though, I do appreciate the effort at discussion.  In essence I see that TJive deletes the paragraph not due to WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, but rather because of his/her personal editorial opinion.  Also TJive continues to maintain that the information in the second paragragh is covered in elsewhere the article, but indeed TJive's assertion is just not true.  BruceHallman 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not at all what I said [have been saying].  I said that the value of the observation given is little in general and nil for the introduction, and that the general themes are better to be expressed in the body of the article in relevant portions.  --TJive 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly we disagree about the importance of this.  Perhaps we can find a compromise of our disagreement?  This might allow the restoration of neutrality to the article and the removal of the neutrality dispute tag.  BruceHallman 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph again 

message: The section on human rights in Cuba continues. Therefore a section public services in Cuba is necessary too. I will start on it soon unless there are any convincing objections, I'll try to focus on Castro and the role he himselft has played.--Salvador Allende 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not need to be turned into a further political argument.  Please see WP:POINT.  These facets of Cuban history are best managed elsewhere and should only be kept here to the extent of (limited) "domestic policy"-type material.  --TJive 07:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for 'further political argument', but there is a need for balance of point of view.  A description of Castro in his role to bring public services to Cuba would be a good addition to the article.  BruceHallman 16:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section 

message: There is an enormous amount of well-documented critical information about Castro in this scholarly article. Not only about Castro's wealth but also many other aspects. 
*
:That'll be this Maria C. Werlau, the woman who wrote "Cuba: Safe Haven for Fugitives and Hotbed for Terrorists". Who states: "Castro's virulent hatred of the United States goes back far before he even came to power". Who ends with "The Bush Administration should exert maximum pressure on the Castro regime to guarantee U.S. and hemispheric security". OK, Ultramarine, your idea of scholarly research differs from mine.--Zleitzen 14:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see this as being to her discredit.  --TJive 15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So in that case, sources by authors from the other side of the spectrum, also qualify? Authors who call the actions of the Bush administration acts of terrorism, for example. or advise all communist nations to revolt against the horrific capitalist regime in the US.  Those are generalisations similar  to the one Werlau makes in her article. But I think "Fidel Castro, Inc.: A Global Conglomerate" is used as a source already in the Wealth section of the Castro article. mensch • t 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a matter of X vs. Y.  Specificity is essential in establishing the notability and relevance of using given sources.  There is nothing about her characterizations that is controversial (as opposed to non-universal).  A stomach that can not handle properly contextual references to "terrorism" (which is legitimate but not a neutral characterization here) or "regime" (which is a valid concept for us and universally accepted in academia) is very weak.  --TJive 02:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The above three quotes are not signs of academic analysis. They are evidence of an agenda, sensationalism and clearly inflammatory delivery with a tendency towards misinformation. As an aside, Werlau appears at length in the infamous "Los Muertos de Castro" documentary. One of the most audacious pieces of propaganda and misinformation I have ever seen, on any subject. Take a look if you can find it. All material by Werlau should be treated with extreme scepticism, that Ultramarine describes her work as real criticism does not make it so.--Zleitzen 02:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be shocked to find that "regime" has rather uncontroversial connotations in academia (and is suitable even in its worst effect for Cuba in any case) and that perspectives on "terrorism" vary widely but that the cited instances are rather non-controversial for many.  So as for labeling Ultramarine's characterizations, the same to you.  --TJive 12:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "Hotbed for Terrorists" , "virulent hatred of the United States" and "guarantee U.S. and hemispheric security" that raises the eyebrows, not "regime". Other comments along similar lines indicate that Werlau is as reliable a source as Michael Moore. By the way, "regime" does have controversial connotations in academia - it's basic Orwell from "Politics and the English Language" and is covered in initial studies of the semiotics of politics in the media. --Zleitzen 13:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "regime" refers to a regulated system, especially means of social control and governance.  The most frequent media use in regards to politics is with authoritarian states and various governmental outfits and systems of regulation (i.e. "inspections regimes").  Even in this usage the appellation is quite relevant and very pertinent.  --TJive 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "regime" is often used as a pejorative, and fails the WP:NPOV test for our purposes.  BruceHallman 14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't, and whether a term is used as a pejorative is not any discredit to the terminology itself.  Furthermore, "our purposes" do not currently include any use of the term that I see.  Were it so, however, it would likely be wholly appropriate.  --TJive 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our purpose is to write an encyclopedia.  You appear to believe that an encyclopedia can appropriately be pejorative. I disagree.  BruceHallman 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "it's the sentiment that discredits the work." Please read about ad hominem and discuss the factual arguments.Ultramarine 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the factual arguments are tainted by the "messenger" (being Werlau), or might not be factual at all. The problem that an essay like "Fidel Castro, Inc.: A Global Conglomerate" is never objective, just because it's an essay. Werlau comes up with a lot of facts and derives a certain meaning from that, it doesn't necessarily have to be the only meaning one can derive from a body of facts.  Considering the past publications of Werlau this particular essay might as well express a political viewpoint which doesn't do justice to the complex matter of Castro's financial empire or obstructs the author from objective research into the subject matter. mensch • t 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating that "the factual arguments are tainted by the "messenger"" is the very definition of ad hominem. If stating that a well-referenced view should be excluded because there may be other arguments or interpretations, without bothering to state any, then everything in Wikipedis should be deleted. Argue using facts, do not guess that there may be factual arguments.Ultramarine 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that imply that, to you, both Granma and Werlau have the same basis of presumptive credibility? BruceHallman 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly does not to me; Granma is rather explicitly a product of state propaganda whereas Werlau merely uses strong (but acceptable) language to describe topics in realistic and relatable terms.  This is a rather poor effort at discrediting a source, given that all that is really being challenged is her tone, which is rather moderate and uncontroversial.  --TJive 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And then most of those same editors have the gall to put Cuban web sites and far left (mostly self-published) far left rags on the same level of (at least ostensible) academic research and journalistic integrity.  Otherwise its "unbalanced" and "non-NPOV".  Completely absurd and the only thing that remotely recalls Orwell.  --TJive 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked a yes or no question.  Parsing, the above, I guess the answer is no.  With the reason not exactly clear.  But I guess, the reason is that in the opinion of TJive the distinction is obvious.  This standard seems duplicitous.  BruceHallman 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You most certainly do not need to guess or to parse anything given that I explicitly answered in the negative; would that you make an effort to decipher my objections at most any point in time these talk conversations would be much more fruitful, but I can hardly be said to be "duplicitous" in the meantime, failing that.  --TJive 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what I was trying to say is that I don't see you bringing the same credibility test to an anti-Castro source as to a 'pro-Castro' source.  Duplicitous might not be the correct word, but there appears to be a double standard.  BruceHallman 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real criticism 

message: A quote and reference that follows a controversial statement is not "irrelevant" but required under WP:NPOV and WP:V. We have a quote from Castro responding to criticisms that he encourages a cult; we are going to have an example of the criticism that prompted the response as well. Gazpacho 05:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro as a public figure

message: Anyone think there would be any value in mentioning just in passing somewhere (perhaps in the Early Life section) that Castro was never a baseball player, and never tried out for a US team? Obviously, it's pointless to make lists of things people are not, but this seems to be a particularly persistent urban legend and one that comes up frequently among non-experts when discussing pre-revolutionary Castro, so it might make sense to clear up here. Korossyl 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you define "baseball player"?  There are many photographs of Fidel Castro playing baseball, so obviously, he was a baseball player by some sort of definition.  Though, perhaps, this link could be added to the external links section?  BruceHallman 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, that makes sense. I'll do that. Korossyl 21:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone knows anything about this subject: Baseball in Cuba, then take a look at that page and add any info they have. I would have a go myself but I know next to nothing about baseball - the ball's too small and there's not enough spontaneous acts of violence for my tastes.--Zleitzen 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's a low blow... But I wonder if anyone knows where to get a usable photo of Castro playing ball? That would definitely help the baseball article; might even be appropriate here, as it's apparently one of his hobbies. Google Images has plenty of 'em, but it doesn't seem to me that any have source info. Also, I don't speak Spanish, so about half the pages I can't read... Korossyl 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point, but I was mostly thinking for the picture to go on the Baseball in Cuba page, where it would indeed have relevance. Other than that, everyone has hobbies, and it might spice up the article; for instance, though I don't know whether it's true, I've heard Hitler liked to re-enact battles with toy soldiers, and he and Mussolini spent many a-night on the battlegrounds of Waterloo... I'd definitely be in favor of adding a picture of Hitler with toys in his article. Furthermore, it's not just a thing of the past in Castro's life: there's a picture floating around of him in the past year or so in full baseball uniform. Korossyl 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball Legend 

message: I'm not sure if this is appropriate for this article, but anyone think there would be any value in mentioning the prank call  the two Miami DJs made to Castro a year or two back? Admittedly, it's wasn't one of Castro's more refined moments , but it was pretty big news at the time, and interestingly enough in terms of US-Cuban relations, the FCC took legal action against the DJs . I'm just not sure what it would go under. If it's not right for this article, perhaps there should be a separate article for the incident that we could link to?<BR>
Korossyl 22:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe worth a very brief mention, and if you're prepared to knock a page up detailing the incident a link to that article. --Zleitzen 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try to get on that, then, and I'll add the link whenever I end up finishing. Korossyl 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this trival in the history of Fidel Castro, US relations with Fidel Castro and Cuba, and just about everything?  Capit 11:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miami Prank Call 

message: Take a look at the 'Health' section.  It has five paragraphs, and all five describe health problems.  Yet, it is a wide known and verified fact that Fidel Castro has been extraodinarily healthy.  From the BBC: "He looks very healthy."  How is the Health section of the article neutral without a mention of Castro's history of good health?  Objectively, it appears to me that anti-Castro proponents are fixated on the issue of succession and are trying to inject the 'ill-health' issue into the article as a POV push.  Indeed, I just checked at random ten Current national leaders and none had a section in their article about Health.  For this reason, I propose that the Health section be deleted entirely from the Fidel Castro article.  BruceHallman 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Castro's health is all part of the PR/Propoganda war that surrounds US Cuba relations. The BBC source quotes Assembly President (and essentially the unofficial Cuban President) Ricardo Alarcón stating that Castro is in good health - Alarcon is saying this because it is vital for the Cuban government to wrong foot any preparations towards "transition". Speculation from the outside and smokecreens from the inside are key to the present situation, which is growing daily as Raul takes centre stage. Therefore I think the health section needs to stay, Bruce. It's too important.--Zleitzen 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia should not play part in a ' PR/Propaganda war ', as you put it.  In its present form, the Private life (sic) / Health section plays a part in this war.  I agree that the issue of presidential succession is a big deal and must be covered.  Though, I argue, that it is better covered in Cuba, or in Politics of Cuba.  This is an article about a person, not an article about a country, nor an article about domestic and international politics.  Indeed, the US policy to foster 'transition' in Cuba deserves an article in itself.  BruceHallman 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please explain why Castro is different than other current national leaders?  I could not find a single other current national leader that has a section in their article about their health.  BruceHallman 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternately, I could imagine a rewrite of the Health section to include reference to the PR/propaganda war, including the issue of health and death hoaxes.  But to just parrot the health questions which give weight to the health rumors and hoaxes in an encyclopedia is inappropriate.  BruceHallman 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section needs work, I agree. But how many of these leaders are 80 years old? And how many of the leaders are in the same position as Castro. See Robert Mugabe for a comparison - and the Succession section which is the area we're talking about here.--Zleitzen 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bruce here, I don't think any political leaders should have an entire section devoted to their personal health. Insofar as it is important for succession, or for performing his official duties it could be included in sections dealing with those matters, however. Jens Nielsen 18:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its rather naïve to think that Castro’s health is not relevant. He has been dictator of Cuba for 45 years and there is no well established order of succession, making his health extremely relevant. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we really need is a succession section a la Robert Mugabe, where these issues can play a part. This is big news at the moment with Raul being groomed for a leading role, Alarcon waiting in the wings and all manner of vultures hovering around the broken tree in the US. Reading between the lines it looks like Castro really is on the way out this time. I can't see how his own impending demise is not relevant to the man himself. --Zleitzen 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zleitzen about the health section being transformed into a succession section. Touching upon the health situation of a 80 year old leader in such a succession section isn't that weird and doesn't necessarily express a POV when phrased carefully. mensch • t 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added some wording that trys to give more emphasis to the succession aspect of the issue.  BruceHallman 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Castro's health as an issue seems completely obvious. Why else is the CIA preocuppied with whether he has a brain tumor or Parkinson's disease, or why it matters if he falls and is injured? For years the US has been making "transition" plans. There was an updated "transition" plan issued just in the last few weeks. Does this issue really warrant all this discussion? Capit 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: An editor recently asked "Why add a non neutral adjective in an otherwise neutral senctence? ..." in reference to the addition of the word "popular" as in "popular revolution".  The answer is that the adjective popular  certainly meets WP:V and WP:NOR.  Indeed, I argue, it even meets WP:NPOV because, even the opposition to the revolution reluctantly recogonize it was (and to a real extent still is) popular.  Just because there is some opposition who resent that it is popular doesn't mean 'popular' is not neutral.  BruceHallman 15:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a need in the first section to describe the revolution as "popular", although it was certainly so at the time, best to keep to the raw detail as much as possible. But you are correct that a section on this page should attempt to address the popularity/unpopularity of Castro both at home and abroad. However, that needs to be carefully considered and navigated. The climate in Cuba can not be judged by Western standards. After 40 or so years of Granma editorials with little to no counterpoint - what popularity that undoubtably exists is shrouded in misinformation and extreme manipulation. --Zleitzen 16:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see this is a POV issue; "popular" doesn't necessarily mean well-liked, in this context. There are popular revolutions, in which the people themselves rise up, and... other revolutions, in which only a small group or caste is involved (e.g., the Meiji Revolution, or some of the failed French revolutions). Otherwise, about Castro's actual popularity, I agree with Zleitzen's statement. Under the current set of circumstances, I do not believe Castro's popularity can be accurately read. Korossyl 04:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify. It's not so much that the Cuban media deify Castro per se (see cult of personality above), but the relentless barrage of pro-government/anti-opposition material has skewered this issue somewhat. For example, the daily stories detailing US "crimes" (real or imagined) feeds Castro's profile as "nationalist defender". And thus, his popularity - which is genuine when found, like all other nationalist leaders - is solidified by dubious means. So no mention of Castro's popularity should be seperated from references to the lack of critical media. --Zleitzen 10:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It might add weight to the paragraph if each description was sourced. Which shouldn't be too difficult to do. Then I see no issues with it's inclusion. But more detail within the main article would helpfully elabourate on these features. --Zleitzen 16:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  popular revolution 

message: I've moved much of the material to other Cuba pages now. So would anyone object if I just removed those sections as they are best represented under Cuban foreign policy titles.--Zleitzen 00:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already read it El Jigue. For my Hilda Molina research! You've got to get up early to catch me out.--Zleitzen 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations and Soviet relations sections

message: Since when has a president been in power for 47 years, with no opposition and no possibility of such or free elections? Get real! Castro is a dictator clear and simple.
Cuba has Republic elections every four years where they elect people from different regions of Cuba to present needs and wants of these regions and Castro make these things happen. The system is just the same as in the acient times. (MP 2006)
A president is elected and shares power with a senate, congress, parliament or or otherwise. Castro is an absolute ruler. Do not dilute the meaning of a president or prime minister.
::Wikipedia says: President is a title held by many leaders of organizations, companies, universities, and countries. Etymologically, a "president" is one who presides, who sits in leadership (from Latin prae- "before" + sedere "to sit"; just as Praeses). Originally, the term referred to the presiding officer of a ceremony or meeting (i.e. chairman); but today it most commonly refers to an official with executive powers.
::Among other things, President today is a common title for the Head of state of most republics, whether popularly elected, chosen by the 
legislature or a special electoral college. It is also often adopted by dictators.
Then maybe that definition needs to be changed. Regardless, the term "president" is overwhelmingly associated with the elected leader of a free system, and that implication/connotation is why I have a problem with the term being used here. I have no problem with more neutral terms like "political leader". --Tuxley 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the definition shouldn't be changed since that's the standard definition in political science Gugganij 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: He's a dictator for crying out loud!Cameron Nedland 21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he is, but still he is also a president (like Saddam Hussein was, and Hu Jintao still is).Gugganij 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fidel Castro is the President of Cuba. Just like Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran, Alexander Lukashenko is the President of Belarus, Vladimir Putin is the President of the Russian Federation and George W. Bush is the President of the United States. It's not about democracy, it's about titles. As thus, I'm going to revert all edits labelling him as a dictator (which he, undeniably, is), as the proper title is President. The last time someone called themselves Dictators was in the Roman empire. For more on this, you might want to see the discussions about Gustave de Molinari and Murray Rothbard being anarcho-capitalists. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is a dictator, but there is a difference between how you run your country and what the title of you position is, (as said by Jobjörn above).  The fact is he is internationally recognised as President Castro. UKWiki 08:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President?? 

message: Shoulden't someone add yesterdays ordeal into this? --Elven6 12:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surgery

message: You all have seen the news. Even if only on a provisional basis, Castro transferred power to his brother. Wouldn't that make Raul the new current president of Cuba? Coolguy1368 11:14, 1 August 2006
Let's not merge the Castro article with the Transfer of Power article. The Trasnfer of Power could be a huge event, it deserves it's own topic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.105.54 (talk • contribs) 
No not really, think of it like this: If you are the manager of a store who is currently looking over it and recive a call to attend something woulden't you tell someone to look after the store while your gone? Would you just leave it out in the open so people could jack you up? Hopefully Castro wont be back and we won't have to do anything about a transfer of power. --Elven6 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[2006 Cuban transfer of duties]]

message: So Raul is a backup president? Would that make Cuba's government a dictatorship of the Castro brothers, rather than just Fidel?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's the backup dictator "President". He has no power until dictator "President" Fidel gives up power, such as now.--Kevin W. 20:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul's position as first vice president is similar to the American position of vice president in that he temporarily takes over the authority of the president's office in case of severe illness or death. --Tim4christ17 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ehm, you don't think a 79-year-old man is able to control an entire nation all by himself? Cuba's government is a dictatorship led by Fidel Castro, not of Fidel Castro. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-presidency?

message: "Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz August 13, 1926 - August 1, 2006 was the President of Cuba" but I chechked at various newspapers/TV and he seems to be still alive.
:It seems especially likely that he's still alive since it's now August 3 and there's been no news about it. --Fenoxielo 04:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the US press stops talking about Mel Gibson, then we might know if he is alive or dead. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His state of health is still a 'state secret', but he has not passed away as of yet. Bakanov 11:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's probably dead, but they claim he's alive to keep morale high.Cameron Nedland 15:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro not dead

message: This article is currently being plagued by vandalism. Starks 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting semi-protection. 

message: To be a fair use image under law the magazine cover should only be yused when referring to said article, which we have failed to do, so I ahve removed it. Give us some info about the magazine article and it will be fine but it looks like we are using the cover as a pic of Castro and not to represent the article cover. TV Genius 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use image

message: I've failed the article solely on basis of stability, which is required by the Good Article criteria. Wait until the situation cools down a bit, then feel free to renominate it. Titoxd(?!?) 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: Dear pro-Castro "intellectuals", the news coming from Cuba are not very good, as you can see your beloved DICTATOR seems to live his final moments. In a now traditional manner he gives the control of the socialist republic (what a joke) to his brother, so don't be too sad, the communism will be still destroying the life of the ordinary Cubans for another 10-15 years from now on. To Demfourlife and the few normal people on this forum, "I am watching these edit wars for months so let me give you an advice. It doesn't matter how many arguments you'll have you'll never win a battle against people like Zleitzen or BruceHallman, they are either naive, fanatics, complete morons or most likely paid to impose their pro-communist views on wikipedia. Nobody can afford to spend so much time on these pages yet they're writing every single day for at least 3 months now! Let them have this page, it doesn't matter anyway, we both know that communism is the most criminal society ever created by mankind. Truth doesn't need to be defended!. All the best (Ricardo 3:51, 5 August 2006)
:Nice try and rather quaint, but if I was imposing my "pro-communist" views on wikipedia, why would I have created articles and written more on Cuban dissidents, oppositional groups, oppositional politicians and oppositional parties than any other editor on wikipedia? Take your partisan politics elsewhere please - it is possible to understand two sides to every story. If users such as yourself want political change in Cuba, why don't you assist and contribute to the pages detailed on the List of political parties in Cuba page, and expand information as I do, or expand information on this page: Hilda Molina which I created the other day - or any of the many pages on individual Cuban dissidents, a lot of which I created. Your allegations are amusing but hold no water. --Zleitzen 07:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear pro-Castro "intellectuals" 

message: Fidel Castro is the current President of Cuba - not the de facto or any other term. This is defined by the Cuban constitution and Raul's role is identical to John Prescott's duties during Blair's heart operation or George Bush snr's duties during Reagan's health problems and operations. --Zleitzen 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite happy to get technical. Which constitution are you referring to? I'm referring to the 1976 constitution amended in 1992. Are you referring to the 1901 consitution modified by the US or the 1940 Ramon Grau inspired constitution dissolved by Batista in '52? --Zleitzen 01:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reiterate

message: Pay close attention to this man's words:
"Well I think you were describing yourself demifour. I am not even a supporter of Castro, I just think even less of those Gringo Cubans who live in the States and still call themselves Cubans and then go around hating. Insulting people in an idiotic way will merely make people think the Cuban traitors are exactly that, people without a moral stance. My moral stance is a united Latin America without it being ruled by the US and its traitorous lackeys, whom you appear to support and be one of (from the look of the ip based edit to your user pasge you are a San Francisco based American). IMO showing l;ack of respect to Castro is showing a lack of respect to Cuba, hence my use of the word traitorous to describe you and your ilk. TV Genius 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TV Genius, do not try to out editor's locations, that can be considered harrasment. Now, I edit articles about Belarus, and I faced similar issues about Lukashenko since he is Castro-like. They are both President's in the sense of the term they used to describe their offices and the way they are addressed. Until something happens to Castro, such as resignation or death, Castro should be called "President Castro," despite what he has done to his people and Cuban exiles. I still call Lukashenko president since he is the President of the Republic, though his elections are alway clouded in mystery. Plus, Demfourlife, with the Castro article being on the front page, the article will get a lot of heavy traffic and of-course, POV and other issues will rise. Now, I want all parties to relax, figure out what the main issues now and work on them instead of getting into a senseless fight that will do nothing but cause more problems. Ok? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This really isn't the arena to express an anti-US or an anti-Castro or a pro-Cuba stance etc. There are plenty of forums out there to argue the night away on such issues. Please keep to discussing the detail of the page. What is important is that this page now carries a wild claim of Castro having cancer that is apparently sourced to George Galloway! By the way, the only Jose Alvarez I know is a Cuban American economist - not a Cuban official as claimed on the page. --Zleitzen 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What this line of debate makes me feel is that you are disrupting the encyclopedia by turning this page into a battleground. Is it really of any interest to the editors of this article how nervous you feel about Cuban Americans and a US colonial war? --Zleitzen 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: this is what we are dealing with

message: I strongly support unprotection. What do others think. If we can get a consensus to unprotect it should be possible to do so and it really only should be semi-protected as having it protected at this time and while on the main page is a disgrace to wikipedia. TV Genius 04:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm..the protection was quite strange, but what I can do is perhap make a subpage so anyone who wants to comment can do so at Talk:Fidel Castro/Temp. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely unprotect. We're working out the disputes, one at a time, and edit wars (aside from vandalism) are generally dying out. Korossyl 04:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree Mrdthree 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editting is allowed now for annons, but I have still kept the page move lock on. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a lock war for the main article, not this talk page, so I am going to sort it out with them. But the talk page is free. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect

message: This is a whitewash. All someone here has to do is say hes a socialist and magically all his policies are socialist. Itemize these claims, Castro has been head of state for fifty years and has some serious accountability. There is no chronology of his major political acts.  Where is the documentation of his economic and political policies? What are the outcomes of his policies? did he ever change a policy? find a policy didnt work? If so what did he do about it? Has he made any controversial decisions in fifty years? Any wrong decisions? any brutal decisions? and if there is an article that documents this where is the link?Mrdthree 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Land reform-- how and when was it carried out and for whom? How did he implement agricultural collectivization? When did he do it? Did Castro appoint anyone to manage the collective farms? What industries were nationalized and when. Who was appointed to manage the industries. Has anyone ever been fired? Has there ever been a strike? Has he ever closed a factory and when? What is allowed to be taught in school. What are the limitations on the number of people who can go to university each year. Where does he live? Why doesnt he address the right to travel issues? Has he ordered anyone arrested? when and why? Has he ever ordered the military to do anything? When and What? fifty years as leader means a lot of responsibility and makes a long article not a short one.Mrdthree 05:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies which saw the rapid centralization of Cuba's economy .... the nationalization of leading Cuban industries. The expansion of publicly funded health care and education has been a cornerstone of Castro's domestic social agenda.--Zleitzen 05:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simply saying he has done too much to be documented misses the point of an encyclopedia. Since you say his decisions involve 50 pages of history it should probably be part of a new article, where his political policies are listed in a table by chronology with some discussion of the rationale, achievement and failings of each policy vis-a-vis the desired intent. He has been a chief executive for a long time and should be open to the same scrutiny as other leaders. Mrdthree 03:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the mean time I will gather links to begin to research his political acts. This sites lists translations of his speeches and edicts List of links to various sites on history of cuba  Mrdthree 04:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to understand. All the information is contained in the 50 or so articles on Cuban politics and history. Please save yourself the time and familiarise yourself with wikipedia and Cuba. Much of the material on this page is being scaled down rather than expanded as it is well represented elsewhere. Castro is an individual. The Cuban government make policy. Take a look at this featured article of a controversial political leader in power for over a decade Margaret Thatcher. --Zleitzen 04:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great we should work together to add to this information Analysis of Cuban and Castro Policy . Some discussion of economic policy and nationalization  ; further at .Mrdthree 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect and put a disputed and NPOV label on it

message: The question is not protect or un protect, the question is when are we going to disallow the hijacking of this page by pro-castro supporters.  I attempted to place a picture of Castro falling next to an already written section chronicalling his health, INCLUDING THE FALL AND HOW HE OVERCAME IT, and I was not allowed too, even though there are what can be considered pro-castro pictures throughout.  I then asked to remove a pic of castro walking on a red carpet, and was told NO!
This is unfair and why many consider the Wikipedia experiment a failure.  It's obvious Zscout, that you are trying to do the right thing here, but there are many like TV Genius who are allowed to edit that are self appointed ANTI-AMERICANS who are allowed to say nay or yea to what I want included.  That's a shame.--Demfourlife 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned before, I faced problems like this before, so I am trying to take the experiences I had from the Lukashenko article and trying to bring them here. And while I was one of the people who asked for the Castro photo, on the red carpet, to stay put, let me see the Castro photo you have and  see if they can tied into the article somehow. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...Demfourlife, the photo was deleted by others. What happened was while that you listed the images as fair use, showing the fall, the photos were combined from television frames, and the admins wanted to know where a source of the frames were. Since a source was not listed within 7 days, the photo was removed from articles by a automated process and deleted. I am not inclined to restore the photo, due to the copyright issues, but your free to find another photo showing the fall, from a source we could use it from, state the source and tie it in with the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if the photo is fair use, you still need to cite the source of where you got it from. The fall is already mentioned in the article, so the only thing that needs to be done is just have a image + source (not just "TV," but as in what channel the video frames came from or where you found the frames online). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That several year old image has little to do with 'Succession issues', and in my opinion is unencylopedic.  Further, it seems to be over the line towards the anti-Castro POV, and we should try to error on the neutral side, and not add even more extreme POV issues.  This article is challenging to keep at a neutral POV, that image clearly hurts the goal of keeping the article neutral.   BruceHallman 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (See Talk:Fidel Castro#Image of Castro tripping Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: picture of Castro falling

message: Is there a discussion anywhere on the above topic - Raul Castro, the North Korean example etc - and possibly Mao's wife in the Gang of Four? Jackiespeel 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Government of Cuba, but I am not sure. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Communism and the hereditary principle

message: The article mentions two brothers and three sisters.  However a recent CNN report about his sister's Juanita's opinion on his health said that he had four sisters.  Who's missing?  SargeAbernathy 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a long-lost sister, previously unknown to the outside world, or one who just like to hide from the media attention. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Siblings

message: According to the imdb , Fidel Castro was an extra in two American movies in 1946.   The article makes no mention of his being in the United States (the mini-bio at imdb claims he lived in New York in exile).  Is the imdb wrong, or is this just missing? siafu 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe imdb is wrong... they're not very good at fact-checking. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be more than one Fidel Castro, but I agree, it is highly unlikely that the Cuban leader was in the movies. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actor?