Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 9

message: Was reading through and noticed a certain error in the grammar here.
"Fidel Castro is the illegitimate son of Lina Ruz González (1905-1961)and Ángel Castro y Argiz. Lina Ruz came to the Castro household in 1919 as a cook when she was 14 and promptly thereafter proceeded to have seven children out of wedlock with the elder Castro. The children were raised in various foster home arrangements. Fidel was third oldest (first Angela, then Ramón (born in 1924"
"Promptly thereafter" implies she had children at the mentioned age in 1919. But her first kids were born in 1924. That is clearly 5 years after she arrived in 1919.  "Promptly thereafter" is thus incorrect.
Would it also go to say that given the circumstances of her stay, this young girl was abused by the elder Castro?  --Steve Latinner 23:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar Error

message: Just made some changes and forgot to label them - "simple and balanced please" would have been the line had I remembered. 
Like Antispammer I'm not keen on "leader", and the line "leader of Cuba since 1959, when, leading the 26th of July Movement," is awful. How about "...the most powerful individual in Cuba since 1959, when, leading..."
MichaelW 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just about all encyclopedias and sourcebooks refer to him as "leader" of Cuba since 1959. Rather than coming up with awkward constructions meant to avoid usage of the term "leader" because of-- I think-- pretty pedantic reasons, being more specfic is probably the right approach. The article can open up stating that Fidel Castro has ruled Cuba since 1959, holding the title of prime minister from 1959 to 1976, and later president since 1976. 172 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this debate turned out a more revolting statement than I had anticipated.  --Antispammer 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Michael Famelis, please accept Antispammer's compromise here  so that everyone can move on to more productive topics. 172 15:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not trying to debate anyone. Do get your sleep, apparently you need it. I did not add anything that was ethnicity oriented. Here is the diff of my edit, and certainly I did not try to be "subtly offensive" of any nature. Please understand that I assume good faith from your part and that I expect you to do the same. Oh, and I don't like my name being a section title in a talk page, so I remove it, thank you very much :-) -- Michalis Famelis 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Antispammer here. Stating why Castro's followers argue that Castro does not wield dictatorial power is excessive in the intro. Just pointing out that he has supporters abroad is sufficient. The rest of the article is really supposed to illuminate the nature and scope of his power. BTW, it is common practice on Wikipedia to make the user name of a particular editor a section header on a talk page. It is a way of trying to catch the attention of a particular editor. 172 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued from Archive 8...

message: This is where you come to rail about the fact that I'm a jerk and have no authority and should go back to sleep.  In the immortal words of Tone Loc:  "Let's do it" Wikibofh(talk) 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other issue - Commie State/Socialist Republic - I'd like to see a summing up of the arguments here before I vote and I'd rather discuss it and look to being consistent with the entries for other nations than rely on a politically polarised vote. More a case for RfC maybe. Issue of consistency throughout Wikipedia.  Night nightMichaelW 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael W., there is no argument. The term "Communist state" is the common term in the Western and English-speaking world to refer to Communist Party-led states in which the state appartus and the party are embedded in each other officially under the constitution. Cuba's economic base is socialist. But that fact does not mean that the description of Cuba as a Communist state is inaccurate. The term "Communist" in "Communist state" refers to the party, as opposed to the socialist economy. Please, move on to more productive matters. There has been a three-year consensus behind using the term "Communist state" on Wikipedia because it is the most specific term one can use to describe the Castro regime. Frankly, I'm getting somewhat tied of having to explain this matter over and over again over the years. 172 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can a contribution disappear without trace? - I'm sure I posted a response to 172's comments which has gone, and a troll through the history doesn't find it. If not excuse me my mind's gone...MichaelW 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I am quite disappointed that Wikibofh restarted this most unproductive controversy. I am ignoring the "poll" and urge other users to do the same. 172 06:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comandante is a vandal who has been changing the reference to "socialist state" on this article for nearly a year without any support or discussing his edits. The fact that Comandante is still revert warring is irrelevant. He is always revert warring on this article. 172 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus Poll discussion 

message: Seriously.. this is sad.  Do you people realize how many hours of your life you have wasted over such a dumb topic?  Also, don't you realize that no one can win this argument, and that you will never reach an agreement??  I dont believe you people care about the wikipedia users, Fidel Castro, or Cuba.  All you are trying to do is prove that your beliefs are superior to everyone else's.  If you found out that you would die in three months, would you be happy with your life???  Knowing that you spent most of your time arguing on the internet.  Do you really think people that want accurate information will use this website, knowing that anyone can change anything???  Seriously.. its sad knowing that people spend hours arguing over whether someone is a dictator or not, or how long it took a country to become communist.  Topics like this should be locked to prevent all this useless arguing.  GO WRITE A NEW ARTICLE, OR DO SOMETHING THAT WILL ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE; instead of arguing like five year olds possessing adult vocabularies. Take my advice and MOVE ON! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.191.91.227 (talk • contribs) 3:52, 14 January 2006. 
:No. sorry, had to say it ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QUIT WASTING YOUR TIME! 

message: In the section Putative early contacts with influencial people:
: "...and is subject to various U.S Government investigations."
I added the "is" here. Is this saying Castro was being investigated, and that Wieland was helping him in this regard, or that Wieland is subject to the investigations? If it's confusing me, I'm sure it will others as well. Could someone double check this sentence? 
If it's Wieland, it should likely say "is now" or "became". --DanielCD 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a double-check pls

message: Has Fidel Castro recently declared Islam as his religion, or is it just a rumor? Have heard this from numerous people but I have yet to find a credible online source.
--Ajunction 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam? 

message: I am getting the sense that consensus indicates we should say Castro is the "leader" as opposed to the "dictator" of Cuba in the opening paragraph. A persistent anon continues to change this and gets roundly reverted. Any comments here? (ESkog)(Talk) 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can we all agree on "head of state?" Carptrash 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because that would be inaccurate. Castro did not officially assume the post of head of state-- president-- until 1976. Before 1976, his highest state post was that of prime minister-- the head of government and not the head of state. In the opening sentence we have to choose a term that is (1) not too restrictive in that in cannot refer to both the posts of prime minister and (2) neutral. The first criterion rules out the terms "head of state," "president," and "head of government." The second criterion rules out "dictator." The only terms that are going to work in the opening sentence are "leader" and "ruler." I have no preference either way. 172 | Talk 10:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  'leader" if fine with me - I can see where HofS doesn't quite work. Carptrash 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am almost in complete agreement with 172 here, except I lean toward "ruler" as I believe "leader" is inadequate by comparison.  --TJive 18:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Tjive holds a dissenting opinion and nevertheless constantly reverts edits conforming with majority opinion, I'd like to hear an argument why 'ruler' is more appropriate. Jens Nielsen 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Who cares what to call him, when I take over the world, I will PWN him straight out of Cuba. Oh, by the way, when my article is here, you can refer to me as "Supreme Emperor Poo-bah". World Domination in West Dakota which is not a state yes, it is, or at least it will be when I take over the world.
I would call him by his own titles.  But leader or ruler is fine. Its definetly POV to call him dictator. 12.220.94.199 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the former. Change leadership to presidency. More accurate, less double-meaning. We should give up term leadership and start using terms of position cause leaders don't represent everyone. I changed one leader in the Human rights in Cuba. Teemu Ruskeepää 06:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Leader" vs "Dictator" 

message: A certain editor removed a section on the executions in the aftermath of Castro's victory with the simple notation "sources not credible."  That is absurd the argument is not whether numerous  executions happened on January 1st 1959 but whether Raul Castro alone executed 75 or 500 surrendered Batista soldiers and buried them in a mass grave on the Santiago de Cuba  golf course that  day.  We, in the rebel forces heard 500 in that area.  I  reinserted the material, and suggest that the editor in question read more on those days when glory turned to horror.  El Jigüe 2/12/06
:It may be absurd, but it is wikipedia policy... original research--Colle||Talk-- 21:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations not credible

message: Probably because it was thought not pertinent or could it be to remove any reference to when Castro was a university “activist” killing people (e.g. Manolo Castro) with the Emilio Tro action group
-===Education===  -Castro was educated at Jesuit and La Salle Christian Brothers Schools  ) private schools in Santiago de Cuba and the Colegio de Belén in Havana, graduating in 1945. He would later expel the faculty from Cuba, like many other priests and religious figures, and have the schools property nationalized. After high school, Castro enrolled at the University of Havana to study law. Here he joined the Union Insurreccional Revolucionaria (UIR, the Insurrectional Revolutionary Union) an action group led by Emilio Tro ,, , ,  and became involved in political disputes that were often violent and sometimes murderous.
The Watcher
:Do you mean that someone took it off and you restored it? Teemu Ruskeepää 12:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro’s education has been removed

message: Does an article on Fidel Castro really need all that detail on Wieland ?  Surely better to give him his own page ?
Is he Wieland or Weiland ??  Both spellings used.
-- Beardo 01:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wieland 

message: Talking about Castro's 1959 trip, it says "Castro spent two days in Canada, initiating a friendship with future Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret Trudeau."  Margaret Trudeau was 11 at that time.  Whilst Castro may have become friends with Mrs Trudeau later, the wording is confusing.  Clearer just to delete.
-- Beardo 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margaret Trudeau 

message: Alejandro is pronounced as “Alehandro”, much as Mexico is pronounced “Mehico” El Jigue 3/1/06
Alejandro I thought was pronounced "alexandro" Llamadog903 22:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Wasn't there more to the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, like agreement by the US to remove missiles from Turkey? --Robert Merkel 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact I should have read the October Crisis section above a little more closely, this actually duplicates the same subject, perhaps this should be almost deleted altogether? --Sully 14:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuban Missile Crisis