Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 11

message: ===Early years in power===
On January 15, 1956, Castro's forces entered my butt on January 5 the liberal law professor José Miró Cardona created a new government with himself as head stupid man and Manuel Urrutia Lleó as evil man.''
Has anybody else noticed that there's a section entitled "Life as a gorrilla"?
I found that amusing. 
--71.48.177.245 20:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is as follows, this fatalist attitude and use of force according to the POV of just a few participants pushes people away. People don't even want to try to discuss things, and they just come to Wikipedia to force articles for a while. The same people insult their views calling them "laughable POV's", fail to listen to others, perhaps because they think than others "only" want to annoy them, and then fail to see that the discussion has failed due to their own prejudice and arrogance, and then kill the discussion by moving it to the archives. This way nothing gets solved, everything is exactly how KarenAnn and BruceHallman likes it, and everything is taken up in an endless cycle of unconstructive prejudice and arrogance. Why don't you grow up, people!
Teemu Ruskeepää 19:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic

message: On January 15, 1956, Castro's forces entered my butt on January 5 the liberal law professor José Miró Cardona created a new government with himself as head stupid man and Manuel Urrutia Lleó as evil man.''
Has anybody else noticed that there's a section entitled "Life as a gorrilla"?
I found that amusing. 
--71.48.177.245 20:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early years in power

message: Is that a green baretta that Castro is wearing? The same as Guevara used to wear. I'd like to get one and scare the finnish bourgeoisies on the street. Teemu Ruskeepää 16:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political beginnings 

message: *"What is striking about defectors’ accounts is their consistency, which is impressive because they originate from independent sources, who have had dissimilar access to the structure of power, and whose testimonies cover different events and stages and have been collected over a long period. 
*"Since the 1990s Fidel Castro is said to have a fund called “Fondo de Divisas del Comandante en Jefe,” into which 15% of all hard currency revenues generated by Cubans overseas—trainers, artists, professionals, technicians, and so on—is deposited"
*"in the 1980s Fidel Castro received suitcases full of hard currency as “gifts” for his birthday each August 13"
*"Jesús Marzo Fernández reports that he witnessed a birthday party for Castro in the 1980s when a prominent government official gave Castro a suitcase with US$10 million."
*"Manuel de Beunza, who managed Cuban businesses in Canada, reports having on one occasion personally delivered US$2 million to Fidel"
*"a meeting in the late 1960s with Raúl Castro, at the time when del Pino was in charge of the commercial airline Cubana de Aviación. Raúl instructed him to open a bank account in Zurich, Switzerland, to deposit all the fees received from foreign airlines for air passage over Cuba. The accounts were opened in the names of Vilma Espín, Raúl’s wife, and Rodolfo Fernández, the right hand man of Celia Sánchez, Fidel’s longtime friend and confidant"
*"Castro allegedly makes loans from his overseas “reserves” to the national economy to cover hard currency shortfalls at an interest of ten percent,"
*"Fidel’s daughter, Alina, mentions several “Protocol Houses” used for dignitaries and friends of Castro, information that is confirmed by other defectors.56 The long list includes anywhere from 25 to 37 homes57 all over the island; many are said to be used only occasionally for shortrest periods during travels throughout the island or to entertain guests. These include a number of recreational residences at beaches and in the countryside, ranches, hunting grounds, specialized fishing and cattle reserves, a shrimp breeding facility, and luxuriousunderground bunkers outfitted with the latest technology.58 Some have their own electric generation and water plants, sophisticated communications’ command facilities, and enjoy amenities such as pools, tennis courts, marinas, and even golf courses."
*"Among Castro’s overseas properties is said to be a castle in Austria,59 and large ranches in Galicia, Spain; Monterrey, Mexico; and near New Delhi, India."
*"The involvement of high-ranking Cuban government officials in international drug trafficking under the orders or with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Castro brothers has been long alleged. Consistent reports abound from former regime insiders, members of Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, from intelligence officials of the former Soviet Union and its satellites, and from journalists, governments, and even world leaders—including the Presidents of the United States and Colombia."
*"Fidel’s approval was won with the argument that it would not only weaken the United States, but also bring in funds for international subversive activities and hard currency for Cuba.64 Rodríguez Mernier relates that drug trafficking became a substantial source of hard currency revenue for Fidel Castro.65 Major Florentino Aspillaga explains that millions of dollars in cash delivered by Cuban intelligence agents to Castro were to be deposited in his Swiss bank accounts “in order to finance liberation movements."
*"Roberto Ampuero, a Chilean revolutionary who in the 1970s married the daughter of Cuba’s Attorney General, in a biographical novel depicts the privileged lifestyle of a select few in Castro’s inner circle. Ampuero soon became disaffected with the Cuban Revolution as he witnessed rampant corruption by the Cuban political elite living in the mansions of those who had fled the country, with servants, drivers, and plentiful access to food and all sorts of consumer goods while the Cuban population was under strict food rationing and material deprivation. See Ampuero, op. cit."
Just some morsels. Read the best details in the article. :) Ultramarine 03:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castro's Corruption 

message: BruceHallman 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: He is the longest serving Prime Minister

message: communism IS better than capitalism, right? it's just that no one can actually do it right.
"Power currupts, Apsalute power corrupes absalultly"
because this will alwas hold true Communism can never be better than capatilisim where there are restrictions on power.Ken 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: you do know that in theory

message: Please don't be so fatalist in engaging a rather irrelevant and abstract conversation, fail to discuss contructively with your opponent and then crash and burn and "archive" the discussion. All you need to do to be constructive is to express the problem and suggest an alternative. Don't try to prove everything by going into off-topic. Teemu Ruskeepää
:The problem is as follows, this fatalist attitude and use of force according to the POV of just a few participants pushes people away. People don't even want to try to discuss things, and they just come to Wikipedia to force articles for a while. The same people insult their views calling them "laughable POV's", fail to listen to others, perhaps because they think than others "only" want to annoy them, and then fail to see that the discussion has failed due to their own prejudice and arrogance, and then kill the discussion by moving it to the archives. This way nothing gets solved, everything is exactly how KarenAnn and BruceHallman likes it, and everything is taken up in an endless cycle of unconstructive prejudice and arrogance. Why don't you grow up, people!
Teemu Ruskeepää 19:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To all discussers

message: It's horrible just in terms of the quality of writing. 172 | Talk 21:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because, like just about any controversial subject, it has been re-re-re-re-re-rewritten in an ideological warfare. You could gice it a go but it will probably be reverted in no time. Alas. I have stopped contributing to anything relating to such subjects and so will many other neutral editors, which of course does not help. This is a major problem with Wikipedia. I suppose edits in such articles (the ones related to communism for starters) should be limited to people who have proven to have a neutral pov. Until then, I only use Wikipedia for non-controversial technical stuff. At least in that realm Wikipedia rulez! :) DirkvdM 18:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed all the articles that weren't about Castro in person and I added links to their main pages at the "see also section". There, it doesn't need much more change now. Teemu Ruskeepää 12:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to move "foreign relations" and "Castro and Soviet Union" entirely to "Cuba - government and politics" and I have asked that there, while the article is closed "until disputes are disolved". Teemu Ruskeepää 12:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs a rewrite

message: Just making sure everyone on this page is OK with definitions of Cuba.--Zleitzen 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuba definition

message: This article no longer seems to need copyediting, and I think the copyedit notice should be removed.Emmett5 17:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still sections though that have no citations.KarenAnn 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Copyedit 

message: I would like to copy edit this article on Fidel Castro. However, it is impossible for me to tell fact from fiction from innuendo without references.
I have no particular bias, but some of the writing seems outlandish. I am not interested in producing a biased biography but rather something straightforward, yet representing various views (as I know there is no one truth.) I need some cooperation from some reasonable thinkers. Please?
Thank you,
KarenAnn 00:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is reasonably substantiated fact about Fidel Castro? 

message: Sorry I made my huge structural alteration with out asking you guys. I believe it is good though. 
In the paragraph "Assumption of power" the lines are untidy, because the index numbers make the lines wider than usual. Wikipedia needs to create a new set of index fonts, which are as small as ² (alt + 253), ¹ (alt + 251) and ³ (alt + 252). However, you can still use those characters for some numbers to make the line compact and tidy. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to restore some of the content you deleted, hope you don't mind. But not mentioning things like the missile crisis during the Cold War or only touching the subject of the 26th of July Movement, Bogotazo or other things which are major events in the life of Castro and only referring to them in the "See also" section seems a bit strange to me. Now I know that a lot of these sections I restored are still in need of restructuring or downsizing, but I think they should still be in the article for the overall completeness. I think the article as it was earlier only reflected part of what the article about Castro should look like. mensch • t 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future I hope that all things are discussed before being realised. I was trying to make the article a biography of Fidel Castro. Do you think it should be more than just a biography? How do you think your changes relate to this idea? Teemu Ruskeepää 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your idea of a biography? Would you write a biography of Theodore Roosevelt or Aldoph Hitler without discussion of multiple aspects of World War II? Or would World War II just be in the See also section? NothingMuch 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ai caramba! Teemu Ruskeepää 08:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see how it turns up. I may have had been better to read the discussions first before I made my changes. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: KarenAnn has removed some of her added material, which is a shame because there was some really good material in there. Does anyone object to reinstating it to raise the quality of the article? --Zleitzen 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'am not against it (I know KarenAnn is), because it's good content. Also, questionable mass removals, as Teemu Ruskeepää did, need to be discussed on the talk page of the article first, I think. Although it's a Wikipedia policy to be bold, the recent removals crippled the article. mensch • t 11:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm too for putting back KarenAnn's material. I really like what she did of the article, her additions were quite good. And, yes, removals should be discussed first, not done unilaterally. --RockyMM 12:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Material

message: This aritlce was relatively good a few weeks ago. Is this anarchy? The inmates have taken ove the asylum. Marat de Sade? Or foolishness? NothingMuch 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. It got destroyed about three days ago. People have been working hard to restore it, much to their credit, but it certainly isn't as good (or as interesting) as it was before the destruction NothingMuch 11:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. I think this version by KarenAnn, has the original, better sections. It's better to restore the section parts of that version with the current ones, as they read as a series of dates and numbers. The old version is better, maybe a bit dense, but better. Anyone feels like restoring? mensch • t 11:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the third time, I'm for it! The amount of time and research invested by KarenAnn should not be wasted, especially if the result of that hard work was as good. Maybe we should make a voting here? --RockyMM 13:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was about to restore the content today, but I'll wait for a little while longer. If there are no massive objections the next few days, I'll restore the deleted parts of the article. mensch • t 13:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored all the content which was lost about a week ago. I left some paragraphs (about Cubas economy) out of the article, because they don't deal with Castro and his direct influence on Cuba. I also removed the "copyedit" notice on the top of the article. For some parts of the article this notice is still in order, but the notice should be put there, I think. mensch • t 11:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on? 

message: I note. with not a little amusement, that in Revision as of 14:20, 28 May 2006 (edit) Maester mensch (Talk | contribs) eliminates any references to the murders Castro committed as a student, even to the point of eliminating the pallid words of Herbert Matthews a well known Castro apologist.  5-31-06 El Jigue
:First of all, let me make it clear that I'm not a Castro supporter nor a communist, I'm just interested in the subject. I deleted those lines, because I read on the talk page that Matthews is an unreliable source. I think there should be a reference to those murders, but if such a story can only be backed up by a flimsy source, than I think it's better not to mention it until a better source is found. 
:So please, I you've got a reliable source backing up the claims concerning Castro's murders in his student days, post it here. I think that's a far better approach than telling us that it amuses you... 
:And "whitewashing", are there other facts that should be mentioned in the article? If so, please add them. mensch • t 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And the whitewash continues

message: I think that rather than burying old discussions into an inaccessible archive, the list should be organized. This way the discussion could expand without the need of archives. Make a categorial order which deepens in an orderly fashion. I've thought of a basic root of all the present headings in the article and a two permanent "control" categories: 1. Off-topic and 2. Additions and general quality. Depending on the article, the discussion categories should include all the present titles in the article and if necessairy, categories for "photos" and "sources", which are not displayed in the article's tree of contents .  
Please express your will freely at the appropriate category of your choosing. Please do not add new discussions outside the discussion tree. You can also suggest new categories at "additions and general quality.
DECIDED THINGS
This is a new feature to my discussion tree structure, which makes conclusions valid and repetition unnecessairy. It improves my design, whose purpose is to eliminate the need for discussion archives. This will be added, I hope, at the end of every paragraph, where there will be a copy of the present section of the article. Decided things will be highlighted and the others are not. New articles will always be highlighted (decided) at first. If a user wishes to re-open discussion, the part will be unbolded, and futher arguments ensue at the end of the old discussion. 
The discussion tree should be maintained simultaneously with editions of the discussion as well as the article. When editing the article, the "decided things" should be edited to correspond with the article. When editing the discussion, the "decided things" should be edited (highlight - unbold ) to show what is under dispute and what has been concluded. The editors may do this themselves, or then observers can do it, voluntarely. 
The Wikipedia structure should be modified to include the present discussion headings in the discussion page, so that when a user starts a new discussion, he could choose a present heading, which together form a universal category. Also the "decided things" at the end of every main discussion heading, should be programmed to appear automatically every time someone adds a new heading to the article, along with the new heading, of course.
Teemu Ruskeepää 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the good intentions, but I find that the sorting of the talk page into a discussion tree makes the talk page nearly unusuable.  Please do not do this sorting.  It makes the page far too hard to read.  BruceHallman 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just think the part of the article you want to discuss. All the comments on that very part are in the same category as the part in the article. Please have an open mind for new suggestions. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making a comprehensive discussion tree

message: I replied to something on this page that showed up on my watchlist and found that my reply was surrounded by posts in April.
We need to have things in chronological order (at least I do -- as I am easily confused!  KarenAnn 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of discussions on this talk page which are quite old or not relevant anymore and can thus be archived. The topics which matter should remain here in chronological order. I think that's the best solution. mensch • t 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know how to accomplish that? (I haven't the foggist.)  KarenAnn 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just create link to a new page (Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive_11) and start the page. I'm afraid we'll have to remove the content manually. But let's wait a bit until there is some consensus on what stays and what's going to be archived. mensch • t 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean that you will save my discussion tree and all the active debates? Is it necessairy to move anything to archives, when you can browse all the old and new comments in chronological order, but just in a subject based category? KarenAnn, the only difference now is that the chronological order exists separately in all headings, not simultaneously based on the entire article. You shouldn't quit trying to learn my discussion tree. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This difference now is that I can't find anything anymore on this Talk page. It's become useless to me. This morning I had a orange banner saying there was a message for me but where? I browsed the Talk tree a while but got tired and confused. I found this message from you here accidently because am sticking to this heading as I can converse with mensch here. KarenAnn 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just think the part of the article you want to discuss. All the comments on that very part are in the same category as the part in the article. Please have an open mind for new suggestions. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we archive this page and start over? 

message: Is Castro currently the head of state who has been head of state for longest among all nations?  Would be a notable stat to mention in the intro paragraphs if so. 
 Tempshill 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he the head of state of the longest duration? 

message: Current form: "This partnership resulted in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Cuba's military intervention in many countries of the third world."
My suggestion: " This partnership realised in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Cuba's military intervention in many countries of the third world.
Argument: The former assigns blame on Castro's allying with Soviet Union. That he shouldn't have allied with communists that don't exist anymore and that Castro isn't any good himself. We don't want to suggest or take sides in anything but just to tell what happened in history. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement no longer applies as the article has become a battle ground of political viewpoints, with little to no referencing. There is no leadership. The kindergarden has no no supervision. The Fidel Castro site will go down in flames. NothingMuch 03:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, bitch all you want here, as long as you don't bitch up the article ;) Teemu Ruskeepää 08:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking through the Fidel Castro history, it is clear that Teemu Ruskeepää is the one that bitched up the article  -- although that's really not using the word "bitch" correctly. I've never heard anyone say "bitched up" before. NothingMuch 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You will find no such things. I last modified this on 18:17, 22 May 2006. This low-level english term describes well what an internet troll or a bitch does to articles. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Hey all,
I'm putting back the sentence which reads "while silencing political dissenters and quelling challenges to his rule." You said it's not cited or in the right place. Nothing in the intro paragraph seems to be cited; it's merely introducing topics which are then backed up and expanded upon in the following article. I agree that the sentence was unveriafiable before the addition of the section on Human Rights, but as that has been added (by TDC) cleaned up (by Mensch) and cited (by me), the sentence makes sense now.
Likewise, I think the sentence should be in the intro paragraph. Again, the intros serve as a general summary of the topic and/or articles, by way of an introduction. When giving a (very brief) overview of the topic of "Fidel Castro", I think it important to mention his human rights violations (as documented), which are multitudinous, extensive, and a key to understanding many of the issues facing Castro and his regime today, both domestically and internationally. Certainly as important as the other things mentioned, such as free health care and education.
Korossyl 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just sayd it, let me quote here: "I wouldn't know about the status of parliamentary elections in Cuba, or how democratic they are". Wich makes me believes that indeed, you just know the bad parts of how Cuba really is today. That is usually seen as "Confirmation Bias", wich means that you pretty much go through Castro information just looking for bad things about him. Such a mistake for any researcher, such a mistake that so many wikipedians do, to see history as a one sided story, when all in all, its far more complicated than that. The intro is better than before, perhaps a little bigger than before, but much better. Although it says "some", instead of naming that "some" as a group perhaps, or an organization, for example Amnesty International.
Hey now, no need to get personal. All I meant by that statement is that I don't really know much about parliamentary politics in Cuba, one way or the other. By extension, I don't know how democratic they are. Frankly, I don't much care -- despite my activity in this article, I have no real specific interest in Cuba or Castro. Yeah, I believe he's an evil dictator. No, I never wrote that into the article. I happened to chance upon this article, noticed that there is absolutely nothing in it to indicate that Castro is anything but a normal, run-of-the-mill political leader, and then made two minor changes to the intro. These changes were negative towards Castro, but not really inflammatory or POV -- they survived several days, and the version that's online now is actually more critical than I was. My only interest was to show that Castro is no political liberal, or that there is at least some controversy over whether he is or not. That's reflected in the article now, there's healthy discussion going on, and I'm more or less satisfied. Where the eventual balance ends up doesn't matter that much to me, as long as there is an indication that Castro's a controversial figure (which is indisputable). So, that's why I'm not really active around here anymore.<BR>
Other than that, I have no vested interest in Castro (beyond my interest in world politics in general). I'm not Cuban, he has had no effect on my life in any way. I certainly can't be bothered to actively "go through Castro information just looking for bad things about him." Best of luck to you all.<BR>
Korossyl 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights violations in Intro Paragraph 

message: His partnership with the Soviet Union was close until its collapse in 1991. This relationship resulted in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Cuba's military intervention in many countries of the third world.
The way this is worded makes it sound like the partnership collapsed, when surely you must mean the Soviet Union collapsed
:I changed that line into this: "His partnership with the Soviet Union was close until the collapse of the USSR in 1991." mensch • t 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His partnership with the Soviet Union was close until its collapse in 1991.  

message: Peterperfect 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be the case, but the way it's described and argumented now doesn't help the tone of the article. An in-depth view as to how Cuba finances its public services somewhere in the article (and not in the introduction) is better than just stating that a $15 salary has got something to do with the public services in a country. It's not clear how those two things relate to each other and the BBC article doesn't make that clear either. mensch • t 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair point about tone. However, repeating the myth that Medical & Schooling as relates to Saleries is free shows undue bias. The goal was to balance the statement. I suggest at least the word "Free" be replaced with "Public Funded" as the underlining artical on "Free Health care" is so named. Peterperfect 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Health & Education 

message: Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado was.  --TJive 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fidel Castro was not president in 1959

message: Currently the word "president" (or leader) in the first paragraph of the Castro article has been changed on an daily or even hourly basis...
Technically speaking Castro is the president under the Council of State of Cuba, see this article for more information. He may be more than that - a usurper to some and a messiah to others - but one is never going to catch the complete Castro as a statesman in one word in the opening paragraph of the article. I think he should be mentioned as a president, nothing more. The explanation about his rule as president can be done in the main article. The way - the everchanging first line of the opening paragraph - it's going now is a bit daft. mensch • t 15:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was not head of state in 1959 either. I appreciate your attempt to control NPOV issues, but the introduction clearly needs to specify what he has been since 1959 (in which case "leader" is inadequate), or merely mention what are his present official titles. --TJive 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First we need to establish what he has been since 1959, because I haven't got a clue what titles Castro has possessed during his life. Right now the opening paragraph reads "premier". mensch • t 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that premier is correct, but don't hold me to it.  --TJive 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Castro was premier of Cuba from 1959 and president of the Council of State and of the Council of Ministers (head of state) from 1976. Premier generally means head of government - not neccessarily head of state. ie. Tony Blair is the UK premier but is not head of state. The term can also apply to Castro post 1976 however where Castro remains the premier, and is in my view the most accurate. --Zleitzen 15:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Castro is both head of state and head of government (President of the Council of State and President of the Council of Ministers). However, the post of prime minister or premier was abolished in February 1976, which is an arrangement different from most Communist systems. I don't think we can describe Castro as premier. Similarly, no one describes the president of the United States as premier, although the U.S. executive is both cheif of state and head of government as well. At any rate, these descriptions are somewhat irrelevant, given that Castro's real position of power does not rest in the Council of State and Council of Ministers, but as head of the Communist Party. 172 | Talk 16:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, 172. Actually I didn't know that no one describes the president of the United States as "premier". Though Chirac often is - despite being head of state and not head of government. Have added a line for clarity.--Zleitzen 17:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I've ever heard Chirac described as the "premier." Villepin is the premier. Chirac used to be the premier in the mid-1970s, and once again in the late-1980s. 172 | Talk 03:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leader, president, supreme being, commandante, ruler, dictator...

message: I can understand the desire to be accurate, but isn't it important also to maintain a high quality of writing?
This intro is getting worse with the quality of writing falling off precipitously.
CaseyCastle 11:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particuarily like the wording myself (and I wrote it), but it's a move towards accuracy. Users should feel free to change the wording, but should ensure that the intro doesn't leave itself open to ambiguities and future edit warring.--Zleitzen 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Fidel Castro intro badly written 

message: TJive just reverted the article with the comment: "this is the most appropriate reference to the communist party; the other paragraph is overkill for sentiments already discussed in the intro."  Discussion of communism in Cuba belongs in the Cuba article, this article is about Fidel Castro, so it does not actually appear to be 'most appropriate'.  Second part, the paragraph deleted in whole is not 'already discussed in the intro'.  TJive, please explain these inconsistencies.  BruceHallman 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an accurate representation of my remarks.  There needs to be some reference to the Communist Party of Cuba in the context of his politics and his actions in Cuba.  I was attempting a rather sterile compromise from CJK's previous insertions.  Thus "most appropriate" of any proposed wordings so far.  As for your paragraph, there is no need for it.  The various views of this man are already discussed and there is no need for a colorful retread. --TJive 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On another note, this talk page is bewildering.  --TJive 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "enshrined" is a rather odd choice of words in the very first paragraph. My dictionary says: "To charish as sacred." Is that what you mean?  KarenAnn 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word has been ripped from its context.  The phrase "legally enshrined" (as well, "enshrined into law") is commonly used to refer to the instance of making a part of, or codifying, a behavior, practice, group, or individual into the legal system.  --TJive 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard it used that way and I am a forensic specialist in my field. It sounds rather religious to me, and someone was saying Castro wasn't at all religious.  KarenAnn 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with religion and Castro is not religious.  --TJive 23:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "With a legally enshrined Communist Party" sounds a bit weird to me, as if Castro alone forms the party. I think "as leader of the legally enshrined Communist Party" sounds better, but I'm not sure if that's a correct statement.mensch • t 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the upper branch with the same subject matter. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I like your paragraph, Bruce. It is lost somewhere up there in the restructured talk tree and hope it gets back in the intro:
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, a dedicated socialist ideologue and a pragmatic nationalistic power monger. Few leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism 
The point to get across in the intro is the wide range of views about Castro. It doesn't matter if this or that particular view gets mentioned in the intro. The article itself can explain the details.  KarenAnn 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you KarenAnn, but it was removed for some reason by another user.--Zleitzen 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Hallman's removed  paragraph in intro 

message: In an attempt to avoid edit war with CJK, I offer to compromise.  I accept that the label 'communist' is important to include in the introduction of the article.  I have problems in describing Cuba as communist (as CJK persists to revert) in an article about Fidel Castro, but describing Fidel Castro as such is appropriate.  I copied the phrase from the Britannica citation by CJK and added it to the second paragraph.  By the way, that second paragraph has repeatedly been deleted without any comment, which is inappropriate.  If there are problems they should be discussed.  Unexplained reverts should be avoided.  BruceHallman 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest persisting on finding a diplomatic solution. Please observe our discussion with CJK. Let's also try to convince CJK to discuss changes first, please. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

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 fourth paragraph

message: This is an experiment of my discussion tree structure. The bolded are the article's content which is not currently disputed. Read about it at "Making a comprehensive discussion tree" or on my user page "Improvements to Wikipedia" Teemu Ruskeepää 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decided things -full-speed experiment going on

message: ===Deleted crap about Hitler===; and about castro having extramarital kids
Castro was not born "into a wealthy family" at all. You keep reinserting this. He was an illegitimate son, one of seven children, whose last name was not even "Castro" until he was 17 and who was raised in impoverished conditions in his maternal grandparents home (until they died) and then in various foster homes. Fidel was not even allowed near the Angel Castro home until much later, when Angel's first wife finally left. This is just plain wrong. See Serge Raffy's recent book, or Brian Latell's book. 
Of course, of course, the private boarding schools Castro went to were really secret rundown centers used to house underprivileged kids.  And Castro’s illegitimate children do not exist they are merely CIA funded authors who write propaganda.  And Castro is a benign leader who gently and carefully takes care of “his people” while flying around the world with three large new jet planes and an entourage of perhaps 200 bodyguards.  Now I have the bridge for sale in Brooklyn.   El Jigue 6-2-06      
=== Recommend deleting first paragraph under Family and Health ===
This first paragraph has nothing substantial in it. It has way more detail than is needed, even if it were sourced correctly.
KarenAnn 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no citations, as you say, and I have not found any information on the subject. You are right. It doesn't belong there anyway.KarenAnn 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Private life

message: This first paragraph has nothing substantial in it. It has way more detail than is needed, even if it were sourced correctly.
KarenAnn 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend deleting first paragraph under Family and Health 

message: ==== Ramon and the "Family Estates" ====
The article states that Ramon is said to manage the family estates, and there is no citation indicating where the author has found such a claim.  It is my understanding that there no longer are any family estates and that the former family estates were  appropriated and deeded to workers during early land reforms.  It is now my intention to find supporting documentation for this, and i hope someone can attempt the same for the claim made in the article
:There were no citations, as you say, and I have not found any information on the subject. You are right. It doesn't belong there anyway.KarenAnn 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: The article states that Ramon is said to manage the family estates, and there is no citation indicating where the author has found such a claim.  It is my understanding that there no longer are any family estates and that the former family estates were  appropriated and deeded to workers during early land reforms.  It is now my intention to find supporting documentation for this, and i hope someone can attempt the same for the claim made in the article
:There were no citations, as you say, and I have not found any information on the subject. You are right. It doesn't belong there anyway.KarenAnn 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramon and the "Family Estates" 

message: ===Reference section===
Would anybody be opposed to converting the current plain hyperlink references into footnote references which are becoming increasingly common on Wikipedia? mensch • t 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they are legitimate I think they do. Wikipedia says that it wants to appeal to a more gobal audience in a article in the Community Portal yesterday. KarenAnn 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they do. English-language sources are preferred on en.wiki, naturally, assuming equal quality and reliability; but if there are better and more reliable sources in another language, they're the ones that should be used. See for instance this recently Featured article, where all the main sources are in Swedish. That's not an ideal situation, but since there are good books on the subject in Swedish and only pretty feeble and error-ridden websites in English, that was the way the article had to be written. The relevant guideline is here. Bishonen | talk 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Riiiight. --Kbh3rdtalk 21:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Would anybody be opposed to converting the current plain hyperlink references into footnote references which are becoming increasingly common on Wikipedia? mensch • t 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference section

message: I have been removing nonsensical links in body of article (links that go nowhere or to some irrelevant place.) Like you, I'm wary of messing with links to sources in Spanish.
I consulted with a Spanish-speaking person who looked at a few of them and said they were extremely biased. But someone who knows Spanish needs to evaluate them.
KarenAnn 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they are legitimate I think they do. Wikipedia says that it wants to appeal to a more gobal audience in a article in the Community Portal yesterday. KarenAnn 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they do. English-language sources are preferred on en.wiki, naturally, assuming equal quality and reliability; but if there are better and more reliable sources in another language, they're the ones that should be used. See for instance this recently Featured article, where all the main sources are in Swedish. That's not an ideal situation, but since there are good books on the subject in Swedish and only pretty feeble and error-ridden websites in English, that was the way the article had to be written. The relevant guideline is here. Bishonen | talk 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re Mensch about Reference section 

message: A reference to estimates of Castro's wealth is found at 
El Jigue 5-25-06
I think that the wealth section is exceptionaly pointless. As the head of a country with a state run economy it is NOT his wealth! Technically any Cuban could claim that as their collective wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.34.6 (talk • contribs) 
:Riiiight. --Kbh3rdtalk 21:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Castro wealth estimates