Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 4

message: Please prove that the following groups/people do/did not follow a Marxist-Leninist ideology:
*FSLN
*FMLN
*FARC
*ELN
*PFLP
*Mengistu Haile Mariam
*FRELIMO
*MPLA
et. al.
Until then, please stop reverting this section. J. Parker Stone 05:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll respond in the interest of reaching a compromise.  I've mentioned before that a detailed descussion of Cuba's foreign policy belongs on the Foreign relations of Cuba page.  You could cover the general support for third world liberation movements in the Fidel Castro article one sentence and include a link to the foreign policy page. Since the Castro article is already too long, this seems like an obvious place to cut back. DJ Silverfish 20:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am gonna ask the Fidelistas one thing 

message: Whyja delete this page, Trey/J.? If this page is getting too long, it can be archived.  If you did it because you're just embarrassed about all the times your ass got smacked in discussions, don't worry, you smacked almost as much ass in return.  --Rroser167 14:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk deletion 

message: The footnotes didn't make sense, which to say, they were grossly inconsistent: starting with the un-linked footnote 5, then moving to the linked 1,2,3,4. I fixed these following the last edit  01:10, 18 May 2005 Markalexander100 (rv undiscussed changes, back to compromise text) — so I did not revert at that instance. I also fixed the links which were denoted as [#] into (url), because it's too confusing for the reader to encounter what appears to be two sets of footnotes with 1 and  along one another. These are minor changes, please do not remove them unless you object specifically to them (if so, please bring these strictly stylistic issues to discussion here). Also, whomever is familliar with the reference work needs to lookover to make sure that the switch I made with footnote 5 and 1 is correct (I'm not sure in the course of which edit war the order of these was disrupted, nor do I care, but I hope it could be avoided in the future by all parties who actually bother reading this note). El_C 06:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor changes (only)

message: After I made the above note, which depicted my minor fixes to the last version at the moment, that of Markalexander100, and requested that any reverts include these minor fixes or discuss them: Trey Stone reverted without keeping any of them. So whereas, with my minor fixes the first footnote was 1, with Trey Stone, it was 5. This (and his continued personal attacks against GraceNote) reflect poorly on him. Did he even bother reading it? Is he interested in collaborative editorial work based on civil, intellectual discourse? I would like to assume goodfaith. El_C 08:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Next he keeps the urls with his (I'm not sure which number this is) latest revert, but neglects to keep the switching of the un-linked footnote 5 with 1, nor the bottom footnote section fixes. And he is surprised I need to write in all caps in my edit summary when I write: READ LAST EDIT SUMMARY tdc, and make sure you preserve minor fixes after TDC ignored all my fixes in his revert. Perhaps I should have written it in all-caps, as obviously neither of them is bothering to read, or at least read closely what I write. Albeit to me to presume that a Wikipedia article should serve the reader first and propagandists second — by having the first footnote start with 1 and not 5. Too grand of expectations, I suppose. El_C 08:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh, am I talking to myself here? Now on the other side, WebLuis ignores my comments and the first footnote remains 5. El_C 08:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, note my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Trey_Stone_2 (yes, 2 — within the same current page!). El_C 08:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think, El_C, that maybe, maybe, we wouldn't have to revert to our version if you leftwingers didn't continuously revert to yours, which is just as biased? You're engaging in the exact same attitude, all of you, especially Viajero and Comandante, so stop acting as if you're the bigger men for some reason or another, you're just ganging up so nobody has broken the 3RR. Kapil 17:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sir/madam, I most certainly do not think that maybe, maybe. My fixes were to an uncontested section, they had nothing to do with the ongoing dispute and reversions. Surly you wish to have the first footnote to be denoted as 1 and not 5, when it has absolutely nothing, zero to do with any dispute and is just common sense. And it is unfair that I have to go through such lengths (including re-entering the info manually) after I explicitly request, re-request, and whine to retain these purely technical fixes no matter what. Sigh. Lastly, I'd like to thank GraceNote for dragging me into this "discussion." :p El_C 01:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: How can you possibly dare to call it "uncontested", considering the constant reversion not only by me but by other users? Oh well, then, have it your way, it's not uncontested, I contest it. Kapil 01:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That is untrue, at the time of writing the above, this contesting was limited to the intro. Also, regardless, the point is adhering to minimal professional standards whether the contesting takes place or not. I'm not sure why anyone would object to that, yet here we are. El_C 01:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trey Stone did not read the above

message: Trey Stone reverted (yes, again) WebLuis, and (surprise-surprise) the first footnote remains 5, and remains un-linked, and remains pointing at the wrong source (as I suspect 1 and 5 got switched prior). J. Parker Stone, are you reading any of this? El_C 08:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, note my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Trey_Stone_2 (yes, 2 — within the same current page!). El_C 08:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think, El_C, that maybe, maybe, we wouldn't have to revert to our version if you leftwingers didn't continuously revert to yours, which is just as biased? You're engaging in the exact same attitude, all of you, especially Viajero and Comandante, so stop acting as if you're the bigger men for some reason or another, you're just ganging up so nobody has broken the 3RR. Kapil 17:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sir/madam, I most certainly do not think that maybe, maybe. My fixes were to an uncontested section, they had nothing to do with the ongoing dispute and reversions. Surly you wish to have the first footnote to be denoted as 1 and not 5, when it has absolutely nothing, zero to do with any dispute and is just common sense. And it is unfair that I have to go through such lengths (including re-entering the info manually) after I explicitly request, re-request, and whine to retain these purely technical fixes no matter what. Sigh. Lastly, I'd like to thank GraceNote for dragging me into this "discussion." :p El_C 01:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: How can you possibly dare to call it "uncontested", considering the constant reversion not only by me but by other users? Oh well, then, have it your way, it's not uncontested, I contest it. Kapil 01:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That is untrue, at the time of writing the above, this contesting was limited to the intro. Also, regardless, the point is adhering to minimal professional standards whether the contesting takes place or not. I'm not sure why anyone would object to that, yet here we are. El_C 01:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: He is still not listening to me

message: I have protected the article, plaes discuss suggested edits to the text here--nixie 03:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead and image dispute

message: All right, I don't understand the objections to "he overthrew the regime of General Fulgencio Batista" or "His leadership has been marked by the implementation of programs that substantially boosted the nation's literacy rate " in the intro.  In particular, I think that was generous for Trey to have left the literacy statement there, unless, of course, he did it by accident.
Can someone also provide enlightenment on the use of term "dictator"?  I don't think that this is pejorative in its common usage, and wikipedia's own page on "Dictator" lists plenty of examples of dicatators, including Castro.  If Castro and Batista don't qualify as dictators, exactly where is the line drawn?--Rroser167 13:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I removed the term "greatly" as in the literacy debate inside the article itself, the term is disputed, therefore I pointed this out with a link (inside the article). Also, I changed the style from "he provided such and such" to "such and such was made available", as I think this is a bit more neutral, don't know what you think, did this mainly because gramatically, after the link change, I didn't know how to write it correctly. Kapil 14:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you believe it is of no value is of no consequence. The term "greatly" is a POV term therefore, unless properly supported, it is the term (representing your personal agenda) which is of no value, therefore it must come off. The compromise is that while the word "great" remains, the dispute is mentioned and a link is provided. Stop demonising my opinions and calm down. Kapil 01:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures were provided for you above, Kapil. There is absolutely no dispute that the literacy rate was increased, and only you dispute that the large increase seen cannot be characterised by "greatly".  You do not provide sources for your disputing it, so suggesting that it's just your opinion is justified. I'm not "demonising" your opinion, Kapil, just pointing out to you that it is worth nothing here. Grace Note 01:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If you may, head to the place linked to after the word "disputed". Remember the data tells a different story, with greater literacy rate hikes in other, non-communist nations. Whether it was a "great" increase is entirely your opinion. Kapil 02:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: Please note how this rude user completely ignored the discussion and attempts at consensus building, and reverted back to the version agreed to be POV. Kapil 00:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hate site," OK -- any more gems you'd like to share with us? I still have not received an explanation on how Paraguay, which was ruled by a military dictatorship until 1989, managed to increase its literacy rate roughly the same amount as Cuba despite not having this glorious Revolutionary tool used by the Castro government. I have never stated that the literacy campaign had no effect, I am merely disputing the extent of its effect, and apparently that is "right-wing hate." Whatever. J. Parker Stone 02:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Grace Note, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I agree with your claim that the picture is too communist but I do not agree with you lambasting my comments. Kapil 01:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kapil, you've tried to add to the article that the increase in the literacy rate is "disputed". And you've called me "useless garbage" among other things. And you've described other users as "communists", "cunts", etc etc. "Assume good faith" does not mean "bend over". Grace Note 01:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but I was blocked for 48 hours and an RfC was opened against me. Also, I have desisted in calling you rude names for nearly three days. You also insulted me in many ways, remember that. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The "dispute" is not my imagination, and the paragraph the link points to mentions the dispute. Therefore, mention of the dispute remains, lest it violate NPOV by telling a half truth in the introduction and disputing it in the middle of the page. Kapil 02:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I still don't particularly like the intro. "Communist state" needs to be included, even if it didn't happen until the early '60s. Furthermore, even though certain users may wish it, healthcare and the literacy increase is not what he's primarily known for. And the Cuban emigration has been an important phenomenon during his rule -- one user pointed out that several people have fled Mexico; however, as the former have been militantly anti-Castro and influenced U.S. policy, I think it's a somewhat inaccurate comparison, because they're two entirely different groups of people. J. Parker Stone 06:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. I would agree with the "systematic repression" bit to be moved above the "literacy and healthcare" line and to be expanded to better balance the intro, which is too benign in my opinion. Kapil 06:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comandante 

message: My own choice is the health care section photo of him looking old and waving a Cuban flag. Fits in with the patriotic side of him which, as I put in the article the other day, was a dominant part of his political persona as a young student, and is a critical part of his resistance today. Sovereignty is very important in all Latin American countries, so the nationalism is also a side to him that is neither right wing nor left wing, SqueakBox 03:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Kapil 03:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced that photo with a recent head/shoulders portrait. I think it is more appropriate, but I am not going to get into an edit war over it. -- Viajero | Talk 18:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't object to the new pic. Kapil 00:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I should point out that the only qualification we need to deem a country a "Communist state" is if they have a Communist Party as the only legal political entity. China and Vietnam (to a lesser extent) have introduced market reforms but would still be referred to as Communist states. J. Parker Stone 04:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would anyone call China or Vietnam today communist states? Mark1 04:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: What is a "communist political structure"?  Again you seem to be confusing economics and politics. Mark1 04:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of one-party states.  The term is not synonymous with communism. Mark1 05:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Communist state

message: please can we unprotect the article. there was virtually no edit warring last night and I cannot understand why it has been protected. iMeanwhile I cannot do my legitimate editing, and am very unhappy about that. Please sort your problems pout on the talk page, SqueakBox 14:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Done. It is not entirely clear to me either why it was protected in the first place. -- Viajero | Talk 15:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Can anyone remember the name of the little boy who generated so much controversy, and is now back in Cuba? He needs to be talked about in the asylum issues section, SqueakBox 15:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Elián González. A tu servicio -- Viajero | Talk 15:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the Asylum section really belongs in the Rev. Gov. article, as there is no explicit reference to Fidel. As far as the Elián case went, IIRC, he pretty much stayed out of the limelight. I think this article should focus as much as possible on Castro's personal ideas/politics, as for example is done in the case of the section after it, on religion. More general policy matters should go in the new article. -- Viajero | Talk 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I remember watching a documentary film fragment (in The Grin without a Cat) of Castro's speech in reaction to the 1968 Czechoslovakia coup. It certainly seemed more conflicted and nuanced than the account that is given here. Does anybody have access to a text of his speeches on the subject? Hasdrubal 01:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czechoslovakia 

message: i cannot see how the inclusion of the fact that Cuba is a one-party state and the emigration during Castro's rule as a result of his economic and political policies is any less relevant to an intro than the issue of human rights abuses in articles like Augusto Pinochet. J. Parker Stone 05:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One involves the killings and dissaparence of tens of thousands, the other does not. But you don't intend to follow historiography's own standards, so what is the point of employing scholarly references? And whereas I find it to be reactionary, you on the other hand seem to find mainstream Western academia, not only radical, but outright revolutionary. I'm wasting my words though, I strongly suspect. El_C 06:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from personal attacks. [T]wo shits is out of line. El_C 06:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from lazy reverts. Constant reverting is also out of line. Kapil 06:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately El C is probably one of the few people around here who would understand the absurdity of that comment. An educated editor could take at some of my articles (e.g., Bretton Woods system, George Kennan, History of Russia, et al.) and see that my sources, along with the approaches where my background would seem to lie, are squarely in the mainstream of Western academia. These articles directly cite texts found in just about any undergraduate survey in the U.S. A scholar from (say) the ASA Marxist section here in the U.S. would likely be able to present far stronger arguments against my own work than any of the people constantly sniping at me on Wikipedia. 172 07:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, have more faith in the rest of us, 172. It's simply the case that some of the trolls here think that anything that is not written from an extremist right POV is "communist". It's a sad truth about the interwebnet that its loudest, emptiest vessels are boys like these. Grace Note 07:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been my experience for the past two and a half years, so it is nice to be reminded that these users are not in the majority, despite the fact they make the most noise. 172 07:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: i don't think i need to point out the absurdity of the Chomskian logic that labels any anti-Communist or non-leftist a "far-right-winger" (i suppose Democrats and Republicans all follow some crypto-fascist ideology) J. Parker Stone 18:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one who seems to be spending the most time reading and thinking about Chomsky. Personally, I'd never cite him for anything outside his area of expertise (linguistics), and I discourage students from using his work. 172 18:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: i wouldn't refer to him so much if this place wasn't primarily editted by people who follow his line of thinking. J. Parker Stone 18:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The notion of when a revert is lazy or necessary depends on the vantage point. I suggest you adhere and limit yourself to policy. El_C 06:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You are absolutely correct that I am nothing but an anti-revision[ist?], but I am entitled to my beliefs as you are to yours. And whether my contributions are or are not wanted also depends on one's vantage point. I suggest you limit yourself to policy, and to less innunedo. El_C 06:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm delighted to find myself in the company of such thorough disgraces! You could almost say I'm tickled pinko. Grace Note 07:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from editing Wikipedia if you are unable to control your temper, KapilTagore. "Everyone hates you" is an unaccpetable personal attack. If you feel 172 violated policy, please submitt a user conduct RFC, otherwise I expect you to act professionally.  El_C 06:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: This encyclopedia, anyone can edit. I don't buy your bullshit about being a historian or whatever simply because you shun every shred of evidence presented anytime about Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro, universal truths which you just so happen to ignore. That, and you don't have the decency to either check people's editions and delete some points (as in my edition, it wasn't all bad) nor to change everything but the pictures reached by consensus (therefore pissing on everyone else's contributions and the consensus reached). If you want to be a "scholar" prove it in the talk pages and show proof in order to reach a consensus, as we did before you came and spoiled it all. But your attitude is hardly that of a "scholar", I'd be surprised if you were anything more than a teenage anarchist who happens to use the word "reactionary". If you carefully read the Hugo Chávez page you have to agree it's filled with left-wing bias and half-truths (unless you consider Juventud Rebelde, ABN, Argenpress and Indymedia to somehow be "reliable", much less "objective" sources). This goes for both of you, but especially you, 172, the Request for Arbitration opened on you (which is filled with a cornucopia of proof of your antisocial, radical POV pushing and delinquent revertions of valuable information). I would suggest you drop the "I'm a scholar and demand respect" bullshit, 172, this encyclopedia is for everyone and you're just gonna have to stop being so damn condescending and actually read a little before destroying other people's contributions. Kapil 07:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even worthy of a response. 172 07:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I still opted to respond. El_C 08:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It's funny how Grace note considers a gang of her, 172, Viajero and El C to be a "majority". Oh yeah, and "Comandante", how could he not be a communist? The point is, whatever your personal beliefs or whatever you think of yourself, the vast majority of us think you suck and you must discuss your changes in this talk page before changing anything, cause that was what was agreed upon. Got it? Worthy of a response, loser? Kapil 07:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Castro is a Communist. Who is saying otherwise? I have no idea about what on earth you are rambling on about. 172 07:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The user Comandante, you cock, the user Comandante. User:Comandante. Way to go, scholar. Kapil 07:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does he really claim that Castro is not a Communist, or are you just using a strawman? I can't imagine anyone making that claim, considering that he is the general secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba. 172 08:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone who supposedly studied a shitload of time, you're about as intelligent as a grapefruit. Kapil 17:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: And you're not going to get a reply. No one has taken that position; that's a strawman. 172 18:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes there is. I added it. Earlier, you and Kapil were restoring a version that referred to Cuba as a "Communist-led state," which is gibberish. I changed it to Communist Party-led state, which, by definition, is a single party state. 172 18:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a simple definition, that's an euphemism. There's a radical difference there. Very different to tell an uninformed and innocent browser that a country is a "Communist party-led state" and not a "one-party state where all opposition is illegal", even if they're both the same. Kapil 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, simple understanding of the english language reveals that a "Communist-led state" is a state led by communists. Hardly gibberish, at least for those of us who understand basic english. Kapil 05:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: All Communist states are single party states by definition and all single party states maintain this monopoly on power by suppressing the organization of other parties. This is the case across the board, from relatively liberal Communist regimes, such as Tito's Yugoslavia, to the most repressive and ossified Stalinist regimes, such as North Korea. So what you are saying above is already implied in the intro. Also, do not conflate the term "Communist state" and dictatorship. Some Communist regimes have well institutionalized collective leaderships, such as China today, but others are clealy dictatorships, such as Ceausescu's Romania. 172 22:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and you may know that because you are (supposedly) a scholar. But a neutral, innocent reader doesn't necessarily know, therefore he may think (as most people do) that political repression in these places ain't as bad. Also, Fidel Castro is more widely known for supressing every kind of liberty existing in Cuba than creating some mediocre literacy and healthcare programs. Kapil 23:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If an "innocent reader" does not know the status of political pluralism in a Communist regime, he can click on the hyperlink. This is a Wiki. 172 01:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about hiding all the facts using such a system? Why mention the very fact that Cuba is a communist country when they can scroll down to "politics of Cuba"? Why say Castro is the president when they can just read it in his "rise to power" in the middle of the page? It's important information which should be mentioned to give a clear view. Kapil 03:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested in a reply, please rephrase your questions above. I'm not understanding the point you are making above at all. 172 05:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Not interested in a reply. Just telling you that mentioning facts euphemistically and assuming the user knows the innuendo they carry, can be misleading. Not everyone (in fact, very few people) know that a communist state is also a one party state, and even fewer people know that this means lots and lots of political repression, for example. If it is not mentioned in the introductory paragraph, it doesn't sound as an important issue, though it is. Kapil 05:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that Kapil genuinely believes most people don't know that Communist states only have one party tickled me pinko again! Hilarious. Next Kapil will claim that most people don't know dogs have fur. Keep it up, Kapil. I like you a lot better in comedy mode than when you do the aggressive teen thing. Grace Note 06:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad it tickled you pinko. That's a personal opinion and you said it yourself, it doesn't amount to jack shit in the Wikipedia (or in your case, in real life, to the people who surround you). Kapil 06:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For the life of me