Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 14

message: There seems to be a group of people around here in wikipedia with very strong leftist tendency that are very blind as to no recognize Castro for what he is. But not to worry. History will take care of him like it took care of Hitler and Stalin and other horrible dictators the people in the world have suffer.
There is a lot of talk in wikipedia about having a neutral POV but there is no such thing here. All the Castro's agents and lovers are here polishing his image probably getting paid with free vacations by the dictator at Varadero beach in Cuba while many true Cuban heroes die in prison just for opposing Castro and what he represents. A decadent regime, a waste of time for the Cuban people. 
Castro I know you or your agents will read this. So do not worry. History will take care of you and be assure that you will not look this good as it appear here. 
You could have been great a great leader if you had help Cuba get out of a dictator like Batista and then surrender power to the people to democracy! 
But you want to know something. You became worst than Batista the moment you started killing many innocent people just at the beginning of the revolution. You yourself killed the revolution with all the blood and with your unlimited greed for power. 
You claim Cuba is the most democratic country in the world. 
"Right"!How many people prefer to die on the tooth of a shark better than at your hands? How many desperate people abandon the  island? Because there is no other choice? or maybe because they are anyway dying an slow death at the hands of your regime, controlling every little bit of information as you an your agents are doing here at wikipedia. Cleaning up your image! 
It amazes me. Because this goes to show what you are. A megalomaniac! too worry about what history will tell about you, about what your legacy will be.
Do not worry Fidel Castro. I will let you know this. Do not even let yourself think for a second that you are at the same level as Jose Marti, Feliz Varela or even a Simon Bolivar. 
You do not get even up one inch in front of them in fact I can tell you that you go down for miles and miles.  
You must be full of envy about Chavez! because his got the oil money you never had! and because of it he can buy some people. But do not be! Some people are not for sale. Some people will not buy the lies you sell.
This is for you, all the leftist who have never live in a totalitarian regime, and who fantasize about Castro and Che I will also be sorry to disappoint you by telling you that you Castro that you are not  even at Che's level, yes the same one you made a martyr, an icon of the revolution, Your first patron saint. The same one you sell in t-shirts and postcards now and you profit from! 
That is because at least Che had principles, something you really do not know what it is or even fathom, 
he(Che) probably believe in communism and that it was a good thing because of his youth, while on the other hand you Castro  just used it for your own personal benefit and profit.
Ask yourself why Che die? why Camilo Cienfuegos die? and many others close to power in Cuba?
Many people said that Castro himself send someone to kill him! He just can not stand someone close to power(because he is very afraid to loose it he is paranoid about it,obsess with power , anybody close to him have to be very careful no to upset him or to contradict any of his ideas even the bad ones. Poor guys, I am sorry for them. 
 
Castro have subjugated and dominated the Cuban people who have suffer for years without end his power and very long rants. But no more.. Just like everything that is born some day you too Fidel Castro will also die sooner or later. Do not worry, when you die we the Cubans enjoying freedom will not celebrate your death but will rejoice about the change that will happen to our homeland after you will be gone. Sorry to see all the time wasted but not to worry. Cuba will be rebuild. All the Cuban blood you have spilled in and out of the country will not be in vane. You know why that will be? Because, Cubans will have learn their lesson. 
For you, all the leftist who have never live in a totalitarian regime, believe me if you impartially read all the news about Fidel Castro and check all his speeches from the very beginning of the revolution you can see his evolution. How power have corrupted him and his regime. How many innocent people have been kill in the name of the revolution? how much intolerance! how many times he has sell out his "principles". 
Just to refresh old memories Cuba was suppose to be for Cubans at the beginning of the revolution. For a while Now because the commander was afraid of loosing his grip on power he had to let tourist come into the island to save his precious revolution and the achievements of the revolution.("health care" and "education") 
If your search for  Revolution in the dictionary you find that it means "change" but Castro have become the "counter-revolution", because he does want to persist in power he can not change because it will mean that he has to change, and if he does it means he will have to admit that he was mistaken. But that can never happen. He is always "right"! even when he is "wrong"! and therefore he keeps himself on archaic ideas and old conceptions that are no longer valid in today's modern world. Yes, Castro you are old as a dinosaur and just as they became extinct so will you! 
See , I am happy. Very happy and is because you and your blind followers here at wikipedia feel the need to repaint this brutal dictator's life as something good. I tell you this. He does not care for anyone even for you that blindly clean up his article in wikipedia without thinking in the millions of oppressed people suffering his regime for so many years. He does not  even care for his own family. 
What it is that he cares about? 
Only power! Absolute power!
 
and to pass in history books as something good but Castro you should know this that you have not learn in so many many years of your dictatorship. 
Informed People in free societies  are entitle to think what they want and to form opinions free of your manipulations and base on facts and when people check facts about you and the things you have done they will find out about you no matter how many stupid people you can mesmerized now with your free vacations to Cuba or free health care propaganda while Cubans in Cuba do not have access to this, or to the same quality of health care as your PR agent Michael Moore here in the US make us believe with his communist commercials. Yes, history will portrait you for what you are. A dictator! someone that does not tolerate any opposition. Some one very vane that is so concern about his self image that could be consider narcissistic! a Megalomaniac, and yes we also know about your disciples Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Ortega all following in your foot steps. Not to worry! History will take care of them too. All of you start by offering something that seems good to some people and end with regimes with huge repression and the total loss of personal freedoms for all individuals. But history will collect all of this. Yes it will be there, all of it. 
To all of you that required proof that many people in Cuba do not like Castro and his government. What more proof than the massive exodus of Cubans around the world. More than 2 million Cubans are in exiled!
Yes, Fidel Castro. That is what will be written in history books. How  families had to abandon their homeland to a neurotic manipulator, a dictator without scruples a criminal a mafiosi in the same league as Al Capone,Hitler and Stalin a terrorist. That is what history will write about you.
Hasta la victoria siempre. 
Comandante en Jefe nosotros los que no estamos de acuerdo contigo venceremos!
 
  (SilentVoice 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes for the blind communist Castro lovers editing wikipedia and for the man himself

message: Within the "References and footnotes" section, there is the following note:
^ Castañeda, Jorge (1998). Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara. New York: Vintage. , 62. 
The text to which this note is linked is:
"Military Units to Aid Production, or UMAP's, were labor camps established in 1965, according to Che Guevara, for “people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals” as well as Castro's concept of "social deviants," including homosexuals and AIDS victims, in order to work "counter-revolutionary" influences out of certain segments of the population.[99]" 
Che Guevara was not making policy in Cuba in 1965, nor did he ever set up "UMAP". Furthermore, page 62 of Castañeda's book is definitely not a source for any statement to the effect that he did, or that he made comments about the same; in fact, that page deals exclusively with the period in 1953 when Guevara was travelling from Ecuador to Costa Rica, en route to Guatemala.--Zleitzen 08:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readded with proper citation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UMAP

message: The article now ends with "The Castro family's substantial wealth was in no way spared from the expropriations of the immediate post-revolutionary period." I like the way that nobody mentions how Ramon Castro was left in charge of the whole "socialized" kit and caboodle on that huge parcel of land. When your family controls everything and everybody on the island (except Guantanamo Base, and some embassies) you live the "life of Riley" .  That way that this whitewash of Fidel Castro is now makes even more apparent, that this article is more and more a "enga~na bobos." see    xe xe El Jigue 9-6-06
Ramon was the manager of a nationalized farm. From what I've heard he's never been a particularly political person. He was agriculturist before and after the revolution, lives a simple life, and hasn't been reported as accumulating riches.
As for the "Life of Riley" the Castro's certainly enjoyed that before the revolution. Fidel and Raul could have been rich-kid playboys like George & Jeb Bush. It's a historical fact (inconvenient for Batististas) that they gave-up a privileged existence and endured hardships and dangers for the sake of their ideals.
prem28885 7-Sep-2006 10:51 GMT
Hmmmmm That was in war. although I remember the comforts of the carefully built wooden houses in la Comandancia in La Plata  and Raul's armored jeep at Central Oriente in 1958. As to the present day Fidel Castro arrived in Argentina this year with three planes, 400 bodyguards, and an armored limousine.  Angel Castro never had the money that the Bush family had, besides the old "Gallego" was stingy 
"como el solo" and one cannot but help note your date line  placing the day of the month before the actual month.  When eventually all comes out one will see that Castro like Mao who was carried on a litter during the long march, never really suffered much want.  Apparently he even had his favorite amphetamines, oh excuse me his "vitamin pills" even on the Granma.   El Jigue  9-7-06
Arriving at a conference with a large delegation, bodyguards & an armoured limo are hardly evidence of cupidity. Fidel is a head of state and a target for assassination. If he's in this game for the money he's gone about in a funny way is all that I can say.Prem28885 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in Farnborough (England) when Bill Clinton arrived for some summit. He had 2 C-5 Galaxies (a *very* large aircraft) and a 747 (the locals said that was for Hillary - probably a joke). He also brought dozens of secret service agents (who were allowed to carry automatic weapons). He didn't need 400 because he could trust the British authorities to protect him. Fidel could hardly trust the Argentine army - many of who's officers are graduates of the School of the Americas and veterans of the Dirty War. As for the your other point the objective evidence suggest Cuban kids are the healthiest and best educated in Latin America (healthier and better schooled then poor kids in the USA).Prem28885 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Jigue - The socialist government in Argentina has as much control of its army as Salvador Allende had of the army in Chile. These Latin american armies are essentially autonomous. The CIA and Pentagon have more control over them then the civil authorities. Not one in 10000 of the Agrentinian war criminals have been indited - let alone imprisoned. People like Alfredo Astiz (no doubt a hero to you) are still free, so are the people who sent Juan Gelman's son & daughter-in-law to Uruguay to be murdered (his granddaughter was given to a Uruguayan police officer).
Prem28885 14:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What Hebe Pastor de Bonafini said was wrong - I won't condemn her because the USA aided and abetted the murder of her children and a mother's grief can excuse such an irrational outburst. The 11th of September 2001 crimes were not carried out by the Latin American Left, but by the people (bin Laden et al) who were armed trained and financed by the US neo-con security apparatus. BTW the gallant Argentine security forces have also been implicated in AMIA Jewish Community Center bombing in 1994  - Fidel hasn't survived 600 assssination attempts by trusting people like this. Just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.Prem28885 12:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Las Cuentas del Comandante

message: It seems to me that the heading:
"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as it directly concerns one or more living people. Negative material, especially if potentially libelous, must be removed immediately if it is unsourced or poorly sourced. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard." 
is somewhat less than cowardly and definitely provides and excuse to avoid and delete criticism of living leaders.  Well what can one expect here..... xe xe El Jigue 9-11-06
:And what exactly is the alternative? A free-for-all where any sort of pro or anti disinformation is allowed? The unfortunate fact is that in an article about some one like Fidel Castro or George Bush all we can do is state the bald facts. Information must be sacrificed for the sake of consensus. I too think this is a pity - which is why when editing this article I have simply pointed-out the dubiousness of certain sources and left the readers to make up their own minds (instead of deleting tendentious claims).Prem28885 11:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say impassioned - I say objective. I think Castro has certainly commited human-rights abuses but on a scale that pales besides the enormities of the US-backed thugs in the region. In Guatemala alone 200,000 people - mostly Mayan Indians - were butchered by the US-installed regime. And at least Castro was trying to liberate Cuba from US domination and uplift the working-class. The CIA and its henchmen kill for the sake of commercial interests like the United Fruit Corporation. You will obviously disagree with this - so what goes in the article? Every spurious bit of nonsense comming out of Miami and the various US goverment agencies?  Or the hagiographies of the Left? The only solution is to stick to well-documented facts. The "sacrifice of information" cuts both ways - e.g. the article on Dubya doesn't dwell on how exactly his glorious defense of Texas airspace against the VietCong came to be arranged.Prem28885 18:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Somewhat chicken heading

message: ===Is castro the current president?===
The state of Cuba says officially that Castro is not the president, because the Cuban Constitution dictates the transfer of presidential duties to his brother in case of illness, thus away from Fidel himself. However, Pseudonym Zleitzen declares here on Wikipedia, that he is currently the president and has boldly removed the edits of myself and one girl from this afternoon. Who has more credibility? The government of Cuba or Zleitzen from Wikipedia. Pun intented! >I Teemu Ruskeepää 21:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can site your source then i'll totaly agree. The goverment of a country is the best authority on who is the leader. --Marvuglia 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the September 7 statement a sufficient source? "Other people are running the show now, but I'm still here as the grandfather of the revolution." He is also seemingly relaxed and passive in photos, which I have seen in the Metro Magazine of Helsinki, while recovering from the cancer, thus not running quite anything outside of the constitution. We should just assume that he's not the president anymore, since that's their law. Any of the public appearances aren't as good of a reason. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Acording to the goverment of Cuba's offical wesite Fidel is still president. http://www.cubagob.cu/ingles/default.htm click goverment then click on members. Until it and the UN say otherwise Castro is still president. Raul is VP and as such fills in when the president is unable to do so (Same as America). --Marvuglia 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Look up the term president on wikipedia, it means this: "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." So, clearly the term has no ties to democracy and should stay.--Marvuglia 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: The state of Cuba says officially that Castro is not the president, because the Cuban Constitution dictates the transfer of presidential duties to his brother in case of illness, thus away from Fidel himself. However, Pseudonym Zleitzen declares here on Wikipedia, that he is currently the president and has boldly removed the edits of myself and one girl from this afternoon. Who has more credibility? The government of Cuba or Zleitzen from Wikipedia. Pun intented! >I Teemu Ruskeepää 21:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can site your source then i'll totaly agree. The goverment of a country is the best authority on who is the leader. --Marvuglia 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the September 7 statement a sufficient source? "Other people are running the show now, but I'm still here as the grandfather of the revolution." He is also seemingly relaxed and passive in photos, which I have seen in the Metro Magazine of Helsinki, while recovering from the cancer, thus not running quite anything outside of the constitution. We should just assume that he's not the president anymore, since that's their law. Any of the public appearances aren't as good of a reason. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Acording to the goverment of Cuba's offical wesite Fidel is still president. http://www.cubagob.cu/ingles/default.htm click goverment then click on members. Until it and the UN say otherwise Castro is still president. Raul is VP and as such fills in when the president is unable to do so (Same as America). --Marvuglia 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Look up the term president on wikipedia, it means this: "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." So, clearly the term has no ties to democracy and should stay.--Marvuglia 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is castro the current president?

message: Many overseas consider Fidel Castro's rule is over , except in Argentina where many want him as president .  "Dunno” what that means however, the Argentines have not been known for their enlightened political or military decisions. El Jigue 10-3-06
Maybe they feel this is only fair: after all they gave Cuba Che; it's only right that they take Fidel in return.  Ah, come back Evita!.
White Guard 22:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right, but it's a bit like the contest between God and Satan: if one side is all bad the other side must be all good. White Guard 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fidel Castro to rule Argentina

message: Time Magazine is reporting that Castro is reported to have cancer, citing U.S Intelligence Reports. 
"But U.S. officials tell TIME that many in the U.S. government are now convinced that Castro, 80, has terminal cancer and will never return to power. "Certainly we have heard this, that this guy has terminal cancer," said one U.S. official."  dposse 18:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reported to have cancer. 

message: * :
 
More excerpts of this paper: Talk:Anti-Americanism#Excerpts_of_research_paper_on_Anti-Americanism...RWV 08:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After 1959 the U.S. government admitted to almost no wrongdoing in Latin America

message: In a recent interview with Oliver Norton, when Castro was asked about his religious beliefs he said that he "did believe in God, what he didn't believed was in organized religions and all those things created by man."--tequendamia 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castro and Religion 

message: Castro's death watch is being carefully and humorously watched at Babalu site . El Jigue 10-24-06
It is said that the Cuban government is already planning the funeral , El Jigue 10-26-06
: I've been hearing similar rumors. Should we put a {current} or {current-section} flag on the article or a section of it? Or is that premature? -- Narsil 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These conversations about Castro's health, are all very interesting; but it's not for here, (a wiki-blog would be more suitable). The 'talk page' is for discussion on 'how the article can be improved', what should be added (with varifiable sources) to the article OR what should be removed. Again leave speculations/observation of events, off this 'talk page'. Pleas & Thank you GoodDay 00:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: To this IP adress that's using the name 'El Jigue', Please stop cloggin up the 'talk pages', your're only disrupting them. GoodDay 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro's deathwatch

message: It appears clear that Fidel Castro's cancer advances and that his "chemo" treatment has failed. Fidel Castro it seems (see complete article cited below) will never return to power.
See 
"HAVANA - Cuba's foreign minister backed away Monday from his prediction that
Fidel Castro will return to power by early December, raising questions about
the pace of the communist leader's recovery from intestinal surgery."
El Jigue 11-6-06
:Wasn't he treated at the CIMEQ via radioactive "seeding" (brachytherapy) around the time Farrakhan underwent this same treatment?  And aren't they both suffering the same sequelae (bleeding out, etc.) now? -- Polaris999 20:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ( Addendum: Source re Farrakhan's condition: Louis Farrakan Letter re Health -- Polaris999 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then by all means, add these facts to the Article. GoodDay 22:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello GoodDay -- I don't think that my information reaches the level required by WP:V, which is why I have not yet incorporated it into the article.  It is my hope that someone who reads it here will provide a source that will either prove or disprove it; in the former case, I will immediately add it to the article. -- Polaris999 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiable information

message: Here's a poser for you - the article has some outdated information regarding Mirta living in Madrid. In actuality - Mirta moved back to Havana a while back to be with Fidelito. The only reason I know this (don't want to get into details here) regards my family, etc. That's all I'll say. Now, I bring this up to see if anyone can find information to officially verify the fact. I've looked high and low but can find nothing - has anyone seen anything that can be used as an official source?
Best,
Goatboy95 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, EJ stop blogging the talk pages. Keep your blogs to your own IP adress pages. You're only disrupting here and your're not helping your Cuba pro-democracy movement by going against Wikipedia policies. GoodDay 21:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Already added it. Giles ;) (sorry, couldn't help myself) --Zleitzen 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Mirta Diaz-Balart in this article 

message: Could someone, add to the article (with a varifiable source) Fidel Castro's no-show, at his public 80th birthday bash? This bit of info, would help update the Cuban President's current health. GoodDay 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. GoodDay 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 80th Birthday Bash

message: Apparently an obelisk is being built on Turquino peak the highest in Cuba in order to perpetuate Castro's memory .  It is rumored that government of a free Cuba will charge admission and exit fees to visitors to help support the widows and orphans caused by the regime.  This recalls "El Valle de los Caídos" built by Franco to commemorate all the dead in the Spanish Civil War  .  El Jigue 11-29-06
:::Perhaps that's where they plan to put his ashes ? -- Beardo 00:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have varifiable sources, on these facts. You should add them to the article. GoodDay 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point, wait until then. GoodDay 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro's obelisk on Turquino

message: Text says:
:In late 1945, he entered law school at the University of Havana. While at the University he repeatedly was involved in gangs in order to assure himself political power. In 1950, after his graduation from law school, Castro opened a small law practice in Havana.
However much I dislike the post-revolution acts of Castro, NPOV is more important for me, than expressing this opinion. I think the formulation is weaselly! The motivation for Castro to join groups (not necessarily gangs), might have been social, not a specific "sinister lust for power" (My weasely formulation, if offended then go shout at me at my talk page  - I'll listen and apologize if appropriate). (Understanding doesn't always imply accepting) 𐌵𐌰𐌸: Rursus 09:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten that section - also making mention of Rolando Masferrer who was an important figure during that era. More importantly to me is the photograph. Is that Castro standing in the black suit? It doesn't look like him to me.--Zleitzen 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I read it and found everything being good. THX10^6! Rursus 14:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The photo=?=Castro? Good question! Then a fatter Castro with a very freshly grown beard. Otherwise the eyebrows seems to belong to Castro. Rursus 14:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that he looks not unlike Castro. But as far as I knew, his patented beard only sprouted ten years later in the Sierra Maestra. He also had a spiv moustache for years, and one must admit that he looks nothing like the man in the picture on this page – History Will Absolve Me who certainly is Fidel.--Zleitzen 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - but that pointing finger is VERY Castro ! See here for some more photos http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/castro-1945-1953.htm - these look more like the guy in the suit than Fidel with the guards. Maybe he did have a beard for a few months. Sadly the yahoo source for the photo has expired. -- Beardo 16:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen that "black suit" photo described as being of FCR many times.  First instance, as I recall, in Jules Dubois' book.  Looks like him to me.  BTW I think that those dark splotches around his chin are shadows, not a beard; compare to the faces of others standing nearby ... -- Polaris999 17:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The "black suit" picture appears at  with the caption "University student Fidel Castro (center, standing, in black) talking to fellow students during a protest on November 11, 1947." -- Polaris999 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's just a mirror of Wikipedia. -- Beardo 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article at answer.com is not the same version as the one that was here on WP last night when I wrote about the "black suit" image and its caption. Since the time when I posted the above comment re the caption, Zleitzen has restored the "black suit" photo and its caption to the article. -- Polaris999 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P - yes, it's a copy of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. So it cannot be used as any form of verification. -- Beardo 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Beardo.  Sorry for the confusion, I had only intended it to be a clue, not verification.  If one of us were to look through the FCR article's History page, I was thinking that we could find who originally posted that photo and ask him about the source. -- Polaris999 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Follow-up: Here is the best I have been able to do -- it is from Spiegel Online, Photo Gallery : Fidel Castro's Life in Pictures. The "black suit" photo itself is shown at  with the caption, "As a student in 1947, Fidel Castro, wearing a black suit, speaks to fellow students during a protest rally." and Reuters is credited. -- Polaris999 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done Polaris. It still doesn't look like him to me but there you go. By the way, the 12th photograph from Spiegel Online of an old Castro giving a speech in front of the red of a Cuban flag, which appeared in many newspapers fairly recently, is extraordinary. Certainly worthy of EJ's dartboard.--Zleitzen 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - well done.  And that shows it is just shadows, not a beard. -- Beardo 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Childhood and education - POV warning!

message: Fidel Castro's entire life seems to have been characterized by the way he has repeatedly received "second chances", often in the most astonishing circumstances.  Should he make it to 13 August 2008, he will apparently get yet another -- in this case, a second chance to celebrate his 80th birthday, and — in this instance — the real one. As he revealed in this letter that he wrote to US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on 06 November 1940, wherein he states that he was "twelve years old" at the time he was writing, his real birthdate was 13 August 1928, not 13 August 1926 as many documents indicate and as is now widely accepted (although often questioned).  Apparently because of his tall stature and precocious abilities, at some point in his career prior to the 1953 attack on the Moncada barracks he decided to add two years to his age, perhaps with the objective of making himself appear more mature and credible as a leader. -- Polaris999 00:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been various disputes about Castro's age on this page. I've tended to side with the official story to save confrontations - if it read 1928, numerous drive by editors would revert almost immediately - particularly in recent times due to the birthday bashes. It does seem to warrant a Polaris style content note though to explain this. The letter to Roosevelt is on wikicommons - which claims it is fair game to use - and I was about to add it to the article with a small piece about its origins, so by coincidence you have proceeded my thoughts. --Zleitzen 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Zleitzen -- I assume the letter is public domain since it must have became the property of the U.S. government when it was received at the White House. I definitely would not suggest changing his "official" birthdate in the article, since it is just that: even when asked point blank in interviews, FCR has been careful to skirt the issue of in what year he was really born. I think of it in a context similar to the Queen's birthday which, if I understand correctly, is celebrated on a day that is not the day when she actually came into the world. -- Polaris999 02:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Though at least the Queen, perhaps six months (or two years) older than Fidel, manages to actually show up to her state funded birthday bashes. But then she hasn't been smoking Havana cigars and staying up all night most of her life. (At least I don't think she has anyway). Speaking of monarchs, I believe Castro most closely resembles George III. Nationalist firebrand who ruled for 60 years before he literally went mad. Extremely popular and hated in equal measure throughout the world. I'll consider writing the page's first content note to explain the birthdate issue.--Zleitzen 00:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting -- but last time I noticed, it looked as if he had "already been embalmed" for several years. (Perhaps the Abakuá had a role in this?) Anyway, are any of your sources re his demise citable so that we could add these reports to the article?  -- Polaris999 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the phrase patria o muerte, Raul is now patria, and his brother muerte ? -- Beardo 08:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has an undisputed source of Castro's death, then add it to the article. GoodDay 01:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Rumors are that if 'Little Joe' doesn't stop blogging 'talk pages' again. I'm may report him to the Administrators again. GoodDay 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more second chance? 

message: I've had a sweep around the "wealth" section. Largely because the main link was dead, others didn't even correspond to the point in question. I'm not in a very good mood today, so I'll ask; What kind of magazine includes state owned industries in a list of personal wealth - thus making Castro, who clearly leads a more austere lifestyle than most leaders - two times wealthier than the Queen? Words fail me. Thank goodness I don't subscribe to Forbes magazine.--Zleitzen 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sort of magazine with far more readers in Florida than in Havana ? -- Beardo 04:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Goatboy. I remember seeing what I imagine is the same video. Is it the one with Castro floating around in his pyjamas? --Zleitzen 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones the ex of his son sold in Miami ?  Most people saw that as an extreme anticlimax - after all the hype about the luxury it actually looked terribly normal. (Though I don't recall what wine they had). There was even a theory that it had been planted by Cuban security services to make it look normal. (I recall it being when I lived in 9na - so that would be first second half of 2002 ? -- Beardo 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I though as well Beardo. Of course Castro wasn't exactly living out of the back of his car, but then neither was Nelson Mandela who was President while much of South Africa was without basic amenities of electricity and water. There was nothing about the video that made me think that Castro was two times richer than the Queen. In fact there was very little to suggest that Castro was two times richer than me! I also have a big table, pajamas, a bathing suit and drink wine! --Zleitzen 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, Z. Or even two times richer than Havana's nouveaux riche - the owners of the best paladares or the plush casas particulares. -- Beardo 22:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: EJ, as I am sure you realize, the fact is that anything on the Island he wants, immediately becomes his.  Animate objects can resist at their own peril. -- Polaris999 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wealth

message: An editor reverted my summary of the events of Castro's transfer of duties, which is detailed on another page, claiming a policy issue. I don't know who this editor is, but I would be keen to clarify the reasons why?
Update: The editor was User:WHeimbigner. Perhaps this editor is better versed in the Cuba range of articles, and the subject matter than me. I have restored my brief summary, but will offer it to other editors for consensus. --Zleitzen 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edit because it looked like it might have been vandalism (which I do, on occasion, make a mistake about). You might want to leave the history of Fidel Castro there (as well as having the information about the change of power.) Sorry 'bout the mistake, WHeimbigner 07:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it was a mistake. No problem.--Zleitzen 07:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer of duties

message: Under "Other Countries" in this section, mention should be made of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's visit to Cuba in 2002. The following two paragraphs of text (entirely enclosed in quote marks) are from the Wikipedia article on Jimmy Carter, with the simple addition of the words "Former U.S. President Jimmy" to the beginning of the text by myself for clarity)  (NOTE:  I would've added all this to the Fidel Castro article myself except that the article is presently locked on 12/16/2006):
"Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter visited Cuba in May 2002 and met with Fidel Castro. He was allowed to address the Cuban public on national television with a speech that he wrote and presented in Spanish. This made Carter the first President of the United States, in or out of office, to visit the island since the Cuban revolution of 1959.
In June 2005, Carter urged the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Prison in Cuba, which has been the center point for recent claims of prisoner abuse." --70.19.176.80 14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you guys got the varifiable resources for this, add it to the article. GoodDay 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it was significant that Jimmy C was allowed to make his speach uncensored - and spoke about the Varela project.  This was broadcast on Cuban TV. I'll try to put something in the article here. (I don't think the comments about Guantanamo are relevant here - better in other articles - much less any commentary on them.) -- Beardo 20:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we add, any of these (above points) to the article? GoodDay 22:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign Relations

message: The article states 
"While he was being held at the prison for political activists on Isla de Pinos, he continued to plot Batista's overthrow, planning upon release to reorganize and train in Mexico"
Is that true? I was under the impression that the descision to go to Mexico was made after his release. And due to difficulties in Cuba, both Castros being under threat, and Fidel finding himself and his methods marginalised by the anti-Batista groups.--Zleitzen 07:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to have a reference note from verifying that. Sounds like the note has disappeared, but I have read that in more than one place. If the article were in any kind of working order, I would try to find my references again. I remember, from several sources, that while Castro was in prison he was preparing in a number of ways and that he was not "exiled" from Cuba but left voluntarily after release.  Mattisse 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexico

message: I am sure there's some useful stuff here - http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/16258230.htm
"Although the family lived better than most Cubans, Menéndez said, conditions at the house were hardly luxurious.
"My friends would say, `Oh, you live in a house with a swimming pool, you eat meat every day,' " she says. But when she and Alex got married, workers "built him a room on top of the garage. He's a big guy, and he barely fit between the bed and wall. That is not luxury."
and
Menéndez also doubts that Fidel really has the nearly $1 billion fortune that Forbes magazine recently reported.
"What if this all ends?" she recalls him saying. "Nothing of this is mine; it all belongs to the state. What my children will get after I go is what the revolution gives them as thanks for my being president. But I will leave nothing to them."
She blames Dalia for a miscarriage and the break up of the marriage. -- Beardo 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalia and wealth again 

message: Just a grammar point: you cannot say that "Ever since the bay of pigs...Cuba HAS HAD a...relationship with the...soviet bloc."  The expression "Ever since", in conjunction with "has had" implies that the bloc still exists today.125.231.5.114 14:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castro, Fidel 

message: A distinction should be made between Castro's involvement in the "Insurrection"(1953-1959) against the Batista dictatorship (1952-December 1958) and the Revolution 1961 to the present.  The initial intent of the anti-dictatorship insurrection was to reinstate the 1940 constitution and restore democratic elections, see Castro's "History Will Absolve Me."  Once in power the 26 of July Movement - the only rural insurrectionist group, that was one of several groups working to overthrow the dictatorship, moved to take the process forward to a Marxist-Leninist Revolution declared by Castro in his famous Havana Declarations.
Ouramericas 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fidel Castro Ruz Bio 

message: In this article, under the section labeled Cuban Missle Crisis, there is this line, "In a personal letter to Khrushchev dated 27 October 1962, Castro urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States if Cuba were invaded, but Khrushchev rejected any first strike response.[53]" The [53] is a link to a copy of that letter form George Washington University.
My problem with that is this; Oliver Stone's film Comandante is a two hour collection of 30 hours worth of interviews between Stone and Castro filmed in Cuba over 4 days. At 47:09 in the film they discuss this letter. Stone asks Castro if what his critics and American historians say is true, that he endorsed a first strike policy to Khrushchev. Castro's response, is that he did not endorse a first strike policy. What he had intended to say to Khrushchev was distorted as it was translated by a Russian Ambassador who spoke very poor spanish. 
I personally prefer to trust the words of someone who was directly involved in an event (Castro) rather than the words of someone who is writing about it at a later date and who also resides in an informationally unreliable and biased country (American historians).
The only reason I bother to point this out is because this is the very example of how history is mis-shaped by tiny dents and dings form people who are "authoritative." Given the time when this was taking place and given the undeniably huge amount of false and exaggerated propaganda being issued from the US about Cuba, I think it is more plausable that the Ambassador mis-interprted what was said than Castro endorsing a policy that seems contradictory to all his previous statements and actions at that time.
When refering to a line from a specific letter written between two political leaders, citing the actual letter is the most reliable and correct thing to do. But, if information is brought to light that throws the validity of said letter out the window, then said citing should be replaced by the newly exposed information.
Is this grounds for changing the article?
Hoopi4432 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with El Jigue in that Castro is a masterful politician. You could provide another viewpoint with proper sourcing.  It's really not a question of whom you personally trust but rather one of following Wikipedia policy and guidlines: WP:V and WP:RS plus WP:CITE. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article may need revision. 

message: Fidel Castro should be put in the Galician people category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.165.53 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 14 January 2007
:Why ?  His father may have been Galician, but does that mean he is, too ? -- Beardo 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well - when he exercises that right, then he can go into that category ! -- Beardo 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galicia people 

message: Perhaps this is more detail than we need :
"A first operation to extract part of his large intestine and connect the colon to the rectum was a failure and the link broke, releasing feces into the abdomen that caused another peritonitis, the newspaper reported.
A second operation to clean and drain the infected area and perform a colostomy also failed, the paper said. A third operation implanted a prothesis, it said.
When Spanish surgeon Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido visited Castro in late December, Cuban doctors were considering another operation, the paper said.
"The patient required drainage for more than half a liter of fluids a day, which is causing him a severe loss of nutrients," the paper reported."   http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-16T023957Z_01_N18357550_RTRUKOC_0_US-CUBA-CASTRO-MONDAY.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 -- Beardo 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest 

message: It seems finally clear that Fidel Castro is dying after a series of failed gastro-intestinal operations  . Endless discussion at  El Jigue 1-16-07
:It was predicted (can't remember by whom) that Fidel Castro would live 150 years. Looks like he ain't gonna make it. GoodDay 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GoodDay, it was his personal physician who proclaimed that Fidel Castro would live to be 140 years old.  He made this prediction only a few weeks before Castro experienced the gastrointestinal crisis that led to the first of the surgeries from which he has not yet recovered. You can check out the doctor's comments here: Castro's Doctor Boasts His Client Will Live to 140. -- Polaris999 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting interpretation, El Jigue!  That report also suggests to me that his "personal physician" was non compos mentis, to put it as politely as possible. I wonder where he is now?  -- Polaris999 22:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 140 years, another example of Communist propaganda (designed to make Fidel appear invinceable, to the oppressed Cuban people). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hugo Chavez has said, Castro is 'fighting for his life'. We could add this to the article. GoodDay 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fidel Castro dying

message: From the "Illness and transfer of duties" section:
:"...reported Castro was in 'very grave' condition, having trouble cicatrising, after three failed operations..."
Now, I have never heard of that word, and I find it likely few readers of the article will have. Perhaps somebody who knows about this stuff could kindly interpret that for us.
     cic·a·trize(sk-trz)
     To heal or become healed by the formation of scar tissue. there you go, first hit on google.
Or maybe it's just vandalism. Danthemankhan 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means his incisions aren't healing normally, leading to seepage, peritonitis, etc.  Please see the article I added earlier today to the "External Links" section which discusses another serious complication that is afflicting him, i.e. post-operative cholecystitis. -- Polaris999 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical jargon

message: I've added the rest of the Veeps, to the Infobox. My wiki-source Cuban Council of State. PS- If anyone knows how to archive this talk page, I suggest they do it soon. GoodDay 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that list of VPs is necessary - we've never included that before. -- Beardo 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are Vice Presidents of Cuba; also the section heading was already Vice President(s) (with an 's'). Oh well, if it's removed, I won't protest. GoodDay 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuban Vice-Presidents

message: "find like-minded partners in regional nationalist figures such as Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia."
What is nationalist in Chavez and Morales? They even try to open their countries to make a bigger latinamerican block. Or it is the regional-nationalism or something?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bauta (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationalist in that they don't march to Washington's tune ? -- Beardo 22:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: serious? cause i don't see anything nationalist in their politics, economies and philosophies to call'em nationalists. Maybe that word shouldn't be in the phrase.--Bauta 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalist Figures? 

message: I have added to the transfer of duties page.
Here's the report from Juventud Rebelde - http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/cuba/2007-01-30/fidel-y-chavez-se-abrazan-de-nuevo-en-la-habana/
 
Is it a sign of the times that the article includes a link to a YouTube copy of the video, as well as its own ? -- Beardo 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo / video 

message: I removed the sentence "President Kennedy had withdrawn support for the invasion at the last minute by canceling several bombing sorties that could have crippled the entire Cuban Air Force" and someone re-inserted it with a reference to a rambling article on a far-right wing web site.  An article which of course gives no references to first-hand accounts, documents etc. about this, we just have to take the word of a conservative named Humberto Fontova.  But beyond this, Fontova doesn't say anything that supports the idea that Kennedy withdrew support that had been pledged, canceled sorties that had been scheduled and so forth.  Fontova's article does not fall under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources category, but more importantly, Fontova is not even a source for the allegations made.  This is being remove again. Ruy Lopez 12:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Ruy Lopez is in some ways correct in the fact that actual air support during the invasion was never on the table as far as Kennedy was concerned and this has been misconstrued over the years. Check Arthur Schlesinger's 900 days and desclassified records, EJ. However, it is certainly the case  that several bombing sorties aimed to knock out the Cuban airforce in preparation for the invasion were cancelled by Washington much to the dismay of the CIA and José Miró Cardona in New York.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Have restored material in part, changing the source to trusty Hugh Thomas as per usual, EJ. -- Zleitzen (Talk) 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bay of Pigs air support 

message: This article doesn't really go into Castro's political ideology, influences, or domestic/economic policies. As one of the most prominent enduring "Socialist Republics" i'd personally like to more about Casto vis-a-vis these issues.
Itoldalthea 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castro's political ideology? 

message: I am concerned about this article's reluctance to describe Castro as a dictator.  Whether someone is a dictator is a mostly (though not entirely) factual question, not just a matter of opinion (see the definition in dictator, which has to do with how much the person exercises over the government).  How much factual dispute about whether Castro, in practice, has sole power over the Cuban state?  If not, Castro might (arguably) be a benevolent dictator, but that wouldn't make him a nondictator.  
Note that WP:UNDUE indicates that we shouldn't give undue weight to marginal opinions by describing them as though they stood on the same footing with other opinions.  Elliotreed 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says in the lead "Castro is described by opponents as a dictator", as per policy. -- Zleitzen(talk) 00:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not call Castro a dictator? 

message: I see that no one talks much about all the good things Castro has done. He has done many great things to help mankind. For many years he has be fighting against Drugs and terrorism.
In 2001, Fidel Castro was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for sending medical and engineering aid to developing countries.Dm2ortiz 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, anyone can get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. I don't imagine your addition will last, references to Nobel Prize nominations tend to get removed for that reason. Someone removed the same fact when I added it to the Elizardo Sanchez article  so I don't see why Castro should keep his mention. -- Zleitzen(talk) 16:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominatiion for a Nobel Prize is not considered notable, SqueakBox 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The Nobels are not the type of prize where it's an honor just to be nominated.  George W. Bush was nominated for the Peace Prize too; I doubt many Castro supporters would take that as evidence of the great things Bush has done. Elliotreed 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Presumably, like other nominees, he was nominated because he had a friend or admirer in a position to nominate him; such a position might be, for example, "a professor of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology" according to the rules of the Nobel Committee which you can peruse at http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html . -- Polaris999 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a Biography of a man's life. The nomination was somthing that happed to him and sending Aid was something he did do. With George W. Bush we list the good and bad we should do the same with everyone.Dm2ortiz 15:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your point here.  Are you saying that the Peace Prize nomination is notable or just that the reason he was nominated is notable?  The latter seems reasonable enough to me. Elliotreed 16:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel Peace Prize

message: Here's why, directly from the wikipedia on Cuba:
"In October 1959, Castro openly declared himself to be friendly towards Communism, though he did not yet claim to be a Communist himself, and the liberal and other anti-Communist elements of the government were purged, with many who had initially supported the revolution fleeing the country to join the growing exile community in Miami. In March 1960, the first aid agreements were signed with the Soviet Union. In the context of the Cold War, the U.S. saw the establishment of a Soviet base of influence in the Americas as a threat and plans were approved to remove Castro from power (see The Cuban Project)."
Claiming that Castro didn't move to a Marxist, pro-Soviet position until after the Bay of Pigs is simply inaccurate.
Although the above is accurate, it does not really reach the root of the matter. When castro seized power, the Cuban economy was on very shaky ground - 80% of exports was sugar. Seeking to stabilize inflation etc he made a deal with the USSR to refine some oil for them. However, all the cuban oil refineries - which were owned by US bussinessmen - refused to process the oil. Castro therefore seized the oil companies. The USA emposed a trade embargo. this was very bad for Cuba as it had taken 90% of Cuba's exports. Castro responded by seizing all American businesses. USA responded with the BAy of Pigs fiasco and numerous assassination attempts ( nearing 400 to date) so Castro sought protection from the USSR. Tejackson 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone really not know why the U.S. turned against Castro?  

message: In Personal, under Wealth, the last sentence--"These attempts often must rely on the testimonials of defectors who were close to Castro, and investigators have not been able to give hard evidence of his real worth"--apparently needs a citation.  Why?  Doesn't it strike anyone else as a bit Kafkaesque that one would need evidence to prove there is a lack of evidence?  Or is someone just being sneaky with subtext, implying that Castro does indeed have massive amounts of wealth and we just have to prove it?
I'm just some wandering passerby, but I'm going to remove that little bit because it seems to imply a well-hidden bias.  However, I'm perfectly willing to listen to anyone who can tell me why that particular sentence needs a citation; in fact, I'm a rather curious what the rationale could be.
*edit: oh.  Wasn't paying attention.  Looks like the page is protected.  But hey, really: could someone explain the rationale behind this?
--72.84.199.148 05:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, #1) I'm pretty sure it's against wiki policy to ever remove a citation needed tag, except under specific circumstances.  As far as why it would be valid in the first place, everything in wikipedia is supposed to have 'come from someplace else.'  If, indeed, the statement "These attempts often must rely on the testimonials of defectors who were close to Castro, and investigators have not been able to give hard evidence of his real worth" is true, then there should be a primary source which backs it up.  An actual published article (or book, etc) which quotes these "defectors who were close to castro" should be in existence somewhere.  If something like that doesn't exist, then the statement is probably the opinion of the person who added it, or else hearsay. --Faits 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is a citation necessary for a distinct lack of evidence? 

message: Castro apparently has not even made an appearance at this year's May first celebrations, where he most commonly, and as far as I can recall, always appeared and gave a very long speech . This is quite puzzling, and apparently at odds with reports of his improving health.  What is more puzzling, since he (or some one who resembles him) could have readily been placed in the reviewing stand, without need of a Castro speech, and a pre-prepared speech could have been readily sent out on the loud speakers (for it is too far away to readily detect synchronized lip moviment).  One explanation is that a lesson is being taught by Raul and/or the present Cuban leadership, and that this lesson is that Fidel Castro is no-longer even nominally in charge._El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No-show at May 1 celebrations

message: Do you think they should add this to the Wikipedia article about Fidel Castro?
"At the University of Havana Castro not only earned a degree in law, he also played baseball for them."
Sounds feasible.
Then perhaps one should cover other "trivia" such as Castro's attempt (July 1948, Ros, Enrique 2003 Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus Años Universitarios (Coleccion Cuba y Sus Jueces) Ediciones Universal Miami  p. 259) on the life of Rolando Masferrer who in 1945 had been expelled from the Cuban communist party (García Montes, Jorge and Antonio Alonso Ávila 1970 Historia del Partido Comunista en Cuba. Ediciones Universal, Miami. Page 362). These authors place Ernest Hemingway talking to “El Tigre” (Rolando Masferrer, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War and then a soon to be expelled communist party leader) in the Havana Soviet Embassy on November 7 1945.  At the time, according to these authors, Blas Roca and Fabio Grobart were desperately trying to stop Masferrer from leaving the communist party.  At this event Masferrer refuses to shake the hand of Cuban communist leader Anibal Escalante.  For details on Masferrer's expulsion from the communist party see de la Cova, Antonio Rafael. (2007 The Moncada Attack: Birth of the Cuban Revolution.. University of South Carolina Press ISBN-10: 1570036721 ISBN-13: 978-1570036729 p. 287 "Masferrer and the novelist Carlos Montenegro founded the weekly magazine Tiempo en Cuba in January 1945. Eight months later they were expelled from the Communist Party for denouncing its leadership for its bourgeoisie and corrupt lifestyle.”) El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Na... the info can be added to the article but the creation of a trivia section will eventually end in someone adding a  tag and it will be subsecuently removed, try to find somewhere it fits. -凶 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  add trivia? 

message: Latest photo shows same kind of jump suit he was wearing for the last few months.  Apparently his TV make up was better, but that did not hide the odd look in his eyes as if he was not quite there. We will have to wait until he is shown live responding to questions to reach any conclusions. El Jigue208.65.188.149 22:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they did at least show him talking to the cameras, rather than just brief clips of him chatting with a visitor. -- Beardo 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest photos

message: The prolonged Castro-Masferrer feud dates at least from when Masferrer broke with the overt Cuban Communist party in 1945.   A friend brought to my attention that Orlando Piedra, an important supporter of Batista, gave prolonged interviews in  a significant if badly written book:
Raimundo, Daniel Efrain 1994 Habla el Coronel Orlando Piedra (Coleccion Cuba y sus Jueces), Ediciones Universal  ISBN-10 0897294793  ISBN-13: 978-0897294799 Pages 93-94 refer to the death of Manolo Castro, and offers the insight that it was Rolando Masferrer’s men who, rather than the police who, were chasing after Fidel Castro with lethal intent. According to this account Castro is captured in the company of a woman and child as he tries to flee to Venezuela via the Cuban airport of Rancho Boyeros south of Havana by the Cuban Bureau of Investigation as witnessed by sergeant of that organization Joaquin Tasas.  Castro is released the next day.  This matter is a little odd since Fidel Castro was believed to have organized the death of Manolo Castro (p. 99). Pages 40-41 discuss the death of Camilo Cienfuegos, attributing the cause to Camilo’s prevention of the execution of General Cantillo, and his possible support of Huber Matos.  The death of Camilo, here placed in the outskirts of Havana, is attributed to Raul Castro, who is said to have shot Camilo twice in the head. Orlando Piedra seems a reliable, if abhorrent, source since he advocates total war killing all (p. 44, see also pp. 207-208), finds commendable that Batista would find government jobs for children of subordinates (p. 55).   Page 67 notes, in bold, the presence at the Floridita Bar of the author and other Cuban law Pages 98-101 show a “Police dossier” on Fidel Castro listing his height as only "6 pies" (six feet p. 98), and listing Castro as one of the “autores intelectuales” in the murder of Manolo Castro (p. 99); page 215 states Castro with Alfredo Guevara and other were involved in murder of Jorge Eliezer Gaitán.  Pages 102-103 give the corresponding dossier of Raul Castro, noting his return to Havana loaded with propaganda on June 7, 1953 from the eastern block (presumable after a meeting with communist officials who may well have included Fabio Grobart.)  Pages 129-131 (see also pp. 213-214) Police dossier on Jesus Gonzalez Cartas (El Extraño) o (Matasiete),reported to have ordered the death of  Masferrer, on September 7, 1949.  Pages 217-218 give a brief bio on Rolando Masferrer Rojas, does not mention Masferrer’s communist past.  However, this bio does mention his attempt (could have been disingenuous) to rally support of Prio on March 10, 1952 and finding none joins Batista in his coup, and talks of the bombing that killed Masferrer in front of his (Florida) house.   Unnumbered page following 208, states that Orlando Piedra Negueruela: “Participio en el golpe de estado de 10 de marzo, y luego era ascendido a coronel. Por decreto presidencial fue nombrado jefe  del Buró de Investigaciones. Supervisor de la Policía Secreta, supervisor de la Policía Judicial, y asesor técnico del Buró de Actividades Comunistas (BRAC).”      El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro-Masferrer feud