Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 6

message: The PM mentioned in the Canadian visit is wrong.  Trudeau was not in power in 1961 (indeed, Diefenbaker was!).
*yeah, fixed that and elaborated a little more
** Castro did visit Canada in 1959.  Trudeau visited cuba in 1976 too. 69.57.154.67 15:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Visit

message: In response to Natalinasmpf, your attacks on Cuba haven't included any concrete backing or concrete evidence and seems to me like no more than Anti-Cuban, Anti-Communist, Anti-Castro slander. All you seem to say is "Communism is bad!", "Castro is a dictator!" etc. without making any strong, credible argument. 
And also just because you are from Cuba doesn't mean that you are less biased against Cuba. You said that you are a US citizen and US patriot so it is only natural to assume that you are going to be biased against Cuba, especially since you have said nothing about being Pro-Cuban. 
Their are blacks who are klansmen, women and gays who are Born-Again-Christian, there are Arabs and Persians who are Zionist etc. As irrational as it is it happens and you my have shown no indication that you are any different.Leon Trotsky 11:00, 22 July 2005
Uh, I'm Singaporean. Are you confusing me with someone else? I'm an anarcho-communist, I do not consider state communism to be actual communism in any form, and I abhor all forms of state involvement in communism. Communism must be anarchist. -- Natalinasmpf 00:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Response to Natalinaspf

message: Could someone please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this article once it is unprotected? Please use the code below:
 vi:Fidel Castro
It should be placed after sv:, but before zh:. Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 02:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: pathetic, really. i trust someone will be NPOV enough to clean them up. J. Parker Stone 09:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent "edits"

message: In 1981, the CIA started a dengue fever epidemic that resulted in 273,000 people on the island came down with the illness, 
 killing 158 people, including 101 children.3. Between 1956 and 1958 the US Army tested whether mosquitoes 
 of the type Aedes Aegypti - which are carriers of dengue fever - could be used as weapons of biological warfare. 
 4 During a trial in New York in 1984, a Cuban exile said that in late 1980 a ship traveled to Cuba "with a mission 
 to carry some germs to introduce them in Cuba to be used against the Soviets and against the Cuban economy ... which later on 
 produced results that were not what we had expected ... and it was used against our own people, and with that we did not agree". 
Since the footnotes aren't there I've removed this chunk as currently unvarifiable.  Any sources? Rich Farmbrough 11:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed chunk. 

message: Dirk, coupla questions/comments. first of all, how long did it take for literacy to reach high-'90s; Cuba had a 76% pre-Castro literacy rate; how high was rural literacy and what sources do we have on rural literacy rise. if we answer these questions it'll solve the "greatly" thing. i am curious myself. i have already pointed out however that many South American countries have made gains in literacy over the past decades, so we have to determine how much of the Cuban increase is directly attributable to the campaign, and not to basic education. J. Parker Stone 11:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fighting illiteracy was one of the main issues after the Revolution (necessary to achieve the 'new man'), so it's quite likely that the decrease had something to do with that (note the English-style understatement :) ). Sources seem to differ. See next entry. DirkvdM 19:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: TJive is right, "24 to 96% in a few years" is crap. literacy was 76% pre-revolution, obviously lower in the rural areas and higher in the urban areas, but c'mon now. i know a lot of the stuff that gets out of Cuba is tinged with Castroite bias but surely there's some objective sources on this? a UN, State Dept., or CIA research report perhaps? J. Parker Stone 11:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Immense" literacy increase

message: Only one of Castro's children is mentioned, "Fidelito". If this article is meant to be biographical, shouldn't other (known) offspring also be mentioned somewhere, especially famous ones such as Alina Fernandez? --Shastra 12:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have the info, go ahead. DirkvdM 19:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro's children

message: Several english kings were said to "rule" or have "reigns", and many of them had a parliament that they shared power with and had to deal with.  Castro rules without any opposition or checks and balances.   Where is the "state", that would not fall apart in his absense?--Silverback 08:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't think this is a major point, 'ruled' doesn't sound too pov, so I don't want to get into a heated discussion over that. It just seems that 'head of state' is more neutral and encyclopedic, so why change it?
:You do imply another interresting point, though. Namely that the whole system would fall apart after Castro dies. A lot of people seem to think this, but what is it based on? Sounds like anti-communist wishful thinking to me. When I asked a Cuban about this he shrugged and said "the guys at the top will sort that out". If Castro dies, do you think the other rulers will just throw in the towel? Why should they? Only something like an uprising after his death might change things. And I don't see that happening. People have to be very dissatisfied to put their lives in the line. And whether this is the government's cleverness or not I don't know, but they do make sure people are, if not satisfied, at least not sufficiently dissatisfied. The 'bread and games' idea of the Romans. People aren't hungry (well, not seriously, anyway), have free housing, education and health care and plenty entertainment. Sports and arts (especially music) are encouraged. One could call the Cuban adagio 'bread, health, games and music'. 
:Ultimately, taking the stance that the state will fall apart after Castro's death is an opinion, a pov. So you sort of dug your own opinion's grave with that reasoning :) . DirkvdM 17:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ruled" vs "head of state" 

message: Response to NWOG's revert & request for sources: The 7% claim comes from, among other sources, http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/80-cucas.htm, which says:
"More than 1/2 million refugees left Cuba in the first 3 years of the Castro regime"
Since the population of Cuba was about 7 million in 1961, the rest is simply pure arithmetic. If doing arithmetic counts as original research, we could of course quote absolute numbers instead. But that would make the article more verbose. --Shastra 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refugee sources for NWOG 

message: After Stalin, it could be argued that the USSR became a totalitarian oligarchy rather than a totalitarian dictatorship, because there was some distribution of power and there had been peaceful transitions of power, and there was no longer a personality cult surrounding the leader.  Neither holds with Castro, there is a personality cult and no proof that the "state" he established can survive him, despite the fact that he has designated a relative as a successor.  Although a totalitarian oligarchy may not sound as negative as totalitarian dictator, it can be every bit as controlling and repressive.  One sure sign of either is when they are so bad that they must violently suppress attempts to emigrate.--Silverback 03:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stalin was in charge of the Soviet Union, not Cuba. Glad to clear that up for you. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so your predictions about the Cuban state have no place in it. Grace Note 08:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx for the clarification.  The point was that Stalin was a dictator, while Breshnev was not, even thought the soviet state was still totalitarian.  In Fidels case his regime is a dictatorship, until it is proven that there is real power sharing and a peaceful transition of leadership.  Hopefully Cuba's transition from totalitarian dictatorship will be to a democracy and not to a totalitarian oligarchy. Designating his brother as his successor is not a promising start however, and confirms that he is still totalitarian.  I will continue to keep my predictions out of the article.--Silverback 12:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dictator not oligarchy