| Revision as of 15:39, 24 September 2007 edit172.202.39.42 (talk) →Arbitrary deletions need explanations← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:30, 29 August 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,081 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 18) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
{{WikiProject Totalitarianism|class=b|importance=top|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=14:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
{{WikiProject Cold War history|class=B|importance=Mid|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Fidel Castro/archive1 |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=High|politician-work-group=yes|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
{{WP Cuba|importance=Top||class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid= |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
{{Controversial3}} |
|
|
{{TrollWarning}} |
|
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
''An event in this article is a ]'' |
|
|
|
|action2date=19:06, 19 April 2015 |
|
{| class="infobox" |
|
|
|
|action2link=Talk:Fidel Castro/GA1 |
|
|- |
|
|
|
|action2result=passed |
|
!align="center"|]<br>] |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=657223087 |
|
---- |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itndate=26 November 2016 |
|
|
|otd1date=2004-12-02|otd1oldid=16335543|otd2date=2005-01-01|otd2oldid=9426118|otd3date=2006-01-01|otd3oldid=33524455 |
|
|
|otd4date=2022-02-16|otd4oldid=1071901643 |
|
|
|action3 = FAC |
|
|
|action3date = 2022-04-04 |
|
|
|action3link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fidel Castro/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result = failed |
|
|
|action3oldid = 1080489579 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC/GA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=History |
|
|
|otd5date=2023-02-16|otd5oldid=1139664337 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Castro, Fidel|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cold War|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=High|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cuba|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Biography=y|North-American=y|Cold-War=y}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 18 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Dec 14 2014 (25th)|Mar 20 2016 (25th)|Nov 20 2016 (1st)|Nov 27 2016 (1st)}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Net worth== |
|
|
I see that in 2006, Forbes ranked Castro as #7 on a list richest heads of state. May we mention this? I do not wish to bother if it has already been edited out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Random Sentence == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is this sentence, |
|
|
"The publication "Forbes" valued the inheritance left by the former Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, at approximately 900 million dollars." |
|
|
doing at the end of the youth section? It doesn't relate at all with the sentence before and feels extremely disconnected. ] (]) 06:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: The 900 million dollar estimate is mentioned three times in the article. Someone must think it is important. ] (]) 11:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "dictator, marxist" in opening sentence? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I ask {{u|YMVD}} to discuss their desired changes to the opening sentence here rather than edit warring. ], {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 03:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Fidel Castro|answered=yes}} |
|
== Infant mortality in the intro == |
|
|
|
in the introduction it says that Castro's Government "Advanced Economic and Social Justice" |
|
Does this belong here? At best it is misleading; I'm thinking of rewriting or removing as its not an accurate comparison (no matter how much Moore wants it to be) as the statistics are calculated differently (what is considered a "live" birth) between the US and just about everywhere else (including most of europe), and if you read the literature almost all of the US rate is due to infants that other countries would not even list in their statistics (see PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 6 December 2005, pp. 1487-1491 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0392)The Contribution of Withholding or Withdrawing Care to Newborn Mortality |
|
|
|
this does not make sense and just sounds kind of wrong, would suggest changing it his government made "Economic and Social Justice Advancements" ] (]) 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Lorayne Barton, MD, MPH and Joan E. Hodgman, MD ). ] 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Any truth to Fidel and baseball? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I forget where I heard it, and I'm not sure of its legitimacy, but is it true that Fidel actually tried out in the '50s as a pitcher for the ] and was rejected? If that's the case, can we blame the O's for the Cuban Missile Crisis? Is there any information regarding this anywhere, or has this been misinterpreted/fabricated throughout the decades since? ]]]] 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:There's absolutely no truth to that. He wasn't a very good baseball player in the first place, and he was never given the opportunity to try out for any professional baseball team. ] 04:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== JP II is dead... == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Later in the day, though, the pope also made his most critical reference ''yet'' to the American economic embargo of Cuba." |
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt JP II will make any further such references. |
|
|
:Guess not. ] 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Clearly the intended meaning is that JPII made his most critical statement up to that point, not until the present. ] 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fidel Castro/Che Guevara Song == |
|
|
|
|
|
There was a song sung by one ] involving both ] and ]. It praises them for "freeing" Cuba, and is called "Companeros". So shouldn't there be a mention of that in the "Public image" section? Thanks. ] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Only in the trivia section. If there's no 'trivia' section, then mention it at ]. ] 21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
No, there ''isn't'' a "trvia" section, but can you explain to me why you believe it shouldn't be featured in the "public image" section? It wasn't ] himself that wrote it, but he obviously supports Fidel's ] beliefs, at least to some marginal extent. It's as relevant here as it is at ]. ] 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Other women, other children== |
|
|
|
|
|
For years now diligent "editors" have been erasing reference to Castro's other women and other children. And yet there is considerable evidence that there are such. El Jigue] 01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:EJ - do you have some references that we can cite ? -- ] 03:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Will post when I recover them again....perhaps they are in the Fuentes "Auto" biography but that is an iffy book and will look for a better source. El Jigue] 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Fidel 'Casanova' Castro? His beard must have been ticklish. ] 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So basically, what you're trying to tell us is that Fidel Castro ''has'' had other women and other children and you have sources to back them up, however, all of a sudden, you've ''lost'' those sources and we'll just have to take your word for it? No thank you. Until you can actually find some sources, the article will remain as it is. ] 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== reports on Castro's health == |
|
|
|
|
|
According to some exile sources Castro's condition is worsening rapidly El Jigue] 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Coma Andante", "Caga Andante" and "muerto-vivo" you got to give that to the exiles they are ingenious, however I doubt we can use this as a reliable source because of the nature of it, ''en otras palabras los gringos se van a quejar si la informacion viene de una fuente que ellos no consideren "confiable"''. -- ] 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Let's waint until he's dead, before adding further 'health' imformation. Afterall, he won't recovery at that point (though he's doctors might dispute that). ] 20:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A LETTER TO FIDEL CASTRO == |
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me, I want to write a letter to Fidel Castro. I am from Europe, from Bulgaria. But I don`t know the exact address which I am supposed to write to. Please help me! bulgaria. Please tell me how to find the address or tell me it. |
|
|
Thank you beforehand!!! |
|
|
Ivan from bulgaria bulgaria bulgaria. |
|
|
:This isn't the correct place to make that request. This page is for suggestions on 'improving' this article. ] 17:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh, well -- you are, of course, correct ], but since time may be running out , why not help out this would-be correspondent? Here is the address to which you can write, Ivan, assuming your intended recipient is still in this world -- but you would probably be well-advised to send your letter via DHL Express: |
|
|
:::Dr. Fidel Castro Ruz |
|
|
:::Presidente del Consejo de Estado |
|
|
:::Palacio de la Revolución |
|
|
:::La Habana - CUBA. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot, but do i have to write a postal code???:) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No postal code is necessary, but be sure to put your return address on the envelope if you send it via regular mail. -- ] 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:07:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC)| 07:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Castro is dead? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just heard Castro died from someone that knows someone in Cuba. Cannot verify it. ] 01:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Not a verified source, but ]and many other news mediums are reporting that Castro is dead. |
|
|
:If he is, I'm sure his doctors will tells us he'll recover. ] 16:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I don't get your comment, they can't hide something like this for long its not like they ]. - ] 02:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I heard the Miami Rumor: Castro is dead, Raul and Ricardo Alarcon feuding. Arrests in the department of the Interior ("secret" police), and regular police gathering to prevent riots. El Jigue] 16:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Reddit has picked the story up and a ] 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not to sound American biased, but we should wait until ''CNN'' confirms Castro's death, before adding it to the article. ] 20:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I totally agree, although it is something to watch. I haven't heard much about this since yesterday and nothing has been confirmed. We'd have nothing to source but PerezHilton if we added it today... ] 20:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Castro has been rumored to be dead since 2006, anyways if he is the goverment wouldn't let the public know at the moment because the island is on a category 4 huriccane alert (see ] for more info) and doing so may result in a civil crisis. - ] 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Norra Skåne", a Swedish paper with supposedly good sources has just recently published (!) Castro's death. Norra Skåne is a serious and reliable albeit very small Swedish paper based in the Scania region. Wouldn't it be quite a sensation if a minor Swedish paper is the first one to break the news. I'm not suggesting we change the article or anything. Check http://www.nsk.se/apps/pbcs.dll/ <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{Time|20:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC)}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
An Announcement will be made Friday 8/24 about his death. |
|
|
|
|
|
:And when it is we will add it here. I have opposed Caribbean's full protectiuon request because if this is true we need the article unprotected. So please help by not adding this until it appears on a page like . Thanks, ] 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Need help with opening box == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could a more tech savvy Misplaced Pages user alter the article's opening box to add the fact that Castro is the head of the ]. You know, create one of those categories that has listings of predecessor and successor and whatnot... It would be much appreciated. ] 14:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Lets see I can probably give it a try, now who was his predecesor? - ] 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The head of state of the country where the immediately previous NAM meeting was held would have been his predecessor in this post which is sometimes called "president", sometimes "chairman". Judging from http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200609/16/eng20060916_303402.html, it would seem that this person was the Malaysian prime minister, ]. -- ] 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Its 1927 not 1926 == |
|
|
I can't believe I appear to be the only one around here who knows Fidel Castro was born in 1927, not 1926. Here's the proof: |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
:I think Castro & Cuba disagree - remember the 80th birthday party bash, in 2006? ] 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fidel Castro is Dead == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hes dead today. August 24, 2007 2:45PM (EST). {{unsigned|151.151.73.165 }} |
|
|
:This source seems pretty shaky, first of all why would the University of Miami know if Castro is dead? second why of all publications would they select a swedish one? Nope not reliable at all we better wait until BBC or CNN report something if they do. - ] 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Can someone change the DATE OF DEATH on the page? Even if he happened to have died today, the death is listed as taking place last week on the page.] 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No evidence of death and any claims on the page that he is will be treated as simple vandalism just as this thread is trolling so lets not feed them, ] 19:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::dude castro is truly dead sorry ] 20:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Well when it comes out it'll dominate every newspaper in the world so we wont have any problems sourcing it. Until then we wait, ] 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I already requested full protection for this page as a result of all the speculative edits going on in here. - ] 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, as of today, August 24, 2007 there have been several rumors circulating here in Miami, Florida that Fidel Castro has died. Reportedly, several people from Cuba have called their families here in Miami telling them that Fidel Castro is in fact dead, although it has not officially been announced to Cubans. Nothing has been made official yet, and since these reports on Castro's death began just today the news sources have not begun to pick up the story. In the coming weeks news sources will probably pick up the story, but I doubt the Cuban government will make an official announcement any time soon. Until then, I don’t think this rumor belongs in the article, but of course they are coming from reliable sources directly in Cuba. He’s dead, we’ll just have to wait and see for now. |
|
|
] 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Wiki user: Chris150x |
|
|
|
|
|
:If there are rumours in Florida I suggest you folk go tellt eh press. personally I dont believe it but whatever this will be treated as trolling without it first dominating the news, ] 20:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm sorry I can't undestand what you suggested, can you explain it again? - ] 20:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::That if people believe genuinely that Fidel is dead they should report it to the press not wikipedia, ] 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Agreed. These kinds of rumors have been so rampant the past year, that we should wait for a picture of the corpse. ] 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have contacted the local media here in Miami, Florida. They are well aware, but for now it is just simply a rumor and they don't want to start talking about it on the news because that would cause chaos here in South Florida since a great majority of our population is Cuban. I don’t think we will get a picture of the corpse or confirmation from Cuban government any time soon. It could be months until they know for sure. Agreed, the rumor does not belong in the article yet until news sources pick up the story. ] 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Wiki user: Chris150x |
|
|
|
|
|
:the rumour is genuine but without a proper source even that should not be mentioned, some fascist Swedish newspaper wont do (as was inserted). As an encyclopedia we are fine to just wait, ] 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ''What'' fascist newspaper?? Cite? --] 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''Norra Skåne''' reported that Castro was dead yesterday, or at least so I read in another Swedish newspaper (probably '''Expressen'''). Now I can neither find the original report from Norra Skåne, nor the quotation in Expressen, so maybe they were taken off the Internet sites of the respective newspapers. I guess I could go to a library to check if there is anything in the paper edition of either newspaper, but since it seems to have disappeared from the Internet altogether, I would presume that everything is a hoax. I '''think''' that Expressen wrote that Norra Skåne had got the information from an unspecified source in Miami. Norra Skåne is a very small, ''regional'', Swedish newspaper, so it would seem highly unlikely that they would be the only one to receive any information about the death of Fidel Castro. Maybe it was just something they came up with in order to sell some extra copies of (presumably) yesterday's issue of the newspaper. (] 12:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Here is the link to the article which was available on the internet as of 30 seconds ago. The article clearly states that the story is totally based on rumors circulating in Miami. -- ] 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::We are still missing a cite for that newspaper being ''fascist''. It is a very serious allegation and as such a proper cite is called for. --22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{Time|{{{2|}}}}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::::I don't regularly read that newspaper, so I can't tell if it's ''fascist'' or not, but ] states that the newspaper supports the ] (which isn't a ''fascist'' party) so I would assume that it's not a ''fascist'' newspaper. (] 08:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Prepared to Apologize? == |
|
|
|
|
|
], et al: Are you prepared to apologize to your fellow editors when you are proven wrong? --] 21:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Apologies will not be necessary. Rumors are not ]. ]] 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*(ec)Under no circumstances. We report sourced and notable information we do not break ground on new stories or use rumours to support our artiicles. Whether he is dead or not has no relevance tot his stance right now, ] 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**False. It is more than a rumor and an apology will be necessary. Its been cited by several sources. Given that we have now established that it is not a rumor, are you prepared to apologize to your fellow editors when you are proven wrong? --] 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
****Lol, come on, mate, dont take us for fools. Until its in a reliable source (for me that would be the BBC and I am sure my fellow Americans have their own equivalents) it wont be here, we are an encyclopedia not a news agency, ] 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Exactly, mate! Misplaced Pages should not be a news ticker, where rampant speculations can make their way. I believe that many of us, the readers, are very grateful to you for your conservative and firm stance on this matter. Misplaced Pages should be a reliable souce of information, not some tabloid rushing to announce "the breaking news"! Who cares if it is not updated until even the day after? It would be a much more serious trouble if false information were introduced into the text! Encyclopedic work is all about facts and verifiable information, preferably from several sources; there should be no room for any speculation whatsoever! Let's remember that it's better to err on the side of caution. ] 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
***Links, please? Keep in mind that sources need to be ]. ]] 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**** for one of many. But I am tired of asking if you will apologize or not. We will find out soon enough if you will apologize by yourself, or if we have to go through arbcom. We *will* be made whole. --] 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
***Er, no, arbcom wont take any case re the actions of folk like me on thios one, believe me, ] 00:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*****a) That's not a ]. For news of this magnitude, only a major newspaper or other news outlet will do. b) What's been done here that's actionable by the ArbCom? ]] 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
******Well, you are entitled to your opinion on the reliability of that source. Secondly, as of this moment you have not done anything to warrant seeking relief from arbcom. What will be actionable is if you fail to apologize to us once it is crystal clear that he is dead. --21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*******Apologize for what, exactly? I think you have some serious misunderstandings about what ArbCom's function is. ]] 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
********User conduct, for one. An apology is not at all burdensome. --] 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*********Okay, you are not making much sense, so I'm going to stop trying to figure you out. ]] 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**********How is it confusing? We simply stated that when it is crystal clear he is deceased, we will expect an apology. --] 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Me apologize for enforcing the project's policies? hahahahahaha! - ] 21:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes. There is this little thing called ]. But again, we'll see what the arbcom results are. --] 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Whoa! ] is not a notable source! ] and ] is what guides here. If it is true, it will be added and sourced. Until a reliable source publishes it and verfication can happen, this needs to be sat on. ] 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Castro is dead and brother is with him, Police departments in FL getting ready and news will break. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Not on your life kid I won't apologize for enforcing the rules, the request is quite pathetic by itself. - ] 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That is most disappointing, but we will proceed accordingly. --] 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:To clarify, the first step will actually be an RfC, not arbcom. Sorry for any confusion. --] 21:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I still think you need to hold off. I have no stake in this fight but wait until something more reliable and verifiable is published! ] 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Of course we will hold off. At this point, the misconduct is only potential. --] 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Um, ], et al are following the rules. There has been no misconduct yet. A little borderline ] maybe but until a ] ] source comes along, this bickering is all for naught. ] 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::To clarify, we never asserted that there was any misconduct, nor are we seeking relief beyond an apology. --] 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Just for my clairfication, who is "we" :-) ] 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I assume that you work at perezhilton.com? - ] 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Me? Heck no. ] 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Not you ''they'', your reply just got in the way, sorry for that. - ] 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:This case wont be going to Rfc or Rfa. Caribbean or I might persuade an admin to do a little blocking but it wont go further than that. I recognise I am a controversial editor but there isnt a single admin that wouldnt support not only my and Caribbean's actions but any reverts of any attempts to Rfc let alone Rfa on this issue. So please stop trolling as it is getting tiresome thias "you've got to apologise if you are wrong". Wrong in what? Fidel may be dead and perhaps not but the line Caribbean and I have taken up is pure policy either way and trying to troll us or anyone following actual policy will just end up in indef blocks for the trollers. Please dont take that path, help us make a better article instead, ] 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::We will bring it to RfC if needed and start that process rolling. I honestly doubt I will be blocked just for suggesting that I bring a matter up for arbitration, as that will be a disastrous precedent indeed. --] 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Not in this case. Please read our policies before doing anything else, i'll give you a link to a few. Whetehr Fidel is dead or alive has no bearing whatsoever in this case, oyistes? ] 00:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Again, what we are seeking is an "Sorry we doubted you" from certain editors. This is not earth shattering; don't you apologize when you accidentally step on someone's foot? --] 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If I doubted that there were rumours, well I was wrong and quickly made up for it. The runmours are genuine. And no, they dont have a place on wikipedia, ] 00:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Again, what I said was we should receive an apology from the editors who removed mentions of Fidel Castro's death from the article on the grounds they are rumors, and said apology should come if and when such a fact becomes crystal clear. I never said Misplaced Pages was a place for rumors. --] 00:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Namescases you can open a RfC if you want, I'm not sure what you are going to debate there but sure go ahead and open one and tell them that you opened it because you demand an apology, but before that make sure you make yourself familiar with ], cheers. - ] 00:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Again, it is premature to open the RfC (see my earlier comments), but if necessary we shall. We shall argue that, as editors we should give and expect apologies when required. Read the relevant article on ]. --] 00:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Great this just keeps getting even more hilarious, Names you (whatever ammount of people that might be) can't do anything, its that simple, you can ask for an apology but if the user(s) don't give it to you there is nothing you can do there is no policy that states someone has to apologize if they offend another users, actually the best you can get is a block for ] and ] other users. - ] 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Well that isn't how the world works. I know I've been forced to apologize before, so if I can do it so can you. --] 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I for one know how wikipedia works (and the world too as it happens, its the price one pays for being middle-aged), if you have apologised before you can do so again. please do so, your attacks on Caribbean given his record today are well out of order because he was never sceptical of the rumours, ] 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Names, that my apology didnt sink in isnt to your advantage, and Caribbean was actually more on the ball than me, ie he picked up that the rumours were genuine more quickly than I did. And, hey, we are both Caribbean people who speak Spanish so we really care about this issue as I imagine you do, albeit knowing nothing about you, ] 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Actually I am not Spanish. To be honest I wish nothing but the best for the Cuban people. --] 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Me neither but I am a businessman in the Caribbean so I do care about economic growth, and yeah the Cuban people deserve all the best, as do all the Caribbean peoples, ] 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Names it won't happen, that's about it. I will leave it here, if you do open a RfC let me know so I can laught a little. - ] 02:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Purported death == |
|
|
Alright, The Miami Herald is now reporting on the rumors that have been circulating today regarding Fidel Castro's death. You can find the article here: http://www.miamiherald.com/581/story/214415.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be OK to add the information to the Fidel Castro page now that an official media source has reported on the story? Its not official yet, but at least we have a solid news source reporting on the matter. ] 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think WP does rumors. Let me check policy on that. ] 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Rumors have circled at various times over the last ''decade'' or so that Castro is dead. If it's for real this time, Misplaced Pages can wait for a ] to '''confirm''' the rumors. ]. ]] 21:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:The Miami Herald is reporting on the rumours themselves, not the content of the rumour. I should think that the MH is exactly the reliable source needed ''if'' there were legitimate reports about Castro's death - they would be amongst the first to find out - and by their expressed view I would think that they are giving little credence to the rumours. I think it is still too early to even note this recent rash of rumour. ] 21:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Facist newspaper? Cut the bullshit ok? I honestly think it's true this time. Something is going on. |
|
|
|
|
|
Citing "reliable" sources at the ], the ] broad sheet newspaper ''Norra Skåne'' reports that ] leader '''] is dead'''. |
|
|
:Hmm, I don't know what to say, but the ''Norra Skåne'' newspaper is not known for making false claims, so who knows... --] 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
The journalist at Norra Skåne newspaper that wrote about it was later threatened to death by several cuban journalists. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::"We received the news from a very reliable source in Miami", the chief editor of ''Norra Skåne'' says, adding that the Mr. Castro's death is expected to be officially announced shortly... Well, well.... --] 22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Another source --{{User:Charitwo/Sig}} 05:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Blogs aren't a reliable source. The only legitimate source that are reporting on this are simply reporting on the ''phenomenon'' of what Perez Hilton's blog started. Nothing is confirmed yet, and it has been almost three days since they have been saying "they will announce it in a few minutes". 72 hours later, nothings announced. Castro just released another essay. From the grave? Misplaced Pages isn't going to put up blog articles OR news articles that are saying he MIGHT be dead, thats for the premature death rumour section. - ] 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Page protection == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have been asked to protect this page and have (for the moment) declined, because I want us to be able to respond quickly and make rapid updates if Castro's death is announced. However, if people continue to add it to the page, in violation of WIkipedia's rules, I will fully protect the page. Please, understand that we don't have to be the "first" to report it. We're not a news service. Everyone take a big deep breath and let's wait and see. If the edit war continues, I '''will''' protect the page. - ] | ] 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Death== |
|
|
I have, on very good authority, learned that Castro died today (24 AUG 07), sometime before 1430 hrs EST. |
|
|
] 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
do you or do you not have any good source? 23:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)~ <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{Time|{{{2|}}}}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
He's dead. No credible source yet. Give it a day, max. |
|
|
http://www.nbc6.net/news/13972518/detail.html |
|
|
--] 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe Perez Hilton is a credible source. |
|
|
] 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A good source is the BBC, CNN, Granma etc, nothing less will do, ] 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Someone suggested that if an announcement of this nature were about to be made, we would see a lot more police on the streets of Havana. No sign of any such yet. -- ] 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Phenomenon of death rumors == |
|
|
I think a section of the very '''phenomenon''' of the continuous rumors of Castro's death might well be appropriate. --] 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. Forbes is reporting on the phenomenon. ] 23:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just an event. Making a phenomenon out of it would be ] --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">''']'''</span> 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:''And'' a POV. --''']'']'']''' 23:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Umm...k, can we have a more reliable source than ''Perez Hilton'' ..such as AP or Miami Harold on the Castro death rumors going on today. I dont think Perez is a very reliable source, he's just a blogger, put up Miami Harold or AP as a source, they had articles on the matter too. ] 02:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We have a death rumours section already, and it wouldnt be inappropriate to add to it, but do sensitively and using good sources, ] 02:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hugo Chávez has just announced that not only is Fidel Castro not dead, he will "never die". A somewhat confusing statement (at least as reported) that perhaps raises more questions than it answers. See for details. -- ] 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Well if its sourced we must add that he will never die! lol, ] 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::What he said was: "For those who want Fidel to die, they are going to end up frustrated because Fidel Castro will never die. He will always live on." <ref>http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_238083047.html</ref> I think he meant that his "ideals" would live on, not necessarily himself. ] 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Or perhaps he meant something like this: -- ] 22:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Added the story about him publishing an essay on August 26 (today) from the International Herald Tribune onto the premature death rumors section. - ] 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Apology == |
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like we owe the editors that doubted us an apology. Speaking for myself, I am sorry about it. --] 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Cheers, mate. Appreciated, ] 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It has absolutely nothing to do with doubt. It's about ], even if we had seen it with our own eyes --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">''']'''</span> 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Death of Castro just announced. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{Time|03:20, August 26, 2007 (UTC)}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
No...it wasn't. - ] 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Again (as I requested before), let's wait until ''CNN'' reports & confirms Castro demise, before adopting it to the article. ] 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::We certainly will do...well I'll be waiting for the ''BBC'', but that is the same thing really, ] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Why not ''Reuters'' or the ''Associated Press''? That's where everyone else gets their news anyone --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">''']'''</span> 08:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In agreement with 'SqueakBox'; let's wait until international news coverage - confirms. ] 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
IT IS NOT A RUMOR CASTRO HAS BEEN DEAD FOR OVER A WEEK I HAVE A FAMILY FRIEND FROM CUBA AND SHE HAS TALKED TO HER RELATIVES WHO ALL SAY CASTRO HAS DIED. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
If it isn't a rumor, and all your Cuban relatives are in the know for some reason, there are other people that aren't Cuban's, including news correspondents. These correspondents know people within the Cuban community and it isn't possible for something like that to be kept quiet except for all the Cuban families. The only source that actually reported it was PerezHilton.com and Castro has also been public last Sunday and Monday. CNN and all the other have simply reported on the rumor. Get over it, without any really sources, even if we don't hear about him for thirty years, we need SOURCES. ] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Castro is not dead until a body is seen. It doesn;t matter who says it, I will not believe it until I hear it from a reliable source, accompanied by a picture of him, dead. Until then, he is alive. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Afterall, he's gonna live 'til 150 (so his doctors, once predicted). Anways, nothing will be changed until international news networks confirm his demise. ] 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Just "(born August 13, 1926)"?== |
|
|
Is there any kind of policy on what follows DOB in an article on someone who may or may not be dead? Does it just read as any other article on a currently living person? I don't belong to any side of this "Is castro dead?" debate going on, but I'd say the rumours are too strong to just ignore the possibility that he is already deceased in the opening. ] 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Castro is ]. Besides which, he's not dead. ]]] 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I know what WP:VERIFY says, thank you very much. |
|
|
Think of it this way. If someone was lost at sea, you might never prove when or if they died. However, you use the knowledge that they were lost at sea to come to the reasonable conclusion that in all likelihood they are dead. Would you leave the opening of their wikipedia article with just a date of birth? |
|
|
Based on a substantial amount of information from various international media sources over the past year or so, we know that it's very possible that Castro has died (or that his health is continuing to fail). This isn't original research, but it ''is'' speculation. But my point here is that it doesn't matter whether he's dead or not, it matters that his health is the subject of widespread rumors and speculation. It's unlikely that so many people would pick up on whispers of Castro's death if the claim had absolutely no basis of merit. Rather than leave the article in the state you would find it if Castro was in perfect health like any other living person article on wikipedia, I feel like ''something'' should identify this in the opening. You can add speculation about pretty much anything to wikipedia as long as it's properly sourced. Why can't you add speculation relating to one of the simplest pieces of information in the entire article? ] 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's a lot of people that think that the earth is flat, too. That doesn't make them correct. Until an official or extremely reliable announcement is given, Misplaced Pages should assume they are still alive. If someone was lost at sea, we'd wait at least for a formal funeral or such before we add anything, and we'd still only put it down in the death section. Right now, they're nothing more than rumours, and shouldn't be treated as such. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">''']'''</span> 06:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::In addition, ] has been reported dead for awhile now but Misplaced Pages still does not have a date of death because there is no ] of it. ] 11:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Has he? I suppose several magazines have claimed that over the years, but how would they know? do they have a special correspondent in Al-Qaeda or something? did they find his body in a river? My point is, just because someone says a person dead, does not prove in any way he is actually dead, so until then lets just keep it as is. ] 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This talk page appears to consist almost entirely of speculation.What happened to facts?--] 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Non-Aligned Movement == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why did the ] select Castro as its Secretary-General in 2006, at a time when Castro was unable to carry out his functions as president of Cuba? --] 04:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:They didn't. It was Cuba's turn to take the helm. From a news report of the time: |
|
|
:"Cuba assumed the leadership of the Non-aligned Movement on Friday, with acting Cuban leader Raul Castro standing in for his brother Fidel," |
|
|
:] 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:*But Castro had previously served a term as secretary-general, and there are over 100 other member countries which have not had any of their leaders serve as secretary-general. --] 06:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Explaining my Changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of wiki moderators here have been reverting my changes, but I feel this has to do with inadequate definition of the changes I've desired to make. |
|
|
|
|
|
First, there's the third paragraph. It had four sentences dedicated specifically to saying "opponents view him this way," and then one following sentence saying, "supports think he's a charismatic liberator." How can anyone call that neutral or balanced? I tried to add one more sentence, simply adding a few more adjectives to Castro, but that was apparently undoable. Instead, I deleted three of the unnecessary sentences saying he's a dictator. One is all you need, just as one sentence supporting him is all you need. Repetition is just annoying and, framnkly, biased. |
|
|
|
|
|
Second, their's the economics side. We have it established that opponents say he ruined the country. Better yet, the sourced link for that is a "www.state.gov" offshoot. So, for neutrality, I added a sentence explaining that supporters attribute the blockade to Cuba's shortcomings, but maintain growth has been occuring anyway, citing Granma as my source. Yes, Granma is the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba. Is that a biased source? You bet it is. But isn't www.state.gov also biased? There's no establishment that either source is factually incorrect, but opinionated. If that's a crime, wikipedia needs a complete overhaul. |
|
|
|
|
|
And third, these changes might be going less noticed, but there's a sentence where it says "opponents believe that infant mortality rates were the same if not better befote the revolution than after." Before, I had changed that to "similar before the revolution." It wasn't trying to diminish the meaning, but make the sentence read better. To avoid being seen as making POV edits, I changed it to read the same except without the "than after" line, since its gramatically unnecessary (since its established that the comparison is with post-revolutionary Cuba) and, honestly, sounds kind of silly. |
|
|
|
|
|
I also added some to a line regarding Castro's regional allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union didn't force Castro to find local allies. He had a local ally, Nicaragua. But it also collapsed, and that was more what forced him to look for other regional allies. Additionally, I thought it was misleading to describe Chavez and Morales as "nationalist" leaders, since that makes it seem as if Castro is just settling for anybody. Chavez and Morales are both leaders of parties that have "Socialism" or a variant thereof in the name, so why not describe them as such? It speaks more correctly for Castro, who has sought Socialist allies, not just nationalist ones. Although I added Socialist while keeping nationalist, just because both adjectives are correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
And finally, there's a line that stated "Under Castro, housing and public works have declined considerably." This is a partial truth. While it has occured under him, it hasn't been a constant decline since he came to power. In fact, following the revolution, there was a significant surplus of housing, since nearly all the wealthier Cubans abandoned their mansions and luxury houses. Its been particularly since the collapse of the USSR, which I later substituted with "since the onset of the Special Period," (which are synonymous items, essentially, but sounding less biased, I guess) to be more accurate on that subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please, stop reverting and undoing my edits with only a line that they're "ridiculous." I think I have perfectly logical reasons for my changes, and I've done my best to explain them all here. Please, at least help me to make them wikipedia approved, instead of shooting them down entirely. I think these edits deserve far more consideration than what I've been given so far. ] 11 September 2007 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the edits that you have made are perfectly legitimate--particularly those with regard to Cuba's allies--and are not disputed (at least, not by me). However, some of the other edits are far more problematic. First, Granma is not an acceptable source, because it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Cuban government. It is not objective or impartial. Conversely, the same cannot be said of the State Department link which you malign on various occasions, has numerous independent sources (the UN Statistical Yearbook). |
|
|
|
|
|
Likewise, there was a housing "surplus" in the aftermath of the Revolution when a substantial chunk of the population (rich, middle class and poor) left Cuba. However, there was no new construction in the subsequent years. I do not remember off the top of my head, but I suspect the housing shortage began prior to the special period (sometime in the 1970s?). ] 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As in the former Soviet Union, to some unknown but apparently considerable extent, major housing estates have become residences of those favored by the Cuban government. Photographs and locations of some of these residences have been placed on the web. |
|
|
El Jigue] 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The State Department uses U.N. sources, eh? So does Granma, all the time, for various issues. In that particular article, it has the Economic Affairs Commission, and the ratification by the National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba, as its sources. Do you expect Cuba to ask the U.N. for its own statistics? |
|
|
|
|
|
Until proven to be false, Granma is a perfectly acceptable resource as a source of facts - or at least, as it was used here, as statements by opinionated persons - regarding Cuba. The fact that the State Department is so easily accepted yet my information required me to seek out CIA verification (quite an impossible standard in any other situation) leads me to seriously question the editors involved. I'm not creating biased information, I'm stating - and citing - facts, or at least as interpreted by supporters of Fidel Castro. |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding housing, I've provided a citation. ] 11 September 2007 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
"] is the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party." That is how the wikipedia article on Granma begins. Granma doesn't even make a pretense of being impartial. As such, it does not meet the Verifiability requirement. Indeed, the so-called "sources" that it cites are about as trustworthy as any of the stuff that came out of Goebbel's Ministry for Propaganda and Enlightenment. There is a clear conflict of interest between its role as the "official newspaper of the PCC" and its coverage of Cuba under the PCC. No one is entitled to be a judge in their own case. You can use Granma to defend the government line or whatever other '''opinion''' you want; nonetheless, I object to it being stated as fact or represented as fact (which is why I changed the wording on the main article to reflect its "unique" methods for determining that Cuba experienced 12% growth). |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not expect Cuba to ask the U.N. for its own statistics (and am quite willing to accept them, because they generally reveal the ineptitude of the Cuban government); nonetheless, I will treat the numbers that it produces to be treated with the degree of skepticism that the product of a government that does not tolerate opposition (see the Socialist Constitution) deserves. |
|
|
|
|
|
I, and most other editors, will treat some of the State Department's papers differently because they cite '''independent''' sources that do not have a '''conflict of interest''' (and meet the verifiability requirements of this article). The State Department itself might have a conflict of interest (and most editors might agree on that point), but you will be hard pressed to find people who would claim the same of the U.N. |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the housing situation, the BBC article is not clear on the time frame of the Cuban housing crisis, which is why I choose such ambiguous wording in the first place. If you want to claim that it originated in the Special Period, you are going to need to provide a Verifiable source that corroborates that claim.] 06:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The issue surrounding Granma is whether or not it is credible. While I concede of course that it is biased, because its the Communist Party's newspaper. However, the State Department is no more or less credible than Granma, and I'll tell you why. You see, there's such a thing as selective quoting of statistics. Whether the State Department is using U.N. statistics or not, they may just as easily be skewing the facts. Have I tried to remove State Department citations as invalid based on the fact? No. Instead, I've attempted to counter-balance the weight of the State Department's biased and possibly misrepresented facts with the same sort of information from Granma, on the other end of the pole. Honestly, I believe both sources are correct, but all I'm attempting to persue here is a logical view of both of them being of equal trustworthiness as sources. The State Department using U.N. statistics is no different than Cuba using the Cuban Economics Commission's data. |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the economic data itself, however, your edit was unnecessary but respected, simply because I've grown weary of fighting for neutrality. The 12.5% figure isn't that unusual; it simply includes trade and social services. As Granma states, and the CIA accepted, removing trade and social services from the calculation leaves us with 9.5% - the growth rate by traditional analyses. |
|
|
|
|
|
On housing, I've already settled that issue. And, in response to your statement on caloric intake (coincidentally from the State Department again), I've also added some about Cuban agricultural changes. ] 13 September 2007 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Arbitrary deletions need explanations== |
|
|
|
|
|
IamMcLovin's continued deletions of the above material need explanation, especially so since this editor has no Misplaced Pages history on matters related to Cuba. In addition, IamMcLovin is a pseudonym. apparently taken from a very recent film suggesting he is either a novice, or a more experienced contributor using another identity. El Jigue] 20:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually the way we work is you have to explain arbitrary additions not their subsequent deletions, ie you have to justify the inclusion of material not its exclusion, ] 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
SQ this is the discussion section, and in ADDITION if you do not understand the correlation between what was placed here and the topic discussed, then perhaps you need another area to work in..El Jigue] 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If you read the edit summary, you would of saw it. You don't just add random stuff that doesn't mean anything notable onto a TALK page. You need to have an explanation or at least a recommendation why you put it on here and what you want us to do with it. Give me a reason or a suggestion, right now, or I will delete it again. ] 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
IamMcLovin go ahead and delete it and you will expose your ignorance of Fidel Castro and his history. Angel Castro was Fidel Castro's father, a man notorious for his land grabbing, and his riotious life. He is said by a number of historians to have been one of the soldiers of "butcher" Weyler and is a model on which many authors believe Castro Fidel formed his character. Read IamMcLovin, read... until you finish your reading please refrain from further disturbance here El Jigue] 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I read it, and I deleted it. It isn't worth inclusion on the talk page. It is pointless, you haven't provided why you put it on here or what you want us to do with it. ] 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
IamMcLovin: Since your response lacks logic and scholarship, thus I have restored it. Nowadays nobody turns a hair when we say such, why even Willam the Conquerer was iIllegitimate El Jigue] 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given your insistance in "cleaning up" the factual documented origins of Fidel Castro one is forced to contemplate that your actions may well that of a Castro apologist, more interested in polishing a public image than in historic reality. El Jigue] 23:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't a place to gossip or blog about unverified facts. You have yet to provide a reason why you put it on here in the first place, instead just sending nonsensical and uncivil replies. Get a good reason, or suggestion about what we can do with it in the ARTICLE in question, not the talk page, thats all i ask. Thank you. ] 23:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of doing all this reverting on the Talk page, why don't one of you simply put a sentence into the main article page (with the proper citation of course) about the naturalization issue. Then we can all move on........ ] 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:People let the anon explain his intention instead of edit warring with him, and lets keep the civility here, Jique provide a explanation for the addition of the information instead of just reverting and IamMcloving don't act in an uncivil manner, don't provoke a flame war as you did with your "one small island in the Caribbean" comment , that is offensive remeber that El Jiques isn't the only user that comes from "one small island in the Carribean" here. - ] 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Caribbean thank you. One might recall that the Island is 760 or so miles long, and thus not a "small island." I have a quote from a "certain naval person" to that effect, which I will post later. I do not have access to the Fidel Castro page, strangely enough IamMcLovin does, My point is that a number of Castro's biographers have pointed out that his illegitimacy influenced his view of the world, not only as a child but also for the rest of his life. Angel Castro was Fidel Castro's father, a man notorious for his land grabbing, and for fathering illegitimate children. He is said by a number of historians to have been one of the soldiers of "butcher" Weyler and is a model on which many authors believe Castro Fidel formed his character. I will document the Winston Churchill quote on Cuba and add cites to these biographers later. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is what I have now: |
|
|
|
|
|
According to Castañeda Katiuska, Blanco 2003 (accessed 9-10-07). Todo el tiempo de los Cedros. Paisaje familiar de Fidel Castro Ruz. paginas 497-501. Casa Editora Abril. La Habana. 2003. ISBN 959-210-300-3 http://www.xenealoxia.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa |
|
|
|
|
|
By 1941 Angel Castro (Fidel Castro's father) had fathered five children with his first wife Maria Luisa Argota. These were: Pedro, María Lilia, Antonia María Dolores, Georgina de la Caridad and Manuel, only first two survived to date of this naturalization document (January 2nd 1941). Fidel is not mentioned, this demonstrates that Fidel Castro was born out of wedlock and was still unrecognized at age 13. Raul (although commonly believed not to be a son of Angel) is also not mentioned although he would be about eight at this time. |
|
|
|
|
|
Of additional interest Angel Castro is said to have arrived in Cuba the third or fourth of March 1899. There is no mention of military service in the Spanish Armed forces in Cuba prior to this date. However, this book was printed in Cuba and thus such things could have been covered up. El Jigue] 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So all I'm asking is, why is it notable? He was born out of wedlock? His father didn't have any military service prior to arriving in Cuba...what is the big deal, at best, this deserves a sentence or less in the article. ] 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Fidel Castro's illegitamcy is mentioned. Meanwhile, most of this information is about ''Angel Castro''. It belong in an ''Angel Castro'' article (if one is created, it would surprise me to see it survive an Afd, thought). ] 21:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What IamMcLovin fails to understand it that "Butcher" Weyler was responsible for the deaths of perhaps 400,000 Cubans, and that Angel Castro is believed to have belonged to a military group that specialized civilian murders. Angel Castro is reputed to have been close to the center of these murderous operations. What GD is perhaps not aware of most biographies of Fidel Castro recognize that he modeled himself after his father. Essentially what is being said is that Angel Castro was a war criminal. Not only that but Angel Castro, although only by repute, is said to have murdered several of his workers and others who opposed his illegal land takeovers, There is no dispute that Angel Castro used foreign contract labor and treated them badly, since these were mostly if not exclusively Haitians under harsh migrant contracts and thus could not complain. Cuban workers would not tolerate such treatment.Some of this money is that used to support the education and expenses of Fidel and Raul Castro. Raul is generally believed to have been son of a high ranking Batista officer of Chinese ancestry, and to have spared his father from execution instead holding him in prison until he died many years later. There is no line in this biography which states that Angel Castro was a person of bad reputation who supported Fidel Castro in a life style that did not require him to work until Fidel received his law degree and perhaps beyond that. There is nothing that states that the Castro and Batista families were close enough to protect Fidel Castro in several circumstances and that Batista gave Fidel Castro a large cash wedding present. This like the murders Castro committed as a "student activist" as those that Raul did just before the Granma left Mexico are omitted from this biography. There is no mention of the life long relationship between Fabio Grobart, senior stalinist agent in Cuba, and the Castro brothers, although there is clear evidence of that such as Raul's statement that Grobart was his teacher, and a picture of Castro tightly hugging Grobart. Do not ask me to change that I do not have access to this Fidel Castro page, since it seems clear that apparently contrary to Misplaced Pages policy most if not all who know such historic details are also not allowed access. El Jigue] 23:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it is all true, but like the rumours of Castro's death, they need to be properly '''verified''', the link you provided above did not link to anything substantial that i could find, nor your ISBN number point to the book, ''Todo El Tiempo De Los Cedros'', which I subsequently looked up, and through about 5 web pages that i looked through, most seeming to be cuban, there was no mention of Angel Castro involved with a massacre. I further looked up the "author" and couldn't find anything about Katiuska Blanco Castiñeiras. If you can verify it with '''reliable''' sources, it still does not deserve inclusion into the Fidel Castro article, at the very most, a sentence or less. However, if it is deemed notable then you are free to include it on to the ] article. Thank you. ] 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I think the current text is clearer than the suggested replacement. ] (]) 19:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
] that is a Cuban government authorized book I doubt you will find anything in it. Other Castro biographies do mention the putative link to Valeriano Wyler you might spend some of your time researching him....However, there seems to no valid motive for me to educate you further about Cuban history, since your actions here seem to indicate much bad faith on your part and a less than scholarly tendency to assume if you do not know something it is not true. El Jigue] 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ERIKA CUBOVA COBOVA == |
|
Please be civil, and do not throw insults at me. I have spent hours looking up Castro biographies, english or spanish, authorized or not, which suggest nothing to do with a Valeriano Weyler. In addition, why did you cite a book when you are saying it is in fact government authorized then why are you putting it on here if you are so anti-castro? None of your references point to anything as well. As I said before, please be civil and provide adequate resources that actually mention something about the connection, or don't post this useless information. Thank you. ] 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sorry guys, I guess there is an ] article. ] 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POZDRAVLJENI VKLOPILI SO MI ADROID IN IN DELA VELIKO STVARI MAM GOR LP 031286008 ] (]) 14:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Fidel Castro appeared on TV again. The argument is over, Castro is alive, ]. Give it up, you know he's alive and well (or at least you should). ] 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
I see that in 2006, Forbes ranked Castro as #7 on a list richest heads of state. May we mention this? I do not wish to bother if it has already been edited out.
What is this sentence,
"The publication "Forbes" valued the inheritance left by the former Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, at approximately 900 million dollars."
doing at the end of the youth section? It doesn't relate at all with the sentence before and feels extremely disconnected. Cheesesprite (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
in the introduction it says that Castro's Government "Advanced Economic and Social Justice"
this does not make sense and just sounds kind of wrong, would suggest changing it his government made "Economic and Social Justice Advancements" Redjarvis (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done: I think the current text is clearer than the suggested replacement. PianoDan (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)