Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverback (talk | contribs) at 05:51, 17 April 2006 (→Jaime Suchlicki, A Short Biography of Fidel Castro). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:AIDnom

Disclaimer: Hi, and welcome. Take a deep breath and relax your eyebrows. If you are about ready to explode it is suggested that you stop for a minute and relax, because that indeed may happen after sifting through these heated debates. This is a controversial topic, and has always been. Remember, reason will always beat ignorance, no matter what.

I stumbled across this debate accidently and will depart it just as quickly as I entered it. But my sense is, having read all of the major biographies of Castro, as well as being a senior university scholar, that many things are simply wrong or quite misleading in this sketch of Castro. It's also not clear to me what "consensus" among the people who write here might possibly mean. Certainly it does not seem to imply impartiality or even accuracy.

Castro is a dictator in any reasonably objective interpretation of that term. He is not electable by any democratic process, and neither is his "government." His rule is absolute and unquestioned and he rules by force and control and not by public consent. Whether some close to him or who might benefit from his rule view him as a benevolent or well-meaning ruler doesn't, in my opinion, make him less of a dictator. That some of your panelists wish to call him a "leader" in the traditional sense of that term does not make him one. I modestly suggest "ruler" might work.

In addition, it is ludicrous in the extreme to say he was "born into a wealthy family." And neither was he raised in that family until his biological parents married when he was a teen and even then he was sent off to school. He and his several brothers and sisters from the Castro-Ruz union were illegitimate, as his father Angel Castro was already married to a schoolteacher named María Luisa Argota when Lina Ruz, a 14-year old maid, arrived at the Castro household. Castro himself was reared in the homes of several friends of his mother or his father, including a consul from Haiti who procured Haitian workers for the United Fruit company, or with his maternal grandparents originally from Pinar del Rio while they were still alive. It is disingeneous and just plain wrong to suggest he grew up in some wealthy, established household when in fact his childhood was quite troubled, much like Stalin's. This childhood, as might be expected, left huge scars. It is also very interesting speaking to recent emigrants from Cuba, which I have done for some research, who, although well-educated, seem not to know the first thing about Castro's ancestry. Invariably they will respond: "Yo nunca habia oido nada de eso." ("I have never heard of any of this.")

There are lots of other examples where this page is not particularly objective, regardless of what one might think of "American hegemony" or George W or whatever. In the end, one of your writers here is quite correct. Who reads this stuff anyway, particularly for serious, refereed work?

An event in this article is a January 1 selected anniversary

For archived discussions, please see (oldest first): /Archive 1 ... /2 ... /3 ... /4 ... /5 ... /6 ... /7 ... /8 ... /9

Grammar Error

Was reading through and noticed a certain error in the grammar here.

"Fidel Castro is the illegitimate son of Lina Ruz González (1905-1961)and Ángel Castro y Argiz. Lina Ruz came to the Castro household in 1919 as a cook when she was 14 and promptly thereafter proceeded to have seven children out of wedlock with the elder Castro. The children were raised in various foster home arrangements. Fidel was third oldest (first Angela, then Ramón (born in 1924"

"Promptly thereafter" implies she had children at the mentioned age in 1919. But her first kids were born in 1924. That is clearly 5 years after she arrived in 1919. "Promptly thereafter" is thus incorrect.

Would it also go to say that given the circumstances of her stay, this young girl was abused by the elder Castro? --Steve Latinner 23:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Continued from Archive 8...

Just made some changes and forgot to label them - "simple and balanced please" would have been the line had I remembered.

Like Antispammer I'm not keen on "leader", and the line "leader of Cuba since 1959, when, leading the 26th of July Movement," is awful. How about "...the most powerful individual in Cuba since 1959, when, leading..." MichaelW 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Just about all encyclopedias and sourcebooks refer to him as "leader" of Cuba since 1959. Rather than coming up with awkward constructions meant to avoid usage of the term "leader" because of-- I think-- pretty pedantic reasons, being more specfic is probably the right approach. The article can open up stating that Fidel Castro has ruled Cuba since 1959, holding the title of prime minister from 1959 to 1976, and later president since 1976. 172 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this debate turned out a more revolting statement than I had anticipated. --Antispammer 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Michalis Famelis, If you want I will continue to debate you, but right now I'm trying to get some sleep. Please do not add anymore details especially ethnicity and other subtly offensive things of that nature.--Antispammer 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Michael Famelis, please accept Antispammer's compromise here so that everyone can move on to more productive topics. 172 15:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to debate anyone. Do get your sleep, apparently you need it. I did not add anything that was ethnicity oriented. Here is the diff of my edit, and certainly I did not try to be "subtly offensive" of any nature. Please understand that I assume good faith from your part and that I expect you to do the same. Oh, and I don't like my name being a section title in a talk page, so I remove it, thank you very much :-) -- Michalis Famelis 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Antispammer here. Stating why Castro's followers argue that Castro does not wield dictatorial power is excessive in the intro. Just pointing out that he has supporters abroad is sufficient. The rest of the article is really supposed to illuminate the nature and scope of his power. BTW, it is common practice on Misplaced Pages to make the user name of a particular editor a section header on a talk page. It is a way of trying to catch the attention of a particular editor. 172 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

HE IS BRAINWASHING YOU PEOPLE if it is a common practice in wp (which I haven't yet encountered ever since I signed up), I still don't like it. :-) -- Michalis Famelis 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

details added

Thank you Ehouk1 fo the Castro photo. BTW I just added an older reference on Castro's actions as a University of Havana student: Martin, Lionel 1978 The Early Fidel: Roots of Castro's Communism Lyle Stuart, Secaucus New Jersey; 1st ed edition ISBN 0818402547 p. 25 and following.

This reference seems more complete than most, although the tone seems biased against the Autentico governments.

Apparently some putative Castro residences are now on the web .

and a note calling attention to the old Woodie Allen Movie "Bananas"

El Jigüe 12/05/06

It is most odd to use a 1960 book, ISBN 0853450064, to spin a rare, and commonly ignored theory, why the Castro brothers were not executed after Moncada. Accepted and less accepted versions of this event have been inserted. El Jigüe 12/05/06

Consensus Poll

Ok, we've been bickering, whining, arguing, reverting and being overall catty about this for about a week now. I've had enough and I know and suspect others have. Let's determine consensus and move forward. Vote in the appropriate section. I will discard any vote by an anon, same as I would for AfD. You want to vote and not be discarded you need to create an account and obviously NOT be a sock/meat puppet. Poll will be closed Tuesday, January 10th, at some reasonable afternoon my time (MST). If you disagree with my actons you'll need to involve a bureacrat, Jimbo, or a consensus among other admins to counter it. Changes against consensus after the vote will be treated as simple vandalism (and as a result, can be rolled back and not subject 3RR restrictions). I will also state right now that if this vote goes opposite of my votes I will enforce the same vandalism/3RR restrictions. You just need to insert a # ~~~~ in the appropriate section. Please bitch and moan in the poll discussion section immediately following this. I will "refactor" this if they come in here. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The poll should be removed. It is not the proper procedure for dealing with content matters. A poll is not needed to establish that Cuba is a Communist state any more than one is needed to establish (say) that Nepal is a monarchy. If a user changes the reference from socialist state to Communist state, revert him or her on the spot. Further, NPOV cannot be voted away, which means that a poll cannot be used as a basis for making a provocative, disputed assertion in the article, such as having the article itself call Castro a dictator. The fact that certain Misplaced Pages users call him a dictator is irrelevant. It is of interest that he is condemned as a dictator by the Cuban American exile community in South Florida, which the intro notes. The page history seems pretty stable now, and users should accept the wording as it is and move on to more productive matters and less ideological matters. 172 01:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Below the definition of the word "dictator" according to a little book called the dictionary:

dictator |ˈdikˌtātər| noun 1 a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. • a person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere

If Castro is not a dictator, then no one is. ~~Kane 3-14-06~~

• Fidel Castro should be noted as a dictator in this article

If you look further than the first line you'll read "Castro is a highly controversial leader who is viewed as a dictator by some while others see him as a legitimate and popular leader." MichaelW 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Support:

1. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2. --MONGO 06:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I think so- this article really skims over human rights issues, doesn't it? 84.64.80.35 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 65.9.206.148 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Term dictator is POV, head of state perhaps would be more acceptable, yes I know he rules unilaterally.  ALKIVAR™ 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Per Jtkiefer. Remember that little thing called NPOV. Ambi 06:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Emotionally-laden term -> POV. Simply adding some more detail about the terms of his rule would suffice. rodii 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Term dictator, or ruler for that matter is a very charged term. It could be justified, but certainly not by mere assertion. The proper NPOV way to do it would be to call him a leader, adding later on that some consider him a dictator. The issue could perhaps be explored in an article dedicated to 'power of Fidel Castro' or similar. Jens Nielsen 21:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
5. What matters is how the United Nations classifies him: president. But heck, just check the CIA Factbook if you guys are confused and see if they write dictator anywhere. Waking 23 March 2006

• The Cuban government is a communist state

Support:

1. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2.  ALKIVAR™ 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3. User:AlMac| 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC) How does Cuba describe itself? Communist, Socialist, irrespective of how other states describe it?
4. --MONGO 06:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
5. 65.9.206.148 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Ignore this poll:

This poll only serves to reintroduce unneeded ideological controversy. NPOV cannot be voted away. Moreover, a poll to establish whether or not Cuba is a Communist state is silly. Of course it is. The state and the Communist Party of Cuba are offically constitutionally embedded in each other. 172 06:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with 172 as to how to describe Cuba but I stand beside him in opposition to this poll. Poll the poll! MichaelW 09:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A poll is not the way to establish consensus. Aecis 16:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Results:

1. Fidel is a dictator: No consensus. Keep current consensus verisons.
2. Cuba is a communist state: Consensus.

Let the gnashing of teeth begin.

Wikibofh_(talk) 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You really don't understand 'consensus' do you? A consensus is when everyone agrees (to agree). A Wiki group like ourselves, dealing with an extemely polarised and live subject, can reach consensus only by having the different viewpoints recognised. That's what we have done over the issue of Castro dictator or not. That's consensus. Your 'poll' stands for nothing, its results will hold until someone decides to openly disagree. That's called 'breaking the consensus' and, until Misplaced Pages leaves its libertarian ethos behind, it's going to happen again and again. If you want to be useful round here perhaps you ought to do attend some consensus building workshops. There used to be a little book available called "Getting to Yes". Might be a good place to start. MichaelW 21:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

MIchaelW you really shouldnt be educating people on what words mean if you yourself do not know the meaning. A consensus DOES NOT mean EVERYONE agrees (to agree). A consensus is a GENERAL agreement. There is a big difference there. ~~Kane 15-3-06~~

I agree.--Antispammer 10:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've been here a while. I understand it completely. I also understand the paralysis of indecision. The poll is fine, the article is in a state that is obviously acceptable to the majority. It may have been that way before, but the talk page didn't illustrate it and there was no apparent movement, just revert warring. I tried to change that, maybe not succesfully. *shrug* We're moving on now. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree, but I don't think you do understand. You have just unilaterally enacted a poll in which none of the voters bar yourself appear anywhere in the last six months discussions. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)The other two of us taking part in the discussions both gave the thumbs down to the poll itself. You showed great impartiality by voting yourself, and now you claim the poll is fine. MichaelW 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Poll discussion

This is where you come to rail about the fact that I'm a jerk and have no authority and should go back to sleep. In the immortal words of Tone Loc: "Let's do it" Wikibofh_(talk) 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you being a tad hasty (You knee-jerk reactionary!!;-)). The dictator discussion has reached the point where we seemingly have consensus. Last significant change was nearly 10 hours back when Antispammer reverted Michalis's changes to pretty much the version I posted this morning. So please remove that vote coz you'll only stir it up again.

On the other issue - Commie State/Socialist Republic - I'd like to see a summing up of the arguments here before I vote and I'd rather discuss it and look to being consistent with the entries for other nations than rely on a politically polarised vote. More a case for RfC maybe. Issue of consistency throughout Misplaced Pages. Night nightMichaelW 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael W., there is no argument. The term "Communist state" is the common term in the Western and English-speaking world to refer to Communist Party-led states in which the state appartus and the party are embedded in each other officially under the constitution. Cuba's economic base is socialist. But that fact does not mean that the description of Cuba as a Communist state is inaccurate. The term "Communist" in "Communist state" refers to the party, as opposed to the socialist economy. Please, move on to more productive matters. There has been a three-year consensus behind using the term "Communist state" on Misplaced Pages because it is the most specific term one can use to describe the Castro regime. Frankly, I'm getting somewhat tied of having to explain this matter over and over again over the years. 172 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Can a contribution disappear without trace? - I'm sure I posted a response to 172's comments which has gone, and a troll through the history doesn't find it. If not excuse me my mind's gone...MichaelW 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • But it isn't stable, and we don't have consensus. Antispammer and Commandante are still going back and forth. We go from dictator to leader and immediately segue into communist vs socialst state. We're getting nowhere. I have reported myselfat Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fidel_Castro_and_consensus_poll. If you disagree with my handling, I'd recommend that. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

These are two separate points. I do disagree with you on the dictator issue. Strongly. You are reintroducing controversy after consensus has been reached. We have agreed on 'leader' for days now and as I said the back up statement describing the main views of Castro has now been stable since yesterday morning, broadly accepted by both sides. Check the last time there was a 'leader'/'dictator' change. Check the history. Then withdraw the vote please.MichaelW 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I am quite disappointed that Wikibofh restarted this most unproductive controversy. I am ignoring the "poll" and urge other users to do the same. 172 06:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comandante is a vandal who has been changing the reference to "socialist state" on this article for nearly a year without any support or discussing his edits. The fact that Comandante is still revert warring is irrelevant. He is always revert warring on this article. 172 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a comment opposing the poll over at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fidel_Castro_and_consensus_pollMichaelW 02:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange how Wikibofh lays out this daft poll out and then ducks any discussion MichaelW 09:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• No ducking here. Observing, reading, just not commenting a lot. Wikibofh_(talk) 13:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Transformation into Communist State

I didn't think that edit would last. Antispammer says mid sixties is inaccurate. The United Party of the Cuban Socialist Revolution (PURSC) became the Communist Party of Cuba on October 3, 1965. The mid sixties. When the transformation was completed. The edit as it stands

"...since 1959, when... he overthrew ... Batista, and transformed Cuba into the first Communist state ..."

sounds like it was an instant change, that it was a communist takeover. Clearly it wasn't and the change in the party's name signifies the completion of the transformation. Hence my proposed "By the mid sixties Castro and his allies had transformed Cuba into the first Communist state...". MichaelW 02:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It was an instant change. The name of the party does not reflect the nature of their state. I am pretty sure you can confirm this with someone else.--Antispammer 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Antispammer - you are the one rewriting history here. I've just finished reading a history of Cuba. It is clear that the Revolution was in its making primarily nationalist with socialist tendencies. It wasn't until the end of 1960 when the United States had show itself unsupportive that nationalisations got into full swing. Mid 1961 the three main parties leading the revolution merged. The practical transformation was under way by then but cannot be considered to have been completed until some time later. Since private enterprise wasn't banned until 1968 one could argue that the formal transformation was completed by the mid 60s but the practical one not until 1968MichaelW 12:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about nationalization of industries I presume, which is not the only thing that made it a communist state, and which has nothing to do with instant transformation. Again, you are talking about the name of the parties. The name of the parties is irrelevant. I suggest you research your history of Cuba accross many sources. Also, don't take my word for it, I am sure there are plenty of other wikipedians that can confirm this and probably articulate it better for you.--Antispammer 19:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Castro had admitted he was a Marxist in 1961. That the transformation was not complete until the mid to late 60s shouldn't matter, communist rule was already unofficially established. CJK 19:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is simple - was the transformation into a Communist state immediate or not. If it wasn't then the entry as is currently is written is wrong. By what point it was depends on how you define a communist state. Castro's being a marxist didn't make it a communist state - Allende was a Marxist - his would be transformation of Chile was stopped short. That the Cubans completed the transformation is something we all accept. I'm not happy with Antispammer's edit because it suggests the transformation was instant, which my reading tells me it wasn't.

How about "...This was the first step in a series of changes that saw Cuba become the first ..."

Otherwise we need to establish exactly what makes a state a communist one so we can put a date on it.MichaelW 21:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The transformation was within weeks if not a few months. Ofcourse, this can be debated forever simply given the nature of all the events that happened in that small time frame of history, and given the nature that communism is a political theory and merging it with the actual events, to create the definition of communist state can always lead to some real-life fallacies and discontinuities. However it is already consensus that weeks and months, is historically seen as instant. Again, don't take my word for it, I encourage you to continue your research on Cuban history.--Antispammer 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

But it wasn't weeks or months, it was years, at least a couple before the process was under way and several more before it was completed. I think you need to tell us what had happened in the first weeks or months of 1959 which made Cuba a Communist State?MichaelW 02:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Read about it yourself.--Antispammer 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In other words it was a communist state because you say it was? MichaelW 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No, read my previous comment Again, don't take my word for it, I encourage you to continue your research on Cuban history.--Antispammer 07:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

MichaelM, the term Communist state is clearly defined; and Cuba is clearly a Communist state. The term is a standard political science definition to refer to party-states that are constitutionally embedded in each other. Please see the relevant article. Particularly since the Constitution of 1976, the Communist Party of Cuba's officially enshrined legal dominance over society and the political system has resembled that of Soviet and Eastern European Communist regimes. The usage of the term has nothing to do with whether or not a particular leader declares his allegiance to Marxism-Leninism. The term is not used in such a subjective manner. On that note, Chile under Allende was not a Communist state; nor is Venezuela under Chavez a Communist state. Instead, the remaining examples of Communist states today, in addition to Cuba, include and are limited to China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea. 172 17:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

172: I think it's Antispammer you need to be addressing not me. Remember what is happening here. I'm not questioning that Cuba has been a Communist state. I want to change that first sentence to indicate that the transformation into a Communist state was not instantaneous. Antispammer says it was. CJK raised the issue of Castro's alliegance to Marxism as an indicator not me. As you point out the formal enshrinement of Cuba as a Communist State didn't happen until 1976. My original edit said the transformation was complete by the mid 1960s. From my reading this is a safe statement. IMO to say early 1960s wouldn't be. Do you agree with this? MichaelW 18:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro does not state that the transformation into a Communist state was instantaneous since it does not make reference to the timeframe. A note specifying the time frame, stating that the transformation was not instantaneous following the revolution is not necessary. That fact can be made clear by the rest of the article. The text is fine as it is. 172 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree. "...overthrew Batista and transformed..." suggests a continuity which wasn't the reality. A full stop after '...Batista' is needed to separate the two statements. There is little in the main article which addresses the stages and time scale of the development of Cuba into a Communist state. This can't be measured simply by relying on statements by Castro. It is the implementation of the various policies which define a Communist state which need be investigated to do that. Until these questions are answered inthe main article a clearer intro is useful.MichaelW 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

MichaelW, you have absolutely no evidence to imply that the transformation was not extremely rapid if not instant. Perhaps you are too lazy to read about Cuban history. But until then I am just going to revert your edits.--Antispammer 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished one history last week, have read others in the past, read books on Castro himself. Waddayawant. What you are saying is you will revert my edits until I stick to your preferred version of Cuban history. A somewhat entrenched position, I'd say. Tell us how you define a Communist State and lets see, first if we agree on the definition, and then how Cuba measures up at the end of 1959, 1960...MichaelW 23:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how I define a communist state. All I am saying is that there are many events that happened in 1959 in Cuba. Why do you think its called a Revolution? Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research, so I don't have to make things up and neither should you.--Antispammer 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about! This has nothing to do with original research. A Communist state is a particular power arrangement which did or did not exist in Cuba in 1959-1960. You claim it did. I am asking you to define what you mean, not do original research. If you can't back up your claim then your reversion of my edit is just more ideologically grounded vandalism. MichaelW 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If I re-analyze and re-interpret the revolution(which had thousands of actual events) and give you a new date on when it was unofficially a communist state then I would be doing original research, same goes to you. That topic is a lot more complicated that it seems. Anyway, the sentence does not give a date, as it shouldn't.--Antispammer 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

By your definition every time we work on a Wiki article on any complex social issue we are doing original research. You are defending a particular interpretation of events. Back up your assertion with references (not original research but the meat and potatoes of encyclopedia construction) starting with the accepted definition of a Communist state. And you call me lazy! MichaelW 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A revolution is a relatively sudden, and absolutely drastic change (a "complete turn-around"). (taken from revolution) It has been called a revolution by everyone, including communists. Thank you and good bye.--Antispammer 23:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, but the Cuban Revolution wasn't initially a Communist one. Among those thousands of events you mention was a communist thread which over time grew to dominate the rest. MichaelW 09:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, the Cuban Revolution is a source of pride among Communists for forming their Communist State. I suggest you go research the Cuban Revolution before you come back here with your baseless theory that the Cuban Revolution wasn't initially a Communist one.--Antispammer 13:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I definitly think that Castro is being refered to in the wrong light here, His name should be changed from Fidel Castro to Sir Fidel Castro, because he was just knighted by the Queen of England 3 days ago. show some respect.

I've given examples of variables which make me think the communist strand of the revolution took a while to dominate. How about you back up your assertion with something instead of relying on blind faith? MichaelW 14:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have offended you but you can't just expect me to educate you on the entire Cuban Revolution. I can also see now by skimming through that wikipedia article that it is extremely short, and is missing hundreds of notable historical events that also happened. I can understand now where you find this dilemma, which is why I encourage to read about the Cuban Revolution across many other sources besides wikipedia. --Antispammer 04:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Shall I quote you from Blas Roca's speech to the Eight National Congress of the Popular Socialist Party of Cuba. August 1960. The section where he deals specifically with the accusations of communism thrown at the revolution, or the bit where he describes the coalition of groups who make up the revolution. You insist I'm ignorant, and am relying on Misplaced Pages for my information, are you saying I'm lying when i say I've read a fair bit on the subject? You claim the Revolution was Communist from the get go, yet elsewhere will remind us that the July 26th mobvement was only one of several groups fighting Batista. Were they all Communist too? How can you have a Communist state, by definition a one party state, when you have three parties as was the case in Cuba until mid 1961? MichaelW 12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have gotten way too emotional about this. I suggest you use your emotions to research this topic like a maniac, instead of exploding in here with your Castro quotes.--Antispammer 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm as emotional as you are rational! So Castro had time to write Roca's speeches as well as do everything else. It was you, wasn't it, who wrote that Castro controls everything in Cuba. Just when did he start, in your estimation? MichaelW 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Por que tu me odia? Yo namas que quiero es paz con los communistas. --> Why do you hate me? All I want is peace with communists. Ongoing covert war with communists Why do you do this? Does your buddy Fidel want to wage another war with the U.S.? Why do you want to win this war? Why do you want to change the image of Castro? All I want is peace with Cuba.--Antispammer 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I fear it is you who are being way too emotional. What reason do you have to say I hate you? If you want peace with someone you must see the world through their eyes.

When did Fidel last wage a war with the US? The Cubans' view is that the US has been waging (economic) war on them for more than forty years. If you want peace then campaign for normalising relations with Cuba. The blockade keeps the current status quo in place, both sides of the water. MichaelW 12:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

MichaelW is technically correct. By the definition of Communist state outlined in the Misplaced Pages entry, which refers to a formal governing arrangement, Cuba cannot be described as one until mid-1961. Still, Antispammer's comments allude to the correct point that one can describe Castro's rule as a pro-communist (small c) regime before mid-1961, given the influence of the left-wing of the July 26th movement led by Raul Castro and Che Guevara. This distinction boils down to the differences in the definitions of "state" and "regime." At any rate, this point is pretty moot and pedantic for the purposes of the introduction of the Castro biography. MichaelW brings up valid points here; but Antispammer's version of the intro is fine, regardless of precisely when Cuba became a describable as a Communist state. To make my point with a nonsensical run-on sentence, since the revolution led to the establishment of the first Communist state in the Americas eventually, it led to the establishment of the first Communist state in the Americas. By the way, if either of you have access to Jstor at a university library computer, I recommend doing a search for Fidel Castro and then sorting the results 'from oldest to most recent.' If you look through some of the top results, you will then be able to find a list of scholarly articles dealing with Cuba written before the revolution and during the early months of Castro's rule. At the time U.S. observers were not sure about the direction the revolution would take, with many writers expressing uncertainty about the extent of the communist infiltration of Castro's movement. These articles are quite interesting, of course, when reading them from hindsight. 172 12:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit in the spotlight is being defended, by Antispammer, as a statement that the transformation into a Communist state was "...extremely rapid if not instant....". You can't backdate an alteration to make that 'C' a 'c'. That's a total cop out, (and equally inaccurate anyway). The clause in question concerns Cuba as Communist state, not the Cuban revolution as communistic. That’s a different issue. Your sentence is simply nonsensical or is it I’m too dumb to see the point of repeating yourself. Cut in half it’s close to what I suggested, and as you say is (technically) correct. An encyclopedia is about technical correctness. If you want my suggested edit rendered incorrect you need to change the sense of what is being said.

Of course the transformation of Cuba into a Communist state was not instant. Antispammer was wrong in stating that the transformation into a Communist state was "...extremely rapid if not instant...." Still, his error is nothing to dwell on. He was confusing the term "Communist state" with "communist regime." That error does not the diminish the crux of what I have been reading into Antispammer's argument. Unless I am misunderstanding him, the crux of his argument seems to be that the Cuban Revolution was followed by the transformation of Cuba into the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere, and that the transformation warrants mentioning in the intro. We can forgive him for making a common error on the talk page. 172 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to avoid the unpalatable truth altogether we could always remove the clause completely. Stop the sentence at overthrowing Batista. This is, after all, the Castro page, not the history of Cuba.

“Fidel Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926) has been the leader of Cuba since 1959, when, leading the 26th of July Movement, he overthrew the regime of Fulgencio Batista.”

A perfectly adequate introductory sentence. The stuff about the transformation into a Commie state can go in the introductory section below. MichaelW 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should not imply in the intro that the transformation of Cuba into a Communist state occurred in 1959. I changed the lead to the following: Fidel Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926) has been the leader of Cuba since 1959, when, leading the 26th of July Movement, he overthrew the regime of Fulgencio Batista. Following the Cuban Revolution, Castro oversaw the transformation of Cuba into the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere. 172 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, except that it makes the Revolution a passing event, when it was/is a process in which the coming to dominance of communism was a part.

How about "In the years that followed Castro oversaw the transformation of Cuba into the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere." MichaelW 12:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with any version between the two that can be stable. So Antispammer's opinion may be needed. 172 21:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No I cannot! Goodbye!----Antispammer 04:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Role of KGB

Since the fall of the USSR much information has come out about Castro's contacts with the KGB...see Andrews and Gordievsky (1990) and other sources. El Jigüe 1/19/06

QUIT WASTING YOUR TIME!

Seriously.. this is sad. Do you people realize how many hours of your life you have wasted over such a dumb topic? Also, don't you realize that no one can win this argument, and that you will never reach an agreement?? I dont believe you people care about the wikipedia users, Fidel Castro, or Cuba. All you are trying to do is prove that your beliefs are superior to everyone else's. If you found out that you would die in three months, would you be happy with your life??? Knowing that you spent most of your time arguing on the internet. Do you really think people that want accurate information will use this website, knowing that anyone can change anything??? Seriously.. its sad knowing that people spend hours arguing over whether someone is a dictator or not, or how long it took a country to become communist. Topics like this should be locked to prevent all this useless arguing. GO WRITE A NEW ARTICLE, OR DO SOMETHING THAT WILL ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE; instead of arguing like five year olds possessing adult vocabularies. Take my advice and MOVE ON! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.191.91.227 (talk • contribs) 3:52, 14 January 2006.

No. sorry, had to say it ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hours of my time!! And i thought I was a slow typist. MichaelW 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Really, I'm a fast typist and I have a mere 6000+ edits. Of course I did have to take a break and stub out Tincho_Zabala, but that is because I'm small and weak.  ;) Wikibofh_(talk) 03:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

More on KGB

Material about Castro from the vast KGB files keeps coming out. Still one could start with:

Andrew, Christopher and Oleg Gordievsky 1990 KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev. Harpercollins, New York ISBN 0060166053

El Jigue 1/19/06

Need a double-check pls

In the section Putative early contacts with influencial people:

"...and is subject to various U.S Government investigations."

I added the "is" here. Is this saying Castro was being investigated, and that Wieland was helping him in this regard, or that Wieland is subject to the investigations? If it's confusing me, I'm sure it will others as well. Could someone double check this sentence?

If it's Wieland, it should likely say "is now" or "became". --DanielCD 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Will rephrase, meanwhile I am seeking additional sources on the Wieland-Montenegro topic. It may be that the Wieland circumstance deserves a new site since Weiland certainly articulated US policy throughout all the Bay of Pigs matter . El Jigüe 1/20/2006

List of the fate of the 83

There is need for a list of the landing party of the Granma and their fate, for it is a common misperception that all but 12 died. Tried to put one in but some idiot named "Benon" moved it out. Would this Benon character, who apparently threatens physical attack, care to explain why? El Jigüe 1/25/06

Islam?

Has Fidel Castro recently declared Islam as his religion, or is it just a rumor? Have heard this from numerous people but I have yet to find a credible online source. --Ajunction 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not seen anything on that, Castro often acts a chamaelion it could be but such as step is, in my view, unlikely. Perhaps you have him confused with HUgo Chavez of Venezuela, who I think has pro-Islamic members in his cabinet El Jigüe 1/29/06

"Leader" vs "Dictator"

I am getting the sense that consensus indicates we should say Castro is the "leader" as opposed to the "dictator" of Cuba in the opening paragraph. A persistent anon continues to change this and gets roundly reverted. Any comments here? (ESkog) 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

can we all agree on "head of state?" Carptrash 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because that would be inaccurate. Castro did not officially assume the post of head of state-- president-- until 1976. Before 1976, his highest state post was that of prime minister-- the head of government and not the head of state. In the opening sentence we have to choose a term that is (1) not too restrictive in that in cannot refer to both the posts of prime minister and (2) neutral. The first criterion rules out the terms "head of state," "president," and "head of government." The second criterion rules out "dictator." The only terms that are going to work in the opening sentence are "leader" and "ruler." I have no preference either way. 172 | Talk 10:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

'leader" if fine with me - I can see where HofS doesn't quite work. Carptrash 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of us discussed this whole issue a few weeks back and settled for leader with the 'some say he's a dictator , some say he's a popular leader' statement in the next section. Someone has since then inserted a phrase about some supporting his ideology and seeing him as popular leader, implying that the only way you could see him as a popular leader is to support him ideologically - which ain't necessarily so. MichaelW 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I tentatievely agree with the leader, which is what Encyclopedia Britannica uses. A perhaps better alternative would be to use his official titles (president, chief of armed forces, ...). 'Ruler' or 'Dictator' is too suggestive. Jens Nielsen 18:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am almost in complete agreement with 172 here, except I lean toward "ruler" as I believe "leader" is inadequate by comparison. --TJive 18:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Tjive holds a dissenting opinion and nevertheless constantly reverts edits conforming with majority opinion, I'd like to hear an argument why 'ruler' is more appropriate. Jens Nielsen 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what to call him, when I take over the world, I will PWN him straight out of Cuba. Oh, by the way, when my article is here, you can refer to me as "Supreme Emperor Poo-bah". World Domination in West Dakota which is not a state yes, it is, or at least it will be when I take over the world.

I would call him by his own titles. But leader or ruler is fine. Its definetly POV to call him dictator. 12.220.94.199 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the former. Change leadership to presidency. More accurate, less double-meaning. We should give up term leadership and start using terms of position cause leaders don't represent everyone. I changed one leader in the Human rights in Cuba. Teemu Ruskeepää 06:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A great man

This man is the greatest anti-imperialist hero ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UF (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It will be a sad day when he dies and the imperialists will take over. Sigh...

-G

Citations not credible

A certain editor removed a section on the executions in the aftermath of Castro's victory with the simple notation "sources not credible." That is absurd the argument is not whether numerous executions happened on January 1st 1959 but whether Raul Castro alone executed 75 or 500 surrendered Batista soldiers and buried them in a mass grave on the Santiago de Cuba golf course that day. We, in the rebel forces heard 500 in that area. I reinserted the material, and suggest that the editor in question read more on those days when glory turned to horror. El Jigüe 2/12/06

It may be absurd, but it is wikipedia policy... original research--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 21:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Castro’s education has been removed

Probably because it was thought not pertinent or could it be to remove any reference to when Castro was a university “activist” killing people (e.g. Manolo Castro) with the Emilio Tro action group

-===Education=== -Castro was educated at Jesuit and La Salle Christian Brothers Schools ) private schools in Santiago de Cuba and the Colegio de Belén in Havana, graduating in 1945. He would later expel the faculty from Cuba, like many other priests and religious figures, and have the schools property nationalized. After high school, Castro enrolled at the University of Havana to study law. Here he joined the Union Insurreccional Revolucionaria (UIR, the Insurrectional Revolutionary Union) an action group led by Emilio Tro ,, , , and became involved in political disputes that were often violent and sometimes murderous.

The Watcher

Do you mean that someone took it off and you restored it? Teemu Ruskeepää 12:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wieland

Does an article on Fidel Castro really need all that detail on Wieland ? Surely better to give him his own page ?

Is he Wieland or Weiland ?? Both spellings used.

-- Beardo 01:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wieland (first known as Arturo Montenegro in Cuba) appeared on the scene in 1933, when he was lover of Sumner Welles. This was a notorious scandal tactfully described by Ruby Hart Phillips. Wieland had been important to Cuba, since he helped promote Batista's rise to power at that time. He almost certainly was at the Hotel Nacional, where Sumner Welles resided just before the bloody attack by Batista forces on the Army officers who it is generally agreed were convinced they had US protection. He was on the scene in Colombia during the Bogotazo where he is said to have contacted Castro. Wieland also very influencial in the decisions that placed the US arms embargo against Batista, and actively promoted the changes in the Bay of Pigs plan that resulted in its failure. Later on Wieland was removed from the State Department. One could say that Wieland had as much or more to do with Castro's rise to power than even Herbert Matthews, or the Cuban communist party which betrayed all other anti-Batista forces, at Goicuria, the attack on the Palace, the Naval rising at the base in Cienfuegos, the Corynthia landing, and the death of Frank Pais etc. When such betrayals became public knowledge Castro, who also feared them, had to have some of these communists shot. El Jigue 3/1/06

Margaret Trudeau

Talking about Castro's 1959 trip, it says "Castro spent two days in Canada, initiating a friendship with future Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret Trudeau." Margaret Trudeau was 11 at that time. Whilst Castro may have become friends with Mrs Trudeau later, the wording is confusing. Clearer just to delete.

-- Beardo 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. You choose where to tactfully insert the accepted circumstance that Margaret and Castro (and I understand a few others) were lovers El Jigue 3/1/06

Do we have a cite for Trudeau & Castro meeting in 1959? Trudeau was not exactly significant politically at this point. I've searched through all my Trudeau references & can't find evidence of a meeting before the 70s.

OK, it's gone then - no evidence forthcoming.

Pronunciation

Alejandro is pronounced as “Alehandro”, much as Mexico is pronounced “Mehico” El Jigue 3/1/06 Alejandro I thought was pronounced "alexandro" Llamadog903 22:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"...American MRBMs targeting the Soviet Union from Turkey and Italy, a measure that the US never implemented." - WTF? I am not sure about Italy, but missiles from Turkey were definitely withdrawn, without much publicity, of course.

Well I changed a few lines in "Cuban Crisis" section. I checked original article, Turkey missiles removal confirmed there. No mentions of Italy, as I suspected. DarkFighter 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

Wasn't there more to the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, like agreement by the US to remove missiles from Turkey? --Robert Merkel 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The section on the missile crisis is quite large and does already have it's own seperate article, perhaps this should be merged into that and this section trimmed down into the parts directly involving Castro? --Sully 14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact I should have read the October Crisis section above a little more closely, this actually duplicates the same subject, perhaps this should be almost deleted altogether? --Sully 14:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A question

Since Castro's a dictator, I have a question for you.

When Fidel Castro wants to send someone a letter, who dictates it?

Chuck full of Bad Great Jokes and Other Deletable Nonsense Flawless Logic

has someone messed around here?

"Wieland is commonly considered to have a left of center record in Latin American matters . and quite definitely linked to the influential bisexual underground groups"

is that meant to read like that? or has some one tryed to confuse people?

Yes it is meant to read like that. This is not a morals matter this is a corruption of power by Sumner Welles who placed Wieland in a position of influence because he was Wieland's lover. Finally many years later Wieland was removed quietly from the State Department. Now do you see why published sources in the Cuba section were removed to a remote location.

Now some in the Cuba discussion section state Castro was elected democratically; his killings in his student days which are very well documented have been deleted. This is almost as absurd as that somewhat less than discerning Scandinavian who insists in classifying Che Guevara as a Humanitarian. El Jigue 3-22-06

To those who I have offended in the past

I apologize.

Castro-Apologists

Castro-Apologists seem very busy recently.....El Jigue 3-23-06

El Jigue to be banned again

I just inserted ""After the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the PCF (French Communist Party) was declared a proscribed organization. The PCF pursued an anti-war course during the early part of the Second World War." Maurice Thorez head of PCF "deserted from the French Army and fled to the Soviet Union. " " into Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and thus I expect to be banned again soon. Will be back after ban ends. El Jigue 3-24-06

Additional Details

Additional details have been added by another, the great majority of these details appear accurate. However, it seemed appropriate to correct some syntax. BTW I still have not been banned. What happened to the aggressive pro-Castro activists. El Jigue 3-24-06

Need source

The largest source of foreign currency for the Cuban economy is, ironically, the dollar remissions sent by Cuban Americans to Cuban relatives and friends.

I would like to see a source for the quote comment. And, does irony belong in an encyclopedia?

--A Sunshade Lust 06:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sunshade I particularily like the way you deny factual evidence without any citations of your own. Perhaps this is meant to be ironic El Jigue 3-31-06

I denied something? What are you flapping about? I requested a source for a sentence in the article, if it's a fact there has to be a book or source of some kinds that contains this note. It's not because it was intended to be ironic (duh?) that irony belongs in an encyclopedia. --A Sunshade Lust 20:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please define all the abstract consepts

In the "life as a guerilla" there is "1958 Castro met semi-secretly with Batista General". I'd like to have a link on "semi-direct", where such a form of meeting in the field of warfare diplomacy would be defined. Teemu Ruskeepää 20:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the opening paragraph

I changed totalitarian dictator to totalitarian president, but the rest is still quite hopelessly attitude-driven. Btw, I just fixed the whole article in 1 h 50 mins with 25 fixes, and I did not read the opening paragraph when I began. I'm glad I didn't! "Reason conquers ignorance, no matter what"

Correction: IP 69.134.151.43 sabotaged it while I was working on the rest of the article! How does one revert to the older one? What kind of dicplinary actions can be done to 69.134.151.43? . Teemu Ruskeepää 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing by anon editors

I was surprised to find that I was really close to violating 3RR here - so I need to watch myself. There seems to be a single anonymous editor who continually reinserts the same problematic language - this diff sums it up pretty well. I thought we had come up with "leader" as acceptable terminology a while ago, and now we're back and forth with 800 different words there. I also don't like "ill-planned and disastrous attack", "economy is in shambles", the "ironic" source of much of the Cuban economy (which is uncited), and the rest of the additions, while cited, don't really seem completely encyclopedic. I don't want to be acting unilaterally here... (ESkog) 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you just hate when that happens? Some #¤&!&¤&!@£$s do on the web what ever they feel like! Teemu Ruskeepää 10:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Help Please?

I am not too sure how accurate or unbiased this article is, I want to find more information on some figures such as William Wieland and Sumner Welles etc. So could any one please give me some book titles, auhtor names or sites? it would be very helpful if you could.

You might find it useful to follow the links provide and the hard copy sources in literature list provided. El Jigue 4-7-06

Teemu Ruskeepää

Teemu Ruskeepää, please stop inserting huge blocks of unwikified and uncondensed text without proposing your major changes for other editors to review here on talk. I reverted your edits. Nevertheless, you will be able to continue your plans for a sweeping rewrite of this article. I suggest while you are building a consensus here, you work on your personal draft in a sandbox in your username space. I suggest something like User:Teemu Ruskeepää/Fidel Castro sandbox. 172 | Talk 10:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignore this critique. It's designed to disrupt the work on this article. If you look deeper, and see for yourself what I modified, you'd see that I inserted no huge blocks of textes. This is probably a counterattack for my critisim of the people who "do what ever they want on the web. There are bitter people against Fidel Castro. I don't know any of them. I'm a young man from Finland. Teemu Ruskeepää 08:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

dispute

I dispute the characterization of Castro as a "leader" and/or omission of any reference to his official capacity as a dictator, which he he has been since 1959. Irrespective of one's views of Castro as a "leader", he has been and continues to be the totalitarian dictator of Cuba.

Webster's defines "dictator" as: "one holding complete autocratic control". and "totalitarianism" as: "centralized control by an autocratic authority" and "the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority".

There is no reason whatsoever why the edits, which refer to Castro as a dictator, are consistently changed. Thus, I dispute this article.

The article states Castro is a highly controversial leader who is viewed as a dictator. "Leader" is a general value-neutral term. The dispute is unnecessary. 172 | Talk 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Leader", a term with a positive connotation, is used in the initial and upfront

characterization. I would have no problem if the 'controversial' language was used initially.

Should we then call Stalin and Hitler 'leaders' as well? I think the notion (in the article) that none of Castro's family members have never been elected to any of the posts they hold, as proof enough?--Constanz - Talk 16:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are we being "value-neutral"? If the man is a dictator, say the man is a dictator. I do not understand this "value-neutral" terminology. Misplaced Pages is all about accuracy and there is nothing inaccurate about calling Castro a dictator.

anon one, leader...oversaw are euphamisms for dictator...forced. As euphamisms they are not value neutral. The real terms should be used. Did Castro use dictatorial powers and force or not? It wasn't just in the beginning, in the last year he is still preventing people from escaping his brutal rule.--Silverback 21:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon editor, Misplaced Pages editors discussed this issue in great detail already. The reason we state "Castro is a highly controversial leader who is viewed as a dictator" without calling him a "dictator" in the lead sentence is because some people understand Cuba as ruled by a dictatorship of the Communist Party, not a single individual. 172 | Talk 21:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussing in great detail did not mean that the issue was settled. He is dictator of his hand picked communist party too and has hand picked his successor. Perhaps you can explain what "oversaw" means in that first paragraph if not "forced".--Silverback 21:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion archives. I'm not interested in beating a dead horse. 172 | Talk 22:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't interested in discussing it, you shouldn't be interested in reverting it.--Silverback 09:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I already discussed the matter, as did many other users. Please review this discussion thread , among others, on identifying the subject in the lead sentence. 172 | Talk 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again the term "leader" has been reinserted back into the article. I thought "ruler" was an accurate and more fair compromise. I do not understand why this article continues to not even attempt to follow wikipedia's policy of neutrality. If there is not some attempt to reach a compromise, for reasons discussed ad nauseum in other areas, then I will continue to try and reach Misplaced Pages to arrive at a more formal resolution. Let's all be adults here and try to work together.

Maybe the reason "leader" has been preferred to "ruler" is because more of us feel that it is the term carrying the least baggage.

The reason neutrality is so difficult to achieve in this area is because it is a very live issue where neutrality does not exist, except in trying to ensure that the whole range of viewpoints are represented. Hence the relative stability of the formulation of "leader" at the start and further in the 'some say dictator, others say legitimate leader' wording. MichaelW 18:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't be neutral upfront. That is the section that is most widely read. "Leader" is actually the least neutral of all terms that can be used. "Ruler" is an adequate compromise although I still insist he should be referred to by what he is, a "totalitarian dictator". For instance, Misplaced Pages itself lists Castro as an example of a dictator! If we cannot at least attempt to be neutral upfront in the first and initial characterization, I refuse to acknowledge this site as neutral or aspiring to be. Not only are the editors not working to achieve neutrality, they are biased, characterizing him in positive terms as a "leader" in the first sentence of the article! This is outrageous and completely against the values of Misplaced Pages.

Can you understand that, while everyone has a POV, on nearly every subject, some are inherently negative, some positive? This issue seems emotionally charged for you, but I think the article makes clear that his government is, indeed, a communist regime and dictatorship. Do you agree that not all leaders/political viewpoints/citizens of Cuba view Castro in a negative light? CMacMillan 19:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See, this is exactly why I have a problem with the editors of this page. While you are mainly concerned with whether people view him in a "negative" as opposed to positive light. I am concerned with significant lack of neutrality this article exhibits and how that is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages values. Leader is a positive term used in the initial and upfront characterization. Irrespective of whether you view him positively or negatively, THAT IS NOT NEUTRAL. I just want us to be NEUTRAL, which is why I thought ruler was an adequate compromise.

I'm not mainly concerned with Castro as positive or negative, and please do not assume a POV on him based on my paragraph. Sorry, I just don't have one yet. Your point that "leader" is construed as positive has some validity. Your assertion that he should be referred to as "totalitarian dicator", however, leads me to believe your interests don't lie with upholding the Wikipedian values. My assertion about a non-universal negative view was as an example to balance your obviously negative view. In plain English, I couldn't give a shit how he's viewed - in the US, Italy, or anywhere else. You want to slap a negative label on him, go ahead. His official title is apparently President. Call him what you want. CMacMillan 20:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Totalitarian dictator" does not indicate a negative view. I see where you're coming from but he is a dictator. I don't see how you can discern my position on Castro based on this, especially since earlier today he was listed as an example of a dictator on Misplaced Pages's "dicator" page. Additionally, it should not matter whether I have a subjective aim of neutrality. Misplaced Pages does. Irrespective of my position on Castro, if leader is not a neutral term than it should be changed . And because of their refusal to even work a compromise on this issue, I have a big problem with the editors of this page and its neutrality.

He is still listed on the Dictator page, Banwo, and that page has no record of editing today. In any event, I don't think I can help with any of this. You don't see "leader" as neutral, yet you see "totalitarian dictator" as such. You can admit that your view is not neutral, but see only your view as the "compromise" that should be sanctioned. I'll leave this to more experienced editors. CMacMillan 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No! Please don't mischaracterize my position!!! I have repeatedly stated that I saw "ruler", which was ::used but then changed as a good compromise. I do believe he is a "totalitarian dictator" but I would ::be open to working out a compromise with the editors, which is what Misplaced Pages is all about. The frustrating thing about this page is not that I am not getting my way but that the senior editors refuse to compromise, sort of like a . . . well I think I'll leave that alone.

I've been reviewing this article for other areas where I think its neutrality can be improved and have found them. I am considering moving this article to mediation since no one appears willing to work with me on the initial "leader" characterization. I will open talk categories in regard to the other areas as well. If there continues to be no attempt at compromise, I will move to mediation and possibly formal Misplaced Pages arbitration. I just thought people should know.

For Chirst sake. In many many years studying history since graduate school nearly four decades, I've never heard anyone carry on and on about the positve connotations of the word "leader" until seeing a few of these debates break out on Misplaced Pages. It makes no difference if the intro refers to Castro as "leader" or "ruler." "Leader" is not a legitimating term. In fact, it's de-legitimating in the context of this article. The usage of the word "leader," as opposed to Castro's formal titles (prime minister from '59 to '76, and president since '76), implies that his personal power is more relevant than his formal institutional posts. In contrast, for a legitmate head of state or government, the law matters more than his or her personal power. Notice that legitimate statesmen are not described as "leader" in their intro. For example, no one would introduce George W. Bush as the "leader of the United States" or Tony Blair as the "leader of the United Kingdom." Nevertheless, since a couple of users are making such a big fuss about the matter, I've gone ahead and changed the description in the lead to "ruler," which some people prefer because they think it sounds worse. 172 | Talk 07:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is fair. I just want to emphasize that this is not over whether it sounds worst. That is what is most frustrating over this debate. My aim is reviewing this article is not to taint Castro, it's just to make sure this article accurately reflects the historical truth. Leader does have a positive conotation but more importantly, it implies a certain level of solidarity that is not factually accurate. For example, "Leader of the communist regime in Cuba" would have been an accurate use of the term of "leader" in this instance. It would never be acceptable to refer to G.W. Bush as the "leader" of the United States. You refer to him by his political office. You could call Castro "President" or whatever but then you would have to make explicit mention of his political status as a dictator, again to be historically accurate for the same reasons why you would have to mention it in regard to Mussolini, Idi Amin, etc. For some reason people are uncomfortable with this type of initial characterization. Thus, I think ruler is an adequate compromise.

Let's not butcher the English language. Usage of the term "leader" in and of itself does not imply "a certain level of solidarity." The term simply refers to somebody in charge of others. How that person got to be in charge of others is neither here nor there. The relationship between leader and those who are led may be involuntary. So any dictator is accurately and neutrally described as a "leader." If there a specific reason to use "ruler" instead "leader" it's not that the term "leader" is inaccurate, it's that the term "ruler" may be more precise. Every head of state or government can be described as a "leader," though the term "ruler" is hardly ever used to describe heads of state in Western democratic systems. 172 | Talk 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that leader is a general value-neutral term in this instance. I also resent your statement about butchering the English language. For your information, I am a native speaker of English and can speak and write it very well. We should all be respectful of one another as we work towards making this article more neutral and more accurate. Thank you.

The term does not necessarily imply a voluntary power relationship or legitimate authority. Nevertheless, I will continue backing you on "ruler" because I think the term "ruler" has the best chance of keeping the page history stable and putting to rest this horribly tedious conversation. By the way, don't take my comment personally. I am commenting on your comment, not you. 172 | Talk 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the point made by 172 that "Leader" is a general value-neutral term. Ruler, on the other hand, gives association to monarch or dictator, which there is broad disagreement over whether or not it is the case here. Jens Nielsen 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

People want that association to monarch or dictator here. Why not just let the term stay so that we can put this tedious conversation to rest. The term is accurate enough. 172 | Talk 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My 25 edits

One of them was in the About Cuba section. I added a link which didn't link correctly and I mentioned that it only works by copying. The link was directed to About Cuba -Issues and Answers, which should be among the links. I'm going to revert it. Teemu Ruskeepää 09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

172 took it off saying "online discussion pages don't go on external links". This person interpret things for his own benefit and totally unrealistically. You can find my 25 edits on the history sheet at 2nd of april 2006, which 172 also claims to have taken off due to "huge blocks of textes". I'd say 172 is one of the biggest problems in Fidel Castro article. This is not a forum of discussion but an archive of information and answers to common questions about the political system in Cuba. There is the critisism of the system and the responds to that, but no futher debate. It's purely an information forum. Don't believe anything what this troll tells you.

• (cur) (last) 19:59, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (dictator to president - president can be totalitarian, but dictatorship is a form of totalitarianism)
• (cur) (last) 19:50, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:49, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:48, 2 April 2006 69.134.151.43
• (cur) (last) 19:47, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:46, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:45, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba - Added an external link)
• (cur) (last) 19:39, 2 April 2006 PseudoSudo m (Reverted edits by 71.247.67.52 (talk) to last version by Teemu Ruskeepää)
• (cur) (last) 19:39, 2 April 2006 71.247.67.52 (→Human rights in Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:35, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Family and health)
• (cur) (last) 19:34, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Family and health)
• (cur) (last) 19:33, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Family and health)
• (cur) (last) 19:32, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Family and health)
• (cur) (last) 19:30, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Popular image - to hink, to "reason" out - internal link)
• (cur) (last) 19:25, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Popular image)
• (cur) (last) 19:24, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Popular image)
• (cur) (last) 19:18, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Human rights in Cuba - leadership to presidency -more accurate and less implying)
• (cur) (last) 19:16, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Religion)
• (cur) (last) 19:13, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Remaining as president)
• (cur) (last) 19:04, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Cuban Missile Crisis - removed the dang thing due the existence of the main article)
• (cur) (last) 18:55, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Bay of Pigs)
• (cur) (last) 18:54, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Bay of Pigs)
• (cur) (last) 18:53, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Bay of Pigs - Cuban manuel artime to cuban manuel artime)
• (cur) (last) 18:52, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Bay of Pigs - manuel artime links)
• (cur) (last) 18:50, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Early years in power - removed economic and military aid "from them". It's an unnecessairy complication of the language.)
• (cur) (last) 18:45, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Early years in power - fixed the previous name and link)
• (cur) (last) 18:43, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Early years in power - Enrique Lister Farjan --> Farjan included in the link marks)
• (cur) (last) 18:06, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Attack on Moncada Barracks - removed double "Castro was sentenced to...")

As you can see from my reasons, there is nothing added Teemu Ruskeepää 12:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please hold off on the attacks. Since you're a new user, I think you're reaching a misunderstanding. I removed some edits that may be helpful in the future but were not ready for the article becuase they did not include wiki hyperlinks and because the prose was uncondensed. In particular, see the changes to the "early life" section over the course of Teemu Ruskeepää's edits:

Teemu Ruskeepää, you are welcome to rewrite the article. But until you have a finished product, I suggest that you work on it in a user sandbox... I myself use user sandboxes becuase I write work that is not ready to go in articles. Check out, for example, my sandbox on state at User:172/State. I have another unfinished sandbox (and I'll get around to finishing it someday!) at User:172/Populist movement sandbox. 172 | Talk 12:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Early life was sabotaged by IP 69.134.151.43. I didn't do those fixes as you can see in the list of my fixes. I even mentioned it here in the "tone of the opening paragraph". I think 172 has the error. Teemu Ruskeepää 12:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I missed the 69.134.151.43 edit. So I take back my comments asking you to work in a personal subpage and direct them to 69.134.151.43. Now that that's cleared up, let's look at the changes you're interested in proposing. 172 | Talk 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The sabotage attempts and chaos

It seems too easy to lie about editors, sabotage the text and to submerge the work into all kinds of conflicts. This place needs a neutral authority and a strong enforcements of order. Can you ban the IP that continuously do this kind of thing? Teemu Ruskeepää 09:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is sabotaging your work... Major changes should be proposed on the talk page. I recommend copying the article and pasting it into a personal sandbox like User:Teemu Ruskeepää/Fidel Castro sandbox, where you can work on your revisions freely. Then you can build a consensus for your changes here on the article talk page. 172 | Talk 12:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Teemu Don't you think your jackboots are beating a little too hard on the cobblestones. El Jigue 4-7-06

1927

Castro was born in 1927, not 1926. You MUST correct this.

Do not be so sure as so much of Castro's life this too is obscure. El Jigue 4-7-06

LGBT rights opposition link

Why on earth put a link to LGBT rights opposition? I could care less about people's political issues with Cuba, but it seems silly to have a biography of a politician and to put a link to LGBT rights opposition with nothing in the article discussing anything about LGBT people much less his opposition to them. --M Drusus 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fabian whitewashering

One cannot help but notice the activities of the Fabian whitewashers...who delete unfavorable facts on Castro's life. Thank goodness this gets corrected. Castro did read a lot of Hitler's and Mussollini's writing and then took them as his own. El Jigue 4-705

And let us not forget User:Comandante's whitewashing campaigns: (whole paragraphs),, etc --Constanz - Talk 07:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Faulty Link

The link in the article to Ramón Castro links to a major league baseball player born in 1976 - some 50+ years after he was born. It's obviously not the same person. Perhaps somebody could create a page for Ramon Castro (Fidel Castro's brother) OR remove the wikilink around the name. I'd remove the wikilink (since I know nothing about Ramon Castro), but the page is locked. takethemud 06:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud

T:Ramon, the elder brother, mainly takes care of the family farm (which by sleigh of hand is still held by the family. El Jigue 4-10-06

Semiprotection - open note to the anonymous editor

If you are an "anonymous" (not logged-in) user trying to edit the page, I have requested semiprotection because everyone else seems to be doing an excellent job of discussing edits here. I presume a single individual is behind the particular wording that we all keep reverting, and I would appreciate some explanation/sourcing/something here - I would also encourage you to get a username so that we have a constant way to communicate with you - your IP is dynamic, which essentially means we have no way to leave messages we can be sure you will receive. (ESkog) 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

SK interesting tactic now you have eliminated at least one person who has talked with Castro. BTW both Hitler's (and or Mussolini's) and Castro's speeches are on line; Castro is known to have read both fascists' speeches. For instance Castro's slogan !Victoria o Muerte! is taken from Mussolini . Apparently even Hitler used that phrase in orders to Rommel Military history of Egypt during World War II. El Jigue 4-10-06

Interesting. !Victoria o Muerte! is attributed to another man some regard as a traitor: General George Washington. CMacMillan 16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Off hand I would say it was Patrick Henry not GW. El Jigue 4-11-06

And, look, you'd be wrong again. The lesson here is the word "I". Your point of view is important, just not within articles, and strong feelings such as yours often colour the overall picture. !Victoria o Muerte! is associated - in English as well as Spanish - with George Washington, Churchill, Castro, Mussolini, and even both sides of the Alamo ("Por dios y Tejas, Victoria o Muerte!"). Its most recent incarnation, in English, was by George Bush to the US Ryder Cup team, echoing what he knew as the Alamo quote from Colonel William Barrett Travis: "... I shall never surrender or retreat. Victory or death". Patrick Henry's most famous line is "... give me liberty or give me death." CMacMillan 18:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comandante is going to town

One notes that Comandate's whitewashing is going to town big time the last thing he deleted was:

"Curiously, some have pointed to certain parallels in this speech to words of Adolf Hitler on trial after his failed 1924 coup attempt "

This already had been abbreviated from a more detailed version, using original text to show parallels. El Jigue 4-11-06

Perhaps this would be acceptable NPOV wording:

"Critics of Fidel Castro have pointed to certain parallels in this speech to words of Adolf Hitler on trial after his failed 1924 coup attempt , though supporters describe this observation as ridiculous propaganda."

User:Comandante and others, would this be an acceptable compromise? BruceHallman 18:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggestion makes sense, as long as someone can cite an actual source. Who has pointed out "certain parallels"? What article/book/scholarly journal? Which supporters think it's propaganda? My mother thinks Castro and Bush are both a lot like Hitler, too, and she thinks I look like Brad Pitt, but no one's willing to take her word for it. CMacMillan 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (disclaimer: She doesn't actually think I look like Brad Pitt.)

Good point.

El Jigue: can you provide citation(s)? Otherwise, Comandante's edit appears to comply with WP:NOR and WP:V. BruceHallman 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Humbug!!!!! Bruce I placed a carefully anotated section on this, and it was removed. Will place here again, for I do not have access anymore. However, and an article by a respected historian follows (I have other first and personal sources of information, but you will have to wait until my book comes out). El Jigue 4-12-06

Why do you greet a straight forward request with "Humbug!!!"? I suggested some compromise wording, and asked if it was acceptable. I am guessing that you don't like it. How would you word the sentence? BruceHallman 15:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I say humbug!!! with good reason for once again in mendacious fashion, my citations were removed, and then in a second state my input is challenged and then deleted because it lacked the necessary citations. BTW “El Comandante” was a usual reference to Castro in early times in the Sierra Maestra. El Jigue 4-12-06

Parallels between Castro's and Hitler's speeches at their trials for failed coup attempts

History Will Absolve Me is the title of a speech made by Fidel Castro in 1953. It has been later published as a book. Castro made the speech in his own defense against the charges brought on him after the attack on the Moncada Barracks by the 26th of July Movement, which he led. The speech received its title from its last sentence: "History will absolve me".

However, the last three sentences of this speech read Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me. Thus many critics of Castro have pointed out that this speech given contains s loose translation of the words found in Hitler's Mein Kampf "The judges of this state may go right ahead and convict us for our actions at that time, but History, acting as the goddess of a higher truth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict, acquitting us of all guilt and blame.'" Castro is known to have read "Mein Kampf."

Is this original research, or is there a verifyable credible source? BruceHallman 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No no you will not get me on this one. It is an often cited parallel e.g even as far away as Sri Lanka where Hitler is mention in an edited version of this speech. El Jigue 4-12-06

So what's your conclusion? You mean it merits to be mentioned as a trivia?! Szvest 16:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research or not, it is utterly absurd that the matter could be of any relevance whatsoever. Give me a speech of any politician and with enough research I could find close parallels to something Hitler said, or Churchill, or any other politician. It does not mean a thing. Trying to establish a connection with Hitler serves only disgraceful propaganda purposes. Jens Nielsen 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

El Jique cites two references, so it is not original research. It may be 'extreme partisian analysis' but per WP policy I think the 'Hitler comparison' can be mentioned if properly qualified, with words like 'Castro's critics make the comparison..." or something. . BruceHallman 16:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing refs or not is not the issue Bruce. The issue is the conclusion! Did Castro declare to invade Poland or to persecute anyone? What is the message of El Jigue? -- Szvest 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, El Jigue and others seek to be critical of Castro, and that criticism is 'on topic' in a Castro article, though also 'on topic' is rebuttal of the criticism. I would support isolating the criticism in a separate section perhaps, but realistically, Castro is the target of a remarkable amount of criticism, and descriptions of that critism is a valid thing to report in an encylopedic article. BruceHallman 16:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean Bruce. However, random criticism is not worthy. There are many parallels between speeches of leaders and politicians around the world and many of them are unrelated.-- Szvest 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

However, these fascist tone of these pronouncements are not out of character for Castro. One only has to consider the influence of fascism in Castro's complex political persona (see Jaime Suchlicki below). This strange linkage to fascism manifiested itself early in Castro's acceptance of funding from Juan Peron during the Bogotazo, has lead to some most odd (for a self admitted Marxist Leninist) such as his alliance with and admiration for Francisco Franco and Castro's support for the Argentine Junta Leopoldo Galtieri during the Falklands War (Falkland/Melvinas war). El Jigue 4-12-06

Perhaps this can be constructively, neutrally and collaboratively edited into the article, except... Comandante, do you have an opinion? Would you please discuss this and collaborate on this? BruceHallman 17:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce thank you for your attempt at mediation but this is not going to work. Remember that El comandante had an enormous jpg of Che Guevara at his site until it became so embarrassing that he had to delete it. After all I am merely one of a "Truly Repellent" Minority and my words, thoughts and input have no value. Oh by the way how come here blank statements of others (such as that absurd statement about Castro never having persecuted anybody) have weight without supporting references, yet for mine references are required. xe xe El Jigüe 4-12-06

Personally, I've been very kind with your opinions but you seem that you lack some depth on how to analyze other's intentions (mine as well of others when it comes to mediation). Kindly, call me by my name or my signature and avoid the term others! However, and back to the issue, i didn't ask anybody for any reference as long as i believe there is no logical parallel to talk about (same is said about Bush's salutes as if he is a Nazi and you can see demonstrators around the world calling him a Nazi,etc... You can draw many parallels if you wish and then try to conveince us to post them in his entry!!!) If Castro said such words or Bush raised his palm as Hitler used to do than it is just NOTHING and not a parallel. Cheers -- Szvest 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well personally, I too admire Che Guevara, but that is irrelevant. I also advocate, that for Misplaced Pages to work, we all need to follow Misplaced Pages policies. If, after due process, someone refuses to follow Misplaced Pages policies, perhaps the Arbitration Committee could enforce a block. Though, I have not given up hope that Comandante can cooperate, he/she is obviously smart and well considered, though he/she needs to also show good faith through cooperation and collaboration.

BTW, I oppose 'blank statements' both for and against Castro that are not backed by citations per WP:V. BruceHallman 17:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce the Che was extremely ruthless and was loyal only to the idea of a takeover of the revolution against Batista by communist ideologues. While in the mountains he alleging all kinds of spurious accusations he tried to purge the rebel army of those whose ideology he opposed. He executed a rebel friend of mine because he apparently wanted to use the money my friend had brought into the mountains from the plains. He was notoriously self-serving in his descriptions of military actions such as Pino del Agua and El Hombrito. Guevara left "Daniel" unsupported during the ofensiva and as a result Daniel slowly bled to death. The Che never gave credit to the "escopeteros" for their work screening attacks, (this turned out to be fatal in Bolivia.) Guevara does not mention "los muchachos de Lara" or the men of Jaime Vega whose actions and losses allowed him to cross the plains of Oriente and Camaguey with essentially no opposition. In las Villas much of the fighting was done by Camilo, not the Che. His famous "victory" over the armoured train in Las Villas was bought and there was very little real fighting. Luckily Guevara's incompetence in guerrilla war and his rather misleading manual on guerrilla warfare let to the elimination of many communist guerrilla groups such as the one led by Massetti one of his inconditional admirer, in Argentina. El Jigue 4-13-06

External link

• History Will Absolve Me (The complete speech)

Jaime Suchlicki, A Short Biography of Fidel Castro

A Short Biography of Fidel Castro Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas Issue 74, April 7, 2006 2006-04-08 Jaime Suchlicki Foto: Alexis Gainza Solenzal.

• The following biography is being released since Fidel Castro's health has continued to deteriorate recently.

• • biography snipped **--Silverback 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ANON ONE, the talk pages are no exception to the rule against violation of copyrights. Is the above text copyrighted? Or are you the author releasing it to the public domain?--Silverback 12:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This piece was widely released to the general public domain, however, one should cite author and URL from which it was obtained. If you want a personal release contact Jaime Suchlicki, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. His e-mail address jsuchlicki@miami.edu, phone number is (305) 284-2822. BTW I disagree with a number of details such as exact number of kills Castro had had as a student "activist," and I totally disagree with number of casualties after Castro's 1955 landing in Cuba for as most other authors agree the percentage of survival of the landing party was far higher El Jigue 4-13-06

The one who posted the article should be the one to obtain the release. Unless there is documentation online for your claim that it was "widely released to the general public domain"--Silverback 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please at least remove the entire article and keep the link and your comments? It is making the talk page longer. Cheers -- Szvest 20:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is he the head of state of the longest duration?

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

• Speeches