Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 5

Dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista
One of the most anti-Castro sites on the net, usembassy.state.gov/havana titles it "the Batista dictatorship." El_C 15:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but apparently there's been a Wikipedia determination that "dictator" is pejorative. Otherwise I would insist that Batista and Castro be referred to as dictators.  Also, please consider what an easy target you're making yourself to the right-wingers here by calling for Batista to be called a dictator and Castro not.  It looks uneven to me, and to them, this is red-hot ammo that you're giving them. --Rroser167 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a target regardless of what I say or do. I haven't read this article closely (I only came here at request to look at one specific issue). I was neither aware that Castro wasn't called a dictator, nor was I privy to this decision. Sorry for wasting your time. El_C 17:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No apologies are necessary. I was not privy to the decision, either, yet it appears to be gospel.  Don't say that you're a target no matter what; it sounds like a persecution complex, kind of like some others that I've seen. --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I will think it, not without some basis! :D El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following is the definition of dictator: in modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch). I don't know the historical facts about Fulgencio Batista (other than the fact that he was the democratically elected president of Cuba for a while). Fidel Castro is absolutist in the sense that he exerts unlimited personal power over the politics of his country, opposition to communism is illegal (personified by himself) and he leads the Council of State, which is the supreme authority in the country, though he doesn't exert sole power over the state (at least on paper). Kapil 18:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll reassert my opinion that both Castro and Batista should be referred to as dictators. By the way, Kapil, I would have been able to support more of your arguments if you covered your personal sympathies better.  Saying that you don't know anything about Batista except that "he was the democratically elected president of Cuba for a while" seems disingenuous.  --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * General Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar (January 16, 1901 &#8211; August 6, 1973) was the de facto leader of Cuba from 1933 to 1940 and the country's official president from 1940 to 1944 and again from 1952 to 1959. -> That's what I meant. I don't know if he was an actual dictator, but I do know he was at least president for two terms.


 * You misunderstand me. I knew what you meant, but I'm also sure that this doesn't represent your total knowledge of Batista.  For instance, surely you've heard that the second term was achieved by coup.  I understand that you feel that Wikipedia has many left-wing editors, and that because of this, you think the proper thing to do is to bring balance by being an advocate for the right.    'sokay, I'm not frothing about it.  --Rroser167 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know anything about Batista other than the fact he's had power both by democratic and non-democratic means. That's why I'm requesting other user's contributions on this. Kapil 20:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to summit readers of this talk to the excelent book "Bertillón 166" of José Soler Puig, a cuban writer. That book may illustrate you about the popular meaning of "dictator" and "State of Terror". It was wrote in the regimen of Fulgencio Batista, but I think it's not a pure Cuban heritage, but also a common point in many latinoamerican countries.

Castro is not a dictator: he is more like a ship's captain weathering a storm blowing in from the US. Is a captain a dictator? How can Castro be a 'dictator'(with all that that word implies:yes, the word is perjorative),when a million people march with him in support of his government and against US intervention. Dictators do not have the support of a large portion of the population. Someone has posted saying that Castro has suppressed emigration. In fact, Cuba had an agreement with the US to allow a quota of cubans to emigrate to the US. 'It wasn't until four years later, in 1984, that Cuba and the U.S. discussed the issue: As a result of these discussions, some of the Mariel entrants were returned to Cuba, and both countries agreed that a ceiling numberor quotaof 20,000 Cubans would be allowed to emigrate legally to the United States each year. This marked the first time that an immigration agreement was struck between the countries. ... For the first time in history, however, the U.S. administration refused entrance: Attorney General Janet Reno, using her discretionary powers (and, in the opinion of some, exceeding her authority), announced that those who entered without documents would be detained indefinitely at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station. The rafters continued to take to the sea, to be picked up by U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships and carried around the island to Guantánamo.

After several days of negotiations in September, an agreement was reached whereby Castro would stop the departure of boats and rafts, and the U.S. quota of 20,000 Cuban immigrants per year would be reinstated. Cubans wishing to immigrate would be required to apply at the U.S. Interests Section office in Havana, and those interned at Guantánamo would have to return to Havana to apply and wait.

 Brian

Castro photo
My two cents: this picture is composed in a severely dramatic fashion - making it a lightning rod for criticism that this page is not neutral. Surely someone can come up with a more appropriate portrait. --Rroser167 16:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How about: ? Or ? --Rroser167 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first one looks rather demonic, the 2nd looks like he's picking his nose almost. I appreciate the point you make about the background and overtone (though I don't view is as that much of issue really), but I want to find a more neutral-looking image (of his face) in that sense. El_C 17:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with El C... Where does everyone keep finding these horrible Castro photos? Outside Wikipedia I rarely see such bad photos of him. For example, it's odd that in just about every AP photo of Castro taken in recent weeks, Castro looks so much younger and healthier. 172 19:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you think of ? Kapil 19:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Funny how the objections to the red star photo, which made us look for an alternative one, were made primarily by Grace Note (the one who keeps reverting to it now). I don't object to the red star photo if everyone else wants to leave it there. Kapil 18:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I understand that this is a very minor issue, so if there is no opposition, I won't keep cryin' about it. I'm a little surprised that you're not opposed to it, Kapil, but I guess the big red star in the background may have sealed the deal for you.  Cool.   --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The first one is a bit weird, he looks like he's having a stroke. The second one's a bit blurry. How about ? Looks neutral and serious. Wouldn't object to the red star one, but I like this one better. Kapil 19:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I find Kapil's image to be a good compromise, I just wish we can find a higher quality version of it. I have no objections to using it in the lead. What do you think, 172? El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not bad, but it's quite small and would be blurry if it were enlarged. 172 06:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what the need is to find a "bad" pictures of a generally good-looking and charismatic man who frequently poses in dramatic positions. If you're THAT concerned about NPOV, you should go through the articles for Hollywood actresses and pop singers and replace their pictures with ones of them picking their noses/farting/whatever. --B. Phillips 15:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Great" healthcare and literacy increases
This is unbelievable. Cut and paste scholarship at its worst. Has it ever occurred to you people that any statistics or facts that you've found floating around the internet are fresh from Castro's mouth? OMG, a dictator twisting the truth? get out! OK here's the truth: In Cuba if you can sign an x for your name you are considered literate. This is no joke. As for land reforms... he stole peoples land and if they didn't give in he shot them. I think it's probably necessary to tell you that I'm not just pulling this out of my ass nor am I some ninety year old exile in Miami but I did live there and I did have family murdered in the name of "land reforms". I understand the need for objectivity for such a project but I also think that since the man you are writing about has been controlling all media and surveys in Cuba since 1959 you should at the very least take these little factoids with a grain of salt. I also call your objectivity into question since none of the atrocities the man has perpetrated have made it into this article. I understand that many of you may have no idea since pre-Castro Cuba was before your time so you have no real point of reference as to just how rich a country both socially and economically Cuba was. But to dismiss the facts by merely stating that the regime has been controversial is in itself biased. Tell a surviving family member that the murder of their own blood was controversial. For that matter I didn't see any such statements about Adolf Hitler's "controversial actions". I guess those murders weren't so controversial. You people are writing from very safe places and I think you should remember that before you write.

I object to the use of this term because the increase can't be categorised as great. A simple look at one of the sources in the article reveals:

''The health care system is often touted by many analysts as one of the Castro government's greatest achievements. What this analysis ignores is that the revolutionary government inherited an already-advanced health sector when it took power in 1959.''

''Cuba's infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades[7].''

''Cuba&#8217;s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied.''

''In terms of physicians and dentists per capita, Cuba in 1957 ranked third in Latin America, behind only Uruguay and Argentina -- both of which were more advanced than the United States in this measure. Cuba's 128 physicians and dentists per 100,000 people in 1957 was the same as the Netherlands, and ahead of the United Kingdom (122 per 100,000 people) and Finland (96).''

Unfortunately, the UN statistical yearbook no longer publishes these statistics, so more recent comparisons are not possible, but it is completely erroneous to characterize pre-Revolutionary Cuba as backward in terms of healthcare.

''Cuba has been among the most literate countries in Latin America since well before the Castro revolution, when it ranked fourth. Since then, Cuba has increased its literacy rate from 76 to 96 percent and is tied today for second place with Chile and Costa Rica[9]. Argentina is the most literate country in Latin America. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. Panama, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Haiti -- which all ranked just behind Cuba in this indicator during the 1950's &#8211; have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms[10].''

I believe to categorise their increases as "great" in the introductory paragraph is misleading, as one would not think this is a regional trend (I was one of those to think the healthcare and literacy increase was great, and also thought it was greatest among South American and even developed countries) but a great Cuban accomplishment. As it stands, the Cuban increases in these indicators is nothing more than part of a regional trend, though you don't see pages on Colombian or Argentinian presidents mentioning "great" increases or "availability of universal healthcare", and their inclusion in the biography of Fidel Castro (above political repression) would make believe that this was a great, unique accomplishment when data displays this is not the case. Also, note that the data is mostly UN, which would contradict claims of US government bias or misinformation. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. - This should be included, or the whole "great increase" should be dropped. So should this: ''The health care system is often touted by many analysts as one of the Castro government's greatest achievements. What this analysis ignores is that the revolutionary government inherited an already-advanced health sector when it took power in 1959.'' Kapil 21:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Kapil, I have no idea what this source comes from (in the article), but this World Health Organization piece (PDF) states that:  El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * About infant mortality, my source refutes: Cuba&#8217;s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality.  Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied. Kapil 01:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Kapil, what reference is that passage from? The WHO is an authoritative source, and this is a 2005 report. CIA World Factbook says 6.6/1000 (immediately followed by Taiwan at 6.40 and the U.S. at 6.50), that's ten-fold the 60/1000 in 1959, and ten-fold is a lot (double is a lot), all these contributing factors, which I was not fully aware of &mdash;thanks for that&mdash; (nor do I discount) overall notwithstanding. El_C 02:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see above you added that this is a U.S. State Dept. source. Far from discounting it offhand, they do of course exhibit the strongest anti-Cuban bias, more so than any other country on the planet. I would tend to see a, let say a study by the, Canadian or Japanese or Spanish, etc. govts., or the WHO, as more detached &mdash; as neither enemies nor allies. El_C 03:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've done all this. Literacy doesn't just improve itself. It makes no difference that it's a "regional trend". It's not that there was something in the latinoamericano water! What you fail to understand is that Castro is not being singled out for his achievement. This article is about him, not about comparative Latin leaders! Because of your bias, you simply cannot see that. Cuba's improvements came from a relatively high base -- nowhere is this disputed. But it compares favourably with other high-base nations, as Trey Stone showed with his statistics.

And it's a misuse of statistics to quibble that countries with very poor literacy had much bigger improvements in percentage terms: if populations are the same, 1% to 3% is the same increase in terms of people who were not literate who now are as 95% to 97%, but it is obviously a much bigger percentage increase. This is absolutely elementary stuff. You are not comparing like with like.

As for infant mortality, it's of less account than you are suggesting that there are lots of abortions. Your argument seems to suggest that countries with high mortality rates are simply seeing nonviable children die. This is not generally the case (as you could easily ascertain by considering whether countries with high infant mortality lose most or even many of their infants to at-birth defects), nor is it necessarily true that no fetuses are terminated that would not, on completion of gestion, have been viable. You should note that "high-risk" pregnancies are of a high risk for a reason! It shouldn't be a surprise that they make a majority of terminations, given that the thing they are at risk of is something being wrong. Grace Note 02:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * as we have pointed out, other countries have made similar gains without command economic structures... the point is that there are different factors in increasing literacy. the fact that Cuba has a literacy rate, say, two points higher than that of Paraguay does not negate this J. Parker Stone 19:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to quote myself: ''As it stands, the Cuban increases in these indicators is nothing more than part of a regional trend, though you don't see pages on Colombian or Argentinian presidents mentioning "great" increases or "availability of universal healthcare", and their inclusion in the biography of Fidel Castro (above political repression) would make believe that this was a great, unique accomplishment when data displays this is not the case. Also, note that the data is mostly UN, which would contradict claims of US government bias or misinformation. "This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries." - This should be included, or the whole "great increase" should be dropped''. My main problem with the categorization of "great" is that it perpetuates the stereotype that the Castro government not only increased literacy and health care, but did this in historically great levels. My source clearly states this isn't so, both because other Latin American nations did (so it should be mentioned that the increases are in no way unique nor grander than the increases made in other countries in the region) and that because of this fact, comparatively, the increase really doesn't represent a trend change between Cuba pre-revolutionary times and communist times. This fact should be mentioned, once again, because it is general belief that the increases in literacy and healthcare were both immense and unique, when this clearly wasn't the case. Yes, the percentage increases were "great", but so were every other countries' (in some cases even greater), and it's a fact that should be pointed out so people don't think it's the specific case of being communist that allowed cubans to have a high literacy rate and levels of healthcare. Kapil 05:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Health care under Castro is not only way better than under batista, but it better than in the US. Cuba's infant mortality rate under Castro, and in spite of the US efforts to squeeze the life out of the country with its economic blocakade, is 6.33 / 1000 Thats way below the 1957 figure, and even better than the US(6.5). And did Batista send doctors abroad to other countries to aid them in their health programs? 32/1000 is not a good figure. On Health care in Cuba: 'In the Cuban Socialist Constitution, health care is considered a right, guaranteed to every citizen. Medical care, along with food, clothing, housing and education, is "of the highest priority". ... '. Health care is a human right rather than a product for economic profit. Therefore, all Cubans have equal access to health services, and all services are free'( Was this true under Batista? I doubt it.)

That figure of 32 / 1000 for infant mortality is made understandable, when you consider that amponst POOR(mainly black) cubans, the infant mortality rate was baout 60//1000 live births:

'The pre-revolutionary health statistics of the Cuban population were poor. The poor population who live in conditions with poor hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition, contributed to the infant mortality rate of 60 per 1000 live births, a maternal mortality rate of 125.3 per 1000 live births, a general mortality rate of 6.4 per 1000 person, and a life expectancy of 65.1 years (Nayeri, 1995). They "inherited a for-profit health care system that was plagued by political corruption, poverty, illiteracy, economic inequality, and social injustice" (Iatridis, 1990:29).'

Brian 15 August 2005.


 * That's not what the CIA World Factbook states: 6.33 per 1,000 (2005 est.). El_C 00:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Systematic repression of all [political] opposition
I wouldn't object removing the term "political" from this phrase. Here's my source: ''It is no exaggeration to state that during the 1950's, the Cuban people were among the most informed in the world, living in an uncharacteristically large media market for such a small country. Cubans had a choice of 58 daily newspapers during the late 1950's, according to the UN statistical yearbook. Despite its small size, this placed Cuba behind only Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico in the region. By 1992, government controls had reduced the number of dailies to only 17.''

''There has also been a reduction in the number of radio and television broadcasting stations, although the UN no longer reports these statistics. However, it should be noted that in 1957, Cuba had more television stations (23) than any other country in Latin America, easily outdistancing larger countries such as Mexico (12 television stations) and Venezuela (10). It also led Latin America and ranked eighth in the world in number of radio stations (160), ahead of such countries as Austria (83 radio stations), United Kingdom (62), and France (50), according to the UN statistical yearbook.''

This goes to show that whereas discussion and debate in pre-revolutionary times were among the most informed in the world, now people have to read government controlled papers (ever taken a look at the Granma? They even pick ugly photos of Castro's enemies, kinda like what anncol.org does) and the like. It's not far out to define Cuba's attitude towards plurality as "the systematic repression of all perceived opposition".

Also, to note:

Dozens of small, illegal opposition groups exist in Cuba, but have no access to the media, cannot hold public meetings and do not threaten the Communist Party's political dominance.

The internal dissident movement is generally perceived by analysts and diplomats here as relatively weak, marginalized and handicapped by both internal divisions and state control. 

Cuba's four best-known dissident prisoners - Martha Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, Felix Bonne and Rene Gomez Manzano - remain in jail without trial since July 1997.

The most decisive of all in my case for using this sentence is the following, from Human Rights Watch:

''Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces, aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile. Cuba uses these tools to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights of expression, association, and assembly. The conditions in Cuba's prisons are inhuman, and political prisoners suffer additional degrading treatment and torture. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals for reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners. To note: over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression and Cuba has added new repressive laws''. This clearly states repression, systematic repression. 

Finally, a jewel:

''The goal of the Castro regime has been to "fuse state and society."36 The two principal, overlapping instruments are the PCC, which "rules over every level of Cuban life,"37 and the Ministry of Interior (MININT). The MININT contains within it a vast, nationwide surveillance and repressive apparatus to keep the population in line. The principal departments in the MININT for exercising political and social control are the Departamento de Seguridad del Estado (DSE), Department of State Security, commonly referred to simply as "State Security," and the Departamento Técnico de Investigaciones (DTI), Department of Technical Investigations. The headquarters of State Security is housed in a former seminary in the Havana section of Villa Marista and is often referred to simply as "Villa Marista." Through the use of electronic surveillance, undercover agents and a widespread network of informants who are often coerced or blackmailed, MININT has the capability and the mandate to spy on or forcibly intrude in the lives of any citizen for any reason, anytime, anywhere. According to the U.S. Department of State:''


 * The State has assumed the right to interfere in the lives of citizens, even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.38

Human Rights Watch/Americas has described the situation this way:


 * The violation of the right of privacy is systematic and pervasive. Tight political control in Cuba is maintained through extensive monitoring of Cubans&#8217; daily lives.39

MININT, like the PCC, is deeply imbedded in the structures of the military,40 and also controls the uniformed Revolutionary National Police (PNR).

Note the use of the word "systematic", not just of political repression but of simple privacy. This means, not just political opposition, but perceived opposition, as is stated in even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.

Here's an additional source, just in case. 

Please, present your sources or desist in reverting, and unless there's some charming information against, I will change it to "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition". It's hardly my opinion, it's the verbatim opinion of various informed and respected sources. Kapil 05:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific. All states engage in repression, and what you are adding to the intro is so vague that it could conceivably be added to an intro on any world leader. Consider that most political scientists and sociologists work with the Weberian definition of the state, as an entity that claims a monopoly on violence and coercion within a given territory. States inherently engage in repression. 172 06:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you lost. You're not even making sense now. You're comparing the "monopoly on violence" with communist repression. And terms like "Weberian" don't impress me nor do they help your point. Bring forth some sources which dispute my claims or leave the article as it is, or I'll have you banned. Kapil 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you consider "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition" to be vague, then you'll have to expand it, taking into account the plethora of sources presented and the fact you now accepted it to be true. What about "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition to his iron fisted rule"? Or "The installation of a police state which constantly and systematically spies on an represses its population"? Should it be mentioned they also act upon imaginary crime? Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terms like "Weberian" don't mean anything to you because you have no idea what they mean. Grace Note 07:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they don't mean anything because they're being used to change the rules of the game when you notice you've been beaten. Everybody knows about the Weberian definition of the state, though having a monopoly on the use of force is quite different from state repression in Cuba to supress dissent. Read the sources, comment on them or stop making jibes against me, you're not gonna win the argument by making personal attacks and you might just get yourself banned. Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article already mentions that opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression. Please deal with 172's concerns, Kapil. And no, he won't be banned for removing your POV pushing. Grace Note 07:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not about how "opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression", but how Castro turned a once pluralistic society into a police state. I have displayed evidence, and 172's refutation is naïve in that it tries to dismiss Castro's repression as the state's monopoly of force, saying "every state represses". Faced with my sources, the only solution would be to enlarge the line to include mention of said police state, as this is neither my invention nor a simple display of the state's monopoly of force. Kapil 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I am not trying to do that. Quite the opposite. I was pressing you to be more specific or not to add any unnecessary verbiage to the intro at all. The fact is that what is implied with respect to repression by bringing up Cuba's transformation into a Communist state is more specific on the nature of repression under Castro's regime than the extremely vague statement that his regime engages in repression. All states engage in repression, but a single party does not monopolize power in all states... There is just no need to tell the reader what has already been established, especially when it is so vague that it could in theory be stuck in the intro on any politician. 172 07:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude, what it all boils down to is that the change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned, as it is as important (or more important) than increases in literacy and healthcare. To let it out would not be fair to the reader, as the Castro presidency has engaged in repression, independent of this being in the definition of a communist country or not. Yes, people can follow the wiki hyperlink, but why should the increases in literacy and healthcare have introductory paragraph mention when a change which is as important (political repression) is not mentioned as it is mentioned elsewhere? Also, in-depth mention of the political structure of Cuba and its changes under the Castro regime are further down in the article, but that's exactly what an introductory paragraph should do - introduce the changes under his presidency, which include the political clampdown. That this is obvious is not entirely true, though I maintain it is worthy of mention, considering that publishing one positive fact but leaving out another equally important, negative fact (in the first paragraph, the one most people read and the one summarizing the contents of the article) does not contribute to neutrality, regardless of the reason being a completely neutral one (wiki readability/redundancy). Kapil 07:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lengthy response, what I'm saying is basically that removing mention of political repression (or however you want to call it), though it does serve a legitimate purpose (to remove wordiness/redundancy) disbalances the first line of the article. That's my complaint. Kapil 07:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned Uh, that's not going to fly anywhere, barring journals of hardline Cuban American exile groups... For now, what you keep on adding is just redundant, regardless of whether or not someone considers "repression" legitimate. But if you can think of something that adds to the intro in content and not just verbiage, it will be, of course, considered. 172 07:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe your mention of "verbiage" would seem to be selective, seeing as how the increases in healthcare and literacy are also mentioned further down the page. I would propose to include "his presidency has seen ... the implementation of repressive state policies hostile towards real and perceived opposition to his rule (common to other communist countries previously aligned to the Soviet Union)". Yes, wordy, but something to that effect, as balance is desperately needed in the introduction. Kapil 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the content on health and education is down the page. The point of an intro is to establish broad themes that will be elaborated on down the article. 172 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "Human Rights and Under Castro's Leadership", one of the themes elaborated on down the article, is not even mentioned. It reads: Many argue that several thousand unjustified deaths have occurred under Castro's decades-long rule. Some Cubans have been labeled "counterrevolutionaries", "fascists", or "CIA operatives", and imprisoned in extremely poor conditions without trial; some have been summarily executed. The level of political control in Cuba has relaxed somewhat since the USSR's collapse, but some people still view Castro as presiding over a totalitarian state. Kapil 08:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to play devil's advocate for the sake of keeping us focused on NPOV, one could bring up that criticisms of (say) Colombia's human rights record would seem even more egregious. And someone could also bring up that prison is a far more prominent institution here in the U.S. than in Cuba. The U.S. incarcerates five to eight times more of its people per capita than other rich industrialized countries, and possibly has the world's highest per capita prison in the world, much higher than Cuba's. 172 08:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is, we're not talking about Colombia, we're talking about Cuba. I'm pretty sure (willing to bet) that human rights worries are mentioned in the Colombia page. Independently, prison conditions in the US are monitored (except for Guantanamo) by international bodies and stuff. We know what's going on in a US prison, and even if there's lots of prisoners, they're subjected to minimum standards. In Cuba, prisons are unmonitored and according to some of the stuff I have read (if you want I can research about it and post it here), pretty spooky shit. But, even if conditions in US prisons were as appalling or whatever, it should be mentioned in the US page and should not remove mention from this page. Also, the US holds people for petty crimes (stealing a car? vandalism?) whereas Cuba holds people for their political beliefs (political prisoners) which is a far graver matter independently of if per capita cuban prison population is smaller than that in the US. Kapil 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * the difference is that Cuba has not been facing a 50-year old insurgency and we are not talking about criminals, we are talking about political prisoners. J. Parker Stone 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, El C, you might find these Monthly Review articles interesting if you haven't seen them already.  172 08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to give Kapil my take on some of the concerns listed above on his talk page. I am hopeful that with such dialogue all the participants will be able to establish consensus with him rather than against him. El_C 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the talk page, 172. It was becoming a bit too scorlly, and there were too many issues that were seemingly resolved or redundant. Some items do seem a bit too recent though. I don't really mind myself, but to Kapil: if you wish to restore any parts of the recently archived material, please feel free to do so, or I can do it for you if you like (the last thing I want to see is a new dispute over archiving). El_C 08:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say you're welcome, but I didn't archive it. I guess Grace did. Anyway, it timely, considering how unwieldy the page was getting. 172 08:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Soggy about that! El_C 08:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I archived it :) Kapil 01:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahah! We were close, but way off! :D El_C 02:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172 is arguing semantics... this concept of "inherent repression" has nothing to do with whether or not a state actively stifles dissent, which Cuba does, while democracies like the U.S. don't, despite having a "monopoly" on repression. By this logic we should just say military juntas are military juntas and leave it at that since most of them have involved violations of basic rights J. Parker Stone 08:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1959 America and 1959 Cuba
You guys really don't want to get this article involved in comparing Cuba now versus before Castro. Everything is too changed. In USA back then Blacks were systematicly discriminated against. Lynchings occurred and the Congress refused to act. Strange Fruit indeed. Before Castro, Cuba was a kleptocracy with American mobsters running drugs, prostitution, and everything else. Health and Education were a joke. Castro is one of the best of the communist dictators. Some think America drove him into soviet arms with our behavior. I've seen USA sourced statistics showing better health care for the poor in Cuba than America. Casro has done both good and bad. He'll be dead soon and we'll "help" a new government replace the existing dictatorship machinery (so that they, like us, can have the best government money can buy). 4.250.168.126 08:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Health and Education were a joke - Health and education were among the highest in the world, and they certainly were better than in other Latin American countries. Read some of the sources, they repeatedly say so. Kapil 17:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from what i've read, the healthcare system was far from catastrophic like the Castro regime likely portrays it as (just like everything else in the 1933-59 era) but services in rural areas were generally lacking. J. Parker Stone 08:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop copying old versions from a text editor or from old diffs, you are erasing any new contributions and I am currently treating your actions as vandalism, which you may be blocked for, though I won't be doing the blocking because it would always look politically motivated, even when warranted. Those are the given conditions. Anyway, as I cited in thw WHO 2005 report, infant mortality was at 60/1000 in 1959 (yes, significantly lower than Haiti's 73/1000 today), today it is at 6/1000. That's a tenfold drop, which by any measure, is a lot (double is a lot). I've already said all this. Sigh. Anyway, this argument seems redundant, not sure what purpose it serves. El_C 08:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * i don't see how this negates any of what i said. i never said Cuba didn't make progress in healthcare. the issue is how much of it is due to natural developments (as may've been seen in other developing countries) and how much of it is due to state investment. J. Parker Stone 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Trey was blocked by Neutrality and he's out on an extremely short leash. He has been blocked for six hours to slow down this kamikaze edit warring he's started up since I unblocked him just a few minutes ago.  He knows that if he does this again I'll just restore Neutrality's indefinite block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (in)definite block. El_C 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the current revision by Trey Stone. It's the least biased of all the versions because it mentions the police state apparatus. Any final version must contain mention of this in the introducion. Kapil 19:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Trey Stone. If 172 feels it has "excessive verbiage" he better come up with another version which is not as unbalanced to Castro's opponents, though not the euphemistic one he constantly reverts to. If not, I'll just have to revert every chance I get. Sorry, but we have a legitimate point of view and we really don't need to convince 172, no matter how rude he is with his "excessive verbiage" and "POV vandalism" claims. Kapil 23:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions
State your reasons for removing the political repression phrase, create ones of your own or stop reverting. Kapil 00:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I did, on your talk page. You never got back to me though. El_C 00:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it, but I don't agree with it: In communist countries, healthcare is by definition public, therefore (and by definition), universally available. Why should availability of healthcare be mentioned in the introduction, then, if it's obvious? Isn't this also "excessive verbiage" and "redundancy"? The point is, for the sake of balancing out the introduction, what Castro did must be mentioned. That the state's repressive machinery was laid down by his orders during his tenure, is something worthy of being mentioned, as it is more important than the healthcare and literacy advances. Of course, it can be redundant, but then again, for the sake of not being redundant the introduction makes it look as if Fidel Castro is not a dictator, but a healthcare-giving literacy-hiking genius. Also, even if this is in some way obvious (I still maintain it is not), this article talks about his life's work, which includes creating a police state. Therefore it should be mentioned somehow, possibly with a link to "human rights concerns in communist countries" or something of the like, but it shouldn't be let entirely to the user's common sense (many people don't have one). It should be mentioned that he helped build the repressive apparatus that makes his kinda state possible, even if this is by some stretch of the imagination "redundant". Mentioning political repression, police state stuff and the like in one phrase is not redundancy, it would be if an entire paragraph were devoted to it. It's important, and to omit it breaks the balance of the introduction and therefore of the entire article. Kapil 01:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather, scratch that. This is not for the sake of balance in the introduction, this is for the sake of factual accuracy. You can't mention Idi Amin was a dictator then omit an explanation of his actions claiming he did what most dictators do (bad example, I know, but you get my point). Yes, Castro turned Cuba into a communist state. But the user must know how he did this, what exactly he created, what's the result of his life's work. One of the results of his life's work is that now Cuba is a police state where people get harrassed because of a paranoid central machine. So this should be posted. This is unfortunately common to communism, sure, but even so, it should be mentioned and in no way constitutes verbiage nor redundancy. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier, it should be noted due to the dramatic impact it has had as seen in various demographic indictaors (see WHO 2005 report; tenfold drop in infant mortality, literacy rate improvements being "remarkable," et cetera, etc.). As I also argued, a Communist party, by definition, represses political opposition; this is wikilinked, and as such, it is reduandant and actually hinders the flow of the lead. El_C 01:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Then why shouldn't the construction of a monolithical central repressive police state apparatus be noted if it had an even more dramatic impact in various other indicators (freedom of press, freedom of speech, number of political prisoners, Cuba's pariah status, etc)? It's the exact same thing. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I also maintain that it doesn't hinder readability, and is worth having. Why should your point of view on this be considered over mine? Moreover, why shouldn't a small readability "bump" be permitted for the sake of factual accuracy? Kapil 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * i trust we'll able the same "standard" to military juntas, almost all of which have engaged in basic violations of human rights and been hostile to political activity? J. Parker Stone 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your claim that it had more of a dramatic impact on those things (viz. the Batista regime), Kapil, I tend to view as your opinion. El_C 01:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Undoubtedly. But if you consider it to have had less of a dramatic impact, it's also an opinion. It's of equal importance. Kapil 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * the problem is that you guys want a view of Cuba in the intro that is not supported by the majority of the Western world or even several previously sympathetic third world governments... Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) the fact that you guys think it shouldn't be this way does not change things.


 * and no Che, it is not a matter of opinion. Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. J. Parker Stone 01:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Whereas I don't agree with Trey's calling you "Che", I agree almost wholeheartedly with his statement. Especially the following: Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) To claim otherwise is just not true. Also, the following: Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. Those aren't opinions, or rather, to claim otherwise would also be an opinion call (therefore both sides of the story should be included). Kapil 01:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, Batista never had the enemies Castro has. The US government is permanently trying to undermine the communist government of Cuba. Castro would be gone by now if the US had never declared war on him. US makes Castro stronger by opposing him. US gives him the right excuse.--tequendamia 11:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Kapil 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As beggars like to say in Latin America
"We are hungry, don't have clothes, don't have shoes, don't have teeth, don't have opportunities, but we are free carajo!" unsigned comment by User:Tequendamia. &mdash; Chameleon 13:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No they don't. Kapil 02:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * you are aware that Cuba itself is suffering from severe consumer shortages, including food...? J. Parker Stone 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Has Tequendamia known any homeless people in Latin America? I agree with Kapil, SqueakBox 03:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 03:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Beggars, when they talk of freedom, are talking in spite of governments, not because of them. The idea that a beggar saying they are free thanks to some government which gives them this freedom to be a beggar is clearly well off the mark, SqueakBox 15:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about?! We are NOT beggars you little pinga! Listen, all you people have the wrong idea. Castro's government is a dictatorship, and he did excute and imprison thousands of political prisoners. Castro may not have always claimed to be a communist, but he did always have communist ideals. And, he did remove other groups quickly and violently! Didn't it even say in the article that Fidel made Cuba an atheist state? People weren't allowed to celebrate Christmas, or own land! Now, before you start telling me how wrong I am, and how biased I am, let me respond with this: I am Cuban, My parents are Cuban, My grandparents are Cuban, many of my relatives are still in Cuba, at least three of my relatives were or are in jail for being "anti-castro", and we are proud Americans. You may call me biased and angry, but really, are you saying YOU aren't biased? Saying that Castro is "just a different political idealogy" and that "Cuba isn't that bad" when you have never seen the way people live, and you are denouncing anyone else who says different or was actually there? By the way, Cuba is as bad as he says, so your "beggars" can't be choosers! Just because the hospitals and education is free, doesn't mean the people aren't poor, or starving, or dying, or are being "silenced". Please, just try to take the facts and not denounce them for your fantasies. In closing, I do ask that the article is reverted to it's previous form, of so-called "anti-communist bias" because I want the truth to be there, and not just the absence of it because some people don't want to face it. Thank You.


 * oooh!

Protection
I've unprotected the page. The dispute behind the revert war it was protected for doesn't seem to have progressed since then, but then, we're not going to penalize all users because a few seem to have trouble containing their, ahem, enthusiasm. Please use the talk page to discuss changes, not the edit summaries in reverts. See Resolving disputes and ask the mediation cabal if you can't seem to reach agreement. Anyone who persistently reverts risks breaking the three-revert rule and getting a 24-hour block, which is not what you want. JRM · Talk 10:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Response to 172's continued RVing
Fidel Castro is known in the West for his attitude toward democracy and political opponents much moreso than his achievements in healthcare or literacy. This info is no more "POV verbiage" than the aforementioned positive info, and both should be included.

As I have said, military dictatorships frequently abuse human rights, but that is not cause for removing info about said dictators' human rights violations as "POV verbiage." the same applies here. J. Parker Stone 08:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 100% behind you. Kapil 17:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My 2p worth. We are not creating an encyclopedia for western people; indeed we must avoid western centrism. Here in CA he is known for his healthcare programmes, but not the literacy campaigns, because people here have benefitted form the health care, especially in terms of offering training. The Americans also come here to help poor people with health issues, but you have to be rich to study medicine in the States, whereas that is not the case to study in Cuba, SqueakBox 15:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Intro
There is no reason to replace the version of the intro mentioning the suppression of opposition parties with Trey Stone's verbose reference to the 'creation of the centralized state apparatus that systematically engages in repression.' What does he even mean by "systematically" anyway? He just seems to have a fetish for that word. 172 08:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * you mean like you have a fetish for RVing any info that might damage the reputation of el lider maximo?


 * systematically means... exactly what it means J. Parker Stone 08:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * and if you think it's "verbiose" (speaking of "fetishes") then feel free to edit in a less verbiose reference to the issue, rather than censoring it out entirely so it only mentions his glorious contributions to Cuban health and literacy. J. Parker Stone 08:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * i mean one that actually makes it noticeable, rather than putting it in with a laundry list of his economic reforms when it's a totally different issue. J. Parker Stone 08:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I have provided sources which say what you do almost verbatim. So don't worry, 172's reversions aren't useful at all, they're extremely annoying and I'll support you in the current revision (the one with mention of systematic repression), independent of what 172 may say (as we don't need his permission in any perceivable way to do our reversions, as I provided sources and he didn't). Kapil 17:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure, I'll couple my line with lines from sources (HRW and the like, as I posted above): he has prohibited opposition parties -> No need for a quote, we all know this, the constitution says it. and created a strong, centralized state apparatus that systematically represses suspected political opposition -> The MININT contains within it a vast, nationwide surveillance and repressive apparatus to keep the population in line. and The violation of the right of privacy is systematic and pervasive. Tight political control in Cuba is maintained through extensive monitoring of Cubans&#8217; daily lives.
 * Please remind me of the 9th word in the last quote? That's right. I'm quoting verbatim. So stop reserving for yourselves the right to revert informed, sourced editions. Kapil 18:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * i don't know, 172 seems deadset on RVing this nonstop with the excuse of "verbiage" (funny how it only applies to the negative aspects) J. Parker Stone 22:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't care, I'll keep rving until 172 can interact like a normal person and give reasons to constantly be reverting my informed, sourced changes. Kapil 04:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd source the HRW link in the intro. To 172, do you think it's cute to tuck "suspended opposition parties" in with a list of his economic policies? J. Parker Stone 04:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Cuba has received far more international attention for its human rights practices than several other countries under Communist rule, anyhow. J. Parker Stone 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection
I have protected the page, and I'm loath to unprotect it until a consensus introduction has been hammered out. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here == Provided universal healthcare?? ==

Castro oppresses healthcare workers, refusing to let them emigrate. It is these and other oppressed workers who are violently restricted from emmigrating that "provide" the services. He has turned Cuba into a gulag. Castro deserves no credit for the health care or "low cost" he "achieves" through oppression of labor. Essentially everyone in Cuba is a prisoner who is not privleged to rule.--Silverback 12:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please understand that the revloutionary leaders of cuba are Fidel, Raul, and Che. Guess what Che was. A doctor. You must understand that this was a revolution of the time, for that split second in history there could have been a revolution in cuba. And it happened. What im getting to is that everyone of the passengers abord the Gramma were very close. If you knew/know the story of the revolution, you would know that after the landing 12 people regrouped in the moutains of southern cuba. From those 12 they won the revolution against a modern military. As they fought together they all became as brothers for the socalist cause, giving up indivdualism.
 * Che helped modernize cuba, not only industrialzation but health care as well. He created the univesal healthcare. And after he died Fidel withheld it to Che's wishes. So fidel is not the provider of universal healthcare, but he deserves cridet for his role.
 * Sorces(che: a revoultionary life, and Modern cuba)


 * Anonymous one, you don't address the point, as an MD, Che could provide health care to only a few, he used labor that was prevented from emmigrating by force, to provide cheap health care to all. By using such means, and Castro's failure to protect the rights of the Cuban people, neither deserves any credit for the healthcare system, and certainly any glowing mention should be balanced with the severe violations of human rights that enabled it.--Silverback 07:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

-- obviously, Silverback has never been to Cuba.

They dont let people go out for economical reassons. First take in consideration that Cuba is actually a really poor country, then take in consideration that education is completely free (and one of the best in the world also).

its not very good business for the state that after they have becomed doctors, they would flee the country. (the main reasson obviously is because they could make far more money elsewhere than in Cuba).

please document specifics of the criticisms
Could whomever put the statements about Castro calling corporations exploitive, and criticising the state of US public health care please be specific and cite sources. These are pretty meaningless statements. What behavior, by which corporations does he consider exploitive? What aspects of the state of US public health care does he criticise, does he oppose kidney transplants or what?--Silverback June 28, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
 * while i don't really agree with your edits, i'd note that 172's Mexico:Cuba analogy is not exactly...exact. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:02 (UTC)
 * I do see some of the irony, although I don't know why he mentions Fox. As a person who would love to emmigrate to Mexico if it weren't for the risks of kidnapping for ransom, and armed shakedowns on the highways, and restrictions on property ownership by foreigners, I find current US policy misguided. It should focus more on why Mexicans want to leave, and why more US citizens aren't balancing the flow of people by emmigrating. The question here, is why does Castro want to repress emmigration, if not to maintain the capitivity that leaves him with labor to exploit at below market, in fact, barely above subsistence rates. --Silverback June 28, 2005 09:48 (UTC)


 * My point was not to compare Mexico and Cuba but to comment on the vagueness of the writing that I had removed. The note on the "suppression of emigration and those trying to escape" could also hypothetically describe policies that the U.S. pressures Mexico to enforce in order to reduce illegal immigration. Because the situations are not comparable, though poverty is a major force behind the migrations from both Cuba and Mexico, the wording was problematic, being so vague that it could describe both Cuba and Mexico... Further, this topic is already addressed by the sentence on the mass exodus of the Middle class and the rise of the Cuban exile community in South Florida-- a sentence that is more concrete and less confusing. 172 28 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)

My old, senile great aunt was just executed as being "no longer a contributing member of Cuba," meaning she was in her 80s; so I will gladly be a first-hand source of the Hitlerian atrocities of Castro. They didn't execute her per se, they sent her family a letter saying that the government wasn't allotting enough food for her, so they should do what they felt was in the best interest of the nation. At that point they locked her out in the cold to scratch at the door until she died. Feel free to contact me if you need someone to say this aloud on the radio, 'cause I'm pretty sad about it. mrcolj 17 July 2005 22:28 (MST)

Archive 1 -- Archive 2 -- Archive 3 -- Archive 4

Dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista
One of the most anti-Castro sites on the net, usembassy.state.gov/havana titles it "the Batista dictatorship." El_C 15:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but apparently there's been a Wikipedia determination that "dictator" is pejorative. Otherwise I would insist that Batista and Castro be referred to as dictators.  Also, please consider what an easy target you're making yourself to the right-wingers here by calling for Batista to be called a dictator and Castro not.  It looks uneven to me, and to them, this is red-hot ammo that you're giving them. --Rroser167 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a target regardless of what I say or do. I haven't read this article closely (I only came here at request to look at one specific issue). I was neither aware that Castro wasn't called a dictator, nor was I privy to this decision. Sorry for wasting your time. El_C 17:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No apologies are necessary. I was not privy to the decision, either, yet it appears to be gospel.  Don't say that you're a target no matter what; it sounds like a persecution complex, kind of like some others that I've seen. --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I will think it, not without some basis! :D El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following is the definition of dictator: in modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch). I don't know the historical facts about Fulgencio Batista (other than the fact that he was the democratically elected president of Cuba for a while). Fidel Castro is absolutist in the sense that he exerts unlimited personal power over the politics of his country, opposition to communism is illegal (personified by himself) and he leads the Council of State, which is the supreme authority in the country, though he doesn't exert sole power over the state (at least on paper). Kapil 18:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll reassert my opinion that both Castro and Batista should be referred to as dictators. By the way, Kapil, I would have been able to support more of your arguments if you covered your personal sympathies better.  Saying that you don't know anything about Batista except that "he was the democratically elected president of Cuba for a while" seems disingenuous.  --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * General Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar (January 16, 1901 &#8211; August 6, 1973) was the de facto leader of Cuba from 1933 to 1940 and the country's official president from 1940 to 1944 and again from 1952 to 1959. -> That's what I meant. I don't know if he was an actual dictator, but I do know he was at least president for two terms.


 * You misunderstand me. I knew what you meant, but I'm also sure that this doesn't represent your total knowledge of Batista.  For instance, surely you've heard that the second term was achieved by coup.  I understand that you feel that Wikipedia has many left-wing editors, and that because of this, you think the proper thing to do is to bring balance by being an advocate for the right.    'sokay, I'm not frothing about it.  --Rroser167 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know anything about Batista other than the fact he's had power both by democratic and non-democratic means. That's why I'm requesting other user's contributions on this. Kapil 20:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to summit readers of this talk to the excelent book "Bertillón 166" of José Soler Puig, a cuban writer. That book may illustrate you about the popular meaning of "dictator" and "State of Terror". It was wrote in the regimen of Fulgencio Batista, but I think it's not a pure Cuban heritage, but also a common point in many latinoamerican countries.

Castro photo
My two cents: this picture is composed in a severely dramatic fashion - making it a lightning rod for criticism that this page is not neutral. Surely someone can come up with a more appropriate portrait. --Rroser167 16:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How about: ? Or ? --Rroser167 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first one looks rather demonic, the 2nd looks like he's picking his nose almost. I appreciate the point you make about the background and overtone (though I don't view is as that much of issue really), but I want to find a more neutral-looking image (of his face) in that sense. El_C 17:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with El C... Where does everyone keep finding these horrible Castro photos? Outside Wikipedia I rarely see such bad photos of him. For example, it's odd that in just about every AP photo of Castro taken in recent weeks, Castro looks so much younger and healthier. 172 19:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you think of ? Kapil 19:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Funny how the objections to the red star photo, which made us look for an alternative one, were made primarily by Grace Note (the one who keeps reverting to it now). I don't object to the red star photo if everyone else wants to leave it there. Kapil 18:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I understand that this is a very minor issue, so if there is no opposition, I won't keep cryin' about it. I'm a little surprised that you're not opposed to it, Kapil, but I guess the big red star in the background may have sealed the deal for you.  Cool.   --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The first one is a bit weird, he looks like he's having a stroke. The second one's a bit blurry. How about ? Looks neutral and serious. Wouldn't object to the red star one, but I like this one better. Kapil 19:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I find Kapil's image to be a good compromise, I just wish we can find a higher quality version of it. I have no objections to using it in the lead. What do you think, 172? El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not bad, but it's quite small and would be blurry if it were enlarged. 172 06:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The introductory photo looks quite menacing; definitely not an objective start to a complex article, though I personally am not bothered by the other photos. grapeflux

"Great" healthcare and literacy increases
I object to the use of this term because the increase can't be categorised as great. A simple look at one of the sources in the article reveals:

''The health care system is often touted by many analysts as one of the Castro government's greatest achievements. What this analysis ignores is that the revolutionary government inherited an already-advanced health sector when it took power in 1959.''

''Cuba's infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades[7].''

''Cuba&#8217;s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied.''

''In terms of physicians and dentists per capita, Cuba in 1957 ranked third in Latin America, behind only Uruguay and Argentina -- both of which were more advanced than the United States in this measure. Cuba's 128 physicians and dentists per 100,000 people in 1957 was the same as the Netherlands, and ahead of the United Kingdom (122 per 100,000 people) and Finland (96).''

Unfortunately, the UN statistical yearbook no longer publishes these statistics, so more recent comparisons are not possible, but it is completely erroneous to characterize pre-Revolutionary Cuba as backward in terms of healthcare.

''Cuba has been among the most literate countries in Latin America since well before the Castro revolution, when it ranked fourth. Since then, Cuba has increased its literacy rate from 76 to 96 percent and is tied today for second place with Chile and Costa Rica[9]. Argentina is the most literate country in Latin America. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. Panama, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Haiti -- which all ranked just behind Cuba in this indicator during the 1950's &#8211; have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms[10].''

I believe to categorise their increases as "great" in the introductory paragraph is misleading, as one would not think this is a regional trend (I was one of those to think the healthcare and literacy increase was great, and also thought it was greatest among South American and even developed countries) but a great Cuban accomplishment. As it stands, the Cuban increases in these indicators is nothing more than part of a regional trend, though you don't see pages on Colombian or Argentinian presidents mentioning "great" increases or "availability of universal healthcare", and their inclusion in the biography of Fidel Castro (above political repression) would make believe that this was a great, unique accomplishment when data displays this is not the case. Also, note that the data is mostly UN, which would contradict claims of US government bias or misinformation. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. - This should be included, or the whole "great increase" should be dropped. So should this: ''The health care system is often touted by many analysts as one of the Castro government's greatest achievements. What this analysis ignores is that the revolutionary government inherited an already-advanced health sector when it took power in 1959.'' Kapil 21:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Kapil, I have no idea what this source comes from (in the article), but this World Health Organization piece (PDF) states that:  El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * About infant mortality, my source refutes: Cuba&#8217;s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality.  Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied. Kapil 01:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Kapil, what reference is that passage from? The WHO is an authoritative source, and this is a 2005 report. CIA World Factbook says 6.6/1000 (immediately followed by Taiwan at 6.40 and the U.S. at 6.50), that's ten-fold the 60/1000 in 1959, and ten-fold is a lot (double is a lot), all these contributing factors, which I was not fully aware of &mdash;thanks for that&mdash; (nor do I discount) overall notwithstanding. El_C 02:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see above you added that this is a U.S. State Dept. source. Far from discounting it offhand, they do of course exhibit the strongest anti-Cuban bias, more so than any other country on the planet. I would tend to see a, let say a study by the, Canadian or Japanese or Spanish, etc. govts., or the WHO, as more detached &mdash; as neither enemies nor allies. El_C 03:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've done all this. Literacy doesn't just improve itself. It makes no difference that it's a "regional trend". It's not that there was something in the latinoamericano water! What you fail to understand is that Castro is not being singled out for his achievement. This article is about him, not about comparative Latin leaders! Because of your bias, you simply cannot see that. Cuba's improvements came from a relatively high base -- nowhere is this disputed. But it compares favourably with other high-base nations, as Trey Stone showed with his statistics.

And it's a misuse of statistics to quibble that countries with very poor literacy had much bigger improvements in percentage terms: if populations are the same, 1% to 3% is the same increase in terms of people who were not literate who now are as 95% to 97%, but it is obviously a much bigger percentage increase. This is absolutely elementary stuff. You are not comparing like with like.

As for infant mortality, it's of less account than you are suggesting that there are lots of abortions. Your argument seems to suggest that countries with high mortality rates are simply seeing nonviable children die. This is not generally the case (as you could easily ascertain by considering whether countries with high infant mortality lose most or even many of their infants to at-birth defects), nor is it necessarily true that no fetuses are terminated that would not, on completion of gestion, have been viable. You should note that "high-risk" pregnancies are of a high risk for a reason! It shouldn't be a surprise that they make a majority of terminations, given that the thing they are at risk of is something being wrong. Grace Note 02:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * as we have pointed out, other countries have made similar gains without command economic structures... the point is that there are different factors in increasing literacy. the fact that Cuba has a literacy rate, say, two points higher than that of Paraguay does not negate this J. Parker Stone 19:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to quote myself: ''As it stands, the Cuban increases in these indicators is nothing more than part of a regional trend, though you don't see pages on Colombian or Argentinian presidents mentioning "great" increases or "availability of universal healthcare", and their inclusion in the biography of Fidel Castro (above political repression) would make believe that this was a great, unique accomplishment when data displays this is not the case. Also, note that the data is mostly UN, which would contradict claims of US government bias or misinformation. "This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries." - This should be included, or the whole "great increase" should be dropped''. My main problem with the categorization of "great" is that it perpetuates the stereotype that the Castro government not only increased literacy and health care, but did this in historically great levels. My source clearly states this isn't so, both because other Latin American nations did (so it should be mentioned that the increases are in no way unique nor grander than the increases made in other countries in the region) and that because of this fact, comparatively, the increase really doesn't represent a trend change between Cuba pre-revolutionary times and communist times. This fact should be mentioned, once again, because it is general belief that the increases in literacy and healthcare were both immense and unique, when this clearly wasn't the case. Yes, the percentage increases were "great", but so were every other countries' (in some cases even greater), and it's a fact that should be pointed out so people don't think it's the specific case of being communist that allowed cubans to have a high literacy rate and levels of healthcare. Kapil 05:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Its actually much better than the one in the united states (mainly because its free and really advanced). Cuban medicine is the field of some of the most advanced medical investigations. Examples of this is a "vaccine" for diabetics that you have to inject it only once every 6 months (wether if it works for all cases of diabetes, im not sure), or how they are developing a vaccine for cancer based on the poison of a scorpion. All of those things are miles ahead from American medicine.

Systematic repression of all [political] opposition
I wouldn't object removing the term "political" from this phrase. Here's my source: ''It is no exaggeration to state that during the 1950's, the Cuban people were among the most informed in the world, living in an uncharacteristically large media market for such a small country. Cubans had a choice of 58 daily newspapers during the late 1950's, according to the UN statistical yearbook. Despite its small size, this placed Cuba behind only Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico in the region. By 1992, government controls had reduced the number of dailies to only 17.''

''There has also been a reduction in the number of radio and television broadcasting stations, although the UN no longer reports these statistics. However, it should be noted that in 1957, Cuba had more television stations (23) than any other country in Latin America, easily outdistancing larger countries such as Mexico (12 television stations) and Venezuela (10). It also led Latin America and ranked eighth in the world in number of radio stations (160), ahead of such countries as Austria (83 radio stations), United Kingdom (62), and France (50), according to the UN statistical yearbook.''

This goes to show that whereas discussion and debate in pre-revolutionary times were among the most informed in the world, now people have to read government controlled papers (ever taken a look at the Granma? They even pick ugly photos of Castro's enemies, kinda like what anncol.org does) and the like. It's not far out to define Cuba's attitude towards plurality as "the systematic repression of all perceived opposition".

Also, to note:

Dozens of small, illegal opposition groups exist in Cuba, but have no access to the media, cannot hold public meetings and do not threaten the Communist Party's political dominance.

The internal dissident movement is generally perceived by analysts and diplomats here as relatively weak, marginalized and handicapped by both internal divisions and state control. 

Cuba's four best-known dissident prisoners - Martha Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, Felix Bonne and Rene Gomez Manzano - remain in jail without trial since July 1997.

The most decisive of all in my case for using this sentence is the following, from Human Rights Watch:

''Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces, aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile. Cuba uses these tools to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights of expression, association, and assembly. The conditions in Cuba's prisons are inhuman, and political prisoners suffer additional degrading treatment and torture. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals for reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners. To note: over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression and Cuba has added new repressive laws''. This clearly states repression, systematic repression. 

Finally, a jewel:

''The goal of the Castro regime has been to "fuse state and society."36 The two principal, overlapping instruments are the PCC, which "rules over every level of Cuban life,"37 and the Ministry of Interior (MININT). The MININT contains within it a vast, nationwide surveillance and repressive apparatus to keep the population in line. The principal departments in the MININT for exercising political and social control are the Departamento de Seguridad del Estado (DSE), Department of State Security, commonly referred to simply as "State Security," and the Departamento Técnico de Investigaciones (DTI), Department of Technical Investigations. The headquarters of State Security is housed in a former seminary in the Havana section of Villa Marista and is often referred to simply as "Villa Marista." Through the use of electronic surveillance, undercover agents and a widespread network of informants who are often coerced or blackmailed, MININT has the capability and the mandate to spy on or forcibly intrude in the lives of any citizen for any reason, anytime, anywhere. According to the U.S. Department of State:''


 * The State has assumed the right to interfere in the lives of citizens, even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.38

Human Rights Watch/Americas has described the situation this way:


 * The violation of the right of privacy is systematic and pervasive. Tight political control in Cuba is maintained through extensive monitoring of Cubans&#8217; daily lives.39

MININT, like the PCC, is deeply imbedded in the structures of the military,40 and also controls the uniformed Revolutionary National Police (PNR).

Note the use of the word "systematic", not just of political repression but of simple privacy. This means, not just political opposition, but perceived opposition, as is stated in even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.

Here's an additional source, just in case. 

Please, present your sources or desist in reverting, and unless there's some charming information against, I will change it to "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition". It's hardly my opinion, it's the verbatim opinion of various informed and respected sources. Kapil 05:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific. All states engage in repression, and what you are adding to the intro is so vague that it could conceivably be added to an intro on any world leader. Consider that most political scientists and sociologists work with the Weberian definition of the state, as an entity that claims a monopoly on violence and coercion within a given territory. States inherently engage in repression. 172 06:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you lost. You're not even making sense now. You're comparing the "monopoly on violence" with communist repression. And terms like "Weberian" don't impress me nor do they help your point. Bring forth some sources which dispute my claims or leave the article as it is, or I'll have you banned. Kapil 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you consider "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition" to be vague, then you'll have to expand it, taking into account the plethora of sources presented and the fact you now accepted it to be true. What about "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition to his iron fisted rule"? Or "The installation of a police state which constantly and systematically spies on an represses its population"? Should it be mentioned they also act upon imaginary crime? Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terms like "Weberian" don't mean anything to you because you have no idea what they mean. Grace Note 07:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they don't mean anything because they're being used to change the rules of the game when you notice you've been beaten. Everybody knows about the Weberian definition of the state, though having a monopoly on the use of force is quite different from state repression in Cuba to supress dissent. Read the sources, comment on them or stop making jibes against me, you're not gonna win the argument by making personal attacks and you might just get yourself banned. Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article already mentions that opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression. Please deal with 172's concerns, Kapil. And no, he won't be banned for removing your POV pushing. Grace Note 07:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not about how "opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression", but how Castro turned a once pluralistic society into a police state. I have displayed evidence, and 172's refutation is naïve in that it tries to dismiss Castro's repression as the state's monopoly of force, saying "every state represses". Faced with my sources, the only solution would be to enlarge the line to include mention of said police state, as this is neither my invention nor a simple display of the state's monopoly of force. Kapil 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I am not trying to do that. Quite the opposite. I was pressing you to be more specific or not to add any unnecessary verbiage to the intro at all. The fact is that what is implied with respect to repression by bringing up Cuba's transformation into a Communist state is more specific on the nature of repression under Castro's regime than the extremely vague statement that his regime engages in repression. All states engage in repression, but a single party does not monopolize power in all states... There is just no need to tell the reader what has already been established, especially when it is so vague that it could in theory be stuck in the intro on any politician. 172 07:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude, what it all boils down to is that the change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned, as it is as important (or more important) than increases in literacy and healthcare. To let it out would not be fair to the reader, as the Castro presidency has engaged in repression, independent of this being in the definition of a communist country or not. Yes, people can follow the wiki hyperlink, but why should the increases in literacy and healthcare have introductory paragraph mention when a change which is as important (political repression) is not mentioned as it is mentioned elsewhere? Also, in-depth mention of the political structure of Cuba and its changes under the Castro regime are further down in the article, but that's exactly what an introductory paragraph should do - introduce the changes under his presidency, which include the political clampdown. That this is obvious is not entirely true, though I maintain it is worthy of mention, considering that publishing one positive fact but leaving out another equally important, negative fact (in the first paragraph, the one most people read and the one summarizing the contents of the article) does not contribute to neutrality, regardless of the reason being a completely neutral one (wiki readability/redundancy). Kapil 07:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lengthy response, what I'm saying is basically that removing mention of political repression (or however you want to call it), though it does serve a legitimate purpose (to remove wordiness/redundancy) disbalances the first line of the article. That's my complaint. Kapil 07:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned Uh, that's not going to fly anywhere, barring journals of hardline Cuban American exile groups... For now, what you keep on adding is just redundant, regardless of whether or not someone considers "repression" legitimate. But if you can think of something that adds to the intro in content and not just verbiage, it will be, of course, considered. 172 07:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe your mention of "verbiage" would seem to be selective, seeing as how the increases in healthcare and literacy are also mentioned further down the page. I would propose to include "his presidency has seen ... the implementation of repressive state policies hostile towards real and perceived opposition to his rule (common to other communist countries previously aligned to the Soviet Union)". Yes, wordy, but something to that effect, as balance is desperately needed in the introduction. Kapil 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the content on health and education is down the page. The point of an intro is to establish broad themes that will be elaborated on down the article. 172 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "Human Rights and Under Castro's Leadership", one of the themes elaborated on down the article, is not even mentioned. It reads: Many argue that several thousand unjustified deaths have occurred under Castro's decades-long rule. Some Cubans have been labeled "counterrevolutionaries", "fascists", or "CIA operatives", and imprisoned in extremely poor conditions without trial; some have been summarily executed. The level of political control in Cuba has relaxed somewhat since the USSR's collapse, but some people still view Castro as presiding over a totalitarian state. Kapil 08:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to play devil's advocate for the sake of keeping us focused on NPOV, one could bring up that criticisms of (say) Colombia's human rights record would seem even more egregious. And someone could also bring up that prison is a far more prominent institution here in the U.S. than in Cuba. The U.S. incarcerates five to eight times more of its people per capita than other rich industrialized countries, and possibly has the world's highest per capita prison in the world, much higher than Cuba's. 172 08:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is, we're not talking about Colombia, we're talking about Cuba. I'm pretty sure (willing to bet) that human rights worries are mentioned in the Colombia page. Independently, prison conditions in the US are monitored (except for Guantanamo) by international bodies and stuff. We know what's going on in a US prison, and even if there's lots of prisoners, they're subjected to minimum standards. In Cuba, prisons are unmonitored and according to some of the stuff I have read (if you want I can research about it and post it here), pretty spooky shit. But, even if conditions in US prisons were as appalling or whatever, it should be mentioned in the US page and should not remove mention from this page. Also, the US holds people for petty crimes (stealing a car? vandalism?) whereas Cuba holds people for their political beliefs (political prisoners) which is a far graver matter independently of if per capita cuban prison population is smaller than that in the US. Kapil 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * the difference is that Cuba has not been facing a 50-year old insurgency and we are not talking about criminals, we are talking about political prisoners. J. Parker Stone 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, El C, you might find these Monthly Review articles interesting if you haven't seen them already.  172 08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to give Kapil my take on some of the concerns listed above on his talk page. I am hopeful that with such dialogue all the participants will be able to establish consensus with him rather than against him. El_C 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the talk page, 172. It was becoming a bit too scorlly, and there were too many issues that were seemingly resolved or redundant. Some items do seem a bit too recent though. I don't really mind myself, but to Kapil: if you wish to restore any parts of the recently archived material, please feel free to do so, or I can do it for you if you like (the last thing I want to see is a new dispute over archiving). El_C 08:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say you're welcome, but I didn't archive it. I guess Grace did. Anyway, it timely, considering how unwieldy the page was getting. 172 08:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Soggy about that! El_C 08:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I archived it :) Kapil 01:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahah! We were close, but way off! :D El_C 02:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172 is arguing semantics... this concept of "inherent repression" has nothing to do with whether or not a state actively stifles dissent, which Cuba does, while democracies like the U.S. don't, despite having a "monopoly" on repression. By this logic we should just say military juntas are military juntas and leave it at that since most of them have involved violations of basic rights J. Parker Stone 08:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1959 America and 1959 Cuba
You guys really don't want to get this article involved in comparing Cuba now versus before Castro. Everything is too changed. In USA back then Blacks were systematicly discriminated against. Lynchings occurred and the Congress refused to act. Strange Fruit indeed. Before Castro, Cuba was a kleptocracy with American mobsters running drugs, prostitution, and everything else. Health and Education were a joke. Castro is one of the best of the communist dictators. Some think America drove him into soviet fuhk arms with our behavior. I've seen USA sourced statistics showing better health care for the poor in Cuba than America. Casro has done both good and bad. He'll be dead soon and we'll "help" a new government replace the existing dictatorship machinery (so that they, like us, can have the best government money can buy). 4.250.168.126 08:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Health and Education were a joke - Health and education were among the highest in the world, and they certainly were better than in other Latin American countries. Read some of the sources, they repeatedly say so. Kapil 17:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from what i've read, the healthcare system was far from catastrophic like the Castro regime likely portrays it as (just like everything else in the 1933-59 era) but services in rural areas were generally lacking. J. Parker Stone 08:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop copying old versions from a text editor or from old diffs, you are erasing any new contributions and I am currently treating your actions as vandalism, which you may be blocked for, though I won't be doing the blocking because it would always look politically motivated, even when warranted. Those are the given conditions. Anyway, as I cited in thw WHO 2005 report, infant mortality was at 60/1000 in 1959 (yes, significantly lower than Haiti's 73/1000 today), today it is at 6/1000. That's a tenfold drop, which by any measure, is a lot (double is a lot). I've already said all this. Sigh. Anyway, this argument seems redundant, not sure what purpose it serves. El_C 08:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * i don't see how this negates any of what i said. i never said Cuba didn't make progress in healthcare. the issue is how much of it is due to natural developments (as may've been seen in other developing countries) and how much of it is due to state investment. J. Parker Stone 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Trey was blocked by Neutrality and he's out on an extremely short leash. He has been blocked for six hours to slow down this kamikaze edit warring he's started up since I unblocked him just a few minutes ago.  He knows that if he does this again I'll just restore Neutrality's indefinite block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (in)definite block. El_C 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the current revision by Trey Stone. It's the least biased of all the versions because it mentions the police state apparatus. Any final version must contain mention of this in the introducion. Kapil 19:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Trey Stone. If 172 feels it has "excessive verbiage" he better come up with another version which is not as unbalanced to Castro's opponents, though not the euphemistic one he constantly reverts to. If not, I'll just have to revert every chance I get. Sorry, but we have a legitimate point of view and we really don't need to convince 172, no matter how rude he is with his "excessive verbiage" and "POV vandalism" claims. Kapil 23:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions
State your reasons for removing the political repression phrase, create ones of your own or stop reverting. Kapil 00:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I did, on your talk page. You never got back to me though. El_C 00:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it, but I don't agree with it: In communist countries, healthcare is by definition public, therefore (and by definition), universally available. Why should availability of healthcare be mentioned in the introduction, then, if it's obvious? Isn't this also "excessive verbiage" and "redundancy"? The point is, for the sake of balancing out the introduction, what Castro did must be mentioned. That the state's repressive machinery was laid down by his orders during his tenure, is something worthy of being mentioned, as it is more important than the healthcare and literacy advances. Of course, it can be redundant, but then again, for the sake of not being redundant the introduction makes it look as if Fidel Castro is not a dictator, but a healthcare-giving literacy-hiking genius. Also, even if this is in some way obvious (I still maintain it is not), this article talks about his life's work, which includes creating a police state. Therefore it should be mentioned somehow, possibly with a link to "human rights concerns in communist countries" or something of the like, but it shouldn't be let entirely to the user's common sense (many people don't have one). It should be mentioned that he helped build the repressive apparatus that makes his kinda state possible, even if this is by some stretch of the imagination "redundant". Mentioning political repression, police state stuff and the like in one phrase is not redundancy, it would be if an entire paragraph were devoted to it. It's important, and to omit it breaks the balance of the introduction and therefore of the entire article. Kapil 01:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather, scratch that. This is not for the sake of balance in the introduction, this is for the sake of factual accuracy. You can't mention Idi Amin was a dictator then omit an explanation of his actions claiming he did what most dictators do (bad example, I know, but you get my point). Yes, Castro turned Cuba into a communist state. But the user must know how he did this, what exactly he created, what's the result of his life's work. One of the results of his life's work is that now Cuba is a police state where people get harrassed because of a paranoid central machine. So this should be posted. This is unfortunately common to communism, sure, but even so, it should be mentioned and in no way constitutes verbiage nor redundancy. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier, it should be noted due to the dramatic impact it has had as seen in various demographic indictaors (see WHO 2005 report; tenfold drop in infant mortality, literacy rate improvements being "remarkable," et cetera, etc.). As I also argued, a Communist party, by definition, represses political opposition; this is wikilinked, and as such, it is reduandant and actually hinders the flow of the lead. El_C 01:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Then why shouldn't the construction of a monolithical central repressive police state apparatus be noted if it had an even more dramatic impact in various other indicators (freedom of press, freedom of speech, number of political prisoners, Cuba's pariah status, etc)? It's the exact same thing. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I also maintain that it doesn't hinder readability, and is worth having. Why should your point of view on this be considered over mine? Moreover, why shouldn't a small readability "bump" be permitted for the sake of factual accuracy? Kapil 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * i trust we'll able the same "standard" to military juntas, almost all of which have engaged in basic violations of human rights and been hostile to political activity? J. Parker Stone 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your claim that it had more of a dramatic impact on those things (viz. the Batista regime), Kapil, I tend to view as your opinion. El_C 01:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Undoubtedly. But if you consider it to have had less of a dramatic impact, it's also an opinion. It's of equal importance. Kapil 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * the problem is that you guys want a view of Cuba in the intro that is not supported by the majority of the Western world or even several previously sympathetic third world governments... Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) the fact that you guys think it shouldn't be this way does not change things.


 * and no Che, it is not a matter of opinion. Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. J. Parker Stone 01:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Whereas I don't agree with Trey's calling you "Che", I agree almost wholeheartedly with his statement. Especially the following: Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) To claim otherwise is just not true. Also, the following: Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. Those aren't opinions, or rather, to claim otherwise would also be an opinion call (therefore both sides of the story should be included). Kapil 01:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, Batista never had the enemies Castro has. The US government is permanently trying to undermine the communist government of Cuba. Castro would be gone by now if the US had never declared war on him. US makes Castro stronger by opposing him. US gives him the right excuse.--tequendamia 11:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Kapil 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As beggars like to say in Latin America
"We are hungry, don't have clothes, don't have shoes, don't have teeth, don't have opportunities, but we are free carajo!" unsigned comment by User:Tequendamia. &mdash; Chameleon 13:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No they don't. Kapil 02:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * you are aware that Cuba itself is suffering from severe consumer shortages, including food...? J. Parker Stone 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Has Tequendamia known any homeless people in Latin America? I agree with Kapil, SqueakBox 03:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 03:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Beggars, when they talk of freedom, are talking in spite of governments, not because of them. The idea that a beggar saying they are free thanks to some government which gives them this freedom to be a beggar is clearly well off the mark, SqueakBox 15:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about?! We are NOT beggars you little pinga! Listen, all you people have the wrong idea. Castro's government is a dictatorship, and he did excute and imprison thousands of political prisoners. Castro may not have always claimed to be a communist, but he did always have communist ideals. And, he did remove other groups quickly and violently! Didn't it even say in the article that Fidel made Cuba an atheist state? People weren't allowed to celebrate Christmas, or own land! Now, before you start telling me how wrong I am, and how biased I am, let me respond with this: I am Cuban, My parents are Cuban, My grandparents are Cuban, many of my relatives are still in Cuba, at least three of my relatives were or are in jail for being "anti-castro", and we are proud Americans. You may call me biased and angry, but really, are you saying YOU aren't biased? Saying that Castro is "just a different political idealogy" and that "Cuba isn't that bad" when you have never seen the way people live, and you are denouncing anyone else who says different or was actually there? By the way, Cuba is as bad as he says, so your "beggars" can't be choosers! Just because the hospitals and education is free, doesn't mean the people aren't poor, or starving, or dying, or are being "silenced". Please, just try to take the facts and not denounce them for your fantasies. In closing, I do ask that the article is reverted to it's previous form, of so-called "anti-communist bias" because I want the truth to be there, and not just the absence of it because some people don't want to face it. Thank You.

Protection
I've unprotected the page. The dispute behind the revert war it was protected for doesn't seem to have progressed since then, but then, we're not going to penalize all users because a few seem to have trouble containing their, ahem, enthusiasm. Please use the talk page to discuss changes, not the edit summaries in reverts. See Resolving disputes and ask the mediation cabal if you can't seem to reach agreement. Anyone who persistently reverts risks breaking the three-revert rule and getting a 24-hour block, which is not what you want. JRM · Talk 10:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Response to 172's continued RVing
Fidel Castro is known in the West for his attitude toward democracy and political opponents much moreso than his achievements in healthcare or literacy. This info is no more "POV verbiage" than the aforementioned positive info, and both should be included.

As I have said, military dictatorships frequently abuse human rights, but that is not cause for removing info about said dictators' human rights violations as "POV verbiage." the same applies here. J. Parker Stone 08:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 100% behind you. Kapil 17:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My 2p worth. We are not creating an encyclopedia for western people; indeed we must avoid western centrism. Here in CA he is known for his healthcare programmes, but not the literacy campaigns, because people here have benefitted form the health care, especially in terms of offering training. The Americans also come here to help poor people with health issues, but you have to be rich to study medicine in the States, whereas that is not the case to study in Cuba, SqueakBox 15:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

-- ive always considered Castro ahead of his time, perhaps democracy is just an utopia... specially in these days of tv and fox news.

Intro
There is no reason to replace the version of the intro mentioning the suppression of opposition parties with Trey Stone's verbose reference to the 'creation of the centralized state apparatus that systematically engages in repression.' What does he even mean by "systematically" anyway? He just seems to have a fetish for that word. 172 08:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * you mean like you have a fetish for RVing any info that might damage the reputation of el lider maximo?


 * systematically means... exactly what it means J. Parker Stone 08:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * and if you think it's "verbiose" (speaking of "fetishes") then feel free to edit in a less verbiose reference to the issue, rather than censoring it out entirely so it only mentions his glorious contributions to Cuban health and literacy. J. Parker Stone 08:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * i mean one that actually makes it noticeable, rather than putting it in with a laundry list of his economic reforms when it's a totally different issue. J. Parker Stone 08:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I have provided sources which say what you do almost verbatim. So don't worry, 172's reversions aren't useful at all, they're extremely annoying and I'll support you in the current revision (the one with mention of systematic repression), independent of what 172 may say (as we don't need his permission in any perceivable way to do our reversions, as I provided sources and he didn't). Kapil 17:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure, I'll couple my line with lines from sources (HRW and the like, as I posted above): he has prohibited opposition parties -> No need for a quote, we all know this, the constitution says it. and created a strong, centralized state apparatus that systematically represses suspected political opposition -> The MININT contains within it a vast, nationwide surveillance and repressive apparatus to keep the population in line. and The violation of the right of privacy is systematic and pervasive. Tight political control in Cuba is maintained through extensive monitoring of Cubans&#8217; daily lives.
 * Please remind me of the 9th word in the last quote? That's right. I'm quoting verbatim. So stop reserving for yourselves the right to revert informed, sourced editions. Kapil 18:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * i don't know, 172 seems deadset on RVing this nonstop with the excuse of "verbiage" (funny how it only applies to the negative aspects) J. Parker Stone 22:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't care, I'll keep rving until 172 can interact like a normal person and give reasons to constantly be reverting my informed, sourced changes. Kapil 04:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd source the HRW link in the intro. To 172, do you think it's cute to tuck "suspended opposition parties" in with a list of his economic policies? J. Parker Stone 04:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Cuba has received far more international attention for its human rights practices than several other countries under Communist rule, anyhow. J. Parker Stone 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection
I have protected the page, and I'm loath to unprotect it until a consensus introduction has been hammered out. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provided universal healthcare??
Castro oppresses healthcare workers, refusing to let them emigrate. It is these and other oppressed workers who are violently restricted from emmigrating that "provide" the services. He has turned Cuba into a gulag. Castro deserves no credit for the health care or "low cost" he "achieves" through oppression of labor. Essentially everyone in Cuba is a prisoner who is not privleged to rule.--Silverback 12:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

please document specifics of the criticisms
Could whomever put the statements about Castro calling corporations exploitive, and criticising the state of US public health care please be specific and cite sources. These are pretty meaningless statements. What behavior, by which corporations does he consider exploitive? What aspects of the state of US public health care does he criticise, does he oppose kidney transplants or what?--Silverback June 28, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
 * while i don't really agree with your edits, i'd note that 172's Mexico:Cuba analogy is not exactly...exact. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:02 (UTC)
 * I do see some of the irony, although I don't know why he mentions Fox. As a person who would love to emmigrate to Mexico if it weren't for the risks of kidnapping for ransom, and armed shakedowns on the highways, and restrictions on property ownership by foreigners, I find current US policy misguided. It should focus more on why Mexicans want to leave, and why more US citizens aren't balancing the flow of people by emmigrating. The question here, is why does Castro want to repress emmigration, if not to maintain the capitivity that leaves him with labor to exploit at below market, in fact, barely above subsistence rates. --Silverback June 28, 2005 09:48 (UTC)


 * My point was not to compare Mexico and Cuba but to comment on the vagueness of the writing that I had removed. The note on the "suppression of emigration and those trying to escape" could also hypothetically describe policies that the U.S. pressures Mexico to enforce in order to reduce illegal immigration. Because the situations are not comparable, though poverty is a major force behind the migrations from both Cuba and Mexico, the wording was problematic, being so vague that it could describe both Cuba and Mexico... Further, this topic is already addressed by the sentence on the mass exodus of the Middle class and the rise of the Cuban exile community in South Florida-- a sentence that is more concrete and less confusing. 172 28 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)

More on intro
please stop listing "repression of opposition" along with his economic policy as if it's insignificant, when it is a focus of international criticism. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:12 (UTC)
 * The list contains one sentence on his domestic actions, which include the suppression of opposition parties, and another on his international actions. There is no explicit or implied diminishing of significance. 172 28 June 2005 09:18 (UTC)

his grip on power and the methods he uses to suppress dissent are much more widely-known and discussed than any economic policies he may have enacted. this cannot be treated as if it is equal with "land reforms" and "nationalization" in terms of significance.
 * You're entitled to your (unsourced) opinion, with which I'm not interested in contesting here on talk, and which I am not contesting with my edits. No one is stating or implying that one is more important than the other in the intro. 172 28 June 2005 09:37 (UTC)

let's keep in mind that this man has been in power for 46 years, so he not just your run-of-the-mill Communist despot -- his personal consolidation of power and the PCC's monopoly on political power has had a profound impact on Cuban society. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:29 (UTC)
 * Your point? I think all the editors here know how long he has been in power and understand the magnitude of his impact on Cuba. 172 28 June 2005 09:37 (UTC)

so why is "political repression" treated as an aside when it has been a major factor in Cuba's international relations (and Cuban flight to Miami?) the land reform and nationalization programmes were carried out in the '60s -- maybe they were of some interest then, but certainly aren't widely discussed now.
 * Bringing up other topics in a list is not diminishing the importance of any one of the topics, explicitly or implicitly. 172 28 June 2005 10:39 (UTC)

human rights and the Castro's treatment of political opponents, on the other hand, has remained an issue, particularly with the U.S., for the whole of the regime's existence.
 * You yourself brought up the fact that while the land reform and nationalization programs were carried out in the early 1960s, the economy remains largely state-owned and state-run today; hence, these changes are just as relevant today as they were when they were taking place, regardless of the number of years that have passed. 172 28 June 2005 10:39 (UTC)

and if my opinion is "unsourced" (the extent of Castro's political control has been pretty amply documented by human rights groups and other organizations) then your's is an "unsourced" opinion in favor of treating Castro's consolidation of power as if it's not that significant -- a scant mention at the end of a list that amounts "oh, and he represses political opposition." not to mention i don't know why a comment about his political power is thrown in with his economic programs when it's a completely different issue. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:57
 * Reread your comments and my response. Your unsourced comment stated-- to paraphrase-- that 'political repression' is more 'significant' (in what sense?) than 'economic policy.' You will have to cite serious academic research if you want to make that particular argument, or any time when you want to argue that one historical trend is more important than another; stating your personal opinion-- obviously your own personal normative response-- does not cut it. (Just to give you an idea how complicated work in comparative history and politics really is, social researches carry out statistical studies based on carefully designed case and variable selection to determine the degree to which one variable significantly relates to another. Some of these studies, such as the large-n regressions, feature mathematical models as complicated as anything put out in the natural sciences. Historians too are never free to make such sweeping comparisons and assertions, as they are required to be engaged in the merits of the evidence in all of the relevant primary and secondary literature.) 172 28 June 2005 10:39 (UTC)

It is more significant especially in terms of relations with the U.S., which has played an enormous role in Cuba since the early 1900s. The only thing really significant about the economy today is that it's a basket case (which I'm sure I could dig up sources for if you really want me too, despite the fact that it's pretty much universally acknowledged,) not that it's state-run. Besides this, putting aside my whole "POV" argument, you have put his political repression in with a list of his economic policies, which doesn't make sense. And as Kapil has said below, the current sentence essentially makes it sound like he's simply prevented the formation of opposition parties, when in fact he has done more than that -- he has harassed, imprisoned, and (in the '60s, '70s and '80s) tortured opponents. This is as common knowledge as any land reforms or nationalization programmes he may have carried out. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)
 * The only thing really significant about the economy today is that it's a basket case Perhaps for a U.S. teenager, this is only trivia, but the economy means the reality of the day-to-day lives of the entire working population, which is Cuban history. Sorry, you have no valid point here, notwithstanding your lectures condemning Castro dealing citing things that I knew decades before you were born. 172 1 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
 * I agree, the fact that the Cuban economy is a basket case has had a profoundly negative effect on Cubans' daily lives. J. Parker Stone 1 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)
 * And more than one billion barely survive on less than a dollar a day elsewhere throughtout the world, and I'm sure that matters to you insofar as you can blame their problems on "leftists." 172 1 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)
 * ok, getting away from this little tangent we have here, the point is that the intro throws info about political repression in with socialist economic reforms and understates the extent of Castro's power. i'm open to a version with less "verbiage," just not one that waters it down. J. Parker Stone 2 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken, Trey. Not only opponents. Suspected opponents as well. There's a big difference, though 172 seems to prefer to ignore that important fact under the guise of "verbiage". It's ludicrous. Kapil 28 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)


 * Once the page is unprotected, I will continue reverting. This is because systematically represses suspected political opposition is completely different from repression of political parties. Also, I have the upper hand as I have provided sources that use the exact same adjectives, whereas you're just bending the English language and providing the word "verbiage" as a reason. I don't care how much of a historian you believe yourself to be, here in the Wikipedia your personal titles are quite worthless. It's delinquence and I will not stand for it. Kapil 28 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)


 * "repression of political parties" is an understatement isn't it? Do you intend to imply that political dissent or speech unaffiliated with a political party is tolerated and not repressed?  The meanings are not "completely" different, one appears to be a subset of the other.--Silverback June 29, 2005 10:32 (UTC)
 * No, it is not an understatement. Everything that you are listing is implied under single party states, which is just about as close as you come to a law-like statement in history. If this is unclear, it's a Wiki, and click on the hyperlink to the article on Communist state. 172 1 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
 * As earlier stated, various Communist states have exerted different degrees of control. Witness the Soviet Union under Gorbachev, which was still officially a Communist state in spite of his reforms. J. Parker Stone 1 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
 * Under Gorbachev until February 7, 1990, when the Central Committee gave up its monopoly on power... Of course there have been different degrees of control, but this fact has nothing to do with your edits, which would describe any Communist regime, from Kadar's "goulash communism" and Tito's "workers' self-management" on one hand to the USSR under the height of Stalinist terror and North Korea today on the other... If you can think of something useful to add to the article, as opposed to the usual grandstanding, let us know. 172 1 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)
 * Sorry for "grandstanding," but while it is true that all Communist states are one-party, not all Communist states have gotten quite as much attention as the Castro regime for their human rights abuses and the control they exert on everyday life, whereas this intro completely deemphasizes the political aspect of his rule. Of course I'm open to adding more info about the subject of human rights in the intro but I know that'd just turn into a whole other edit war. J. Parker Stone 2 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)
 * not all Communist states have gotten quite as much attention as the Castro regime for their human rights abuses and the control they exert on everyday life Source? 172 3 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)
 * this is ridiculous. my only point is that your intro dumbs down the human rights issue as if it's nothing, when in fact it is a focus of international attention and criticism (as recently as 2 years ago with the arrest of the 80 library "counterrevolutionaries.") the nationalization and land reforms took place 30-40 years ago -- the main issue today is the deterioration in living standards that has been going on since the USSR's collapse, as well as the ongoing human rights situation. if your gonna play this "source" game that's fine, i'll add links when it's unprotected, but i'm not gonna let Castro's human rights record be editted in like it's nothing. J. Parker Stone 4 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
 * No, you made the claim that "not all Communist states have gotten quite as much attention as the Castro regime for their human rights abuses and the control they exert on everyday life." So we are not just talking about Castro's regime, but all Communist regimes, since you are making a comparision. You will need to present a source. If not, you will be indicating that there is no reason to give you any further attention. 172 5 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
 * my main point is that human rights in Cuba is a big issue and this intro treats it like it's not. it's that simple. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 00:50 (UTC) Fidel Castro is a god