Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 9

(untitled)
I stumbled across this debate accidently and will depart it just as quickly as I entered it. But my sense is, having read all of the major biographies of Castro, as well as being a senior university scholar, that many things are simply wrong or quite misleading in this sketch of Castro. It's also not clear to me what "consensus" among the people who write here might possibly mean. Certainly it does not seem to imply impartiality or even accuracy. Castro is a dictator in any reasonably objective interpretation of that term. He is not electable by any democratic process, and neither is his "government." His rule is absolute and unquestioned and he rules by force and control and not by public consent. Whether some close to him or who might benefit from his rule view him as a benevolent or well-meaning ruler doesn't, in my opinion, make him less of a dictator. That some of your panelists wish to call him a "leader" in the traditional sense of that term does not make him one. I modestly suggest "ruler" might work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Promptly thereafter" doesn't imply immediate. It implies promptly thereafter. And this is not a problem of grammar or syntax.

However, there might be some arithmetical discrepancy regarding birth dates, understandable given the secrecy that Castro has encouraged about his family and his ancestry. The tombstone on Lina Ruz's grave near the family farm says "1906-1963." It is known, from contemporary news reports (Raul and Fidel both went to the funeral), that in fact she was 56 at her death; she died before her 57th birthday. She arrived in the Santiago province with her family from Pinar del Rio at 14 (this she confirmed at least once in conversation with several of her daughters), so that would put her arrival at the Castro household at either 1919 or 1920. She had a daughter, Angela, by Angel Castro in 1922, so that would be "shortly thereafter." (Ramon, the second child, was the one born in 1924, as it says above). In any event, this is not a grammatical error, though perhaps the dates in this biography might be off slightly, if one believes the grave markings. We do know she died in 1963, and that she was 56 then. So 1906-1963 is probably correct. If she was 14 when her family arrived in Santiago, then 1920 would also be correct for the date when she first went to the Castro household. And Angela, the first child, was born in 1922, so she had to have had relations with Angel Castro at least within one year of arrival. This is pretty prompt. I would agree this would qualify for child abuse as well, as noted above, since she would have been either 14 or 15 and the elder Castro (1875-1956) would have been around 45 or 46.

Continued from Archive 8...
Just made some changes and forgot to label them - "simple and balanced please" would have been the line had I remembered.

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


 * Just about all encyclopedias and sourcebooks refer to him as "leader" of Cuba since 1959. Rather than coming up with awkward constructions meant to avoid usage of the term "leader" because of-- I think-- pretty pedantic reasons, being more specfic is probably the right approach. The article can open up stating that Fidel Castro has ruled Cuba since 1959, holding the title of prime minister from 1959 to 1976, and later president since 1976. 172 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this debate turned out a more revolting statement than I had anticipated. --Antispammer 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * I am not trying to debate anyone. Do get your sleep, apparently you need it. I did not add anything that was ethnicity oriented. Here is the diff of my edit, and certainly I did not try to be "subtly offensive" of any nature. Please understand that I assume good faith from your part and that I expect you to do the same. Oh, and I don't like my name being a section title in a talk page, so I remove it, thank you very much :-) -- Michalis Famelis 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Antispammer here. Stating why Castro's followers argue that Castro does not wield dictatorial power is excessive in the intro. Just pointing out that he has supporters abroad is sufficient. The rest of the article is really supposed to illuminate the nature and scope of his power. BTW, it is common practice on Wikipedia to make the user name of a particular editor a section header on a talk page. It is a way of trying to catch the attention of a particular editor. 172 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Apparently some putative Castro residences are now on the web.

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

El Jigüe 12/05/06

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

Consensus Poll
Ok, we've been bickering, whining, arguing, reverting and being overall catty about this for about a week now. I've had enough and I know and suspect others have. Let's determine consensus and move forward. Vote in the appropriate section. I will discard any vote by an anon, same as I would for AfD. You want to vote and not be discarded you need to create an account and obviously NOT be a sock/meat puppet. Poll will be closed Tuesday, January 10th, at some reasonable afternoon my time (MST). If you disagree with my actons you'll need to involve a bureacrat, Jimbo, or a consensus among other admins to counter it. Changes against consensus after the vote will be treated as simple vandalism (and as a result, can be rolled back and not subject 3RR restrictions). I will also state right now that if this vote goes opposite of my votes I will enforce the same vandalism/3RR restrictions. You just need to insert a # ~ in the appropriate section. Please bitch and moan in the poll discussion section immediately following this. I will "refactor" this if they come in here. Wikibofh(talk) 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The poll should be removed. It is not the proper procedure for dealing with content matters. A poll is not needed to establish that Cuba is a Communist state any more than one is needed to establish (say) that Nepal is a monarchy. If a user changes the reference from socialist state to Communist state, revert him or her on the spot. Further, NPOV cannot be voted away, which means that a poll cannot be used as a basis for making a provocative, disputed assertion in the article, such as having the article itself call Castro a dictator. The fact that certain Wikipedia users call him a dictator is irrelevant. It is of interest that he is condemned as a dictator by the Cuban American exile community in South Florida, which the intro notes. The page history seems pretty stable now, and users should accept the wording as it is and move on to more productive matters and less ideological matters. 172 01:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Below the definition of the word "dictator" according to a little book called the dictionary:
 * dictator |ˈdikˌtātər| noun 1 a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. • a person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere

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


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


 * Support:


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


 * Oppose:


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


 * The Cuban government is a communist state


 * Support:


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


 * Oppose:

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

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

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

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

Let the gnashing of teeth begin.

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

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


 * MIchaelW you really shouldnt be educating people on what words mean if you yourself do not know the meaning. A consensus DOES NOT mean EVERYONE agrees (to agree). A consensus is a GENERAL agreement. There is a big difference there. Kane 15-3-06
 * I agree.--Antispammer 10:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

I think you being a tad hasty (You knee-jerk reactionary!!;-)). The dictator discussion has reached the point where we seemingly have consensus. Last significant change was nearly 10 hours back when Antispammer reverted Michalis's changes to pretty much the version I posted this morning. So please remove that vote coz you'll only stir it up again.
 * On the other issue - Commie State/Socialist Republic - I'd like to see a summing up of the arguments here before I vote and I'd rather discuss it and look to being consistent with the entries for other nations than rely on a politically polarised vote. More a case for RfC maybe. Issue of consistency throughout Wikipedia. Night nightMichaelW 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael W., there is no argument. The term "Communist state" is the common term in the Western and English-speaking world to refer to Communist Party-led states in which the state appartus and the party are embedded in each other officially under the constitution. Cuba's economic base is socialist. But that fact does not mean that the description of Cuba as a Communist state is inaccurate. The term "Communist" in "Communist state" refers to the party, as opposed to the socialist economy. Please, move on to more productive matters. There has been a three-year consensus behind using the term "Communist state" on Wikipedia because it is the most specific term one can use to describe the Castro regime. Frankly, I'm getting somewhat tied of having to explain this matter over and over again over the years. 172 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can a contribution disappear without trace? - I'm sure I posted a response to 172's comments which has gone, and a troll through the history doesn't find it. If not excuse me my mind's gone...MichaelW 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But it isn't stable, and we don't have consensus. Antispammer and Commandante are still going back and forth.  We go from dictator to leader and immediately segue into communist vs socialst state.  We're getting nowhere.  I have reported myselfat Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  If you disagree with my handling, I'd recommend that.  Wikibofh(talk) 03:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

These are two separate points. I do disagree with you on the dictator issue. Strongly. You are reintroducing controversy after consensus has been reached. We have agreed on 'leader' for days now and as I said the back up statement describing the main views of Castro has now been stable since yesterday morning, broadly accepted by both sides. Check the last time there was a 'leader'/'dictator' change. Check the history. Then withdraw the vote please.MichaelW 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am quite disappointed that Wikibofh restarted this most unproductive controversy. I am ignoring the "poll" and urge other users to do the same. 172 06:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


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

I've posted a comment opposing the poll over at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentsMichaelW 02:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

sounds like it was an instant change, that it was a communist takeover. Clearly it wasn't and the change in the party's name signifies the completion of the transformation. Hence my proposed "By the mid sixties Castro and his allies had transformed Cuba into the first Communist state...". MichaelW 02:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was an instant change. The name of the party does not reflect the nature of their state.  I am pretty sure you can confirm this with someone else.--Antispammer 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Antispammer - you are the one rewriting history here. I've just finished reading a history of Cuba. It is clear that the Revolution was in its making primarily nationalist with socialist tendencies. It wasn't until the end of 1960 when the United States had show itself unsupportive that nationalisations got into full swing. Mid 1961 the three main parties leading the revolution merged. The practical transformation was under way by then but cannot be considered to have been completed until some time later. Since private enterprise wasn't banned until 1968 one could argue that the formal transformation was completed by the mid 60s but the practical one not until 1968MichaelW 12:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are talking about nationalization of industries I presume, which is not the only thing that made it a communist state, and which has nothing to do with instant transformation. Again, you are talking about the name of the parties. The name of the parties is irrelevant.  I suggest you research your history of Cuba accross many sources. Also, don't take my word for it, I am sure there are plenty of other wikipedians that can confirm this and probably articulate it better for you.--Antispammer 19:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

In other words it was a communist state because you say it was? MichaelW 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, read my previous comment Again, don't take my word for it, I encourage you to continue your research on Cuban history.--Antispammer 07:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

172: I think it's Antispammer you need to be addressing not me. Remember what is happening here. I'm not questioning that Cuba has been a Communist state. I want to change that first sentence to indicate that the transformation into a Communist state was not instantaneous. Antispammer says it was. CJK raised the issue of Castro's alliegance to Marxism as an indicator not me. As you point out the formal enshrinement of Cuba as a Communist State didn't happen until 1976. My original edit said the transformation was complete by the mid 1960s. From my reading this is a safe statement. IMO to say early 1960s wouldn't be. Do you agree with this? MichaelW 18:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The intro does not state that the transformation into a Communist state was instantaneous since it does not make reference to the timeframe. A note specifying the time frame, stating that the transformation was not instantaneous following the revolution is not necessary. That fact can be made clear by the rest of the article. The text is fine as it is. 172 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree. "...overthrew Batista and transformed..." suggests a continuity which wasn't the reality. A full stop after '...Batista' is needed to separate the two statements. There is little in the main article which addresses the stages and time scale of the development of Cuba into a Communist state. This can't be measured simply by relying on statements by Castro. It is the implementation of the various policies which define a Communist state which need be investigated to do that. Until these questions are answered inthe main article a clearer intro is useful.MichaelW 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * MichaelW, you have absolutely no evidence to imply that the transformation was not extremely rapid if not instant. Perhaps you are too lazy to read about Cuban history.  But until then I am just going to revert your edits.--Antispammer 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished one history last week, have read others in the past, read books on Castro himself. Waddayawant. What you are saying is you will revert my edits until I stick to your preferred version of Cuban history. A somewhat entrenched position, I'd say. Tell us how you define a Communist State and lets see, first if we agree on the definition, and then how Cuba measures up at the end of 1959, 1960...MichaelW 23:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how I define a communist state. All I am saying is that there are many events that happened in 1959 in Cuba.  Why do you think its called a Revolution?  Wikipedia is not the place for original research, so I don't have to make things up and neither should you.--Antispammer 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about! This has nothing to do with original research. A Communist state is a particular power arrangement which did or did not exist in Cuba in 1959-1960. You claim it did. I am asking you to define what you mean, not do original research. If you can't back up your claim then your reversion of my edit is just more ideologically grounded vandalism. MichaelW 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If I re-analyze and re-interpret the revolution(which had thousands of actual events) and give you a new date on when it was unofficially a communist state then I would be doing original research, same goes to you. That topic is a lot more complicated that it seems.  Anyway, the sentence does not give a date, as it shouldn't.--Antispammer 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By your definition every time we work on a Wiki article on any complex social issue we are doing original research. You are defending a particular interpretation of events. Back up your assertion with references (not original research but the meat and potatoes of encyclopedia construction) starting with the accepted definition of a Communist state. And you call me lazy! MichaelW 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Certainly, but the Cuban Revolution wasn't initially a Communist one. Among those thousands of events you mention was a communist thread which over time grew to dominate the rest. MichaelW 09:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly, the Cuban Revolution is a source of pride among Communists for forming their Communist State. I suggest you go research the Cuban Revolution before you come back here with your baseless theory that the Cuban Revolution wasn't initially a Communist one.--Antispammer 13:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


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


 * I've given examples of variables which make me think the communist strand of the revolution took a while to dominate. How about you back up your assertion with something instead of relying on blind faith? MichaelW 14:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I have offended you but you can't just expect me to educate you on the entire Cuban Revolution. I can also see now by skimming through that wikipedia article that it is extremely short, and is missing hundreds of notable historical events that also happened.  I can understand now where you find this dilemma, which is why I encourage to read about the Cuban Revolution across many other sources besides wikipedia. --Antispammer 04:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Shall I quote you from Blas Roca's speech to the Eight National Congress of the Popular Socialist Party of Cuba. August 1960. The section where he deals specifically with the accusations of communism thrown at the revolution, or the bit where he describes the coalition of groups who make up the revolution. You insist I'm ignorant, and am relying on Wikipedia for my information, are you saying I'm lying when i say I've read a fair bit on the subject? You claim the Revolution was Communist from the get go, yet elsewhere will remind us that the July 26th mobvement was only one of several groups fighting Batista. Were they all Communist too? How can you have a Communist state, by definition a one party state, when you have three parties as was the case in Cuba until mid 1961? MichaelW 12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems you have gotten way too emotional about this. I suggest you use your emotions to research this topic like a maniac, instead of exploding in here with your Castro quotes.--Antispammer 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm as emotional as you are rational! So Castro had time to write Roca's speeches as well as do everything else. It was you, wasn't it, who wrote that Castro controls everything in Cuba. Just when did he start, in your estimation? MichaelW 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Por que tu me odia? Yo namas que quiero es paz con los communistas. --> Why do you hate me? All I want is peace with communists. Ongoing covert war with communists Why do you do this? Does your buddy Fidel want to wage another war with the U.S.?  Why do you want to win this war? Why do you want to change the image of Castro? All I want is peace with Cuba.--Antispammer 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I fear it is you who are being way too emotional. What reason do you have to say I hate you? If you want peace with someone you must see the world through their eyes.
 * When did Fidel last wage a war with the US? The Cubans' view is that the US has been waging (economic) war on them for more than forty years. If you want peace then campaign for normalising relations with Cuba. The blockade keeps the current status quo in place, both sides of the water. MichaelW 12:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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


 * The edit in the spotlight is being defended, by Antispammer, as a statement that the transformation into a Communist state was "...extremely rapid if not instant....". You can't backdate an alteration to make that 'C' a 'c'. That's a total cop out, (and equally inaccurate anyway). The clause in question concerns Cuba as Communist state, not the Cuban revolution as communistic. That’s a different issue. Your sentence is simply nonsensical or is it I’m too dumb to see the point of repeating yourself. Cut in half it’s close to what I suggested, and as you say is (technically) correct. An encyclopedia is about technical correctness. If you want my suggested edit rendered incorrect you need to change the sense of what is being said.
 * Of course the transformation of Cuba into a Communist state was not instant. Antispammer was wrong in stating that the transformation into a Communist state was "...extremely rapid if not instant...." Still, his error is nothing to dwell on. He was confusing the term "Communist state" with "communist regime." That error does not the diminish the crux of what I have been reading into Antispammer's argument. Unless I am misunderstanding him, the crux of his argument seems to be that the Cuban Revolution was followed by the transformation of Cuba into the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere, and that the transformation warrants mentioning in the intro. We can forgive him for making a common error on the talk page. 172 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * A perfectly adequate introductory sentence. The stuff about the transformation into a Commie state can go in the introductory section below. MichaelW 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we should not imply in the intro that the transformation of Cuba into a Communist state occurred in 1959. I changed the lead to the following: Fidel Castro Ruz' (born August 13, 1926) has been the leader of Cuba since 1959, when, leading the 26th of July Movement, he overthrew the regime of Fulgencio Batista. Following the Cuban Revolution, Castro oversaw the transformation of Cuba into the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere.'' 172 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me, except that it makes the Revolution a passing event, when it was/is a process in which the coming to dominance of communism was a part.
 * How about "In the years that followed Castro oversaw the transformation of Cuba into the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere." MichaelW 12:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with any version between the two that can be stable. So Antispammer's opinion may be needed. 172 21:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No I cannot! Goodbye!Antispammer 04:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

El Jigue 1/19/06

Need a double-check pls
In the section Putative early contacts with influencial people:


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

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

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

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

List of the fate of the 83
There is need for a list of the landing party of the Granma and their fate, for it is a common misperception that all but 12 died. Tried to put one in but some idiot named "Benon" moved it out. Would this Benon character, who apparently threatens physical attack, care to explain why? El Jigüe 1/25/06

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

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

"Leader" vs "Dictator"
I am getting the sense that consensus indicates we should say Castro is the "leader" as opposed to the "dictator" of Cuba in the opening paragraph. A persistent anon continues to change this and gets roundly reverted. Any comments here? (ESkog)(Talk) 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * can we all agree on "head of state?" Carptrash 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because that would be inaccurate. Castro did not officially assume the post of head of state-- president-- until 1976. Before 1976, his highest state post was that of prime minister-- the head of government and not the head of state. In the opening sentence we have to choose a term that is (1) not too restrictive in that in cannot refer to both the posts of prime minister and (2) neutral. The first criterion rules out the terms "head of state," "president," and "head of government." The second criterion rules out "dictator." The only terms that are going to work in the opening sentence are "leader" and "ruler." I have no preference either way. 172 | Talk 10:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 'leader" if fine with me - I can see where HofS doesn't quite work. Carptrash 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * I am almost in complete agreement with 172 here, except I lean toward "ruler" as I believe "leader" is inadequate by comparison. --TJive 18:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Tjive holds a dissenting opinion and nevertheless constantly reverts edits conforming with majority opinion, I'd like to hear an argument why 'ruler' is more appropriate. Jens Nielsen 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who cares what to call him, when I take over the world, I will PWN him straight out of Cuba. Oh, by the way, when my article is here, you can refer to me as "Supreme Emperor Poo-bah". World Domination in West Dakota which is not a state yes, it is, or at least it will be when I take over the world.

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


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

A great man
This man is the greatest anti-imperialist hero ever. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by UF (talk &bull; contribs) 15:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

-G

Citations not credible
A certain editor removed a section on the executions in the aftermath of Castro's victory with the simple notation "sources not credible." That is absurd the argument is not whether numerous executions happened on January 1st 1959 but whether Raul Castro alone executed 75 or 500 surrendered Batista soldiers and buried them in a mass grave on the Santiago de Cuba  golf course that  day. We, in the rebel forces heard 500 in that area. I reinserted the material, and suggest that the editor in question read more on those days when glory turned to horror. El Jigüe 2/12/06
 * It may be absurd, but it is wikipedia policy... original research-- Colle |[[Image:Locatecolle.png]]| Talk -- 21:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The Watcher


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

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

Is he Wieland or Weiland ?? Both spellings used.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The section on the missile crisis is quite large and does already have it's own seperate article, perhaps this should be merged into that and this section trimmed down into the parts directly involving Castro? --Sully 14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact I should have read the October Crisis section above a little more closely, this actually duplicates the same subject, perhaps this should be almost deleted altogether? --Sully 14:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

has someone messed around here?
"Wieland is commonly considered to have a left of center record in Latin American matters [12]. and quite definitely linked to the influential bisexual underground groups"

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

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

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

To those who I have offended in the past
I apologize.

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

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

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