Talk:Fidel Castro

An event in this article is a January 1 selected anniversary

---

For archived discussions, please see (oldest first): /Archive 1 ... /2 ... /3 ... /4 ... /5 ... /6 ... /7 ... /8 ... /9 ... /10 ... /11

---

Please see /Archive 11 for earlier talk threads. BruceHallman 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to archive 5 and 9? CJK 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, archive 5 was a duplicate of archive 6, and archive 9 was deleted because its only contents were "save page" – Gurch 14:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

First paragraph

Transformation of Cuba

Hopefully we can work out some neutral wording for this sentence, and avoid an edit war: "He mandated the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba." BruceHallman 13:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? CJK 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just ditch it, you're never going to explain accurately in one sentence the complex relationship as you're talking about 47 years of change in a vastly contradictary framework. Keep it as it was - "He mandated the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic". Which is true. There's enough complications in that first paragraph without adding ambiguities that could prompt more problems. I've already tried to clarify the "leader" - "ruler" - "premier" to halt one such ambiguity and edit war (not entirely to my own satisfaction I might add). There is no need for another.--Zleitzen 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I even think that 'he mandated' is POV, because clearly he did not act alone. He acted as part of a coalition. BruceHallman 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In Socialism it is put this way: "Lenin's regime brought all the means of production (except agricultural production) under state control, and implemented a system of government . . . "

So even Lenin didn't "mandate" anything. KarenAnn 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. let's leave out "mandate". On the other hand, it would be almost criminal to leave out Communist party rule. Read it. It sounds like something someone would say about Hugo Chavez, not a dictator. CJK 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My version is both true, short, and verifiable. CJK 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

CJK...

• socialist republic has been explained to you many, many times. See above for the encyclopedic standard for the description of Cuba. You have changed this consistently on both the Cuba and Castro pages mulitple times to suit your own wording - now you have changed it to "socialist state". This is not helpful.
• Cuba is governed by the 1976 constitution and subsequent amendments in keeping with many other republics. Whether that reminds you of Hugo Chavez is neither here nor there. Your statement is simply inaccurate. The CCP were the smallest and least influential Communist party of the old Warsaw pact countries - often subsumed and subjugated by nationalists. Non-Communist Party affiliated bodies and citizens also play a major role in the governance of Cuba as I have also explained elsewhere. So we are presently drifting away from accuracy, which should be our goal, to vague assumptions which wouldn't wash amongst serious scholars of the subject. Feel free to write what you like, but be aware that inaccuracies compromise the page and wikipedia.
• You have added a source from Freedom House the well known American government sponsored group that gave Cuban human rights a lower points total than China, against all evidence to the contrary. Can we please be serious about NPOV here?--Zleitzen 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Socialist republic can be negotiated
  • I don't deny that non-Communists officials exist, it's just that they are under control of the Communist Party since it is the sole political party in the National Assembly and the National Assembly + Castro controls the country.
  • Freedom House was demonstrate Communist Party control of Cuba. If you actually disbelieve that, I will find another. CJK 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, (1) Socialist republic should not be negotiated. Editors should stick to the correct term as applied and checked by encyclopedic proof readers from all mainstream encyclopedic sources. There should be no need to contest this again and again and insist on a less accurate description, when I understand that people are working hard towards the opposite. (2) The Communist Party is not the sole political party in the National Assembly - the Communist Party do not even participate in the process, and at least 50% of the Assembly has nothing to do with the CCP. As observed by all serious scholars on the subject, echoing Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada when he was asked about Soviet communism - "Those countries had completely different models, and none of them had anything to do with ours." (3) Freedom House is not a reliable source on Cuba. You can find a thousand American sources that will tell you similar misinformation. The most reliable source on Cuban constitutional governance - is the document itself. Sure, some of it may be wishful thinking - but so are all constitutions. What you're doing is, in effect, going onto a US page and writing "The US is controlled by the Republican and Democrat parties" running roughshod over the tense relationships and historical ambiguities. This has nothing to do with POV or NPOV, it's to do with plain standards of accuracy. Besides, I'll get it in the ear from the Cuba boffins at the London Institute of Commonwealth and Latin American Studies if I don't point such misunderstandings out:( Keep working on it or just ditch it entirely.--Zleitzen 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What other party is in the national assembly besides the Communists (or Communist-approved)? What other party is legal besides the Communists? If you answer that question with citation, this can be settled. CJK 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does the Cuban government=the truth while a US gov. funded organization is not? What other sources are acceptable to you? CJK 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do most people in the U.K. have the same opinion on Cuba as you? CJK 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why ask about political parties? The Cuban law does not allow mass media campaigning by any political party consequent to Article 53 of their constitution which limits free speech/press to state and social purposes. Cuba is a socialist republic and your question fails to accept that fact as a premise. It appears you are trying to measure a socialist republic with a liberal democracy measuring stick. BruceHallman 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CJK asked "Why does the Cuban government=the truth...?". Per Wikipedia:policy, we should not accept, necessarily, that it does. Who said that it did? BruceHallman 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzin here says The Communist Party is not the sole political party in the National Assembly - the Communist Party do not even participate in the process, and at least 50% of the Assembly has nothing to do with the CCP. I want to know what the other parties are and whether or not they are pre-approved. CJK 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CJK, Why do you ask about political parties in the context of a socialist republic? BruceHallman 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You appear not to understand CJK. I respectfully ask you to do your homework on what is a complicated subject. The Communist Party is not the "sole political party" in the National Assembly. There are simply no "parties" in the National assembly. As for your question, I have no idea if most people in the UK have the same view about Cuba as me, but I imagine it would be pretty similar given that Cuba is popular tourist destination. My view is that Cuba is a unique, contradictory, fascinating country in the Caribbean - the rest of my involvement is academic. Also, a comparison between a US view on Cuba vs the Cuban Constitution is a false one. By that premise we could then use a Cuban views of the United States to inform all US political articles, we could claim in those articles that America is "an imperialist state" and other such baloney, rather than refer directly to accurate analysis or primary documents such as the US constitution. In other words - we could waste our time and reduce the credibility of the encyclopaedia. Please move on from this. --Zleitzen 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The article National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba disagrees with you. Also, it hardly matters considering they only meet a couple times a year, while the Communist-run Council of State of Cuba fills in the rest. CJK 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it does disagree with scholarly work on the subject. That's because it's wrong.

Plus, you can't get nominated if you oppose the Communist's policies. CJK 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true either, many of the members of the assembly have been critical of the government since the revolution including the recently elected Silvio Rodríguez. Besides, which "Communist policies" do you refer to?--Zleitzen 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I'm sick of this stuff. You aren't going to disprove that Cuba is run by the Communist Party any more than you can disprove it for Laos, Vietnam, China, and North Korea. I'm not aware of all the facades the Cuban Communists creates to fool the gullible, but the fact is that one party monopolizes the power. There is something wrong with you and these un-named scholars if you believe that any other institution runs the country. A citation would be nice for your above claim that nominations aren't curtailed. I want to ask for the last time: what source would be acceptable for you to show the Communists control Cuba? CJK 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't added anything to this article to require citations. There are no sources acceptable to show "the Communists control Cuba" because it's inaccurate. That's why it shouldn't be put in the article in the first place and you've opened up too many ambiguities with your edit - ditch it. It should be dealt with correctly and accurately in an encyclopaedic manner on the correct place, rather than your problematic brief sentence, which attempts to convey 47 years of contrasting policy and governance in a few words. --Zleitzen 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So because you say it's inaccurate, that means no sources are good enough for you. Fine. I have no more to say on this. There are no meaningful free elections in Cuba. Period. No one except for the Cuban government, Hugo Chavez, you, and some misguided scholars believe that. Not the worldwide non-Communist media, not the human rights organizations, not the U.S. or EU government, not the vast majority of independent observers. CJK 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we'll leave at that, CJK. Me with my wish to apply encyclopedic standards and accuracy (see britannica entry on Cuban politics) and you with what ever point you want to make.--Zleitzen 01:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Will you accept the jist of this intro? CJK 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Touche, CJK! Good one. Though it contradicts this - and doesn't really make any sense. Mr Britannica deserves a stern ticking off from yours truely. Proceed as you see fit, though as KarenAnn asks - why you are so fixated on this issue? No need to respond.--Zleitzen 01:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

CJK, for the life of me I cannot understand why you are so fixated on this issue. The article which, theoretically we are all working on, is about a man, a human being, not a political party or a system of government. Granted, the man of whom we speak participates in the politics of his environment. probably manipulates them. But who can for one moment think that one individual, no matter how powerful, can control a whole country (a mere 90 miles from the U.S.) single-handedly for half a century? We are talking about human beings. This article, I thought, was about Castro as a human -- that is what is so fascinating -- a man with fantastic charisma, yet ruthless, cunning and instinctively politically astute. Evidence is that he is not so much an ideologue but a pragmatist. Lets get interested in him! Go argue politics on some Cuba or Socialism page. KarenAnn 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he controls the country single handedly--I said he and the Communist Party did. Hitler and Stalin didn't control their nations by themselves either. CJK 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, did you reach a conclusion here? I can't find the decision. The text now says "Since his assumption of power, he has led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic, with a legally enshrined Communist Party.

My suggestion: "Since his assumption of power, he has led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic."

I left the last sentence off, because the notion of the legitimate and monotonic party system can be added elsewhere in the article, or in some other form after my suggestion. Do you agree?

Why is this discussed again? Perhaps because the last versions are buried into the inaccessible archives .) Teemu Ruskeepää 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As said earlier the complex situation in Cuba and Castro as a politician in particular cannot be grasped in one intro paragraph. Information on the political structures should be in this article, I think, as long as they deal with Castro. There are now some parts in the article (notably the Embargo bit) which don't even mention Castro and just describe the embargo in full. While the embargo should be mentioned I think the technical details which do not necessarily involve Castro should be in the Cuba embargo article. So basic information and possibly how the embargo affects Castro as a politician. mensch • t 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, see previous comments above. CJK 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You said a lot of things, CJK. Please tell your counter-suggestion. By the way, I modified the "decided things" for you. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I want the added text that you want to delete. Castro's Communist affiliations are extremely important and should be in the intro, considering they have governed Cuba for the past 47 years. CJK 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you accept this: "He has led the Communist Party of Cuba since 1957". What has the transformation of Cuba got to do with Fidel Castro, anyway?

Intro

TJive just reverted the article with the comment: "this is the most appropriate reference to the communist party; the other paragraph is overkill for sentiments already discussed in the intro." Discussion of communism in Cuba belongs in the Cuba article, this article is about Fidel Castro, so it does not actually appear to be 'most appropriate'. Second part, the paragraph deleted in whole is not 'already discussed in the intro'. TJive, please explain these inconsistencies. BruceHallman 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not an accurate representation of my remarks. There needs to be some reference to the Communist Party of Cuba in the context of his politics and his actions in Cuba. I was attempting a rather sterile compromise from CJK's previous insertions. Thus "most appropriate" of any proposed wordings so far. As for your paragraph, there is no need for it. The various views of this man are already discussed and there is no need for a colorful retread. --TJive 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note, this talk page is bewildering. --TJive 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "enshrined" is a rather odd choice of words in the very first paragraph. My dictionary says: "To charish as sacred." Is that what you mean? KarenAnn 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The word has been ripped from its context. The phrase "legally enshrined" (as well, "enshrined into law") is commonly used to refer to the instance of making a part of, or codifying, a behavior, practice, group, or individual into the legal system. --TJive 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it used that way and I am a forensic specialist in my field. It sounds rather religious to me, and someone was saying Castro wasn't at all religious. KarenAnn 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with religion and Castro is not religious. --TJive 23:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"With a legally enshrined Communist Party" sounds a bit weird to me, as if Castro alone forms the party. I think "as leader of the legally enshrined Communist Party" sounds better, but I'm not sure if that's a correct statement.mensch • t 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the upper branch with the same subject matter. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive wrote that 'enshrined' ... 'has nothing to do with religion'. This obviously is a false statement. One definition of the word is "To cherish as sacred." which obviously is at least somewhat reminiscent of religion. In short the word 'enshrined' is too ambiguous and inappropriate for the opening paragraph. The word 'vanguard' is neutral, and taken directly from Article 1, Chapter 5 of the constitution, so it is extremely well sourced. BruceHallman 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be retarded. "Enshrined into law" is a fixed phrase with no religious meaning, just as "in legal limbo" has nothing to do with unbaptized infants. I mean, for Christ's sake! (<- Not religious either) --4.240.72.7 05:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, if "enshrined" is an issue, would you accept my version which accurately describes the status of the Communist Party? CJK 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is an improvement thanks. The redirect to Communist State is a problem, and we probably do not agree that the Communist Party acts as a political party. I have suggested an alternative, which is ambiguous enough that it might satisfy both of us. BruceHallman 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, you and the participants of your discussion are not the only people, who have the power on this issue. Do not suggest that you are. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Trying to find a neutral compromise, I replaced with the Communist Party of Cuba functioning as the sole political party. with guided by the Communist Party of Cuba. A couple comments, the redirect of sole political party to Communist state was just wrong and POV. Also, the issue of 'political' doesn't make sense when viewing Cuba. Cuba cannot be fairly viewed and judged through Liberal democratic 'party system' glasses. BruceHallman 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have lost count of the TJive reverts, without coherent explanation or answering of questions, and feel it is prudent to add a POV tag until this changes. BruceHallman 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either edit is worth getting into a conflict about - Tjive's version is largely correct, the Party are enshrined in the constitution, and the article carries links to both Socialist and Communist state pages. Whilst Bruce's version quotes directly from the constitution itself. Encarta get round this by saying "Castro transformed Cuba into a socialist nation" leaving it at that [1]. Why any of these additions is neccessary at all is more the question, as they open a load of problems & questions that cannot be resolved in a few words. ie. When did this happen? How are the Communist Party enshrined? Didn't the Communists and Castro dislike each other during the revolution? etc etc... The second paragraph of Bruce's, which I like as a piece of writing, could be perceived as being too journalistic in style, lacking the cold dissemination of information of an encyclopedia. --Zleitzen 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've altered that sentence to what I regard as a compromise position. It still emphasizes that Cuba is a one party state, whilst removing the phrase "legally enshrined" which implies illegitimacy. I think the new version is also plainer and easier to understand.

The change also has the added advantage of allowing the inclusion of a link to the "single-party state" page. Gatoclass 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

People objecting to the language of "enshrined" are either misunderstanding or are being deliberately obtuse; however, I have no particular attachment to that term. As for Gatoclass's edits, while "single-party state" is still correct, "communist state" is more specific and relevant here. As for "socialist state" versus "socialist republic", I have no strong opinion though I believe "socialist republic" is the preferred self-description, and the two make more linguistic sense together (saying both "socialist state" and "communist state" sounds awkward, though in the normative definitions they can and do coexist). --TJive 03:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the objection to that is either? A socialist republic with a legally (or alternatively - constitutionally) enshrined Communist party is about the most accurate brief description of Cuba you are likely to read. Plus it had links to the various pages for detail. Bruce, could you elaborate again, I missed your reasons in the discussion tree business.--Zleitzen 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the objection to that is either?

What, the objection to "legally enshrined"? Okay, let me explain my objection.

A shrine is a place of religious worship. The term "enshrined" therefore suggests something put upon a pedestal and worshipped. I think the subtext is quite obvious, whether consciously intended or otherwise, ergo - these guys think they have a God-given right to govern. That's why I say the word hints at illegitimacy - a throwback to an earlier age, of the Divine Right of Kings etc.

while "single-party state" is still correct, "communist state" is more specific and relevant here.

I agree, and that's why I included the reference to the Communist Party of Cuba. I don't think that anyone who reads that sentence can be in any doubt that Cuba is a communist country, or indeed that it is one party state.

saying both "socialist state" and "communist state" sounds awkward

I agree, but I didn't use both phrases. The sentence now reads he has led the transformation of Cuba into a one-party socialist state, governed by the Communist Party of Cuba. No repetition.

So basically the sentence says exactly the same as it did before, but without the term "legally enshrined". And it has the added advantage of allowing the inclusion of a link to the single-party state page, as well as the other links which were already there, so it seems to me to be an improvement all around, and hopefully not one that anyone will find too objectionable. Gatoclass 04:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's less accurate Gatolass. Cuba isn't governed by the Communist party, it's governed by its consitution. This "shrine" business is a red herring, "Enshrined in constitution" is a well used expression which is perfectly acceptable (and accurate) here [2]. --Zleitzen 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not simply inventing an argument; I was providing one for switching around the links you gave - from "socialist state" to "socialist republic" and "single party state" to "communist state". As for "enshrined", I do not understand the objection. It is not used in reference to religiosity and does not have any such connotation when speaking of law (except in any respect of law itself being sacred). This is a poor and overly defensive semantic quibble. I don't object to your wording, though I prefer mine, but I do object to your link choices. --TJive 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I changed the links, did I? I'm pretty sure they are the same links that were there before. All I've done is add an additional one, the link to the single party state page. Gatoclass 04:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, wait, I did remove the link to the "communist state" page and, effectively, replaced it with one to the "single-party state" page.

I don't see what difference it makes though. Linking to "communist state" from the phrase "legally enshrined" wasn't exactly an obvious association to begin with, and was really quite confusing. And it's not as though it won't be obvious to the reader that what he's reading about is a communist state. And besides, there must surely be a link to the "communist state" page on all three links that are there now - the single-party state link, the socialist state link, and the Communist Party of Cuba link. Gatoclass 04:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The link used should be the one which is most specific and informative to the reader. We also should not speculate as to a reader's general knowledge on subjects we are ostensibly informing him about. --TJive 04:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

TJ, I checked all three of the links and they all have links to the "communist states" page. How could anyone possibly miss the association? I think you're being a little overzealous here. Gatoclass 05:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuba isn't governed by the Communist party, it's governed by its constitution.

Now who's the one splitting hairs? And do you really believe the Communist Party is not the final arbiter of power in Cuba? Somehow I doubt it.

This "shrine" business is a red herring, "Enshrined in constitution" is a well used expression which is perfectly acceptable (and accurate) here

The point is not what the phrase means but what it can be read to mean. We are supposed to strive for NPOV language in Wiki. In reading back through this page, I see I am by no means the only person who has noted the implied tone of disapproval in this phrase.

Whatever else you may think of my edit, I think you would probably agree that it is transparently NPOV in that it states the essential facts with neither implied approval nor disapproval. That's what we should be striving to do in Wiki, and that IMO is the best way to ensure the avoidance of edit wars, either now or at some future date. Gatoclass 06:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about splitting hairs, but Cuba is not governed by the Communist party. This is a misinterpretation, likewise, the US is not governed by the Republican party, it is governed by it's constitution. The PCC were enshrined in the constitution in 1976, which was reaffirmed after a referendum in 2002, much in the same way that specific guarantees regarding religion were enshrined in amendments to the US constitution. You ask - "do you really believe that the Communist Party is not the final arbiter of power in Cuba" - actually it isn't. The Council of State and the National Assembly of People’s Power are the final arbiters of power, of which only half are members of the Communist party. Sorry if this complicates things, but it's one of the reasons why this article should steer clear of such topics in an introductary paragraph. Cuba's just a strange place where everything is complicated. Tjive's edit was accurate enough for me, and Bruce was actually referring to the consititution itself. Neither were inaccurate or POV to my mind - but are either additions neccessary? It sat quite well before. I appreciate you efforts to find neutrality, by the way. --Zleitzen 07:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Link from "one-party" to "communist state" is cryptic. On the other hand, "socialist republic" should be the same as the underlying link of "socialist state" for clarity's sake. Again, this is a biographical article not a political article. -- 29 June 2006

Second paragraph

Recently, TJive and CJK deleted this proposed second paragraph:

"Castro, in his long tenure as leader of Cuba has been variously described as a totalitarian despot and a charismatic liberator, both widely hated and widely popular, courageous and cowardly, a benevolent dictator, an astute politician and an autocratic totalitarian murderer, symbol of communist revolution in Latin America, a dedicated socialist ideologue and a pragmatic nationalistic power monger. Few leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism."

Could we discuss what is wrong with this paragraph rather than just delete the whole thing? BruceHallman 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to restate my convictions daily; I remarked on this yesterday and it has been shuffled off to the archives. All of the relevant issues - views on Castro, his effect on Cuba, nationalism, socialism, and so forth are already discussed in the introduction. There is no need for yet another paragraph in the introduction which treads over this again. --TJive 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many items in the 'second paragraph' which are not addressed in the first paragraph. BruceHallman 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive wrote: "I do not intend to restate my convictions daily; I remarked on this yesterday..." Here is a link to what you wrote[3] and your assertion "The various views of this man are already discussed..." is just not true. Please explain. BruceHallman 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that TJive and CJK have not responded, I am re-inserting the second paragraph. Also, I continue to welcome discussion regarding this paragraph relative to whether it meets WP:Policy BruceHallman 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe take the "cowardly/courageous" out, Bruce, to curb some of the journalistic impression of the paragraph.--Zleitzen 17:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I made that change, but I am still curious to learn the real reason that CJK and TJive repeatedly delete that paragraph. I don't recall any CJK reason given, and the TJive reason is unexplained and does not appear to be based on a true premise. BruceHallman 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't try the legalisms. I never suggested that your paragraph violates policy. I simply am saying that it is inappropriate, unencyclopedic, and unnecessary. The introduction, which is already at a sufficient length, does not need yet another separate paragraph to detail varying views on Castro and his tenure, e.g. "he has invoked both praise and condemnation (at home and internationally)" and "Some credit....Others see...." The role of socialism and nationalism is given. That a controversial political figure is described as "both widely hated and widely popular" is nearly self-evident. That "[f]ew leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism" is possibly tendentious and appears to be a personal observation. There is no real value in these assertions. The only potentially useful part is that he is a symbol of communist revolution, which is not a view per se as you are describing. --TJive 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a WP:V fact that some people see Castro as charismatic, widely popular, benevolent, an astute politician. TJive wrote: "The introduction... does not need yet another separate paragraph to detail varying views on Castro" To achieve NPOV, the negative should be balanced with the positive. TJive, incidentally, advocates for removal of the paragraph that contains the 'positive'. TJive, please explain how this is NPOV? I am willing to negotiate and compromise most of this, but somewhere in the intro, that fact that some people find Castro to be charismatic and popular needs to be included, because it is an important WP:V fact (and to balance words like 'fiery'). Omitting that, in the last 40 years, Castro has enjoyed popularity in Cuba is an important thing to include in the article and is not presently included. BruceHallman 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fiery" is not a bad or negative word and does not give imbalance to the article. As for popularity, were your characterizations correct, this would not be a matter of achieving NPOV, it would be a matter of giving information that is missing or better informs the reader. In this case, that Castro is "popular" is a contentious claim that is not easily verifiable as no free and independent press and polling data by Cubans exists and information which is published elsewhere on this topic is usually very obscure or given by politicized sources; as well, it is often heavily reliant on flawed anecdotes. In other words, it is a complicated and disputed issue that can not be summated by a small and general reference. The thrust of the existing statement about "praise and condemnation (at home and internationally)" suffices for this purpose. --TJive 21:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that some consider that Castro has popularity (and/or has had popularity) in Cuba is easily verified. For instance, this Google search http://www.google.com/search?q=castro+popularity+cia shows many articles that describe how the CIA has designed programs to undercut Castro's popularity. So, at least, the CIA considers that Castro has/had popularity. BruceHallman 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That "some consider" is not a valuable assertion here and is already effectively addressed in the aforementioned passage. --TJive 23:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Castro has popularity and has had popularity in Cuba is not communicated in the 'praise and condemnation' phrase. BruceHallman 23:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the fact that Fidel Castro is a charismatic leader is not communicated well, and should be included in the second paragraph. BruceHallman 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph

It says "Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies which saw the rapid centralization of Cuba's economy - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries."

I'd like it to say "Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies of centralization - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries."

Reason: The tone is blaming. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Decided things -experiment disputed

This is an experiment of my discussion tree structure. The bolded are the article's content which is not currently disputed. Read about it at "Making a comprehensive discussion tree" or on my user page "Improvements to Wikipedia" Teemu Ruskeepää 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926) held the title of Prime Minister [1] of Cuba from 1959, after commanding the attack that overthrew Fulgencio Batista, until 1976, when he became President of Cuba. Since his assumption of power, he has led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic, with a legally enshrined Communist Party.

Castro, in his long tenure as leader of Cuba has been variously described as a totalitarian despot and a charismatic liberator, both widely hated and widely popular, courageous and cowardly, a benevolent dictator, an astute politician and an autocratic totalitarian murderer, symbol of communist revolution in Latin America, a dedicated socialist ideologue and a pragmatic nationalistic power monger. Few leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism.

Castro first attracted attention in Cuban political life through his nationalist critiques of Batista and United States corporate and political influence in Cuba. He gained an ardent, but limited, following and also drew the attention of the authorities.[2] His leadership of the 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks, his subsequent trial, incarceration, and planned departure for Mexico[3][4] to organize and train for the guerrilla invasion of Cuba that took place in December 1956. Since his assumption of power in 1959 he has invoked both praise and condemnation (at home and internationally).

Outside of Cuba, Castro has been defined by his relationship with both the United States and with the former Soviet Union. Ever since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 by the United States, his government has had an openly antagonistic relationship with the US, and a simultaneous closeness with the Soviet bloc. This was true until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, after which his priorities shifted from supporting foreign intervention to paternalistic partnerships with regional socialist and left wing figures such as Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia.

Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies which saw the rapid centralization of Cuba's economy - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries. The expansion of publicly funded health care and education has been a cornerstone of Castro's domestic social agenda. Some credit these policies for Cuba's relatively high Human Development Index. [5] Others see Castro and his policies as being responsible for Cuba's general economic depredation, and harshly criticize him for the criminalization of political dissent and free speech.

Off-topic

Can we archive this page and start over?

I replied to something on this page that showed up on my watchlist and found that my reply was surrounded by posts in April.

We need to have things in chronological order (at least I do -- as I am easily confused! KarenAnn 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of discussions on this talk page which are quite old or not relevant anymore and can thus be archived. The topics which matter should remain here in chronological order. I think that's the best solution. mensch • t 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how to accomplish that? (I haven't the foggist.) KarenAnn 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just create link to a new page (Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive_11) and start the page. I'm afraid we'll have to remove the content manually. But let's wait a bit until there is some consensus on what stays and what's going to be archived. mensch • t 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that you will save my discussion tree and all the active debates? Is it necessairy to move anything to archives, when you can browse all the old and new comments in chronological order, but just in a subject based category? KarenAnn, the only difference now is that the chronological order exists separately in all headings, not simultaneously based on the entire article. You shouldn't quit trying to learn my discussion tree. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This difference now is that I can't find anything anymore on this Talk page. It's become useless to me. This morning I had a orange banner saying there was a message for me but where? I browsed the Talk tree a while but got tired and confused. I found this message from you here accidently because am sticking to this heading as I can converse with mensch here. KarenAnn 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just think the part of the article you want to discuss. All the comments on that very part are in the same category as the part in the article. Please have an open mind for new suggestions. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to archive articles when ever you damn please, infact, it should be done by all in a consensus. I don't like copying here my relevant assets from "archive 11", but I will. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all editors have the right to archive a talk page. Please see WP:Archive. which gives the guideline of archiving when the talk page exceeds 32kB. The archive 11 was much too large at 111kB. BruceHallman 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your law, not mine. This means that the law should be changed to include my fix on the discussion tree. The law was originally made to control the chaotic discussion tree model. If we organize it so that comments are under the correspondent headings, the discussion doesn't get hard to follow, due to the navicatory nature. Then your stupid laws wouldn't be unnecessairy. =) Teemu Ruskeepää 13:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

To all discussers

Please don't be so fatalist in engaging a rather irrelevant and abstract conversation, fail to discuss contructively with your opponent and then crash and burn and "archive" the discussion. All you need to do to be constructive is to express the problem and suggest an alternative. Don't try to prove everything by going into off-topic. Teemu Ruskeepää

The problem is as follows, this fatalist attitude and use of force according to the POV of just a few participants pushes people away. People don't even want to try to discuss things, and they just come to Wikipedia to force articles for a while. The same people insult their views calling them "laughable POV's", fail to listen to others, perhaps because they think than others "only" want to annoy them, and then fail to see that the discussion has failed due to their own prejudice and arrogance, and then kill the discussion by moving it to the archives. This way nothing gets solved, everything is exactly how KarenAnn and BruceHallman likes it, and everything is taken up in an endless cycle of unconstructive prejudice and arrogance. I know I have seen this endogamy arrogance of the anglicans before in the finnish rugby league. Why don't you grow up, people! Teemu Ruskeepää 15:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In reponse to the "Finnish guy" and all other discussers: Oh my God, what is wrong with you all??? Can't you see that yes, Castro is a real figure that should be documented with neutrality and respect, but that ALSO Castro DID commit acts of treachery across his rulership till now??? All that needs to be said is a factual account of ALL events that occured, not slandered OR sugarcoated. And also, organizers who criticize people who criticize Castro: PLEASE understand the fact that most of these people ARE actually from Cuba from that period, so: 1. Don't even THINK that they can't be right or are delusional, as you can only READ from people who don't agree with them what they went through, and 2. Don't DELETE every comment that bashes Castro and keep all the ones that praise him! Isn't the talk page for...I dunno...Discussion??? Seriously, just EVERYONE keep an open mind here. Thank you.

Mensch, BruceHall, KarenAnn and other "authorities" do know the neutral way of no slander or sugarcoating. They do not critizise the people for critizing Castro nor delete things from the discussion. Nothing is deleted from the discussion, but I have moved them under the same categories as the article. The problem with these people is that they don't respect other people's opinions, and they shoot them down. They destroy the conversation by insulting people who are expressing their views, neutral or bious, and they also use the Wikipedia as a tool for power, by stopping all conversations by moving them to archives. You can see this clearly right now at the discussion, which you find by using your browser's CTRL + F with a text "If a structure prevents people from". Mensch is putting words into people mouths by telling all how little everybody supports my suggestion. This way he fools people to think that no one supports me, when infact people haven't agreed by discussion, that I'm wrong. You can also see how they call people opinions "laughable point of views" and agree by themselves to move things to archive, because KarenAnn "is tired and confused". Teemu Ruskeepää 07:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not other users Teemu. You interjections here are not neccessary, particuarily as the editors you mention have evidently not insulted or disrespected anyone on this page. All actions by these editors are within wikipedia guidelines and policy, and have been enacted civilly. Please refrain from further comments of this nature, because such assertions could be considered disruptive to the editing process and received poorly by the wider wikipedia community to your disfavour.--Zleitzen 07:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please respect other people's opinions about the article, don't laugh or insult them and answer politely and reasonably to express your opinions in an equal value in relation to other people's opinions about the article -to others, you might be wrong. Please participate in discussions about improving the discussion tree and the article and don't move them to archives without a consensus amongst the discussors. I have simply reached the limits of the discussion, which are created by the admins of this page, and which give more rights to them than to the rest of us. This is also the cause of vandalism, the reason why some users see it necessairy to rather troll than discuss things. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Additions and general quality

Making a comprehensive discussion tree

I think that rather than burying old discussions into an inaccessible archive, the list should be organized. This way the discussion could expand without the need of archives. Make a categorial order which deepens in an orderly fashion. I've thought of a basic root of all the present headings in the article and a two permanent "control" categories: 1. Off-topic and 2. Additions and general quality. Depending on the article, the discussion categories should include all the present titles in the article and if necessairy, categories for "photos" and "sources", which are not displayed in the article's tree of contents .

Please express your will freely at the appropriate category of your choosing. Please do not add new discussions outside the discussion tree. You can also suggest new categories at "additions and general quality.

DECIDED THINGS

This is a new feature to my discussion tree structure, which makes conclusions valid and repetition unnecessairy. It improves my design, whose purpose is to eliminate the need for discussion archives. This will be added, I hope, at the end of every paragraph, where there will be a copy of the present section of the article. Decided things will be highlighted and the others are not. New articles will always be highlighted (decided) at first. If a user wishes to re-open discussion, the part will be unbolded, and futher arguments ensue at the end of the old discussion.

The discussion tree should be maintained simultaneously with editions of the discussion as well as the article. When editing the article, the "decided things" should be edited to correspond with the article. When editing the discussion, the "decided things" should be edited (highlight - unbold ) to show what is under dispute and what has been concluded. The editors may do this themselves, or then observers can do it, voluntarely.

The Wikipedia structure should be modified to include the present discussion headings in the discussion page, so that when a user starts a new discussion, he could choose a present heading, which together form a universal category. Also the "decided things" at the end of every main discussion heading, should be programmed to appear automatically every time someone adds a new heading to the article, along with the new heading, of course. Teemu Ruskeepää 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the good intentions, but I find that the sorting of the talk page into a discussion tree makes the talk page nearly unusuable. Please do not do this sorting. It makes the page far too hard to read. BruceHallman 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just think the part of the article you want to discuss. All the comments on that very part are in the same category as the part in the article. Please have an open mind for new suggestions. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page - Teemu, I think the idea of seperate sections on the talk page has value and a future at wikipedia - however, your wider experiments with other aspects of the talk page may be too complicated for the Castro page. You may like to try it on a less controversial topic with less users.--Zleitzen 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but I could try it on the "intro" and leave the rest of the discussion optional. Bruce Hallman and the other one don't have any right to walk over the rest of us and hope that we won't return to demand our wishes. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Teemu, if I am "the other one" refered to above then I don't see how I 'walk over the rest of us' by merely making a suggestion. I did not archive the page, as I don't even know how to do it. I carried out no action. All I did was voice my opinion. Is that not allowed under the new rules? KarenAnn 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Teemu, Please explain how I 'walk over the rest of us'? Also, perhaps it might help if you could restate 'your wishes', they are not clear to me. Neither am I aware of your demands. Would you please restate your wishes and demands now? BruceHallman 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Teemu, you may not be aware that your restructuring of the talk page causes it to be impossible for a reader of the talk page to efficiently check the talk page for new posts and reply. Hypothetically, threading software might make this possible, but your manual 'organizing' ruins the usefulness of the talk page from my perspective. BruceHallman 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cough! Choke! Gasp! I have to agree that Bruce is correct. So let us revert to previous format. Please!!!!!!!!!! El Jigue 6-23-06

It was about time for your constructive critisism. Thank you for that.

I have considered that before, and I found that you can check new answers the same way as always. They still exist under the category. My discussion tree doesn't change the chronological order of the comments, which is what you are really after, but just attaches a new information to them, which is what part of the article the comment is about.

You are afraid of the new looks, and you can't even try to understand that the category I have created is equal to the article. You still look it only as different from the way it used to be, and completely "irrelevant".

I wouldn't have made this tree if I didn't understand how it works for all.

Going back to the way things were will make the comments mixed and repetitive, the same subjects under different names, same subjects repeatedly and unreadable lists of mixed comments.

Remember that the new people coming here do not know what the discussion history is about, and my tree makes it easier for everybody. Don't be so self-centered.

I'm sure you can make the right decision of letting go your old habits of learning from memory the places of old comments, and commenting without relevance, without expressing the problem and without expressing an alternative.

If you don't understand this explanation, please let me demonstrate the difference between my tree and you tree, by organizing only the Intro section, and letting you add what ever you want about the rest of the article.

Remember too, that others don't even know the old way, that you are accustomed to. Are you going to force them your way and over my opinion? Teemu Ruskeepää 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I see you have good intentions here. I have tried your new system, and I regret to say, that no it does not make it easier to read the new unread messages and reply to those messages. BruceHallman 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The editors around have given your system a try for several days now. No one, besides you, believes it has a net benifit. Because Wikipedia depends on [Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus], please consider that the consensus should control, and please agree to stop your 'discussion tree' experiment. Regardless, I do appreciate your good intentions. BruceHallman 15:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Teemu, there are many users involved in a dispute over the introduction. This is not a good time or place to experiment with a new forum of discussion, and your tree is causing additional disharmony. Please consider experimenting on a different page - with less controversy and users.--Zleitzen 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that you don't like doesn't meant that you understand that it's bad. Please read that again.

There is no dispute, because you have no arguments, just feelings. You think you have tried and proved it wrong, but you haven't considered it against the old model.

The old model mixes the subjects together, not just the Intro, but all the headings. I suggest we maintain making this organisation to be able at all to follow the conversation.

There are no "many users" and "anti-lobby" against my tree, but just Bruce, Zleitzen, ElJique and KarenAnn, who are affiliated with my tree. Others are actually using it.

You 4 don't use it, because you are afraid of the change. Not because you know it's bad.

Actually, it's absolutely better than not making it. It doesn't take anything, but just gives a better forum. So stop being subjective about it and trust it.

Please do not EDIT WAR with me until I have agreed to stop making the tree. As I said, I'm now doing it only with the Intro.

I'd like to add that I know the 1.1.1.1. system is bad, but it's not because of the tree, it's because users are not using the tree. The same mixing occures now in the tree, but atleast it's not mixed with others headings, when they are started. So I'm not stopping anybody from doing anything. They should write according what has been said, and not the old way of not reading the entire unorganized discussion list. It's easier now to find out what has been said, and users should do it. By questioning by tree, you discourage people from doing this. Teemu Ruskeepää 06:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New comments are in the bottom of the article-consentrated headings Teemu Ruskeepää 07:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I just moved the headings in the same order as in the article, contrary to people talking about the article in a chaotic order. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Update

My tree changes the discussion page so that rather than in the old fashion list of topics, where topics are in a chronological order (the order they have been written), topics will be in a logical order as well as in a chronological order. The logical order is directly created according to the arcticle at the present time. The old fashion chronological order will be moved in subcategories, while still being in the order they are written. This makes the discussion more manageable.

Users Karenann, mensch, Zleitzen, BruceHallman, Gatoslass and TJive have rejected my plan, because they don't want to give up the old fashion chronological order, which at this level is replaced by my logical order. I think that they just can't use the "===" system. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This talk page

Teemu has moved comments around this talk page again despite comments to contrary from a number of users that he leave this page be.

I object the wording of you question. By emphasizing how many people disagree (according to you), you can't suggest that I'm acting against other people's will. The thing has not been discussed yet. That is a sneaky strike of misleading the ignorent. You are even trying that one on my user page Teemu Ruskeepää 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Opposed to Teemu's changes

Oppose - sorry Teemu, I'm sure you mean well, but your constant reorganization of posts just makes it harder to find them. Wiki has a convention that the latest post gets posted at the bottom of the page, and if everyone followed this convention there would be far fewer problems.

Trying to reorganize stuff by topic is not going to work because there are a theoretically limitless number of topics and there are also new contributors who will be arriving all the time who don't follow your scheme. So, I think you should stop doing this. It's a waste of your time and everybody else's. Gatoclass 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, that if everyone put posts in the same heading, as their subject exists in the article, the posts would be easier to find, because my tree tells users where the subjects are, and they are not in the order they are written. New posts can still be put at the bottom of the heading. I'm not constantly reorganizing the tree, but making it according to the same plan, as mentioned at "making a comprehensive category tree". There are as many topics as there are headings in the article, and this makes it easier to look for the same subject to discuss, which you should have in mind. New contributors don't arrive to do as you do, adding new comments unaware of the old discussion, but they learn to use discussin page like this. They can also be taught to use it according to my categories. Everyone should participate in putting the topics in their own headings. Just like everyone participates in reverting vandalism. Teemu Ruskeepää

Oppose. — Teemu, thank you for trying help, but please do not rearrange the talk page into a discussion tree. BruceHallman 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to do that, and I know that you see it's better Teemu Ruskeepää 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. - Ditto. Teemu’s ideas had value when the Cuba page was blocked and users could examine proposed sections on a fairly fresh talk page. On this page it has created considerable disharmony. Users are unable to locate their comments, and the talk page had grown to an unmanageable length. --Zleitzen 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My tree stops the growth of topics and organizes the same topics together. This way the discussion will never become chaotic. Users can learn to put their arguments in the correspondent branch, where they will be easier to find than amongst the endless archives and unorganized topics together. Disharmony is the stage in which you all should switch over, not accuse me of making things harder. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. — As per above. This way of structuring doesn't work on an ever-changing, dynamic thing like a Wiki. Furthermore, a lot of users get confused because the chronological ordering is only on a subject level and it's very hard to see what has changed in the tree. That's not something one can get easily used to. mensch • t 17:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The tree is stationary, which makes it easier to navigate, than through all the unorganized topics and archives together. You can get used to using a tree, which is in the same order as the article, changing synchronous with the article. Wiki's ever-change means no-moderation and chaos. My tree is dynamic, not Wiki. My tree lets people to learn all that has been decided and share knowledge about the discussion, so that they can comment informed of the history of discussion. Wikipedia discussion shows only the present headings, which grow too complicated to use. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But it simply doesn't work, at least not for this page, that hasn't got anything to do about people who do not want to learn the structure, but about editors who get lost in the structure. It's not about a certain unwillingness to use it, it's simply unusable in this situation. The chaos I see isn't caused the lack of moderation (which simply isn't true, because the editors moderate themselves through Wikipedia policies and common sense) and ever-changing nature of a wiki, but because of imposing a rigid structure on something without reaching consensus over this with fellow authors first. It's true that talk pages generally show the most present discussions, but I believe that they're the most important discussions. Also, certain discussions recur, in the case of Castro the archives are littered with POV disputes and requests to rewrite certain aspects of the article. mensch • t 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They have to learn Wiki anyway. The usual List of Topics is just the way things are done here, that's all. Ok, let's discuss this first. Unfortunately archiving means hiding the arguments and communication, which ofter leads to repetition and even vandalism. By extending the time and accessibility of people's arguments we reduce the need to internet troll. POV discussions occur only if there isn't the structure to show where things belong. The structure tells people what they are supposed to discuss, where it is supposed to be discussed and also organizes the entire page to make it possible to find every last comment. The structure is naturally mainly about the article. =) Teemu Ruskeepää 06:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If a structure prevents people from discussing the things they think is important, than the structure is clearly flawed. But I think it's best to leave the subject of the discussion tree and get on with the things that matter (viz. improving the Castro article), because there is totally no support whatsoever for this idea on this talk page. :) mensch • t 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

By saying that you can't use the tree, you don't prove that it's bad. Then the tree doesn't prevent you from doing anything, but yourself, by having a negative attitude. This is the truth. The tree is clearly better than making a unorganized "list of topics". You aren't acting rational, mensch, by trying to convince others to stop the debate about my tree, because the tree improves the discussion. Read my previous arguments to mensch. You either have no right to put words into people's mouths about how they think about the tree. People haven't agreed by discussion, that I'm wrong and they should not believe you about how everybody relate to the tree, but to form their own opinions, which I can challenge individually. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. --TJive 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because it must be a good idea, because the others do it as well? Teemu Ruskeepää 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

On which talk pages is this tree also used and initiated by other editors? It may be a good idea in some cases. On the Cuba page for example, but only when it was locked as somebody explained elsewhere on this page. mensch • t 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here and Talk:Cuba, which proves that it isn't impossible to use it as you people suggest. When the article is locked, the edits must be discussed. When the article is unlocked, the edits are more easily done without discussion. But if you give people an opportunity to discuss things in a orderly fashion, they are more likely to discuss edits first, rather than EDIT WAR. Don't let the tendency of EDIT WARRING confuse you to think that it is useless trying to improve the pluralist nature of the Wikipedian article. Teemu Ruskeepää 06:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So two cases? One of which generated a lot of opposition, the other one worked, but only because the article was locked during the procedure. I really don't see why this structure would force people away from getting into edit wars. Discussing edits does, but we don't need a complex structure to accomplish that. mensch • t 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no opposition, just opinions, which do not mean they are together blindly right. The article being locked doesn't have anything to do with the discussion tree, because discussion tree can be modified any time. Mensch, do not talk over TJive. You are trying to destroy the debate about the tree by flooding this page, as you are writing many types of comments, which you clearly have designed to insult and sabotage me. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose CJK 23:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose Makes it impossible to follow the conversation as a newcomer. --Dweller 13:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what makes? Reading the instructions of where discussions are makes finding them harder? You don't know what you are talking about, and you are just picking sides. Teemu Ruskeepää

Strong oppose This is just a wretched idea. Even if it were superior, we can't just toss out all the old conventions all at once, and expect to switch over to another (seemingly arbitrary) one overnight. A discussion as animated and quickly-moving as is contained on this page is NOT the place to try to introduce a new system. It's not just impossible to follow the conversation as a newcomer; it's impossible to follow the conversation at all. Korossyl 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Teemu's changes

A different type of question

Should this topic be moved at:

3. Additions and general quality

-Making a comprehensive discussion tree?

to avoid adding another topic in a unlogical order to the list of topics?

• Oppose.

Oppose – I think it's fine where it is. mensch • t 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If it were under the topic tree, would it be easier to find? Teemu Ruskeepää 05:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mnope. I'll need to search in stead of browsing chronologically. This whole discussion also prevents discussing the things that really need to be done (e.g. like rewriting sections of the articles), let's leave it and continue without the whole new discussion tree and talk about whether a small talk section should be moved to a certain header or not. This is not what talk pages are for. mensch • t 09:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No. As I've told you suffieciently many times, you'll just need to search logically and chronologically. Besides, I believe you are just imitating KarenAnn, who said that the tree doesn't work chronologically. You seem to be an internet troll, who writes his arguments to sabotage other people's efforts. Teemu Ruskeepää

Let the name calling begin... I'm an Internet troll now. Please respect the Wikipedia policies regarding civility, assume good faith and no personal attacks. I never insulted you and I don't intend to. I just don't agree with what you see as improvements. The reason why I repeat KarenAnn is because I agree with her and because the reasons why your idea isn't good have been made very clear repeatedly and clearly, but still you continue to argue an idea which has no support at all. mensch • t 09:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded my critique. I continue to make counter-arguments, which prove your answers are incorrect in relation to the tree. It's just a few arguments I've seen anyway, not a consensus. I'm happy to challenge you and your friends, as no one has probably ever done it here, respectfully. Thank you for not calling your opinions the only type possible. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose No, no... just no. --Dweller 13:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? By creating a logical category we make the chronological discussion easier to navigate. It should be done just make it easier for the new-comers. Also, you don't shut me up by saying "just". Heh heh, anglicans ;) Teemu Ruskeepää 07:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Teemu Ruskeepää 07:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support

Yes. Reasons mentioned above Teemu Ruskeepää 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Prime Minister?!?!?!

I'm sorry, but Prime Minister, and President don't go together with Communist Party. Isnt that an oximoron?Defy You 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuba is a socialist republic. BruceHallman 14:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Move under category tree

Should this topic be moved under

1.Intro

1.1 First paragraph

1.1.2 Prime Minister?!?!?!

so that it would be in a logical order in the discussion?

• Oppose

Oppose – Per reasons stated above. Also, these requests make the talk page even more incomprehensible... mensch • t 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support

Aye Teemu Ruskeepää 06:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction (again)

May I suggest this introduction, which is in line with vitually every official encyclopedic description of Castro - --Zleitzen 14:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (born 13 August 1926) is the current President of Cuba. He held the title of Prime Minister from 1959, after commanding the revolution that overthrew Fulgencio Batista, until 1976 when he became president of the both the Council of State and the Council of Ministers. Castro became first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party in 1965, and led the transformation of Cuba into a one-party socialist republic.

I like it. I think it's certainly better than the "enshrined" version. mensch • t 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's factually correct. KarenAnn 15:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Though, for Single-party state Wikipedia says: "...a single political party forms the government...", which I don't think is technically true in Cuba (so I question WP:V). Also, a certain POV believes this as truth, and another POV does not agree, so I also question WP:NPOV. Also, I generally think the article, especially the opening paragraph should focus on Fidel Castro and not overly focus on Cuba. Of course, this is hard to do, but we should try. For instance, can we describe him as a person, and not him for what Cuba has become? BruceHallman 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

True, that the "one party" state is the problematic phrase - but the problem stems from the Socialist state, one party and communist state pages. They are now misleading, Cuba for instance, is clearly misrepresented on the one party page as it implies that the Communist party fill all roles in government which is not the case. The communist state page, which to me is as useful as having a Muslim state page (when it should be Islamic republic) has been edited into misconceptions. Nevertheless, a "one party state" should really mean a state where the constitution explicitly affirms the role of a single party as the dominant force, ie. Cuba.

The most important facts that people first need to know about Castro are his official titles and roles, ie that he is President of Cuba - Council of state etc. Every encyclopaedia follows this path for good reason. To ignore it in the introduction is rather like having a page on Neil Armstrong and not immediately stating that he was an astronaut! --Zleitzen 16:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I probably don't know my facts here, but didn't Cuba start out as a one party state in the Cuban Constitution of 1976, and the other parties were allowed to exist at a later time? KarenAnn 16:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1992 there was an amendment which changed the wording of the constitution, meaning that other parties were technically allowed to exist, which they do. But as no party can organise and campaign in Cuba (including the Communist party) under the individual candidate system, this is pretty meaningless. Other parties usually have campaigners raising money and attending international meetings abroad, and are generally tolerated within Cuba - and they're not indulging in some kind of covert 1984 style resistance. --Zleitzen 16:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Objections to "enshrined" are overstated and based on misperceptions but I do not object to the alternate wording so long as the communist state link remains. It is a widely used academic term and has encyclopedic precedent, including from examples culled previously on this talk page (don't ask me to find them at this point though.) --TJive 02:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Change the one party link to the Communist state link if you prefer. The one party page stinks as far as I'm concerned. But "Communist state" isn't a serious term, it's a parochial shorthand term people use in error, rather like when people call a spider an insect. --Zleitzen 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider the great many academics who deal with political science and accept the legitimacy of the concept, nor Encyclopedia Britannica, to be merely "parochial". --TJive 02:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't believe that Britannica wording - it contradicted every other entry - and isn't in any of my hard back copies. Very shoddy indeed. But you do understand the multiple problems here - one of them being that it infers that Cuba slavishly followed a Soviet model which isn't true, as it changed constantly and is still changing now. The relationship between Castro and the Communist Party is complex and contradictory, nothing like the Soviet or Asian states. Anyway, we can move on I hope.--Zleitzen 03:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Move under category tree

Should this topic be moved under

1.Intro

1.1 First paragraph

1.1.3 Introduction (again)

so that it would be in a logical order in the discussion?

• Oppose

Oppose – Per reasons stated above. Also, these requests make the talk page even more incomprehensible... mensch • t 11:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support

Aye Teemu Ruskeepää 06:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Embargo section

I think I raised this issue on the archived talk page. The current embargo section should be rewritten I think. It reads like a summary of dates and events and Castro is hardly even mentioned. I think that the section should be cleaned up and rewritten more towards Castro as a person and how it has affected his way of practising politics. Most of the information which is there at the moment is more suited for the main article on the embargo. I'm not very acquainted with the subject matter, so the only thing I would do is remove all the content which is not directly related to Castro and add a stub tag. But maybe somebody else has a better idea. mensch • t 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, and I wrote the Embargo section. In fact, I just wrote Zleitzen about my total frustration with the whole article. One of my problems in writing the Embargo section is that there is a lack of information about what Castro has done verus "Cuba". But the Pope and Steven Speilberg, for example, would never have gone to Cuba if not for Castro. The charisma factor has to be addressed. Also, Raul. KarenAnn 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The key point about the embargo in relation to Castro is the theory that he has used it to his advantage by deflecting blame and also unifying the nationalist sentiment which he thrives upon.--Zleitzen 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I believe I pointed that out somewhere in the article. I wish we would get more into the astuteness of Castro's tactics than what the constition says. KarenAnn 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The embargo section is largely off-topic, yes. That topic mostly relates to the implications of Cuban and US policy rather than Castro's biography, which is what this page is supposed to be about. There was a similar problem months ago when some users kept attempting to insert large swaths of information about US activities in Cuba that have a barely tangential relationship with the subject. --TJive 02:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Move under category tree

Should this topic be moved under

3.Years in power

3.3 Embargo

3.3.1 Embargo section

so that it would be in a logical order in the discussion?

• Oppose

Oppose – Per reasons stated above. Also, these requests make the talk page even more incomprehensible... mensch • t 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support

Aye Teemu Ruskeepää 06:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

unsigned Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles written by staff

From Wikipedia:Reliable Sources:

There is a wealth of reliable information in tertiary sources such as the Encyclopædia Britannica. Note that unsigned Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles are written by staff, who may not be experts, and the articles may therefore not have the same level of credibility, but they are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia than those existing ones, it will not suffise to rely on the content of such tertiary sources. Therefore, in general, as also primary sources are to be treated with caution (see above), secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references. KarenAnn 12:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Move under category tree

Should this topic be moved under

2.Off-topic

2.3 unsigned Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles written by staff

so that it would be in a logical order in the discussion?

• Oppose

• Support

Aye Teemu Ruskeepää 07:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Standard of Living in Cuba

Shouldn't there be some mention in relation to the good public services and relatively high standard-of-living in Cuba, as far as I can see there is none. It would be only fair seeing as human rights violations are mentioned.--Salvador Allende 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Xe xe This is "Ok by me" for such a statement will only lead the descriminating reader to realize that much of what is presented here is nonsense, and much of the rest prevarication and whitewash. If you believe the Castro government's line that there are good public services....well perhaps you might place a standard of reference e.g. Ethiopia, Haiti... El Jigue 7-27-06

I was thinking perhaps comparison to the rest of latin america. It has, according to UN and World Bank sources; one of the most literate populations, one of the most well-fed populations, one of the highest life-expectancies, one of the lowest infant mortality rates, one of the best school-systems, one of the best university attendence rates and one of the safest water supplies in latin america, not to mention the best doctors in the world. Shouldn't that get a mention?

That totally depends on your sources. If they come straight from the Cuban Ministry of Information (if it even exists) I'm not sure if they're very reliable. However the relatively high Human Development Index gets mentioned in the first paragraph. mensch • t 11:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget about it, Castro's relationship with Cuba's public health system can be mentioned in one sentence. Which it is, quite well as it happens. There's no need to repeat info that is well dealt with elsewhere on wikipedia. Though I believe the health and education mentions should link directly to the Cuban pages themselves - I did it before but it seems to have been changed back. UPDATE, have changed the wikilinks --Zleitzen 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already said that there are favourable statistics that come varyingly from the UNDP, UNICEF and, most intriguiingly, World Bank. My argument is that, seeing as it mentions human rights violations, there should also be mention of good standard of living.--Salvador Allende 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto with the human rights section. A sentence and a link should suffice.--Zleitzen 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Move under category tree

Should this topic be moved under

3. Additions and general quality

3.2. Standard of Living in Cuba

so that it would be in a logical order in the discussion?

• Oppose

• Support

Aye Teemu Ruskeepää 07:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive edit re puppet leader (in Human Rights section)

TJ I reverted your edit because you were substituting your POV for a description of views which are undeniably held by some supporters of the Cuban Revolution. That was being described in the statement you altered, not some overarching reality, but views held by some CR supporters. We could quibble about the percentage of supporters who would use the term 'puppet leader' as opposed to 'capitalist regime' or 'client government' but the justification for authoritarian/war-time measures is seen in those political terms. Your replacement of those reasons with the simple 'fall of the government' seems to me your way of saying "they may say that but they are wrong". That's an ideological argument, not a better description of the viewpoint of CR supporters. MichaelW 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (Hey Teemu, leave these words alone...)

It is not "undeniably" so when you are distinguishing between three separate terms, none of them cited or attributed to anyone in particular. My edit is neutral and more inclusively reflects the implications of what would happen. --TJive 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What is being described in the original statement is not what would happen but the way supporters of the Cuban Revolution see things. Your edit is not neutral - it's you arguing with their viewpoint. This suggests you cannot tell the difference between an encyclopedic description and a political argument.MichaelW 16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep referencing "they" and "their", but there is no "they" there. There is an uncited passage which is improved by introducing neutral language which better informs the reader as to the wider justification of repressive measures. The "puppet leader" bit is not merely asinine but is unnecessarily obscure and is attributed to a phantom. --TJive 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Users shouldn't get too hung up in these minor edits at this stage. As the tag on the page suggests, there is some general work on the article that needs to be addressed once this talk page affair is resolved. --Zleitzen 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on Zed, let us have our fun. It is hardly a minor edit. TJ is asserting his ability to interpret the views of the "Many Castro supporters" who make up the "they" he denies exist. At least "their" views can be verified by trawling through the periodicals of the pro Cuban Revolution organisations. TJ's version amounts to a personal interpretation, so generalised as to destroy the meaning of the original statement. MichaelW 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, Michael! My point is that the section including the "many Castro supporters" is such an arse that it's not worth getting too worked up about. A lot of this material isn't really relevant to this page anyway, and will be dealt with in due course. When that time comes, you can hold the page and I'll wield the scissors. How's that for collaborative editing!--Zleitzen 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I fold it a few times before you cut? It's true the selection belongs elsewhere - I'm just giving my ideometer some exercise - work out not worked up. MichaelW 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive, again, and twice today, deleted the second paragraph in whole, citing 'already discussed'. I will try to assume good faith, but TJive: The fact the Catro is considered charismatic and popular by many is not 'already discused'. The second paragraph meets WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. TJive, would you please explain how your repeated revert of the 'second paragraph' meets Wikipedia policy? BruceHallman 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the importance of the 'second paragraph'. I feel that it is important in the introduction, to describe Fidel Castro, the person. The 'second paragraph' is an attempt to address the person, and this is better than describing Cuba in a Castro article. BruceHallman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And I have agreed with you in previous discussion of this issue. KarenAnn 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, my reference was to having "already discussed" this issue - repeatedly - in talk. But as far as that goes, attempting to note that Castro "is considered charismatic and popular" is here nearly self-evident and of little to no value to an already sufficient introduction. I do not know what you want me to come here and say differently every single day. I suggested you make additions instead to appropriate sections (Castro as a public figure, for instance). There is already enough "widely seen", "praise and criticism" prose and/or suggestiveness in the introduction.

I have not once accused your edits of violating policy; noting that "X sees Y as Z" can use sourcing but it so banal a point to make in some instances that it doesn't matter. That isn't the issue here. The issue is that I don't think the content is at all necessary for the introduction. The introduction could have solidly sourced information placed in it pertaining to Castro's dreams of becoming a baseball player, but the fact that it meets sourcing policy doesn't mean it should be there.

I also find your edits to the human rights selection highly tendentious. It is true that there is a lot of off-topic information that people have attempted to put into this article, and the "main article" link is not best placed here, but it is not appropriate to delete concise and sourced information on a subject that is very relevant to Castro's biography. That you replaced this with what amounts to a political argument in its stead I find very troubling. --TJive 09:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we first reach some kind of conclusion before removing and reverting the whole paragraph again? This is going on and on, without ever reaching any consensus. Stating that Castro is a charismatic figure, hate by many, loved by many needs to be said. Maybe it's self evident to us, but it still needs to be made clear - maybe not in these particular wordings. You can see the same approach in the article about Margaret Thatcher for example. mensch • t 10:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not look in the body, but the assertion in the introduction is very similar to ones already existing in the introduction of this article. As well, the characterization appears to be disputed. The way it is phrased, that's not surprising. --TJive 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a collection of non neutral comments which together do not express any clear opinion, but rather summarizing what Castro is or how he's perceived by others. The only problem is that none of the claims are sourced. What if we were to put this version into the article for the time being?

Castro, in his long tenure as leader of Cuba has been variously described as a totalitarian despot and a charismatic liberator, both widely hated and widely popular, a benevolent dictator, an astute politician and an autocratic totalitarian murderer, symbol of communist revolution in Latin America, a dedicated socialist ideologue and a pragmatic nationalistic power monger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maester mensch (talk • contribs)

I am never keen on leaving unattributed facts dangling to have references plugged in later (I sooner have my finger on the delete button). But verifiability is not the issue here, as I am attempting to stress. --TJive 11:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we write the article first? Then we can make sure that the introduction reflects properly cited material in the article. Worrying about the intro now seems backwards to me. KarenAnn 11:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are actually my sentiments as well, though I'm not sure if we're keen on what that means. --TJive 11:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree on that. But rewriting difficult parts of the article seems a better approach to me than starting a completely new version. There are a lot of good paragraphs in the article. mensch • t 11:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply it needs scrapped. --TJive 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move under category tree

Should this topic be moved under

4.Castro and Human rights

4.1 TJive edit re puppet leader (in Human Rights section)

so that it would be in a logical order in the discussion?

• Oppose

• Support

Aye Teemu Ruskeepää 07:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of human rights section

There are two options to make this article more balanced. The first is to include, aswell as a section on human rights, a section on the good standard of living and public services in Cuba, the other, as Zleitan has suggested, is to cut the human rights section down to a sentence and a link.--Salvador Allende 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have replied above to Michael concerning that. The problem is that these sections are covered in other articles, and I'm not digging around for my UNESCO and WHO stats from the filing cabinet again. (see Public health in Cuba and Education in Cuba). Issues concerning "human rights" should be largely incorporated into the main body as history, these should be tangible incidents involving Castro himself - the persecution in the early 60's, statements of repression etc. The vaguaries of broader Cuban human rights are dealt with elsewhere. --Zleitzen 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The human rights section is describing human rights in Cuba. This article is about Fidel Castro, not Cuba. I advocate the the entire section should be deleted for being off topic. BruceHallman

No, the topic is too large an issue with regard to Castro. Every biographical article in Wikipedia on every other dictator has a significant section on human rights abuses. If anything, the section needs to be expanded by a paragraph or two, not eliminated. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think not, TDC. There should be no "human rights" section here, your precedent failed at the first hurdle when I looked up the House of Saud, Fahd of Saudi Arabia and Pervez Musharraf. If users insist on such an extract, then they should also agree that the page carries verifiable sections on Cuban economic, foreign and home policies - (which also should be limited or scrapped by the way). If Castro was responsible for the former, he should also be held responsible for the latter. But to do so will mean that this page will lose it's focus. Castro does not commit human rights violations, the republic of Cuba commits human rights violations. --Zleitzen 18:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of Cuba in which Castro is the undisputed head of that republic kinda goes hand in hand. Also, it more than meets the WP:V criteria. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Queen is the undisputed head of the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom. Should her article refer to Human rights abuses in Britain, Jamaica or Northern Ireland? Likewise the heads of state mentioned above. I think not. That Cuba and Castro are "hand-in-hand" does not meet WP:V criteria. One is a person, the other is an island nation. Refer to specific incidents and statements by Castro (which there are a number) within the main body of the article. The actions of the state are detailed (or should be) elsewhere.--Zleitzen 19:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, the embargo section has little to do with Fidel Castro, is covered elsewhere, and should be deleted. BruceHallman 20:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The embargo is part of Castro's career as a politician. So it should be covered in some detail. The current version is just nood good enough. Too much a list of facts, which do not necessarily deal with Castro as a politician or anything. Have a look at the "Embargo section" topic I started earlier on this talk page. mensch • t 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

mensch wrote: "...the only thing I would do is remove all the content which is not directly related to Castro ...", I agree. Go for it. BruceHallman 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Done! I don't think the cleanup is sufficient, so somebody with more knowledge on the topic should do a complete rewrite or make a coherent section out of it, hence the rewrite notice. mensch • t 23:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What I recommend is that within this article, wording and wiki-links send users to other specific pages rather than general pages. I've done this with the health and education references, by sending them to "Healthcare in Cuba" and so on, rather than the generic "free healthcare" page. Likewise comments about Castro's attitudes to homosexuality can be sent to "gay rights in Cuba" etc. None of these aspects can be easily described by a sentence as they each have detailed unfolding issues to address. They need to be briefly diverted to the pages where they are best explored. Also, on most of these sub-pages you'll find me with a magnifying glass trying to unravel the claims and counter claims - so users would be best to discuss any detailed problems there.--Zleitzen 10:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move under category tree

Should this topic be moved under

4.Castro and Human rights

4.2 Get rid of human rights section

so that it would be in a logical order in the discussion?

• Oppose

• Support

Aye Teemu Ruskeepää 07:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph again

TJive reverted the second paragraph again. Though, I do appreciate the effort at discussion. In essence I see that TJive deletes the paragraph not due to WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, but rather because of his/her personal editorial opinion. Also TJive continues to maintain that the information in the second paragragh is covered in elsewhere the article, but indeed TJive's assertion is just not true. BruceHallman 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding questions of sourcing, when I initially wrote that paragraph (for each statement) I did verify the sourcing. But for a collection of range of representative opinions about Castro, footnotes would be silly. If you have doubt about sourcing just Google, http://www.google.com/search?q=castro+charismatic etc.. BruceHallman 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have argued from the beginning of this paragraph: The Elephant in the room is that fact that, among many people, Fidel Castro has been (and still is) widely popular and the article should say that clearly in the introduction. Castro is also deeply hated by many people, and that should also be said clearly. BruceHallman 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said [have been saying]. I said that the value of the observation given is little in general and nil for the introduction, and that the general themes are better to be expressed in the body of the article in relevant portions. --TJive 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we disagree about the importance of this. Perhaps we can find a compromise of our disagreement? This might allow the restoration of neutrality to the article and the removal of the neutrality dispute tag. BruceHallman 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

TJive edit re puppet leader (in Human Rights section)

Move under category tree

Should this topic be moved under

1.Intro

1.2 Second paragraph

1.2.1. Second paragraph again

so that it would be in a logical order in the discussion?

• Oppose

• Support

Aye Teemu Ruskeepää 07:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New Section

The section on human rights in Cuba continues. Therefore a section public services in Cuba is necessary too. I will start on it soon unless there are any convincing objections, I'll try to focus on Castro and the role he himselft has played.--Salvador Allende 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This article does not need to be turned into a further political argument. Please see WP:POINT. These facets of Cuban history are best managed elsewhere and should only be kept here to the extent of (limited) "domestic policy"-type material. --TJive 07:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No need for 'further political argument', but there is a need for balance of point of view. A description of Castro in his role to bring public services to Cuba would be a good addition to the article. BruceHallman 16:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Move under category tree

Should this topic be moved under

3. Additions and general quality

3.3 New Section

so that it would be in a logical order in the discussion?

• Oppose

• Support

Aye Teemu Ruskeepää 07:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

A request for comment relating to Teemu's activities on this talk page has been made here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää. --Zleitzen 10:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

category tree votes

For what it is worth, Teemu, again, has asked for votes oppose vs. support for the movement of 'talk' into catagory trees. I find it cumbersome to vote for each of these requests, as I oppose them all.

• Oppose - I vote against all catagory tree moves. BruceHallman 16:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. Ian¹³/t 17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all--Zleitzen 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all mensch • t 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. --TJive 10:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all -- KarenAnn 10:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose all -- Dweller 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all -- Crockspot 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all Korossyl 14:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Why does it cite BBC News for half of them? Try using a variety of sources for the news-related sources that can be found everywhere.

Quite simply, the BBC is the largest news gathering broadcaster in the world, is English speaking, is freely allowed into Cuba having a number of resident correspondents, and has explicit regulations concerning neutral points of view. (For those unconvinced, the BBC is the only news organisation I know of that will screen lengthy films citing the failures and potential bias of... the BBC [4]). US news sources are understandably less accurate or are often deliberately misleading concerning coverage of Cuba, as access is restricted. The CBC lacks the extensive detail of the BBC, Cuban sources should be used wisely in my opinion to avoid accusations of bias, and other Latin American sources are difficult to justify to non-Spanish readers.--Zleitzen 11:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the relevance of BBC, but as for the American media, the "problem" (if it is a problem) with them is that they are not patient with seemingly trivial, even weaselly nuance and tend to call a spade a spade. Saddam Hussein isn't the President of the Iraqi public for three decades, he's the Iraqi dictator. Hamas and Islamic Jihad aren't violent Palestinian militant groups, they're terrorists. So on. --TJive 12:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is a problem when it goes from calling a spade a spade to using propaganda terms like "homicide bomber" (Fox News). Anything that comes out of Fox (aka GOP TV) should be taken with the same grain of salt as information from within Cuba. But in any case, point taken.

Also, BBC news articles remain accessible over time, allowing readers to check the reference and read it for themselves. Many newspapers change the content of the link to something irrelevant to the citation at some point. (For example, links to The Miami Herald articles often lead to the current issue, not the cited page.) Also, many American newspapers leave the article up for a short period of time, and after that one must pay for the article. (For example, The New York Times charges something like $3 an article, so a link there is going to require money to read it. KarenAnn 13:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "homicide bomber" isn't so much propagandistic effect as a linguistic nightmare. That being given, FOX has no apparent relevance to this topic and this is all a digression. --TJive 12:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Real criticism

There is an enormous amount of well-documented critical information about Castro in this scholarly article. Not only about Castro's wealth but also many other aspects.

• Werlau, Maria C. (2005). "Fidel Castro, Inc.: A Global Conglomerate" (PDF). Cuba in Transition. 15: 376–395.

That'll be this Maria C. Werlau, the woman who wrote "Cuba: Safe Haven for Fugitives and Hotbed for Terrorists". Who states: "Castro's virulent hatred of the United States goes back far before he even came to power". Who ends with "The Bush Administration should exert maximum pressure on the Castro regime to guarantee U.S. and hemispheric security". OK, Ultramarine, your idea of scholarly research differs from mine.--Zleitzen 14:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see this as being to her discredit. --TJive 15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So in that case, sources by authors from the other side of the spectrum, also qualify? Authors who call the actions of the Bush administration acts of terrorism, for example. or advise all communist nations to revolt against the horrific capitalist regime in the US. Those are generalisations similar to the one Werlau makes in her article. But I think "Fidel Castro, Inc.: A Global Conglomerate" is used as a source already in the Wealth section of the Castro article. mensch • t 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of X vs. Y. Specificity is essential in establishing the notability and relevance of using given sources. There is nothing about her characterizations that is controversial (as opposed to non-universal). A stomach that can not handle properly contextual references to "terrorism" (which is legitimate but not a neutral characterization here) or "regime" (which is a valid concept for us and universally accepted in academia) is very weak. --TJive 02:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The above three quotes are not signs of academic analysis. They are evidence of an agenda, sensationalism and clearly inflammatory delivery with a tendency towards misinformation. As an aside, Werlau appears at length in the infamous "Los Muertos de Castro" documentary. One of the most audacious pieces of propaganda and misinformation I have ever seen, on any subject. Take a look if you can find it. All material by Werlau should be treated with extreme scepticism, that Ultramarine describes her work as real criticism does not make it so.--Zleitzen 02:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You might be shocked to find that "regime" has rather uncontroversial connotations in academia (and is suitable even in its worst effect for Cuba in any case) and that perspectives on "terrorism" vary widely but that the cited instances are rather non-controversial for many. So as for labeling Ultramarine's characterizations, the same to you. --TJive 12:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's "Hotbed for Terrorists" , "virulent hatred of the United States" and "guarantee U.S. and hemispheric security" that raises the eyebrows, not "regime". Other comments along similar lines indicate that Werlau is as reliable a source as Michael Moore. By the way, "regime" does have controversial connotations in academia - it's basic Orwell from "Politics and the English Language" and is covered in initial studies of the semiotics of politics in the media. --Zleitzen 13:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A "regime" refers to a regulated system, especially means of social control and governance. The most frequent media use in regards to politics is with authoritarian states and various governmental outfits and systems of regulation (i.e. "inspections regimes"). Even in this usage the appellation is quite relevant and very pertinent. --TJive 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "regime" is often used as a pejorative, and fails the WP:NPOV test for our purposes. BruceHallman 14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and whether a term is used as a pejorative is not any discredit to the terminology itself. Furthermore, "our purposes" do not currently include any use of the term that I see. Were it so, however, it would likely be wholly appropriate. --TJive 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Our purpose is to write an encyclopedia. You appear to believe that an encyclopedia can appropriately be pejorative. I disagree. BruceHallman 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

See the talk page on regime for discussion on this very subject and the controversy. In the meantime, remind ourselves - as I discussed before with 172 about the use of the term "market reform" - that regional Political Scientists do not own words. Words have changing multiple meanings, connotations and often betray motivations. If I were to refer to the "Bill Clinton regime" for instance - you would be in little doubt as to my meaning and political affiliation. That's why we seek more neutral language here as per guidelines. Anyway, I'll reiterate my point that the work of the woman who wrote "The Bush Administration should exert maximum pressure on the Castro regime to guarantee U.S. and hemispheric security" should be judged in a certain light. Forget about semantics, it's the sentiment that discredits the work. One needn't be George Orwell to deduce that her sentiment mixed with her "critical academic study" results in a product as flawed a tool of research as "Los Muertos de Castro". --Zleitzen 15:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"it's the sentiment that discredits the work." Please read about ad hominem and discuss the factual arguments.Ultramarine 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But the factual arguments are tainted by the "messenger" (being Werlau), or might not be factual at all. The problem that an essay like "Fidel Castro, Inc.: A Global Conglomerate" is never objective, just because it's an essay. Werlau comes up with a lot of facts and derives a certain meaning from that, it doesn't necessarily have to be the only meaning one can derive from a body of facts. Considering the past publications of Werlau this particular essay might as well express a political viewpoint which doesn't do justice to the complex matter of Castro's financial empire or obstructs the author from objective research into the subject matter. mensch • t 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Stating that "the factual arguments are tainted by the "messenger"" is the very definition of ad hominem. If stating that a well-referenced view should be excluded because there may be other arguments or interpretations, without bothering to state any, then everything in Wikipedis should be deleted. Argue using facts, do not guess that there may be factual arguments.Ultramarine 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that imply that, to you, both Granma and Werlau have the same basis of presumptive credibility? BruceHallman 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly does not to me; Granma is rather explicitly a product of state propaganda whereas Werlau merely uses strong (but acceptable) language to describe topics in realistic and relatable terms. This is a rather poor effort at discrediting a source, given that all that is really being challenged is her tone, which is rather moderate and uncontroversial. --TJive 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)