Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Fidel Castro. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Communist state

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

It's a totalitarian state. "Communist state" is oxymoronic. If anything, communism advocates the abolition of the state, and never the moronic idea of an abusive "dictatorship of the proleteriat", which was never part of the original communist idea until Marx came up with it (and promptly caused the schism in the Second International). In short, no, he does not "hold communist ideals". If he ever held them, he would have given up his position long ago. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

Cuba is, in fact, a Communist state, meaning a state ruled by the Communist Party. And considering that most of what was the private sector is now state-owned, it follows a socialist economic model. J. Parker Stone 4 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

But you do realise "communist state" is oxymoronic right? True communists despise the state, and seek to eliminate it. If there's a state, it degenerates into state-capitalism, (although the morons Marx and Lenin didn't think so). An authoritarian state owning what the private sector once owned is a fascist model, not a socialist one. Perhaps if the state became democratic it would be more of a "social democracy", but communism advocates the extreme - anarchism, really, which is basically peer-regulation without a higher state. Marxist-Leninist states are if anything, fascist ones. The world has to learn Marx wasn't the founder of communism, wasn't the founder of the revolutionary theory, and if anything, he was the founder of the idiotic, and in fact, not really communist, "dictatorship of the proleteriat" theory. Which led to a schism in the Second International; ah, arrogant old Marx. I'll hate him forever for hijacking the communist ideology. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

The only significant historical communist movements have been Marxist communism... so I don't really know what "pre-Marxist" communist ideology it is you're talking about. And no, it is not a fascist model, it is a socialist one -- socialism calls for state control over the means of production, which is precisely what has happened in Cuba, the USSR, and elsewhere. Communist states do not necessarily support fanatical nationalism and xenophobia as fascist regimes have been known to do. J. Parker Stone 5 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)

No, that's a fallacy when "the only significant historical communist movements have been Marxist communism". Perhaps you haven't heard of the Paris Commune yet, that lives on through the Internationale? Also, such movements were led by Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, among other things? True communism identifies strongly with anarchism, and in fact save for etymylogical roots they are in fact the same thing. Marxist-Leninism should never be called "communism". It's not "pre-Marxist", by the way, while Marx was advocating his idiotic "dictatorship of the proleteriat", the true communists were fighting in the Spanish Civil War, even down in the Arab nations, Ukraine, and other places. The true Russian communists were ignored by Lenin, and wiped out by Stalin. The Bolsheviks are state-capitalists, not communists. And furthermore, there is no such thing as a "communist state". There can be a "totalitarian state that purports communism as an ideology while in truth having a fascist economy", but not a "communist state". Actual communism, if anything, is the extreme branch of libertarian socialism (such that it becomes anarcho-communism). Cuba does have a fascist model, not a socialist one. "State control over the means of production", isn't the requirements to be labelled socialist - the critical thing is that the citizens must be involved in the policy-making, in order to be called "socialist". Otherwise it is merely fascist. In effect, the state becomes a corporation otherwise, (fascism), rather than a socialist state. I absolutely detest the state-capitalism that is Bolshevism and its derivatives (Mao, Pol Pot, Castro et al), and would not have any qualms about slapping a Bolshevik in the street, the bloody hijackers. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

dude, i'm sorry but there is absolutely nothing "capitalist" about Cuba aside from some very minor reforms enacted by Castro since the USSR's collapse, therefore it cannot be "state capitalist." and yes, citizens can play a role in decisionmaking, if they join the PCC.

likewise there is nothing fascist about the Cuban system, which is socialist (which means the state has control over the means of production -- that's it -- if it doesn't work out how people wanted it to that doesn't make it any less socialist.) the economy is not run by corporations (and no the state is not a corporation) and other businesses, it is run by Party bureaucrats, ostensibly for "the people." fascist states have promoted extreme nationalism, xenophobia, and racial superiority, none of which is a part of Cuban Communist ideology.

and that's great about the pre-Marxist collectivist movements, but the simple fact is that Marxist socialism is the ideology that's had such a dramatic impact on the world that it required a more than 40-year ideological battle to sort things out.

Cuba is a Communist state, meaning a state ruled by the Communist Party, that follows a socialist economic model. i don't care whether it's "true" communism or not -- that's irrelevant. J. Parker Stone 5 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)

No, it's not capitalism at first glance. But it is "state-capitalist", because the state ends up using capital, profits for itself, and to hoard and exploit. Not to mention the lack of a gift economy or something equally egalitarian supports such a classification further. This state control for itself and lack of consideration for the people does become a fascist state. Nationalism and xenophobia are typically associated with fascist regimes such as Hitler's, but not necessarily so. Fascist regimes just have to exalt the state above the individual, such that the individual's thoughts are considered unimportant. If the proper checks are not in place, a socialist state can degenerate into a fascist one, but then it stops being socialist. I'm not talking about de jure mechanics here. I am talking about that, de facto, it is state capitalist, although it proclaims itself communist. It's not capitalist in the kind you find in the US maybe, but it has degenerated to that level, and furthermore, the lack of an initiative to develop a gift economy or any similar egalitarian economy. All this points to its state capitalist intention. The state *is* a corporation, if it ends up being run like one. Plutocracy. And about "pre-Marxist collectivist movements", true, most of the self-proclaimed communist states are derivatives of Bolshevism, but mind you, just because Saddam, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan et al calls itself "democratic" doesn't make it similarly so either, even though the idea to label oneself "democratic" is widespread and has such an impact of the world. Communism in its true anarchist form had an impact over the Spanish Civil War, Ukraine, up to Stalin's consolidation of power in the 1930's when his democidal campaigns against Ukraine and in Spain against the anarchists within the Popular Front dealt a blow to the movement. That is communism. Marxist-Leninism might be the one recognised as communism, but in truth, that's because it managed to be successful in the deception (right from the speeches before October 1917) that it was. The same thing for communist state. Recognised use yes, but in truth, it is an oxymoronic meaning. -- Natalinasmpf 6 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

agr-ee-to-dis-a-gree. i ain't into that anarchist stuff either J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

Mother's name

The mother's name is wrong, the correct lastname is Ruz not Ruíz.

Professional Baseball?

Does anybody have information concerning the story that Fidel Castro briefly played professional baseball (with the Dodgers) during his stay in the US? (Certainly not the important to his biography, but still, an interesting episode nonetheless). Baseball

According to Tad Szulc's impressive 1986 biography of Fidel, Fidel "played both basketball and baseball of almost professional quality, he once provided a visitor with a learned explanation of why basketball is the thinking man's game." According to Fidel, basketball requires strategic and tactical planning as well as speed and agility- thus preparing a man for guerrilla war. Castro denied the rumor that he had once hoped to play for the majors in mainland baseball (p. 87).

Life magazine ran a 1966 photo of Fidel on the pitcher's mound sporting a baseball cap and the Cuban national uniform. Life magazine explains:

"Castro, seen here in 1966, was a fine pitcher, but there is no truth to the legend that he was drafted by the Washington Senators."

Mother's name

The mother's name is wrong, the correct lastname is Ruz not Ruíz.

Canadian Visit

The PM mentioned in the Canadian visit is wrong. Trudeau was not in power in 1961 (indeed, Diefenbaker was!).

yeah, fixed that and elaborated a little more

- Castro did visit Canada in 1959. Trudeau visited cuba in 1976 too. 69.57.154.67 15:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In Response to Natalinaspf

In response to Natalinasmpf, your attacks on Cuba haven't included any concrete backing or concrete evidence and seems to me like no more than Anti-Cuban, Anti-Communist, Anti-Castro slander. All you seem to say is "Communism is bad!", "Castro is a dictator!" etc. without making any strong, credible argument.

And also just because you are from Cuba doesn't mean that you are less biased against Cuba. You said that you are a US citizen and US patriot so it is only natural to assume that you are going to be biased against Cuba, especially since you have said nothing about being Pro-Cuban.

Their are blacks who are klansmen, women and gays who are Born-Again-Christian, there are Arabs and Persians who are Zionist etc. As irrational as it is it happens and you my have shown no indication that you are any different.Leon Trotsky 11:00, 22 July 2005

Uh, I'm Singaporean. Are you confusing me with someone else? I'm an anarcho-communist, I do not consider state communism to be actual communism in any form, and I abhor all forms of state involvement in communism. Communism must be anarchist. -- Natalinasmpf 00:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm the one he was talking to. Listen, Leon, when I said that, I meant that I was not, as others say, "an anti-american latino beggar" not to say I'm a fanatical Conservative. And if just because I'm from Cuba doesn't mean I'm not biased, then what about you? You have NO IDEA what Castro really does, and if I don't have "concrete evidence" then you don't have jack shit, Leon! How are my statements anti-Cuban? I am Anti-Castro, and Anti-Communist, and you know why? because, and I'll quote you, "Communism is bad!", "Castro is a dictator!" I don't need any "concrete backing"! I have experienced and seen, and heard of Castro's cruelty first hand!And, more to the point, what evidence do YOU have that Castro and Communism aren't bad? Oh, and don't give me this "Casttro is humanitarian, smart, and giving the people more", because that is just liberal bias. And those people you mentioned, like gay born again christians and black clansmen, are irrational and a minority. After all, unlike what liberals say, God SPECIFICALLY SAID that abortion and homosexuality are sins (Go ahead, read Leviticus Ch 18 V 21-25) so there is no way that they could be Christian and Gay. Now, I am not saying I am a gay-basher, I just don't accept their way of life as "normal" or as a race. And also, how am I not different from these people? I am not gay, racist, violent, or over-zealous over my cause. The question should be, how are YOU any different from racist blacks or gay christians? I feel sorry for you, because you live in this country and try to always say how horrible it is, and how it should change. It sickens me how hypocritical you are, saying I, as a Cuban American who is proud of America, MUST OBVIOUSLY be Anti-Cuba. If you just stopped and listened to yourself, you'd see the diatribe you are spitting out has no actual meaning besides Liberal "political correctness", where everything, no matter how wrong, must be accepted, and anyone with a little thing called conscience must be put down. Please, take it all in, and don't talk about what you don't understand or know first hand. Thank You.

Interwiki link to vi:

Could someone please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this article once it is unprotected? Please use the code below:

[[vi:Fidel Castro]]

It should be placed after sv:, but before zh:. Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 02:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Swine Flu

I just finished Alexander Kouzminov’s book on bio warfare and bio espionage, and he has claimed that the outbreak of swine flu in Cuba was the result of an accidental release of a weaponized version of swine flu that was being developed in Cuba with the collaboration of Cuban and Soviet SVR biological warfare scientists. TDC 15:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The text I deleted and the sources cited were also contradictory, with claims that the CIA released it from the air, and the alternative claim that an "intelligence source" turned the virus over to Cuban exiles.--Silverback 21:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The issue still remains one of interest though? Who, or what is responsible for the Swine Flu outbreak? If it was the Soviets, or just an accidental transmission, perhaps this is another example of Castro demonizing the US for propaganda purposes. TDC 22:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

trust me, it was the C.I.A., its vox populi

Sources? TDC 22:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

really?

was it really a favorite past-time of Angel Castro, Fidel's father, was to shoot at black people?

and did Castro's rancher father expanded his land holdings by moving his fences in the middle of the night?

No. That sounds like a pasttime for Batista.

Brian August 16 2005

recent "edits"

pathetic, really. i trust someone will be NPOV enough to clean them up. J. Parker Stone 09:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed chunk.

In 1981, the CIA started a dengue fever epidemic that resulted in 273,000 people on the island came down with the illness, 
killing 158 people, including 101 children.3. Between 1956 and 1958 the US Army tested whether mosquitoes 
of the type Aedes Aegypti - which are carriers of dengue fever - could be used as weapons of biological warfare. 
4 During a trial in New York in 1984, a Cuban exile said that in late 1980 a ship traveled to Cuba "with a mission 
to carry some germs to introduce them in Cuba to be used against the Soviets and against the Cuban economy ... which later on 
produced results that were not what we had expected ... and it was used against our own people, and with that we did not agree".

Since the footnotes aren't there I've removed this chunk as currently unvarifiable. Any sources? Rich Farmbrough 11:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove Spanish header calling for Cubans to rebel

At the top of this page is the Spanish text: "¡Cubanos DE LA ATENCIÓN!

Es su deber patriótico a rebelar contra el régimen de Castro para el motivo de la democracia y de la libertad. NOSOTROS, que la gente cubano exige la libertad del discurso, libertad de desean, libertad del miedo, libertad de la prensa, y elecciones del Multi-partido. ¡Es nuestro trabajo llevar las calles de La Habana y de otras ciudades cubanos importantes y exigir las estas derechas! ¡Abajo Con Castro!

-- Comandante Gomez del Ejército Cubano de la Liberación"

I don't see what is generating it the WIKI source. It is unarguably not neutral text.

Could someone remove this?

the dictator thing

while the editor who keeps adding this in seems to have his own agenda, i don't really understand why wik has to be so squeamish about adding "dictator" in regarding Communist regimes. yes there are Communist states that have been governed in a "collective dictatorship" (ie post-Maoist China, Khrushchev and the USSR) but Castro's rule has been more autocratic -- he's generally been the "face" of the revolution, and had the most impact in terms of policy. J. Parker Stone 12:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Dictators dont have the support of the people. [1] I've yet to see any sign of Castro's behaving brutally. Brian 15 August

Brutal behavior is not a prerequisite for a dictatorship. See benevolent dictator. All that is required the ruler exercise absolute authority. How long has Castro been in power? And when has there ever been a legitimate election? A march of 1.2 million people does not provide evidence of support of the people in a nation of 11 million. Only an election can do that. --Temtem 06:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

A benevolent dictator is a contradiction in terms. Dictator is a perjorative word. AS we know, Castro has the support of the bulk of the cuban people, something Bush must envy. Castro is more like the ships captain, keeping the ship from being invaded by pirates and weathering hurricanes. The US through its so-called National Endowment for Democracy, seeks to fund counter revolutionaries, the better to destroy Cuban society, and return it once more to the status of a mafiosa playground. When the US stops striving to destroy the cuban revolution under the cover of promoting 'democracy', then you may talk of elections in Cuba. As for legitimate elections: the last two elections in the US involved vote fraud. [2] Pay heed to the role of the not-so-honorable Ohio Secretary of State Republican Kenneth Blackwell: [3] Brian August 15 2005.

'A march of 1.2 million people does not provide evidence of support of the people in a nation of 11 million. Only an election can do that'

Thats rubbish. Whats more direct than a street march? And if 1 in 11 people march for you, thats more significant than an election in which half dont even vote. And in the US many people dont vote or vote infrequently. Why? 'Alexander said the survey’s findings might also benefit those campaigns trying to reach infrequent and new voters in advance of the November 2nd election. The perception that politics are controlled by special interests is widely shared among two-thirds of the survey’s respondents, and represents a significant barrier to voter participation. A feeling that candidates don’t really speak to them was cited as the second leading reason why infrequent voters and nonvoters do not vote.' [4]

Elections controlled by special interests. What does that say about 'elections'?

Brian August 15 2005.

Yes, a street march is direct. That does not mean that it represents a majority of the populace. I may stand outside the Capitol and shout my lungs off about how I disagree with an act of Congress. This would be direct, but not very informative of public opinion in general. That half of Americans do not vote is irrelevant. They clearly have the opportunity to vote. When's the last time a Cuban has the opportunity to vote for someone other than Castro? -- Temtem 07:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Even a majority can't legitimize a dictator, where there has been state control of the media and no opposition has been allowed to offer a choice. It is POV to call the earlier regimes dictatorships, and not Castro. At least the earlier dictatorships allowed people to leave without fear of being shot.--Silverback 08:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well put. -- Temtem 09:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The marches with Castro regularly notch up > 1 million Cubans. Thats just those who are in or make it to Havana. There will be comparable figures in the provinces who are unable to come. So the marches are most definitly representative of the feeling a sizeable portion of the population(1/11th = about 30 million americans). What march in US history has drawn 30 million americans? Can Bush draw such support today? As for elections, the US has made efforts thru its NED to fix elections by funding groups that suit its purposes, whereever the NED has a footing. They want to ensure that the level playing field is tilted in favour of their candidate. Now if the US was to stay out of Cuban affirs, paerhaps there could be elections, so long as they did not harm the goals of the Revolution, that so many cubans fought and died for. And as ive said, the last two US elections are proven to have been rigged to get and keep Bush in the White House. One reason for installling Diebold machines is to ensure that the election falls in favour of the republicans in ensuing elections.

Brian August 16 2005.

Marches are often just social occasions, and this is in a society where a march against Castro would meet quite a different fate, these mindless marches are irrelevant. In the free world, the marchers have learned they have to shout down people or be violent and destructive, to have any signficance at all.--Silverback 07:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the input by Temtem, good remedy for Brian's lefty anti-Bush posturing. good job with the "links," lol.

I think comrade Brian is overestimating el lider maximo's popularity just a wee bit. a lot of people concede that for a good while in the postrevolutionary period Castro was popular. however with the economy deteriorating post-Soviet collapse and in spite of Cuba's much-Western praised healthcare it's absurd to act like there's no dissatisfaction with the regime. it's also true that no significant opposition has been mounted, not surprising considering its constraints. J. Parker Stone 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

In the US, a march might be a social occasion, but not in Cuba, but then what do americans know aboutCuba? Given the clamp down in the US on info about the island... [5]

'and this is in a society where a march against Castro would meet quite a different fate,' Lets see your proof for this allegation. But youve spoken like a true uninformed anti-communist, Silverback. If you didnt spend you time swinging thru the trees, you might be better informed. So i wil wait for your evidence that cubans are compelled to march.

Ensign Parker: 'a lot of people concede that for a good while in the postrevolutionary period Castro was popular' Not in the US. That would result in a great case of cognitive dissonance. dont doubt there is disatisfaction with the cuban govt, just as there is disatisiftcation with the american government: witness Cindy Sheehan and tens of thousands of people condemning the US for its wars of aggression. You dont see Castro invading a country like Iraq, and creatng chaos in the bogus cause of 'democracy'.

i'm not gonna respond to broken analogies and political diatribe. castro is the dictator of Cuba as any informed person knows. J. Parker Stone 06:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ensign Parker: you cant respond because your hatred of Castro is irrational and reflexive: a habit born of being born in the US. Its as natural for a right wing american to hate casto as it is for sh!t to stink. Ive yet to see what the basis of your information is. Its most likely murderous miami ex-cubans, known terrorists like Carriles.

Brian August 19 2005.

you done kid? J. Parker Stone 11:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"Immense" literacy increase

Dirk, coupla questions/comments. first of all, how long did it take for literacy to reach high-'90s; Cuba had a 76% pre-Castro literacy rate; how high was rural literacy and what sources do we have on rural literacy rise. if we answer these questions it'll solve the "greatly" thing. i am curious myself. i have already pointed out however that many South American countries have made gains in literacy over the past decades, so we have to determine how much of the Cuban increase is directly attributable to the campaign, and not to basic education. J. Parker Stone 11:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Fighting illiteracy was one of the main issues after the Revolution (necessary to achieve the 'new man'), so it's quite likely that the decrease had something to do with that (note the English-style understatement :) ). Sources seem to differ. See next entry. DirkvdM 19:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

TJive is right, "24 to 96% in a few years" is crap. literacy was 76% pre-revolution, obviously lower in the rural areas and higher in the urban areas, but c'mon now. i know a lot of the stuff that gets out of Cuba is tinged with Castroite bias but surely there's some objective sources on this? a UN, State Dept., or CIA research report perhaps? J. Parker Stone 11:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The recent revert war

To cool off the revert war that's been going on with this article in the past 24 hours or so, I'd just like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As I'm sure all of you realise, 'fled' is an inherently POV word and therefore should not be used in the introduction to the article. 'Left' conveys the same meaning in a more neutral way. The 'upper class' thing is not even an issue any more, since it doesn't appear in any of the recent edits. And what comes to the 'greatness' of the increase in literacy, it increased from 24% to 96% in just a few years (according to this source). If that's not a significant increase, then I don't know what is. - ulayiti (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I only noticed this entry after my last edit in this revert war. I dropped the upper class thing because I don't really know. It just seemed logical to me though. Who would be most likely to leave? So this this may not be an issue anymore, but still it is not really resolved. And I just compromised on the literacy thing, but am already feeling some regret. DirkvdM 19:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I just changed your edit on the literacy thing, since the sentence was getting a bit heavy and unreadable. - ulayiti (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That link is complete horseshit and using Google to back up ostensibly encyclopedic claims already held is not a very good practice. According to the most objective and consistent data available, UN statistics, the literacy rate pre-Castro was in the mid-high 70s (76% in the early '50s), and since Castro has come to the mid-90s. The facts are disputable on both ends but saying this objectively as evidence of an "immense" or "great" leap or an example of many "successful" programs is really stretching. And "left" is not accurate because these people did not merely take a cruise to Miami and decided they wanted to settle there; they were escaping, literally escaping because they are not allowed to leave, economic deprivation and political repression. If that bothers you, I'm not sorry. --TJive 21:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I would also emphasize the point that Dirk admits to not even knowing facts about which he edits and wars over but apparently is either uncomfortable with the removal of blatant pro-Castro POV or simply enjoys reverting my edits. --TJive 21:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

A few questions (I hope I'm not sounding too hostile, because I don't mean to):

Have you got any references at all for what you're claiming?
Don't you consider an increase in literacy of twenty percentage points (if your claims are true) over a short period of time 'successful'?
Furthermore, what do you think has caused the 'economic deprivation' in Cuba that you speak of? (Hint: It couldn't be the illegal trade embargo that's been set on Cuba by the US, could it?)
According to Dictionary.com, one meaning for the word 'leave' is 'to go out of or away from'. If this is not 'accurate' in depicting what the Cubans did with regards to their home country, then can you explain what it was that they did? And why would this be best described with a word that's inherently POV and against Wikipedia's policy? - ulayiti (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a table that shows UN data here.
No, because not everyone accepts two presumptions that are made: 1) the (unspecified) data is accurate, 2) it is because of particular "social programs" rather than the continuance of basic education in general (the point is emphasized by the improvement in literacy in vastly different countries).
Socialism.
That they "fled" is not a POV; it is a factual statement. What would be an insertion reflecting a POV would be to qualify why they were fleeing and whether this is a good thing, with which there is an obvious intended inference by (inaccurately and without specific information) labeling by socieconomic strata. --TJive 22:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I could say a few words about the concept of source criticism here, concerning the owner of that domain name, but I'll let it go for now.
What the UN data don't report is that the huge increase in literacy rates just miraculously happened to coincide with the social programme initiated by Castro with the intention of improving literacy.
Any sources for that one?
So, er, the word 'fled' doesn't 'qualify why they were fleeing and whether this is a good thing'? Can you tell me why you see the word 'left' as POV then? - ulayiti (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The source's claims and intentions are irrelevant because it is simply a reputable citation for factual data; do you have something which suggests those numbers are falsified?
Again, "huge"; according to who? Not hard facts but an evaluative interpretation, a highly tendentious one, and an obviously partisan one. What "coincide"s is none of my concern, nor anyone's alleged "intentions".
I am not interested in this being diverted to an irrelevant, tertiary polemic on economics.
The word "left" is not "POV", it is inadequate and imprecise. See: 1) I left my house today to get some food, 2) I left my house today because a robber broke in. Both are literally true, but in context it makes the action appear casual, almost nonchalant. Were it not for actions of the Castro regime, these many thousands would not have "left" when they did. Also were it not for the Castro regime, many would have "left" earlier and in greater numbers. --TJive 23:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

When trying to assess a country's achievements that country's mortal enemy is not a good source to say the least. Alas, I cannot find the actual UN data. But let's assume those figures are correct. Then let's look at it the other way around. Illiteracy dropped from 24% to 4%. This is a bit of a trick, but you can't deny that illiteracy dropped immensely. And according to the new zealand herald that happened in just one year. Now that's impressive, you have to admit. So what about presenting it this way around?
But the fact that such an increase in one year coincided with a major effort to that effect would be too much of a coincidence.
Whether this has anything to do with Socialism can indeed not be said (there have been too few instances of State Socialism to give it a statistical basis). But there are plenty examples of capitalist countries and loads of those are poor, so richess has little to do with the capitalist/socialist thing. Statistically, at least.
If in your second example you say 'left' the context makes clear what kind of leaving is meant. So I'd say leave something to the intelligence of the reader. They can decide for themselves if this was fleeing, based on what is said in the previous sentence. Something similar can be said about who left, so the statement that those were the upper class isn't necessary either. About leaving before Castro. Who would have left? The rich? They had no reason. The poor? They had plenty reason, but not the means. DirkvdM 07:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What evidence do you propose to give the reader to reach the "fleeing" conclusion? That they were being shot at? That they had to leave in secrecy? That they were threatened with imprisonment if they spoke their minds? It is important to distguish fleeing from leaving, why make the reader guess, just say "fleeing", although given that Cuba is a dictatorship, and people are leaving their native country, perhaps fleeing is obvious. That is stil no reason not to say it.--Silverback 07:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The reason not to say 'fled' has been stated many times; it is a pov term. I was referring to the preceding sentence. You now bring up different things. If people were being shot at (were they? Who and why?) then that should be stated. Let the reader draw their on conclusions. Actually the dictator-thing is a very bad basis. Technically (!) it is not a dictatorship and that in itself is not a reason to leave. In mankind's history many people (especialy upper classes) have been very happy with all kinds of dictatorships. Even very recently in Spain many people wanted Franco back because of the safety in the streets (a positive effect that is also mentioned very often in Cuba). Of course, this is also a reason for the poor to leave, but, like I said, they don't usually have the means to. DirkvdM 14:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

All you have is spurious innuendo about a "mortal enemy", not anything which suggests the statistics are falsified either in the report or the source material.
As I said already, not everyone accepts that these statistics are accurate, especially with the given timeframe. The word "increased" is sufficient enough to reflect consistent data without broaching a particular POV.
Irrelevant.
The comparison isn't accurate (as "greatly increased" is no more precise than "increased"), but I notice that you make it without comprehending that you make an argument against the previous attempted inclusion. I must repeat that I am not interested in anyone's polemical economic analysis here, especially in the form of crude class categorizations. --TJive 16:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Spurious innuendo? They certainly are mortal enemies. I wouldn't use such a term in an article, though, just as I wouldn't use a term like 'fled' :) .
I've seen the light! Just like the word 'fled' is explained through example and thus doesn't need to be used, we could just give the satistics and leave the rest to the intelligence of the reader (it looked like these were different discussions, but now they come together quite nicely!). If the statistics are to be believed, that is.
What is?
See 2. DirkvdM 07:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

The following was written by 129.170.89.185, who in the process removed all other entries in this talk page. Whether this can be done unintentionally is questionable.

The preceding was written by User:DirkvdM, who did not sign his addition. Whether this was unintentional is unclear.--Silverback 08:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the continual editing of this page. So I am going to make myself clear for the last time. I am a Cuban-American. My mother left in 1968. I have grown up with her stories, with those of my grandparents, with various history books, and with my first-hand experience of visiting Cuba in 2001. Some of you may believe that this already biases me, so be it then. We were all biased. That does not ignore certain facts about this regime. I will concede the point that Fidel Castro has improved literacy and health care. That is obvious. What I find disturbing however, is that people emphasize the dillusionment and opposition of upper and middle class Cubans, without realizing a harsh reality, and if you look close enough, you will find proper documentation for this fact: the very first anti-Castro revolt led by armed Cubans into the mountains, consisted predominantly of working-class Cubans. It is true, that the middle class and upper class were among the first to oppose Castro, but there were not alone. That said, there is another point that needs to be clarified. Fidel Castro began as the head of military, and the understanding given to most Cubans in the period from 1959 to 1960 was that 1) he was not a Communist; and 2) he guaranteed free and fair elections within a year's time. The reality is, that in the end: 1) he declared himself a Marxist-Leninist, and as always being a Marxist-Leninist and 2) no one can honestly state that free and fair elections were ever held, especially considering the fact that nobody runs against Fidel Castro, and that he often receives between 90 to close to 100% of the vote.

The other point that bothers me, is that the editing this has been going on is under the mistaken impression that Cuba is devastated economically, because of the U.S. imposed embargo. The fact of the matter is, is that the U.S. embargo has not accomplished what it set out to do, because very few countries followed through on the embargo. Cuba trades with the E.U., Canada, North Korea, Iran, etc. This along with the extensive foriegn invest, Spanish hotels etc., brings in significant amounts of money that almost certainly have kept Castro's government a float. The economic desperation in Cuba is a reality. I saw it with my own eyes in 2001. But don't think for a minute that this is simply a matter of the U.S. callousness toward Cuba by using an embargo. The reality is, is that for lack of a better word, Fidel Castro and his regime, the ones who are claiming to be defenders of el pueblo cubano (the cuban nation) are responsible more than anything else, for the current state of affairs in Cuba. In 2001, the official currency used and acceptable for purchasing goods and services in Cuba, was not he Cuba Peso, but the U.S. dollar (this has recently changed). Cubans call the places and the activities used in regards to U.S. Dollars "Shopping." The Cuban peso, at the time I went there, could by nothing, because it was not accepted. And I might add, most people were paid in Cuban pesos, not U.S. dollars. Furthermore, official government policy prohibits Cuban nationals from purchasing goods or services in tourist or foriegn owned areas, something that in a truly free democracy is unheard of. Cubans who have AIDS and other life-threatening illness are forcibly removed from the population (even if they show no symptons) and are placed in isolated camps under armed guard, where they will remain for their lives. Cubans are surrounded by wire-taps, and other means of espionage and repression by the government. The wording of one of the Cuban Constitutions of the 1970s stated that there is freedom of speech so long as it is in line with the vision of the socialist government, which is an oxymoronic and hypocritical statement if there ever was one.

I don't know why so many people seem to have a romance with Castro and his Revolution, but I am going to burst your bubble by simply saying the truth: Fidel Castro does not run a Communist-utopian socialist state, he runs an opportunistic repressive dictatorial regime with the trappings of socialism. And regardless of what good he may have done, it is simply outweighed by the costs to the Cuban people and the Cuban nation, he has done worse than good. Therefore, if we want to make an objective article on Fidel Castro, let's try not to glorify everything this man does, but give all sides of the issue, that of the good as well as the bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.89.185 (talk • contribs) 02:15, August 25, 2005

If Castro was running an opportunistic repressive dictorship, millions of cubans could not be found to march with him. But they have marched, and in support of his leadership.

Brian August 26 2005

Really? If they don't have a free press, how would how would these people make an informed decision? Mussulini, Hitler and Stalin were able to organize mass rallies. You should come up with a more objective standard, than marches. --Silverback 08:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

A better criteria than marches is needed, but I don't understand the concept of a free press. Free press is one of those vague terms that needs to be clarified. Free from what? Free to do what? In times of crisis, freedoms must be limited. After 9-11, we got the patriot act. Recall that the US felt it was too dangerous to have a free press in Iraq and shut down at least one Iraqi media outlet that I know of. How is this different than Cuba saying, "We've got the strongest nation in the world out to get us for 40+ years, so we can't allow those elements that would like our government overthrown to have media outlets." Gattster 17:31:22, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Free press is uninfluenced by the government, I'd say (though the article doesn't say that - I'm surprised it's so short). You compare with the US. In the US the press is largely free in that respect, I suppose (though I know that movies are manipulated through subsidies). But that is no guarantee that people are well-informed (referring to Silverback's remark). I've often heard of people from the US who travel abroad and hear stuff on TV they never hear back home. Of course this is partly due to the fact that no-one can absorb all available information. I'm pretty sure that people in the US have access to a whole lot more information than people in Cuba. But being informed is about what people actually do read or watch and that is mainstream media, which are as biased in the US as books, newspapers and tv are in Cuba (or anywhere else for that matter). DirkvdM 19:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Can't disagree with you there. I'm a huge fan of Manufacturing Consent, which pretty clearly explains the problem with the media. The relevance to this discussion is that people nowhere have an unbiased view of the events taking place in the world. Except for those who want to spend the time digging for other points of view, most people have a view on the world biased based on where they were born. Gattster 19:29:43, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Castro's children

Only one of Castro's children is mentioned, "Fidelito". If this article is meant to be biographical, shouldn't other (known) offspring also be mentioned somewhere, especially famous ones such as Alina Fernandez? --Shastra 12:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have the info, go ahead. DirkvdM 19:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Fidel guards his private life and keeps his family away from the spotlight. Alina is his only daughter, and she has always had a strained relationship with her father. In an Oct. 8 2000 article in the Miami Herald Juan Tamayo reported:

Wife, Dalia Soto del Valle, and sons Angel,
Antonio, Alejandro, Alexis and Alex, have never been
identified in the island's media and only in a few
foreign publications not subject to Cuban censorship.

Except for brothers Raúl and Ramón and his oldest
son, ``Fidelito, Castro's close relatives hold no
publicly visible jobs, wield no political power, and are
unlikely to play a role in the succession.

"ruled" vs "head of state"

Several english kings were said to "rule" or have "reigns", and many of them had a parliament that they shared power with and had to deal with. Castro rules without any opposition or checks and balances. Where is the "state", that would not fall apart in his absense?--Silverback 08:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is a major point, 'ruled' doesn't sound too pov, so I don't want to get into a heated discussion over that. It just seems that 'head of state' is more neutral and encyclopedic, so why change it?

You do imply another interresting point, though. Namely that the whole system would fall apart after Castro dies. A lot of people seem to think this, but what is it based on? Sounds like anti-communist wishful thinking to me. When I asked a Cuban about this he shrugged and said "the guys at the top will sort that out". If Castro dies, do you think the other rulers will just throw in the towel? Why should they? Only something like an uprising after his death might change things. And I don't see that happening. People have to be very dissatisfied to put their lives in the line. And whether this is the government's cleverness or not I don't know, but they do make sure people are, if not satisfied, at least not sufficiently dissatisfied. The 'bread and games' idea of the Romans. People aren't hungry (well, not seriously, anyway), have free housing, education and health care and plenty entertainment. Sports and arts (especially music) are encouraged. One could call the Cuban adagio 'bread, health, games and music'.

Ultimately, taking the stance that the state will fall apart after Castro's death is an opinion, a pov. So you sort of dug your own opinion's grave with that reasoning :) . DirkvdM 17:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Although "President" is the most neutral term, he was first Prime Minister, and then President. I think the best solution would be to write when he became Prime Minister, and President, instead of arguing about this all day and night. According to this site, he became prime minister in 1960. And I think he became President in 1976.

Page disagreements

Over the past few days, there has been a bit of a war going on with words such as "Castro ruled" vs "Castro has been the head of state". TJive just changed it back to "ruled", as well as changing "Batista's dictatorship" to "Batista's government". He also made several minor changes, such as stating the "suppression of " over and over to emphasize it more. The word "the revolution" has been changed to "the rule". There are a dozen more changes I could list.

I'm a new contributer here, but clearly TJive has changed this page to match his point of view. My point of view differs, and I liked the page better before. I could go edit the page, but I'm sure it will just be changed back in a few hours. What is the wikipedia solution to these sort of pissing matches, and can we revert these changes? Gattster 19:18:19, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

These edit wars have been going on for months. Of course you can revert (see 3RR), though better to try and gain consens here on the talk page, SqueakBox 19:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

If that fails, you can put up a Requests for comment to get other people in, and if that fails you can call in a mediator. For more info see the links at Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution (just discovered this myself). DirkvdM 06:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"[H]ead of state" is inaccurate in regards to Castro; "ruled" is perfectly fine.
The word "dictatorship" betrays strong POV and I removed it not only in regards to Batista but Castro.
I actually removed the repeated references to "suppression" in shortening the sentence, so that is a lie.
The word "rule" makes more sense in the context than "revolution". --TJive 19:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above, it's no big deal, but why is 'head of state' inaccurate? Sounds more npov to me.
Totally agree. I also often remove words like 'dictator' (as a form of address) and 'regime' ('government' is more neutral). So I changed it all to 'government'. By the way, this is an important point of confusion between us; I'm rather bent on removing unnecessarily strong statements, ie pov's. It's just that these pov's are more often than not right-wing, so I end up looking left-wing :) . Of course I have to bring 'fled' up again here. That does portray a pov.
I suppose Gattster read the revisions the wrong way around.
The 'revolution' thing is a bit confusing. The 'rule' is in Cuba called 'the Revolution' (which is said to be ongoing), but that would then first have to be explained because most people will understand something different by it, so the term is confusing here. DirkvdM 06:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

TJive, I apologize if I made any inacurrate statements about your edit. I must have been reading the diff backwards.

About the word 'rule', would we say this about other governments? Has Bush ruled the USA since 2000? When it comes to checks and balances, Castro supports will claim that he does not have the ability to do anything he wants. I think that only his opposition claims he is an authoritarian leader. Gattster 19:08:34, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

"head of state" implies some state that exists independently of the ruler, and can be passed to subsequent heads via a peaceful process. Although what Castro has set up bears some resemblence to state communism there is no evidence that it has an independent existance yet, and the personality cult aspects call it into doubt. We won't know he heads a "state", rather than a personality cult dictatorship, until there is evidence that it can pass peacefully to other hands.--Silverback 16:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply say "ruler AND head of state"? Using only the term "head of state" gives very little information. Just think about countries like Japan, Sweden, or Israel, where the head of state is nothing more than a powerless figurehead. Adding "ruler" or "dictator" provides more information about what particular type of "head of state" we are talking about.

Similarly, I think it is silly to say that "leave" is NPOV, but "flee" and "escape" are not. These words all have non-controversial meanings that most people agree upon. To leave is to move from a particular place to some other place. To flee is to leave due to a subjectively perceived danger. To escape is to leave in spite of some external force that is otherwise a barrier to leaving. So using "flee" and "escape" gives much more information than just "leave", whenever such information is available. It has nothing to do with POV/NPOV.

Just my thoughts. --Shastra 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Saying 'ruler', 'dictator', 'flee' or 'escape' indeed give more information, but that is exactly the problem. Is the information it adds correct? Unless that is established, you can't state it. That 'head of state' can also be used for a powerless figurehead is true, but does more need to be said in an intro? Details can follow (as they do).

About whether it is a state (to Silverback now). Where does the burden of proof lie? I thought that where there is a country there is also a state. But now you claim that that needs to be proven. Based on the intro of the state article, I suppose you mean to say there is no 'organised government', that the government in Cuba is not Cuba's but Castro's. But does the burden of proof not lie with you here? Of course the government claims to perpetuate, which government wouldn't? And a successor has been appointed, so how can you claim there is no continuance in the government? Of course that leads to the question which kind of state it is, given that Raul is his brother. DirkvdM 07:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you please demonstrate that Castro is head of state? I am not stuck on "ruler" as a title ("rule" and such is still fine though) but my understanding is that "head of state" is not even Castro's official position. --TJive 07:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

What is it then? What is a neutral term for the 'main political person' of a country? What is a generic term for Premier/President/King or what have you, that can thus be used in articles about such people without expressing (or suggesting) a pov? The head of state article is sufficiently 'vague' that it could be used. Or could President be used here since Cuba is a republic? The president of Cuba article lists him. So I've changed it to that. DirkvdM 09:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

When that person has people shot who try to escape, it is "dictator". We didn't call the leaders of the Soviet Union after Stalin "dictator", even though the also violently suppressed emigration, because there was a clear distribution of power, it was a dictatorial oligarchy, and there was no longer a personality cult. None of the other "officeholders" has ever had a turn at power in Cuba. The burden of proof is on Castro, to prove there is a "state".--Silverback 18:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The word dictator has nothing to do with this. It means that someone has absolute power (which does not necessarily mean it's bad, but the negative connotation of the word does mean one has to be careful with it for neutrality's sake). This may be the case with Castro (though not officially) and Batista. But it is not a title but a description. The title is 'President'. That's what should go in the first line. Then, where relevant, it can be pointed out that these people were dictators.

I've read elsewhere (forgot where) that Castro only became President in the seventies (I believe) ad that before that he was Premier. So that would mean that in the sentence as it stands we can not say 'President'. So either the sentence has to be changed (saying just that at the moment he is President) or another word has to be found. Is there really no generic term in English for the 'political top guy' in a country? I find that hard to believe. I suppose 'ruler' fits it, but it has too much of a negative connotation. What about 'leader'? That sounds a bit too positive (unless you translate it into German :) ). DirkvdM 07:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Minor changes & request for clarification

I'll preface this by saying I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first edit and first discussion. I apologize if I have violated any rules, official or otherwise.

I fixed up the grammar and spelling a bit in Relations with The Soviet Union. Specifically:

"The Soviet Union had subsidized the Cuban economy for decades, paying $1.23 per pound for sugar, which the world market price had been steady between 17 and 22 cents per pound. The effects where immediate and devasting:"

has become,

"The Soviet Union had subsidized the Cuban economy for decades, paying $1.23 per pound for sugar, for which the world market price had been steady between 17 and 22 cents per pound. The effects were immediate and devasting:"

(added word 'for' and changed 'where' to 'were')

I think this section is a little unclear. Did the SU completely remove the subsidy and revert to the 17-22 cent world market price for sugar? The article does not mention any of the specific economic reforms, and I think a brief overview of them is required to understand their impact on the Cuban economy.

17:36, 31 August 2005

You don't need to be so careful with changes. Be bold in updating pages. These were minor changes. You don't need to explain them here and you can even mark them as minor. If you make a mistake it will usually be corrected very fast. I suggest you create an account (check 'remember me' and you'll always get logged in automatically), after which you'll get some tips on your user page (such as how to sign your postings on talk pages, with four tildes; ~~~~). DirkvdM 18:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "el Presidente' " or whatever the correct spanish rendition is. It carries the prima donna negativity in english which captures Castro's pretentious self-reighteousness and presumptiveness (any dictator is presumptive in running the lives of others), although the term may miss his totalitarian iron fist.--Silverback 08:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

"El Presidente" is just an attempt to gain the appearance of legitimacy. Even Brezhnev adopted that title about the same time, though it had no real meaning or significance in the Soviet system, the purpose being so Western journalists could refer to him as President Brezhnev, like President Castro, thus it gives the aire of legitimacy in American popular media. nobs 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not the American, corporate-owned mainstream media, though. It is an international, open content encyclopedia. El_C 17:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Which has what relevance to his point arguing directly against the practices of the "corporate-owned mainstream media"? Poisoning the well isn't very effective when it goes against your own purposes. --TJive 19:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Same to you. You didn't mind Nobs' dl subjective Marxist POV rhetoric, did you? You don't seem to mind Gomez' singular efforts. Rather selective, unless "it goes against your own purposes". El_C 19:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Am I a mid-level prosecuting attorney for a show trial? I didn't realize it was my job to ritually denounce deviant views. If you must know my opinion, Gomez is a hopelessly bombastic clueless newbie and Nobs is spot on. I was addressing a particular remark at a particular time, one which was not helpful and would prove nothing had it accomplished addressing Nobs's actual remark. --TJive 19:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

His reverts sure come handy, though, was my point, whereas mine... I just looked at your contributions, Tjives, and I'm afraid that it reaffirms my opinion with respect as to what I percieve as a rather singular focus and thrust. Not as pronounced as Gomez, though. No offence intended, but I do find it striking, your above comments notwithstanding. I know I have no chance here to advance anywhere, debate-wise. I'll stick to my 3 reverts per 24 hours and shutup before I face your collective wrath. El_C 19:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are far too cryptic to directly respond to. What are you accusing me of? Being obsessed with Cuba? Simply being a disruptive user in general? Being a sockpuppet of Gomez or having Gomez as a sockpuppet? --TJive 19:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am not accusing you if being anyone's sockpuppet. I would prefer not to elaborate, though because I don't feel that would be productive. El_C 19:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

duh, Wikipedia didn't exist in 1976, as I thought the context clearly spelled out. Guess it didn't. nobs 18:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the duh. I followed your edit summary; but you can take that as a borader and rather topical point. El_C 18:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

I would like to formally encourage contributors of this page to discuss their differences and to draft a common version on the talk page rather than reverting the article. Having edit summarises such as

Always a collaborative pleasure. That's number 3 for me. See you back here in 24 hours" [6]

followed by

since rfpp will probably follow [7]

is not indicative of a progress in the redaction of the article, and is not acceptable.

I therefore strongly encourage all contributor to refrain from playing with the letter of rules like the 3RR and think about the real issues. Thank you. Rama 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowldge, there pretty much always has been an edit war in this article. I highly doubt this is likely to change. Nor is this talk productive. Most of my comments and references have been ignored; I just wasted my time obtaining and presernting them. There is no point. I feel very helpess and hopeless about this article and the involvement of editors such as TJives, Nobs, Silverback, and Gomez. El_C 19:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What, am I part of a powerless right wing cabal now? I haven't even directly communicated to any of those people save Nobs. --TJive 19:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I did not say cabal, and you are far from powerless, I find. El_C 19:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a way you people could be neutral about this. The revert war is getting silly, and is far from any standards that the project expects of its editors. Your personal POV should not affect the way you write articles on Wikipedia. Period. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 12:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

We give references. We source everything. They continue to revert to their POV. Do you suggest that we should just pack up and go home? Allow this to become Rightwingopedia? Grace Note 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Refugee sources for NWOG

Response to NWOG's revert & request for sources: The 7% claim comes from, among other sources, http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/80-cucas.htm, which says:

"More than 1/2 million refugees left Cuba in the first 3 years of the Castro regime"

Since the population of Cuba was about 7 million in 1961, the rest is simply pure arithmetic. If doing arithmetic counts as original research, we could of course quote absolute numbers instead. But that would make the article more verbose. --Shastra 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Implied Causation, literacy issue again

Domestically, he has overseen the implementation of radical land reform, nationalization of leading Cuban industries, and social programs that increased the nation's literacy rate and instituted universal healthcare.

The following statement social programs that increased the nation's literacy rate needs a source, as it implies a relationship between an increased literacy rate, which has been seen all over Latin America during the given timeframe, and social programs. TDC 21:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Long ago I've cited the WHO source, repeatedly (and selectively?) ignored, as well as noting the obvious: that such a significant rise in literacy rate is neither a product of regional, island-crossing magic nor revolutionary good will alone. Alas, I suspect I'm wasting my words, again. El_C 13:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, I never saw the source, so put it here again. TDC 13:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

That you didn't see it after so many objections on my part pointing to it, is rather emlomatic of my concerns here. Here. El_C 21:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw something, but the source you provided simply states the following:

Cuba's literacy rate is 96.7 percent, remarkable considering that before the revolution, one quarter of Cubans were illiterate and another tenth were semiliterate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the source does not credit anything specifically for the rise in literacy, the simply comment on it. No where, that I see, do they cite any specific or general programs that freed the happy proletariat from their bonds of imperial ignorance. TDC 22:29,

So the rise can be accounted to regional island corssing magic and/or revolutionary goodwill alone, then? That strikes me as agenda-driven sophistry, no offence intended. Here's another source, and I really think that with all the reverts you implemented, you would take the time to study the material:

The National Literacy Campaign of 1961, recognized as one of the most successful initiatives of its kind, mobilized teachers, workers, and secondary school students to teach more than 700,000 persons how to read. This campaign reduced the illiteracy rate from 23% to 4% in the space of one year.

[8] El_C 22:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The best you can do is some bleeding heart Castro sycophant? TDC 00:46, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

More than a soundbite, too. I rest my case. WHO is not good enough, that University of Massachusetts-Boston Professor not good enough, this Arkansas State University Professor is not good enough. Instead, we turn to some magical regional force of literacy for an explantion(?)

During the year-long, massive national effort that was to be the result of Castro's daring declaration, 707,212 people became literate, or achieved a level of reading and writing equivalent to that of a first-grader. Cuba's overall illiteracy rate was reduced from over 20 percent, according to the last census taken before the Revolution, to 3.9 percent, a rate far lower than that of any other Latin American country.

El_C 01:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It is amazing what one man can do with captive/slave labor. Perhaps he deserves some credit, after all, other communist states have on occassion reduced their literacy rate by murdering intellectuals, e.g., the cultural revolution in China, etc. But does he really deserve credit in these circumstances? Much like his offer of 1000 medical professionals for Hurricane Katrina, he is being generous with OTHER peoples labor and OTHER peoples wealth. That is not true generousity. An he probably would not let those medical professionals take their families with them out of Cuba, because too many would choose the opportunity to escape.--Silverback 03:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Typical, offtopic redbaiting. I don't think it's productive for me to continue this discussion at this time. El_C 08:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that they only get to read censored material anyway.--Silverback 08:52, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here, but I think facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. Granted that literacy is less valuable in a country like Cuba where there is no freedom of speech, Castro's success in increasing literacy should still be mentioned. And just like Stalin's construction of railroads were of dubious value to a population that was denied freedom of movement, it is still a historic fact that should be mentioned. When a blind hen finds a corn, it's an event worth mentioning. Shastra 16:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Before the anon sock puppets get too numerous and pretentious, lets get this straight, I've no problem with mentioning the increase in literacy just as long as the means, a totalitarian dictatorship which brutally suppresses emigration, are also mentioned. If you want to credit Castro for "successes" achieved by these means, neutrality requires the means to be properly mentioned and characterized.--Silverback 17:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Source it to something other than your own roiling hatred, and you're in business. Look, I know it's galling to see a successful socialist nation, but there you have it, putting the lie to your ideology.Grace Note 08:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Lol, "successful." Wonder if this kid's been to Cuba lately. Dr. Trey 10:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

dictator not oligarchy

After Stalin, it could be argued that the USSR became a totalitarian oligarchy rather than a totalitarian dictatorship, because there was some distribution of power and there had been peaceful transitions of power, and there was no longer a personality cult surrounding the leader. Neither holds with Castro, there is a personality cult and no proof that the "state" he established can survive him, despite the fact that he has designated a relative as a successor. Although a totalitarian oligarchy may not sound as negative as totalitarian dictator, it can be every bit as controlling and repressive. One sure sign of either is when they are so bad that they must violently suppress attempts to emigrate.--Silverback 03:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Stalin was in charge of the Soviet Union, not Cuba. Glad to clear that up for you. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so your predictions about the Cuban state have no place in it. Grace Note 08:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for the clarification. The point was that Stalin was a dictator, while Breshnev was not, even thought the soviet state was still totalitarian. In Fidels case his regime is a dictatorship, until it is proven that there is real power sharing and a peaceful transition of leadership. Hopefully Cuba's transition from totalitarian dictatorship will be to a democracy and not to a totalitarian oligarchy. Designating his brother as his successor is not a promising start however, and confirms that he is still totalitarian. I will continue to keep my predictions out of the article.--Silverback 12:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Castro's Family

Only his 2 brothers are mentioned. He has a sister Juanita Castro Ruz who is a vocal opponent of his. http://www.christusrex.org/www2/fcf/castrosister112497.html http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/world/12330296.htm http://www.ciponline.org/cuba/cubainthenews/newsarticles/ap071101lacorte.htm http://www.christusrex.org/www2/fcf/castrosister.html