Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 1

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 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Various topics

Under fidel's picture is say's he's only been in power since the seventies. can someone please change THIS?

---

Could we please change the 1959 photo for a more recent one?

---

I have put many adits that where taken away by Gazpacho under (Please rewrite consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) but he is not being neutral he just does not like anything against Fidel's image. Gazpacho go and live in cuba for a while and let us know about your experience over there after you return. User:SilentVoice

This is blatant propaganda. US-friendly countries in Wikipedia with appalling human rights -- I'm talking tens of thousands murdered, not thousands of prisoners -- get whitewashed, while Castro gets alomst nothing but invective for human rights abuses many times more minor.

I'm not disputing that Castro's an autocrat and puts people in jail for criticizing him. But where's the mention of Cuba's incredibly generous aid work program, which sends twice as many foreign aid workers to poor countries as does the United States, a country incomparably more rich and ten times larger? Where's the acknowledgement of the obvious American role in encouraging human rights abuses by Castro's regime? Cuba's been subjected to an American terror campaign out of Miami for decades now -- real brutal stuff, dropping germs on cattle, blowing up an ammunition ship in Havana harbour slaughtering scores of civillians, burning down a department store with a thermite-stuffed doll killing scores more, blowing up a factory right at the height of the missile crisis and killing hundreds, bombing foreign tourists who dare to visit Cuba, I could go on and on. And that's without even discussing an embargo specifically aimed at preventing food and medicine from getting to Cuba in violation of every international law and WTO rule you can think of.

When America was subjected to the deaths of many citizens, but nothing even approaching the loss of American independence or the fall of its government, it clamped down significantly on civil liberties. If some incomprehensibly powerful country was terrorizing and starving America, do you think they'd fail to imprison people who advocate overthrowing their government?

The attackers at the Bay of Pigs were not "slaughtered". They were defeated, surrendered, and were eventually released (with the exception of some leaders, who were executed). If Cubans tried that on Miami, do you think a single one wouldn't be executed?

"Soviet subsidies" were far less than the economic damage done by the American embargo and did not "finance Cuba's social conditions". Cuba's citizens are still better off than many Latin Americans living under "capitalist democracy" despite forty years of murderous blockade. America preaches about the abused Cubans but struggles fiercly to prevent them actually leaving Cuba.

America's internal documents show they decided to overthrow Castro before he was a communist and before he had nationalized anything other than phone companies and similar obvious public utilities.

This whole article reads like a Cato Institute briefing or something. I don't know where to begin to fix it.--Anon

Hey enlightened leftist, I guess Cuba's godly healthcare and perfect literacy rates make up for the fact that there is no political freedom, a state-run press, and, at least when Castro first came to power, a total lack of religious freedom as well. But hey, I guess we gotta think of the greater good, right? We can excuse totalitarianism so long as the country has a good life expectancy and low infant mortality rates. Next people'll be saying that every anti-Castro Cuban is a Batista-sympathizing counterrevolutionary (oh wait...)

And you gotta love it -- he doesn't kill anyone. He just throws 'em in prison for a couple years -- maybe a little bit of torture on the side, but that wouldn't have happened if America wasn't the Big Bully. By the way, where are the evil Pinochets, Somozas, and Batistas America is supporting right now? I don't see 'em.

And "before he was a Communist?" When the fuck was he NOT a Communist? I guess him and Che were Jeffersonians all along until along came the Fascist States of America. Gimme a goddamn break. Supreme Moolah of Iran 00:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyedited for NPOV. Factualy statements kept in and reduced the number of unneeded adjectives. --mav

172.161.185.97, may I offer you a few tips?

Register yourself with a screen name so that people know who you are. (It's free, takes one minute, and need not disclose your real name or email address if you don't want it to.) People will take you more seriously if you are not just an anonymous number.
Make small changes, a bit at a time, taking care to make sure that they are verifiable and expressed dispasionatley.
The net effect of putting in an adulatory para like the one you added to this article is that someone will delete it, and the useful information that it contains will be lost. Tone down your language, take out as much emotive stuff as you can, and let the facts speak for themselves.

If you can do these things successfully, then you can make a real contribution to this page, and to the other pages you have been editing. Tannin

The version of Jan. 3, 2003 is heavily pro-Castro.

It makes no mention of Castro's forcible suppression of opposition, calling him the "unchallenged leader" and claiming that the masses "rallied behind him."
It fails to mention Castro's policy of forbidding emigration (I've read reports in newspapers of Castro's navy sinking boats carrying people trying to escape.)
It ought to mention the lack of press freedom, too.

--Uncle Ed

Why is Cuba's infant mortality rate only "technically" lower than the US's? If it's lower, it's lower. Mswake 10:19 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

The way to deal with this is to find the figures from a reputable source, such as an appropriate international agency, and shoe the actual figures. "Technically lower" in my mind means "not statistically significant". Eclecticology 17:49 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll do some research. However "technically lower" still reads to me a bit like sour grapes, as if the lower figure is somehow not "real". Mswake 09:43 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

OK, figures are from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus026.pdf. You're right that the rates are close (7.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births for Cuba versus 7.2 for the USA), but still I don't see the point of the "technically". "Slightly" I think would do the job and that's what I'm going to change it to. Mswake 09:57 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Asylum Issues

Why has the allegation that many of the marielitos were mentally disabled been left in unchallenged when in fact by there own testimonies they were subjected to psychiatric experimentation by U.S. prison doctors on the grounds that they were black and confused.

Reference: The Cuban Excludables (film, 1997, Dir. Estela Bravo) a review of which can be found at http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1996/247/247p26b.htm

Castro's not the only name on the ballot. He's not on the ballot. Cuban citizens don?t vote in presidental elections. He?s elected by the state council.

172

This anonomyous user has revised the comment regarding voting. It is now factual and accurate.

172

Does the state council vote for anyone other than Castro?

Do you have any voting results for all of the times Castro was reelected/reconfirmed by the state council?

Don't you think that I know this? I don't know anyone, including grade-schoolers, who doesn't know that.

172

Leaving aside the POV issues for the moment, one issue that strikes me is the amount of overlap between this article and the one on History of Cuba. Under the circumstances of a 44 year reign it can be difficult to separate the man from the history of his country. My inclination would be to use the present article to deal with what the man personally did, while the actions of his government properly belong with the other article. ☮ Eclecticology 20:33 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

I removed this:

"Supporters of Castro also point out that Cuba's human rights record is significantly better than many other countries in the Carribean/Latin America region."

By what measure? Health care? Education? Access to the essentials for survival? But this certainly isn’t the case for the issues that most Westerners associate with “human rights”. The above sentence shouldn’t be placed back into the article until it’s clarified.

172

I'm inclined to put it back in (but a little further up in the article to immediately follow and be in the same paragraph as the criticism of Cuban human rights). The existing criticism of Cuban human rights is just as vaguely worded. ☮ Eclecticology 00:53 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

In this context, human rights is a loaded slogan. If you’re going to put it back in the article, make it point out something factual. You could make it point out, for instance, better health care, education, access to the essentials, and so forth. But most contributors, beining Westerners, will associate “human rights” with political rights. And it’s a fact that this is a weak area for Cuba.

172

I agree that

"human rights" can be a loaded term, and that Westerners will tend to associate it with political rights. That being said, criticism of Cuban human rights was already there. Are you therefore suggesting that the references to the term should be removed from both perspectives on the matter? ☮ Eclecticology

"Supporters of Castro also point out that Cuba's human rights record is significantly better than many other countries in the Carribean/Latin America region."

The way this is worded makes it seem as if supporters are pointing out an incontrovertible fact. Wikipedia does not need to claim that Cuba's human rights record is better than those of other Latin American countries.

Since no opposition NGOs and parties are allowed to organize and challenge the government in competitive elections, most readers are going to dismiss the article offhand because of this sentence. Right now, there’s a crackdown on dissent in Cuba. I have to admire Castro’s good timing, doing this while everyone’s paying attention to Iraq.

Instead, you could point out low levels of poverty, homelessness, and unemployment and near-universal access to good medical and educational facilities. Let’s keep this on a more concrete level.

172

"Point out" IMHO is just another way of saying "claim" or "say" while avoiding the monotony of using the same expression all the time. There is no suggestion of incontrovertibility in that phrasing. In any case please note that when I first restored the comment I changed the word to "reply", Extensive details about other countries' human rights abuses would not be warranted, but a few links would probably be OK. We can't view this matter in Cuba in complete isolation from the rest of the region and its history. In comparison to the Spanish administration and the presidencies of Machado and Batista, Castro's abuses have been quite mild.

I don't share your fears that readers will dismiss the entire article because of the comment, but either POV about that is speculative. Yes, some dissenters have just been sentenced to long prison terms, but I seriously doubt that Castro was concerned about the timing; he's never shown much concern for US public opinion on this in the past. Why should he start now? The biggest concentration of political prisoners with violated human rights on Cuban territory now happens to be at Guantanamo. ☮ Eclecticology 03:38 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Eclecticology:

I agree with you completely.

I'm a historian and I too tend to look at dictators within a historical context. I've long been accused of being an apologist, for among others Castro, on this site for doing so.

But that doesn't matter. The sentence needs rewording.

Maybe you can state, “supporters claim that Cuba’s human rights record…”, and then explain how they justify this viewpoint.

Or this can go in the article: "in comparison to the Spanish administration and the presidencies of Machado and Batista, Castro's abuses have been quite mild." This is a valid point.

I'm just contesting the use of the term "human rights" in this context since it is a very loaded, vague concept.

172

Can someone move the photo of young Fidel to the left side of the page? I think it would look better there. - user:J.J.

I moved it (and noted the pixel width) as the earlier version was under the text in some browsers. -- Infrogmation 01:37 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

What does the picture of the hug grant us? All we get is Fidel's back. Doesn't a discussion of the national relationship in words give us far more? -- Zoe

Yeah. But there's a caption under the photo. This combination makes the article more visual, presentable, and attractive.

172

In a show of improving relations between the two Communist allies once hurt by the Sino-Soviet Split (Castro was stauncy pro-Soviet), -- I've removed all this from the picture caption. Commentary belongs in the text, and not in a caption. It is sufficient for the caption to identify the people, and just what they are doing. ☮ Eclecticology 23:30 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. If the picture can't explain itself, it shouldn't be in the article. -- Zoe

There are many other articles with similar captions describing what's going on in the picture. Many books, textbooks, and encyclopedias do the same.

Before I restore the caption to the original version, let's see what others think.

172

Then maybe we should be changing captions in the other articles. I'll do that when I find them, but I won't go looking for them. In this case the picture covered about half the width of the page, but the size-reduced caption went all the way across the page, and still had enough to wrap. That's ugly! ☮ Eclecticology

Okay, that settles it. Does anyone want to add a sentence explaining Sino-Cuban relations within the article?

172

When all the articles for countries were set a pattern was established. IMHO that would belong on Foreign relations of Cuba rather than in a more or less biographical article about its president. ☮ Eclecticology 05:28 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Some critiques on the article:

Can anyone seriously say there is no cult of personality around Fidel Castro? I reversed this statement. I have not been to Cuba and hence left in a statement saying that he seems to discourage it, but other sources say that his image is displayed ubiquitously in Cuba by the government or the Party. See Talk:Che Guevara.

The hug photo is indeed a pretty bad photo of both men and adds little if anything to the article.

I agree with the comment that many paragraphs in this article are about Cuban history and not about Castro. In the section about the Bay of Pigs or about the Cuban Missile Crisis, notes about Castro's role would be preferable to the broad notes about the history.

Tempshill 02:29, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've removed the addition that said that Cuba had the worst human rights record on the planet as it's blatently POV. It looked like it had been submitted by a miami lobby group. Secretlondon 16:53, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Image:Castroportrait.jpg

What the heck is wrong with this photo? File:Castroportrait.jpg

--mav 02:07, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. It's horrible (deliberately there to provoke an emotional response) and that's why J.J. chose it as a replacement. Shrink the old one. I don't know how, but I'm sure that you do. 172 02:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not playing dumb. I honestly do not see what is wrong with that photo. It's not like he was in the middle of saying a word and had an odd facial expression. Is that not Fidel Castro? --mav

Don't speak for me. I just chose the picture because biography articles need portraits, as well as general "action" shots like the flag one. Must you find a pretext in everything? Honestly, it was just a style thing. Find a better portrait then, if this one is too "emoitonal" for you. user:J.J.

Don't be so modest. We allhow know that you have discerning, refined tastes when it comes to portrait shots. The work posted on your website is clear evidence of your gifted technique and style as a center-right political cartoonist. You've shown a discerning taste on Wiki as well:

I think this photo is worth adding to the page. It shows Muagbe in a different light, and the way I think a lot of the world is starting to see him. user:J.J. See [Image:mugabemedals.jpg]]

There's also Talk:Idi Amin. Eloquence commented on this matter as well:

JJ, I realize you are a political cartoonist and as such may view other human beings as potential caricatures. This paragraph, however, is unprofessional, false, devoid of meaningful content and utterly inappropriate. That does not mean that there are not aspects of Amin's reception worth writing about. Yes, Amin was portrayed as a clown in western media, and reporters ignored his crimes and instead focused on his eccentricities. Amin was, after all, a longtime ally of the United States, so the tens of thousands slaughtered could be overlooked. But what a charming, amusing guy he was, ha ha!—Eloquence 02:48, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I lack your talents in the realm of caricature art, but let me make a clumsy foray into it here for the sake of argument. When looking at your portrait, I see the evil dictator in the process of sending dissidents off to the firing squad. Even if you weren't consciously setting out to induce an emotional effect in the viewer, it's probably safe to conclude that you have your biases have a role in your preference. 172 02:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm removing the summary box for now. It included two sentences below that are an outrageous violation of NPOV policies.

"Proclaimed himself a Communist in 1961, announced plans to make Cuba a Communist country. Recieved subsequent backing from the Soviet Union."

"Ties to the Soviet Union and other Latin American Leftist groups have incurred much animosity from the United States."

If you think that this is simply a story of Communism versus anti-Communism, you're living in a world of ferry tales and make-believe. The summary box misrepresents the dynamic of response and counter-response between Castro and the United States between 1959 and 1962, particularly the context in which Castro proclaimed himself a Communist and sought Soviet support. Frankly, so does the article. If this is unclear to anyone, Latin Americanists Thomas Skidmore, Peter Smith, and Benjamin Keen are good sources. Their survey texts are good, quick reads on the subject. I'll briefly explain and offer some background on this page.

As in much of Latin America, extremely reactionary oligarchs ruled through their alliances with the military elite and United States, which has always served as a barrier to liberal and nationalist (not socialist) revolution and reform in Latin America throughout the 20th century.

This has been the case long before the Cold War, which gave US interventionism a new ideological tinge, but scantly altered the nature of the US role in the region. Note that in Cuba alone, between the 1902 ratification of the Platt Amendment in 1902 and the Revolution in '59, the US landed marines three times in efforts to secure US interests. But by the mid-20th century, however, much of the region passed through a higher state of economic development, which bolstered the power and ranks of the lower classes, and left calls for social change and political inclusion more pronounced, thus posing a challenge to US domination of the region's economies and politics.

However, this social system - dominated by US capitalism and local landed oligarchies and manifested in regimes like Batista's - could not be as easily removed from power as much of Africa and Asia broke away from European colonialism. The role of the US in the region strongly explains why Castro, and others throughout the region, would resort to Leninist tactics and organization, not out of ideology per se, but out of practical necessity.

After the 1954 CIA-led coup that overthrew liberal nationalist reformer Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in Guatemala, future Latin American revolutionaries would shift to Leninist tactics. Arbenz, a moderate reformer and an elected president, fell when his military deserted him. Since then, Fidel Castro and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua would make the army and governments parts of a single unit and eventually set up single party states. Overthrowing such regimes would require a war, not simply a CIA operation, or even landing marines or a cruder invasion scheme (i.e. the the Bay of Pigs).

Tensions between Castro's new government and the US probably caused Castro to become a Communist, rather than Castro's Communism being the original source of the tensions. Cuban relations with the US started to deteriorate when Castro announced a program of agrarian reform in 1959, which met stiff US resistance. Note that in the 1950s, US interests owned four fifths of the stakes in Cuba's utilities, nearly half of its sugar, and nearly all of its mining industries. The Cuban economy could be manipulated at a whim by merely tinkering with the island's financial services or by tinkering with US quotas and tariffs on sugar - the country's staple export commodity.

The expropriation of US assets also allowed him to finance new spending on social welfare. Arbenz was ousted shortly after he redistributed 178,000 acres of United Fruit Company land in Guatemala. United Fruit had long monoplized the transportation and communications region their, along with the main export commodities, and played a major role in Guatemalan politics. Arbenz was out shortly afterwards and Guatemala fell to one of the continent's most brutal military dictatorships for decades to come.

It was after this point that Castro started to move closer to the communists in his July 26th movement in search of organized political support to carry out socioeconomic changes. With the US whipping up schemes to invade his country, destabilize his government, and assassinate him, Castro would sign a trade agreement in February 1960 with the Soviet Union, a market for Cuba's agricultural commodities (and a new source for machinery, heavy industrial equipment, and technicians) that could replace the country's traditional patron - the United states. He turned to the USSR since it was far less of a constraint on his objectives and consolidation of power in Cuba.

However, to placate his new patron he would certainly have to solidify his place in the Soviet orbit and finally proclaim himself a Marxist-Leninist. And, as we can see today given the island's stagnation and isolation, the alternative to subordination to the US came with significant costs in terms of social and economic development of its own.

Castro simply had very little to maneuver if his regime wanted to enact even limited land and labor reforms or finance desperately needed social welfare programs and internal improvements while maintaining good relations with the United States.

Actually, It is no coincidence that Latin America has given scant rise to the kinds of democratic reforms that allowed lower classes to have a say in political processes in the advanced, industrialized countries such as France, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, and the rich English-speaking democracies. This region has been a far tougher environment for the application of social reforms through the framework of existing institutions and capitalist markets. Perhaps Costa Rica and Uruguay, which had a tradition of small-scale commercial agriculture (giving rise to a stronger middle class), stand out as the strongest exceptions. But not Cuba.

The text of the article should be revised according to these suggestions as well. 172 15:09, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How about if you fix and edit things on the page you have problems with, instead of just deleting things and writing essays on the talk page? user:J.J.

Re: the photograph "Fidel Castro and his supporters wave the Cuban flag"

Could it be changed for onr of Castro alone? In that picture he is surrounded by his security staff more than anything else.

Orbis Tertius 07:05, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)~~

I like the photo thats in this talk page. The flag one is too far away and you cant really see his face. But I also agree to keep the hug photo.

User:JessPKC 4:47 EST 21 Feb 2004

I've just replaced the "flag" photo (Image:Cuba,_Castro_(31).jpg) with a closer head-and-shoulders pic (Image:Cuba.FidelCastro.01.jpg). I also added one of him in front of the Martí Monument in Havana, alongside the section that speaks of Martí and other national heroes (Image:Cuba.FidelCastro.02.jpg). (I also think we should delete the hug pic, but that's a different matter.) –Hajor 14:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Hajor. Perhaps we should replace the pic of Jiang Zemin for one of Fidel and Raul Castro together?

Orbis Tertius 16:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me: better to have Fidel's brother depicted rather than the back of his suit. Do you have such a picture? (I see that there's no img on Raúl C's own article; if you have one, we could get it to do double duty here and there.) –Hajor 17:12, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hideous image

"Hideous image"? I thought it was a pretty good shot of him. I'll admit that the protocolary foliage in the background clashes a bit with the fatigues, but it's recognizably Fidel, in a nice, tight close-up shot -- and not that unflattering, either, for a man of almost 80 with a beard. –Hajor 14:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As it is the page has enough images. But if you insisted, I could readily find a recent picture in which he didn't appear ready to keel over. 172 06:48, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's a case to be made for starting the article with a good head-and-shoulders shot of the subject, and I think the José Martí statue pic is probably better off down where it was, next to the paragraph that talks about Martí (and, additionally, next to the line that says he seldom appears in public sans fatigues). If you really don't like this one – which also has the advantage of being free-to-use, not "fair use" – then go ahead, see what you can find. –Hajor 15:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll get on it. I know that your intentions have been well placed, but doesn't itlook like he's about to croak in that pic? 172 15:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's that unflattering. I just hope I look that good when I'm 77. But <whisper>he is about to croak.</whisper> –Hajor 15:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's not what I've been hearing, e.g., read this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040313/481/hav10803130305 172 16:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected! Patria o muerte, sobreviviremos –Hajor 16:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I always heard this as vinceremos; this sounds like somebody trying to translate an English translation back into Spanish" :-) Eclecticology 22:31, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

Nah -- it was me trying to pull off a lame wordplay between "venceremos" (we shall overcome) and "sobreviviremos" (we shall survive). Although, with all the references to Krushchev here, perhaps it should be "sepultaremos"... –Hajor 20:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

Is Castro a dictator? I think so, and so do many people, but phrases like "iron-fisted" aren't helping the case for NPOV. Why not just describe what he does and let the reader decide for himself? Any accurate portrayal of Castro will lead to the perception of dictatorship, without our shoving it in the readers' faces. Meelar 21:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article is so disgustingly POV and pro Castro that it makes me sick, plus an article which does not use the word dictator in it once is a horrid distortion of the truth. TDC 23:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Biotechnology and the Economy

I suspect that possible patent violations by Cuban biotech industries may be a greater concern to the United States than the potential for developing bio-weapons, but I would not want to put that in the article without more facts to back me up. Eclecticology 22:52, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

TDC's POV

Terms like "harsh embargo" are very POV. Blaming all of Cuba's economic woes on the embargo is nothing more than POV regime propaganda. Cuba can trade with whoever they like. The rest of my statements I will let stand on the facts.TDC 23:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also the picture of the Pope and Castro would lead an uniformed reader into believing that he and Castro are on good terms. Nothing could be further from the truth. TDC 23:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I accepted the elimination of the word "harsh" because it was not absolutely needed in the context. Nowhere have I blamed all of Cuba's economic problems on the embargo, but it has certainly been the most important factor in creating difficulties for the Cuban people.

According to you, the most important factor in Cuba?s hardships is the US embargo. Many others would say that Cuba?s command economy is the reason it faces so many economic hardships. TDC 14:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC claims that he is merely removing pro-Castro propaganda, and he would have us believe that the anti-Castro propaganda that he would replace it with is rendered true by this noble act.

What is anti-Castro about anything I have stated, which is not true? Sometimes facts shed unpleasant lights on people. TDC 14:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He would have us believe by innuendo that the sale of oil to Cuba by Venezuela's democratic Chavez government is an act of charity.

It is an act of charity. The only thing Cuba does for this oil is send doctors to serve in Venezuelan slums. This is a small price to pay for $700mil in oil each year.TDC 14:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Castro is no angel, but beside the mass killings of the Pinochet regime, or the persistently ignored death squads of Central America he looks pretty good, And there is no evidence whatsoever that Castro has exploited the resources of any other Latin American country for the sole benefit of Cuban industries, and to the detriment of the citizens of those countries.

First of all, the article is on Castro, not Pinochet. And since we are comparing the two, let us compare. The Rettig Commission puts the number of political killings during Pinochet?s regime place it at about 3.1K. This in a nation that had a population in 1972 of roughly 13mil. That works out to be about 1 killing per 4200 people.

Most estimates of the number of political killings during Castro?s regime place it at about 10-15K, so we will assume a low of 10K. This in a nation that has an population of roughly 11 mil today. That works out to be about 1 killing per 1100 people.

So, if we are going just by raw numbers alone Castro is much worse than Pinochet was.

Now go take your straw man and cram it.TDC 14:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC would have the matter discussed on this talk page, but only as long as the readers of the article can continue to be deluded by his distortions. He even threatens protecting the page to ensure that his distortions remain. I will not be intimidated by such bully tactics. Eclecticology 06:35, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide what is and is not an appropriate addition to the article in question. Protection is a measure used against tools like you who continually revert additions without providing any justification for it. Either find some factual base to argue against me, balance out my input, or leave it the fuck alone. TDC 14:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What! And let a liar get away with his wilful deception? Sometimes arguing every little point is not the appropriate way to deal with trolling. The article had become fairly stable, and NPOV before you started adding tired propaganda. When it was pointed out that it would not be proper to keep calling Batista a dictator, while disallowing the term for Castro, in the interest of NPOV I did not object. I'm not going to spend enormous amounts of time disecting the historical minutiae to prove you wrong, I'm not going to balance your input of lies with an opposing input of lies, and I'm not going to "leave it the fuck alone." Eclecticology 06:21, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

My claim that Castro called for a first strike against the United States holds true according to Castro's own letter.

I tell you this because I believe that the imperialists' aggressiveness is extremely dangerous and if they actually carry out the brutal act of invading Cuba in violation of international law and morality, that would be the moment to eliminate such danger forever through tan act of clear legitimate defense, however harsh and terrible the solution would be, for there is no other.

I looked at the site that you indicated, and there is a clear warning at the top that the Russians had misinterpreted it in the same way as you. Castro does not mention nuclear weapons, and it is clear that whatever his intended action it would only come in response to an American invasion of Cuba that did not materialize. Eclecticology 06:21, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Well of course there is a disclaimer, the site is run by a Castro sycophant. But what other than a nuclear strike would Castro be refering to with the phrase would be the moment to eliminate such danger forever through tan act of clear legitimate defense, however harsh and terrible the solution would be, for there is no other.

I had also mentioned that Castro called for a nuclear first strike if the US invaded Cuba. TDC 13:56, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speculating about Castro's intent in that letter in no way to write history. Your speculations don't make anything true. Eclecticology 09:47, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Cuba is not buying oil from venezuela, they are bartering for it. TDC 03:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bartering is a perfectly acceptable form of commercial transaction. The point is that Cuba is not receiving the oil for nothing as you would have everyone believe. Eclecticology 06:21, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Bartering is not the same as purchasing. This is a freebee from Chavez to his butt budy Castro. I have also stated in my revisions that the oil is bieng traded for Cuban medical personelle, not bieng donated to Cuba, although in reality, that's what it is.TDC 13:56, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did not remove the reference to medical personel, but I have not yet had the chance to check it out. The only difference between cash sales and barter is the way that payment is made Eclecticology 09:47, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Protecting page

In addition to a handful of Cambodia-related articles, another edit war seems to be breaking out. I restored the somewhat stable revision as of 05:36, 19 Apr 2004. 172 09:37, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(a) It was hardly at an "edit war" yet; while Eclecticology was being rather rude, neither of us had fully reverted yet. (b) 172 has been heavily involved in the history of this page and should not be protecting it. -- V V 10:07, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, everyone else is the devil. Discuss the content with Ec now, not whether or not he's rude. 172 10:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you not understand English? -- V V 11:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do. Sin embargo, comprendo español también. ¿Quiere Ud. que yo hable español en vez de inglés? 172 12:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Entonces, muéstreme. Otra vez, ¿qué dije antes? (A propósito, prefiero inglés.) -- V V 21:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Missile Crisis

I think that comrade Castro's request to anhilate the US is an important note in his FP.

In a personal letter to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev writen on October 27 1962 [1], Castro urged Khrushchev to take a nuclear first stike against the United States if Cuba were invaded, but Khrushchev rejected any first strike response [2], .

TDC 20:35, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't push for this in my initial counteroffer because I was hoping that with my intervention an agreeable settlement could be worked out. However, Eclecticology's incivil response suggests this effort might not bear fruit. So, do what you feel you ought. -- V V 21:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to mediate, and if Eclecticology can come together on a revision with me without a pissy edit war, then all the better. TDC 21:14, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well, my one effort was mostly reinstating your more neutral description of the embargo with a few sharpening changes. I thought that was a good starting point, but Eclecticology immediately shot back at me saying this was "blind insistance [sic] on your POV". (I've never worked with this person before.) This does not look hopeful.... -- V V 21:27, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think TDC is probably correct on this one, at least as far as my memory serves (my memory of what I've read - I wasn't alive in 1962:) AndyL 22:36, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of memory. I'm basing my position on the letter which TDC himself linked and quoted (or more correctly, a translation of the letter since there would be no reason for Castro to have written it in English).

The letter I linked from the pro-castro site must be read on its content, not on what disclaimer the site admin put on it. I am sure I coud find another copy of the letter online somewhere if that would end this.TDC 02:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

He draws the improper inference that the only thing that Castro could have meant was that he was urging the use of nuclear weapons. That's not an objective way to do history.

Seriously though, what else could have castro meant?

if they actually carry out the brutal act of invading Cuba in violation of international law and morality, that would be the moment to eliminate such danger forever

Not much room for interpretation, especialy considering Khrushchev 's response. TDC 02:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

A fully balanced treatment would also deal with Kennedy's willingness to make a nuclear first strike.

Kennedy was willing to make a first strike?!? I would love to see the documentation on that, and this is an article about Castro, not JFK. If there is any truth in what you said, then put it in the JFK article. TDC 02:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Whatever Castro might have said, he never had any power to launch nuclear weapons; Kennedy did.

True, but he did have the Soviet's ear. TDC 02:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

To this day, the United States steadfastly refuses to renounce the use of a nuclear first strike. Eclecticology 23:48, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

And once again, what does this have to do with an article on Castro? TDC 02:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

A piece of deleted text

In a personal letter to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev writen on October 27 1962 [http:// www.historyofcuba.com/history/Crisis/ Cltr-2.htm], Castro urged Khrushchev to take a nuclear first stike against the United States if Cuba were invaded, but Khrushchev rejected any first strike response ~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/ 621030%20Letter%20to%20Castro.pdf.

What's wrong with putting this in the article? --Uncle Ed 12:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It places Castro in a bad light, and we cant have that on a hero worship page.TDC 13:43, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Are you kidding? At least put it on the Nikita Khrushchev page: it makes him look good. --Uncle Ed 13:56, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC wouldn't want that:) I'm fine putting the above on the Castro page on in the Cuban Missile Crisis article. AndyL 18:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is relavent to both articles so I think it should be in both. TDC 18:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

And what about the Khrushchev article? AndyL 18:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure .... why not? TDC 18:54, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget first strike. --Uncle Ed 19:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nukes

The Library of Congress' Revelations from the Russian Archives site says that:

According to Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs, in May 1962 he conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba as a means of countering an emerging lead of the United States in developing and deploying strategic missiles. He also presented the scheme as a means of protecting Cuba from another United States-sponsored invasion, such as the failed attempt at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

After obtaining Fidel Castro's approval, the Soviet Union worked quickly and secretly to build missile installations in Cuba.

This suggests the missiles were K's idea rather than Castro's. Do we know when Raul and Che visited Moscow? Also, what is the source that says the nukes were a Cuban idea?AndyL 20:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I actualy do have a source on that (somewhere) lemme dig it up. TDC 22:07, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

On July 2, 1962, Raul Castro and a high-level Cuban military delegation arrive in Moscow, where they are met at the airport by Marshal Rodion Malinovsky and Anastas Mikoyan. Nikita Khrushchev subsequently meets with Raúl Castro on July 3 and 8. During these discussions, detailed arrangements are made for the missile deployment. According to the formal agreement, which is renewable every five years, the missiles and maintenence of them will be entirely under the jurisdiction of the Soviet military. Raul Castro spends a total of two weeks consulting with Soviet officials before returning to Cuba on July 17.

http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/subject/missile-crisis/ch02.htm

This is interesting as well, please read if you have a minute or two. http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19970816/22850403.html TDC 22:20, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well the first souce you cite does not contradict the claim that the missiles were K's initiative. The second source says that explicitly:

Late in April, 1962, while vacationing in the Crimea, across the Black sea from Turkey, Khrushchev realizes the nuclear tipped knife that is at the throat of the Soviet Union. To ensure a deterrent, Khrushchev considers deploying nuclear weapons to Cuba to prevent a full U.S. invasion. While the United States had nuclear missiles all around the world and on the very borders of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union had only 10 - 25 nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States. Upon returning to Moscow, Khrushchev discusses the idea with First Deputy Prime Minister Anastas Mikoyan. Although Mikoyan is skittish and opposed, Khrushchev asks a group of his closest advisers, including Frol Kozlov, Commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF) Sergei Biryuzov, Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko , and Marshal Malinovsky to evaluate the idea. The group proposes that a mission be sent to Cuba to see if Fidel Castro would agree to the proposed deployment.

So it seems that K came up with the idea in April or May, Raul and Che visited in July and agreed. Now, of course, its possible the Cubans had independently come up with the same idea but still it seems to have been K's initiative rather than the Cubans. AndyL 22:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

My impression is that it was more of a colaborative effort. Castro and co, goes over to Moscow to talk mutual security, someone brings nukes up and it goes from there. So lets just say that it was a mutual agreement, which in all likelyhood it was.TDC 22:35, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

No. The evidence is that Khrushchev came up with the idea in late April or early May 1962 cleared it with his own military and then invited the Cubans to Moscow in July to make the proposal. That's quite different from speculating that it "mutually" came up in July. Unless you can find evidence to the contrary I think we should base ourselves on the evidence we have. AndyL 00:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes

Re: "While visiting Cuba, Pope John Paul II was extremely critical of the Castro regime." This sentence should be clarified. Below are helpful excepts from media coverage:

"John Paul, speaking with a strong voice in Spanish, stayed away from overt political themes, instead emphasizing that his trip is pastoral, designed to strengthen the Catholic church and faithful in Cuba." (From CNN, "Pope prepares to sit down with Castro," http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/21/cuba.pope.update/ January 22, 1998)

"Emphasizing family themes as he celebrated his first Mass in Cuba, Pope John Paul II on Thursday criticized the communist-run island's widespread practice of legalized abortion and urged President Fidel Castro's government to end its monopoly on education and allow the return of Catholic schools." (From CNN, "Pope attacks Cuban abortion policy," http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/22/pope/ January 22, 1998)

This sentence needs some work: "Because of the confiscation of US-owned properties and an increasingly close relationship with the Soviet Union, the United States imposed severe sanctions on Cuba." Perhaps Ec and TDC will want to address this matter. My reasoning with respect to this topic is expressed in a previous posting on this talk page.

Finally, I'm not familiar with Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba, so I cede that that perhaps explains why I don't know what this sentence is doing in the paragraph in which I've found it: "However, Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba, states that this is highly questionable."

Overall, though, the recent changes are pretty constructive. 172 11:06, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

In order:

In 1998, Castro hosted the pope on his visit to Cuba, the first by a ruling pontiff to the island. While visiting Cuba, Pope John Paul II was extremely critical of the Castro regime. That's just poor writing. we don't need to be told he was in Cuba twice. Relevant details would be fine.

Fine by me. TDC 03:46, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

an estimated 20,000 convicts, homosexuals and the insane. Very disputed. Even cuban-exile.com, hardly the most liberal source of information, says "no data is available as to the actual number of homosexuals in the Mariel population." If people want to discuss demographics of the Mariel episode, there are more relevant articles than this.

I will look into it to find better numbers, but as you may or may not be aware of Castro does not like queers, even though Raul is alleged to be gay. In many televised speeches during Mariel, he constantly refered to them and was glad he was expelling them. [3]TDC 03:46, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Because of the confiscation of US-owned properties and an increasingly close relationship with the Soviet Union, the United States imposed severe sanctions on Cuba. Giving reasons for the embargo without giving reasons for the confiscation is blatant POV.

Giving reasons for the confiscation? He is a communist, it just tends to follow that he would collectivize productive things. TDC 03:46, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Supporters of the embargo reply that it is due to Cuba's refusal to abandon socialism. Repetition of the reasons for the embargo is irrelevant and, again, POV. This para is about the effects of the embargo.

In contrast, no Cuban children live on the streets. Is this disputed? Sources?

Disputed aside, it is a shade POV. TDC 03:46, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

believe his continued leadership is due to coercion, repression, and a legally enforced one party rule. If you don't believe the Cubans like Castro, the legally enforced one party rule comes under coercion. This is useless verbiage, which is the last thing this article needs.
Critics of Castro's regime cede that It's hardly fair to mention this one, but someone really needs a dictionary.
the past, and Castro supporters claim that it continues to this day. However, Holly Ackerman, Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba, states that this is highly questionable. Wildly unbalanced. We've mentioned a claim by Castro supporters, so people already know it's disputed. If we have an anti-Castro quote, we need a pro-Castro balancer.

Markalexander100 02:27, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

More to follow I am sure. TDC 03:46, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Castro does not like queers Agreed. It probable deserves a mention in the human rights section of the article.

Giving reasons for the confiscation? He is a communist, it just tends to follow that he would collectivize productive things. Or 50 years of US exploitation. Mention one, mention both.

Disputed aside, it is a shade POV. How can undisputed facts be POV?

Markalexander100 04:57, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I reverted repeats of some of the above changes, which TDC didn't feel the need to discuss before redoing. Additionally, poor grammar. Markalexander100 05:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

In an entire article about Fidel Castro we get only two sentences related to human rights? Buried at the bottom of the page? And followed by the following bizaar statement: "Castro sees this as an appropriate response to the United States continuing to engage in secret warfare". I have only a vague notion of what might be meant by this statement, but I suspect the author was not interested in using the term "political prisoners".

The entire human rights section spends more time criticizing the United States than it does describing any actions taken by Castro.

Since we've mentioned that Castro has graciously allowed Catholics to join the Communist party, perhaps you can mention how his henchmen might have dragged you through the streets for displaying a Christmas tree in the 1960s.jimroos 18 June 2004

Human_rights_in_Cuba. Markalexander100 08:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes

This below was removed by Eclecticology. Why?

In a personal letter to Khrushchev written on October 27 1962 [4], Castro urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States if Cuba were invaded, but Khrushchev rejected any first strike response [5]. Soviet field commanders in Cuba were, however, authorized to use tactical nuclear weapons if attacked by the U.S. .

Also, I added to the lead paragraph: "despite his titles, Castro is considered to be Cuba's dictator, and his brother, Raúl Castro, is widely thought to be his designated successor." Why was this removed? -Stevertigo 01:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On the first point, if you read the "letter" as presented on the referenced sites, it's not what it says, although Khrushchev did interpret it that way when he replied. I do remember seeing a site where Castro was interviewed, and claimed that he did not have confidence in the Russian interpreter's understanding of Spanish. At this point we have a between-the-lines reading of an English version of a text (presumably in Russian from newly released Russian archival material) which may in the first place have been based on a poor translation from the Spanish. That is not evidence enough to support the categorical statement that is being made on such an important issue.

Then rather than being an (expletive deleted) and wiping it out with a POV comment attached, why not simply edit the point, and clarify it? Stevertigo 03:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When we went around this point (further above) with TDC he used this from Castro's letter: "...if they actually carry out the brutal act of invading Cuba in violation of international law and morality, that would be the moment to eliminate such danger forever." I can see where some people, including Khrushchev, might misinterpret this. What Castro really said in Spanish, and what he meant is a matter of speculation. It is not good history to depend on speculation. Eclecticology 08:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, "dictator" is a POV term. The anti-Castro Wikipedians did, at an earlier stage correctly point out that it would not be a balanced approach if those relatively more favorable to Castro were to delete that term in respect to Castro while retaining it in respect of Batista. The article is more neutral if "dictator" is omitted from both characterizations than if it is included. NPOV is much better served when official titles are used. Eclecticology 02:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am by no means a right-wing propagandist, but VV makes a valid point. It seems to me that the term "dictator" itself needs to be clarified, but I would not call it a POV term. Any guy who, after a "revolution" gets to be "president" for life is, for lack of a better term, a dic tator.-Stevertigo

I was the one who pointed this out. However, it is not clear to me that dictator is a POV term at all; it just seems to be a factual assessment of the de facto situation. However, Wikipedia practice appears to be that American-supported or right-wing "dictators" may be called dictators, but to do so with left-wing or anti-American ones is an NPOV violation. Obviously, I don't regard this status quo as very fair, which is why I began by altering the absurd opening paragraph which said that Batista's dictatorship was replaced, but failed to mention the salient feature of the present government. (Similarly, one of the issues in the Pinochet revert wars were the partisans calling him a "military dictator".) V V 03:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is of course a great irony that a right winger like yourself should seek an NPOV solution, but progress is always welcome, and your further development is encouraged. Stevertigo 03:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wholly fail to see the irony. I believe there are many users - both left and right - involved in this project who seek balanced articles. In my limited experience, you have not been one of them. But I'd be delighted to have that impression countervailed. At any event, I have considered starting an RfC page on how to talk about dictators in hopes of evolving a consistent standard, as I believe consistency is key to removing the appearance of bias. V V 04:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well said. The words come first, then comes the growth. I understand. ;) -Stevertigo 05:51, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We already have standards for these matters. On both Castro and Pinochet, we should refer to the nominal political offices that they hold (e.g., general and president for Pinochet; state council president and for general secretary of the Cuban Communist Party for Castro; state council president, chairman of the CMC, and general secretary of the standing committee of the CPC for Jiang Zemin). 172 06:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. I absolutely support using official titles. Of course Castro is now also president, which is less long winded than the term you suggest. At one time the article did refer to Batista as dictator, but I did not object when that was changed. VV's suggestion that a double standard is being applied in the way he says is unwarranted. Eclecticology 08:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--- Castro is an (admitted) communist dictator responsible for the deaths of thousands of his political opponents, and the total victims of his regime (from torture, murder, and imprisonment) have been said to number nearly 100,000 in 45 years. The non-partisan, established group Human Rights Watch gives Castro's Cuba the worst possible rating on either political freedoms or civil liberties, one of only 7 (7!!!) nations in the world to obtain that dubious honor this year.

Although a repressive dictator, Nothing of this sort has ever been accused of Batista, and it is a blatant POV to attempt to compare their regimes as equals. It smacks of apologism for Castro's barbarism due to the users economic beliefs (pro-socialism). How is that just "accepted" by the normal people who use these boards? Have you all gone mad? It's like if a pro-Nazi or pro-Soviet or Klansman or Muslim jihadist attempts to change a factual article into a propoganda piece for his tiny extremist constituency.

If all other common sense fails, remember that Batista was never accused of ordering his police to use firehoses to blow the babies of escaping refugees from their mothers arms and into the water. Castro has been. Many times over.

Just you remember that, people, and let's not have any Castro apologists spreading lies on this encyclopedia.-----

Fidel Castro?: "Organization of American States is the USA's colonial office"

I am trying to find whether Fidel Castro actually said something to the effect that "Organization of American States is the USA's colonial office". Help?! -- Kaihsu 21:41, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

The article at the site http://wais.stanford.edu/UnitedNations/un_unanddialogamongcivilizations11201.html suggests that this term goes back to the late 40s and thus predates Castro

"How will this affect the UN? New York Mayor Edward Koch asked the UN to leave New York because of its criticism of Israel. When Jesse Helms was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the US had a very negative attitude toward the UN. Recently, to get support in the fight against terrorism, President Bush has changed its tune toward the UN. We know that many in the world hate the IMF and the World Bank. They may support the UN, but what do they think about its being in New York? Bienvenido Macario suggests a site in the Philippines. Graham Stuart of Stanford argued that it should be in Tangiers (then an independent territory) in order to have it in neutral territory. Another Stanford professor used to argue that the OAS should be moved from Washington to Panama to shake off the label "US colonial office". Americans protested vehemently and it stayed put. Do foreigners regard the UN as likewise US dominated? Probably. Clarification of this would be appreciated. There may be a move to transfer the headquarters of the UN to Geneva, where it has important facilities."

In another article http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_panamacanal1.html he attributes the comment to Tim Brown in 1944. The reference was more correctly applied to the Pan-American Union, the predecessor organization of the OAS.

The article http://www.hichumanities.org/AHproceedings/Bernard%20Lemelin.pdf quotes a New York Times editorial that suggest that Castro also used the term in 1974. Eclecticology 23:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dictator Batista

Both Britannica [6] and Great Soviet Encyclopedia [7] call Batista a dictator. And revert wars are harmful, so please stop and discuss. Paranoid 07:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I though the problem is that Batista was called dictator... Paranoid 08:03, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it is POV to label Castro a dictator, then it is also POv to label Batista a dictator. Just keeping things consistent. TDC 14:28, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Not exactly. Dictator is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, so it's not POV (though some try to twist the facts). While Batista is called a dictator in Britannica, BSE and probably other encyclopedias, Fidel is not. Fidel is not a dictator, because no matter how popular he is, he doesn't rule Cuba, the party does (and people too). Batista, on the other hand, was clearly a dictator (the second time he was in power) because of the way he ruled. So I think we should call Batista a dictator, but not do the same for Fidel. Paranoid 06:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good point, Paranoid. Cuba is a single party state, not a personalistic regime. (Not to say that this is mutually exclusive. Ceausescu's Romania and North Korea, where the power of the party was strongly subverted by the leader, are considered "sultanistic" and "personalistic" regimes by a number of prominent comparativists, e.g., Linz and Stepan, who have drawn from Max Weber's concept of personalized power in a "sultanism.") However, many Wikipedians aren't going to grasp these nuances, and will be suspicious that the term is being applied arbitrarily. So, it's best to just shy away from the term altogether, even in obvious cases, like the Somozas, Idi Amin, Papa Doc and Baby Doc, Bokassa, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu, etc. 172 07:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes Cuba is ruled by the PCC but the PCC has kept Castro as its "face," so to speak. The fact that other party members have influence (though less than Castro, because he is the self-styled Líder Maximo) and Castro doesn't have absolute power just means he isn't an autocrat. It doesn't mean he's not a dictator. At the very least the governing body of Cuba should be referred to as a dictatorship because a single party has a monopoly on power. Trey Stone 03:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just don't see anything wrong with clarifying that a dictator is a dictator, in addition to saying what their formal title in the country is. "Tyrant" and "despot" may be POV, but "dictator" accurately describes someone's position, even though it generally has a negative connotation. Trey Stone 05:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are a number of inflamatory words to stay away from when contributing to wikipedia. Words like dictator and terrorist, no matter how appropriate they may be, are generaly deemed to be inflamatory. TDC 05:46, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with both TDC and 172 (not something I often get to write). Markalexander100 08:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with them as well, but I can't help but notice that there are differences according to the proportions and vehemence of POV people defending certain titles: while e.g. Hitler or Idi Amin are labelled as dictators, Stalin is a "leader", Ho Chi Minh a "statesman and President" and Kim-Il Sung a "politician and ruler"... Shying away from the term may be the correct policy, but is not universally used - it is largely dependent on the number of people defending the persons. Marcika 02:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The thing is that sometimes it's best to just spell out someone's position, even if people think the article makes it obvious.

And terrorist? It's a fact that events like 9/11 are terrorist attacks. I don't think that just because Osama bin Laden has his supporters, that should prevent wikipedia from calling the plane hijackings a terrorist attack. It'd also be fine to put that his supporters call him a "freedom fighter." Trey Stone 06:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Swine fever

I have a bit of a problem with this statement:

There has even been at least one incident of biological warfare against Cuba using swine fever.

There is no source for this accusation, and its prime sources are the Cuban and Soviet governments (that is where the book "The Fish is Red: The Story of the Secret War Against Castro" got its information on this subject from).

Now, we either need a good source, independent of the Cuban/Soviet state departments for this claim, or it gets modified/pitched. TDC 17:33, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Shall we ditch all information from American sources as well? The USA is clearly biased too (albeit its bias is opposite). Paranoid 19:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You cant play the moral equivalence bullshit on this one. Unlike Cuba, US sources can be independently verified either through a FOIA request or through investigative journalism, so please do not go there. TDC 22:04, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I've heard this one before. Now, this particular case may not be true, who knows, but it's quite well documented (from US sources, no less) that the US was doing things like this in Cuba, and if the swine fever thing is true it would not surprise me. See Operation MONGOOSE. --Tothebarricades.tk 16:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have been investigating the prime source for this addition for quite some time, and will be commenting on it within the next wek or two. TDC 16:35, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Got anything? Trey Stone 09:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Homosexuals

I shortened the text about homosexuals. Removed version is below:

Thousands of those labeled as "mentally disabled" were actually homosexuals imprisoned by Castro. The Cuban government saw homosexuality as a social pathology that reflects leftover bourgeois decadence and used the boat lift as an opportunity to purge the island of all the homosexuals it had imprisoned.

The text created a false impression that Castro's repressions of homosexuals were somehow special and unique (and therefore very bad).

They are special and unique. Homosexuals in Cuba were sent to prison as part of official state policy and sent to UMAP camps, 4 years in a UMAP if one was simply suspected of bieng gay. Nothing like that existed anywhere in the world, or at least in the West, durign that time. TDC 22:04, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

But, as a matter of fact, in 1980 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was legal in every state in the US. And it has been only seven years after the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders. The text I removed tried to not very subtly blame Castro for prejudice, intolerance, etc. I guess that if Cuban homosexuals fought for their rights, they would have gotten them earlier than their friends in the US. But it just happened that there was no gay rights movement in Cuba and you can't blame Fidel for not thinking "why don't we do something good for homosexuals". As for the claim that some of the people in the boat lift were homosexuals, of course, there is no reason to remove this fact. Paranoid 19:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saying that "some" in the boats were gay minimizes the fact that Castro had 25,000 homosexuals expelled from the country. Now whether it was because they were gay or just claimes to be gay is certainly open for dispute.TDC 22:04, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

First it was 20000 including some gays, not it's 25000 gays. On a more serious note, my point was that prosecution of gays did not happen because Castro was evil, it happened because Castro (and Cuban society/government/party/etc.) was misguided, just like people in the US/UK/everywhere else. Yes, these were terrible mistakes. Yes, Castro was a bit slow in recognizing gay rights. But prosecuting gays was normal everywhere just a few decades ago. And treating them with even "Excisions of specific portions of the frontal lobes" was fine too. So the fact that Cuba prosecuted gays does not belong in the passage about the boat lift in the article about Castro. Paranoid 23:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, Castro apologised for his treatment of gays . While this doesn't mean that what he did was all fine now, it shows that he is at least remorseful and has stopped persecuting people based on their sexuality. In 1992 he told a Sandinista official:

"I'm not going to deny that, at a certain point, this machista thing, influenced the approach that was taken toward homosexuality. I personally -- you are asking me my personal opinion -- do not suffer from this type of phobia against homosexuals. Truly, in my mind, that's never been there and I have never been in favor nor have I promoted [homosexuality], nor have I supported [laws against homosexuality]."

I don't see homosexuality as a phenomenon of degeneration, but rather I see it in another way. The approach has been of another sort: a more rational approach, considering the tendencies and natural things of the human being, who simply must be respected. This is the philosophy with which I view these problems. I think that there has to be consideration shown toward the family that suffers these situations. I would hope that the families would have another mentality, that they would have another approach when something of this sort happens. I am absolutely opposed to any form of repression, disdain, contempt or discrimination with respect to homosexuals. That's what I think." [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 12:15, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

To Paranoid, on Freedom House.

I have made no edits to the article as my only addition (the link to Freedom House) remains. Freedom House is a non-partisan human rights group founded in 1978. It's reputation is well-established, and it is widely seen as an accurate, LARGELY unbiased NGO that often attacks brutal and dictatorial regimes of every kind. If it sometimes leans EVER SO SLIGHTLY to the right it must be noted that it is no further a slant than the left-wing slant of college and fellow HRG Amnesty International,

Among those nations currently receiving the worst ratings for political and civil liberties are tyrannies of all kinds like Cuba (Communism), Burma (military junta) and Syria (Islamic theocracy). While every regime, nomatter how oppressive, has it's supporters, those supporters for regimes that FH labels "Not Free" number very small compared to the detractors of these states, and the ideas of their brutality and oppression are widespread.

You seem to have a moral equivelency problem that cripples you to rational thought. The reasons why FH names America among the freest nations on Earth are factually accurate and clearly stated. Among others: 1.) Americans are treated to open, fair, Democratic elections in every state, at every level. We can choose our leaders at our will. 2.) Americans have a very high level of personal liberties like freedom to worship in the matter of our choice, generally free and open press, largely unshackled free speech, and the freedom of all American citizens from illegal prosecution or persecution by the federal, state, or local government. 3.) economic freedom is high in America, including the right of the individual to buy or sell, set prices, demand fair wages (unions), work different jobs for different pay, earn profit or go bankrupt without oppressive governmental interference.

The detainees at Guantanamo number 600 (not 1200), and are accused of TAKING UP ARMS against the U.S. Military in battle or planning suicide or other attacks against civilians. Even if you don't believe the government's case against them, you must admit that not one of the prisoners there is there because they are accused of a non-violent "thought crime" or "crime against the revolution" (as in Castro's Cuba).

Cuba under Castro, it should be noted, lacks many or all of these freedoms. Citizens have no choice in their national leadership, no opportunity or ability to vote for anyone but Fidel Castro for president, and no freedom to belong to a party that is not the Communist party. As Castro has undisputed absolute control over the nations courts, Citizens are subjected at all times to the possibility of arrest at all times for the "crime" of political dissidence, of opposition to Castro or Communism, of forming labor unions to challenge repressive, government-set wage controls, or of forming and operating press (media) in opposition to Castro and the party.

Non-violent political dissenters are routinely rounded up and imprisoned on the word of Castro alone (like last March's universally-condemned roundup of 75 anti-Castroites).

Those atrocious acts of reppression continue to this very day. And to add to all of this, well-substantiated accusations against Castro have seemingly "mellowed" recently, as reports of politically-based executions during his complete 45-year (one-man, one-party) reign often number 10-15 thousand, and the total number of imprisoned, tortured, and murdered civilian dissidents estimated as high as 100,000 in 45 years.

So there we are, and there I go. See 'ya,

ANTI-COMMUNIST

Reply on Freedom House

I found it funny the first time I read the word "non-partisan". I find it even more funny after your reply. There is more to politics than Democrats vs. Republicans. :) Freedom House may be "non-partisan" in the USian sense, but it is clearly biased against Cuba and for United States. Left/right wings (as they are perceived in the US) are completely irrelevant here. Cuba is not a tyranny and there is nothing brutal about imprisoning 320 people (out of 11 million) for political reasons. If that's brutal, how is imprisoning hundreds of thousands for smoking pot? Of course, when the USA does it, it gets "1,1,Free".

You call the American elections democratic, but it never occurs to you (or to Freedom House, or to most Americans) that there is no big difference between elections in Cuba and elections in the USA. In the USA you only have two candidates, there are no direct elections and the whole process is corrupted from top to bottom (via legalised bribes known as "campaign contributions"). In Cuba you have one candidate (because Castro has unprecedented level of popular support), no direct elections and the whole process is to a large extent controlled by the people. President Bush challenges Cuba to have fair and open elections. But United Nations challenges the USA to have open elections and allow UN representatives to monitor them (true fact).

Here is a useful link comparing election systems in Cuba and the USA: http://www.cubanow.net/culture/Eng/num16/03.htm (same here: http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5111/1/211 ) Some quotes from Cuba: A Revolution In Motion, Fernwood Books, 2003 by Isaac Saney: "these [(1993, 1998 and 2003)] elections were open to foreign observers, that 90 percent of the electorate voted, that no one was forced to vote, and that the election was by secret ballot.", "The 1991 Congress (immediately after the economic collapse) was preceded by discussions involving 3.5 million Cubans from 89,000 meetings directly raising 500 issues and concerns ranging from the structure of the Party to foreign policy." "Cuban electorate is divided into 14,948 districts consisting of a few hundred people each. Each district elects a representative. Mass organizations, labor unions, women's groups and student associations form commissions, which spend over a year selecting candidates to guarantee that all of Cuban society is represented in provincial and national assemblies." "Communist Party, per se, is prohibited from participating in the candidate selection process" "[National Assembly] Candidates are not permitted to campaign through the media."

Another great article comparing elections in Cuba and the USA: http://myweb.cableone.net/danlouis/bush_&_castro.htm and a large section on The Cuban Political and Electoral System (with lots of information that should be incorporated into our article)

And also Castro gets sixth term unopposed from CNN.

OK, that was number one. Number two - personal freedoms. Frredom to worship is not worthy IMO, and I'd rather have atheistic Cuba than wacko religious US. In any case, there is limited freedom of worship in Cuba now. The media in the USA is not free, they are controlled by a small number of companies that have close ties with the political elite. Free speech is being eroded gradually. I do agree though, that for the time being the situation with the press and speech in the US is still quite decent. Citizens in every country have freedom from illegal prosecution. Every political prisoner in Cuba was prosecuted legally, according to the laws of his country. Third, economic freedom. This is irrelevant, because Cuba is a socialist country. Complaining about lack of economic freedom in Cuba is the same as complaining about the lack of social safety net in the USA. Different countries - different systems.

Detainees of Guataname are not charged with anything. They just sit there in prison. BTW, political prisoners in Cuba are also often accused of sabotage, attempts to subvert the government, etc. Things that are merely "thought crimes" are not prosecuted in Cuba.

The rest is again complaining that there are few political freedoms in Cuba. Well, that's true, because the system is different. But this is irrelevant. For example, in Russia veterans of the Second World War have free passes for public transportation. Is it the same in the US? Now let's blame the US for lacks of freedom of movement.

The absence of certain political institutes in Cuba is by design. That doesn't mean Cuban people have no voice in determining the laws or government course. They do, and often more directly than in the US.

BTW, a nice quote from Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage: "Each day in the world 200 million children sleep in the streets. Not one is Cuban."

- I'm sorry, paranoid, but I have a problem. How do I respond at all to your loony rant against all the personal, individual liberties I believe derive from my God in Heaven, not the USA or any other nation ?

You lost me, and any other sensible person on this board, when you denigrated Freedom of Religion as an unworthy right. The right of a man or woman to worship the God or gods they perceive (if they even choose to worship God at all) in public and private and without government interference is an ABSOLUTE right of mankind given to us by powers higher than Castro or Bush could ever be. If Freedom of religion is not protected by a nation, then nothing can truly be protected by said nation, for what are we without our souls?

Because you do not believe in God does not now, nor will ever give you the right to dictate to me where and when and who I may worship. Castro tries to do this, and he is a fool for it.

You seem to think that I am here to be a propagandist for the U.S. I am not. Because we are the freest, mightiest, most secure nation on the face of the Earth does not mean that we are without wrongdoing. Abortion, Judicial Tyranny, and an incompetent Congress are amongst our usual problems. No, I did not come here to kiss America's butt, but to protect her from the unfounded accusations of an admitted Castroite. We may not be perfect, but even the blind fools at Amnesty International will admit that we posess a much higher degree of freedom on all levels than communist Cuba.

Oh, and the Cuban VP is nothing but a puppet of Castro, as you already know. Quoting him to back up your support for an internationally-recognized repressive communist state is akin to quoting Goering to back up Hitler. And that book from Isaac Saney-Gheesh! Do you have any non-communist, non-extreme left-wing sources for your outlandish claims or do you simply trust that I'll take Castro's word for it on faith alone (remember, I live in America. I won't get shot here for calling him the brutal communist tyrant he is). You're probably lost anyway if you think that "Health Care" is a greater human right than the freedom to make one's own economic and lifestyle decisions for themselves.

ANTI-COMMUNIST

That's right, elections in the US are similar to "elections" in Cuba. Mmmhmm. Maybe you're just joking, though (if only)

I shouldn't have completely deleted that paragraph, but it needs to be fixed, as do a few other spots in the article that aren't lies or anything, but seem to be too sympathetic toward Castro or too critical of the US -- that practically ranting paragraph is the worst example -- defending Castro a little too thoroughly, there. Might as well have a detailed American rebuttal. Trey Stone 08:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Castro and Batista

The claim at the end of the article that it "is far from true" that Cuba under Castro has a better human-rights record than Cuba under Batista is not supported. It must be removed if it cannot be proven. Shorne 15:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters anyway. "Yeah, well Castro's not as bad as that guy" never struck me as a very compelling argument.

Personally, I think that while Batista may have been more of a thug, Castro's more of a Soviet-sucking douchebag. Supreme Moolah of Iran 08:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is a weak argument. I shall therefore remove it. Shorne 20:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But wether it convinces you or not, it continues being an important fact to take into account, meaning that *at least* human rights in Cuba hadn't got worse with Fidel.

Ruz

Is the surname Ruz or Ruíz?

  R: Is Ruz.

Fraga

Can somebody talk about the good (I think) relations between Castro and Manuel Fraga Iribarne, a former Franco minister and current president of Galicia? I find the similarities and differences interesting.

i believe that fidel castro is an absolute legend

of what?

Biological warfare

Regarding the biowar section, I think we need a few links (and by links, I mean more than footnotes that I can't see) that prove that Castro's charges may have some weight other than anti-U.S. propaganda (which, considering the quote regarding Czechoslovakia, is a technique he has down pretty well). "Experiments in 1967" don't cut it. At this point the allegations oughta be labelled shaky or not substantiated unless people have a good objective source regarding the matter. J. Parker Stone 23:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)