Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Need source

The largest source of foreign currency for the Cuban economy is, ironically, the dollar remissions sent by Cuban Americans to Cuban relatives and friends.

I would like to see a source for the quote comment. And, does irony belong in an encyclopedia?

--A Sunshade Lust 06:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sunshade I particularily like the way you deny factual evidence without any citations of your own. Perhaps this is meant to be ironic El Jigue 3-31-06

I denied something? What are you flapping about? I requested a source for a sentence in the article, if it's a fact there has to be a book or source of some kinds that contains this note. It's not because it was intended to be ironic (duh?) that irony belongs in an encyclopedia. --A Sunshade Lust 20:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please define all the abstract consepts

In the "life as a guerilla" there is "1958 Castro met semi-secretly with Batista General". I'd like to have a link on "semi-direct", where such a form of meeting in the field of warfare diplomacy would be defined. Teemu Ruskeepää 20:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the opening paragraph

I changed totalitarian dictator to totalitarian president, but the rest is still quite hopelessly attitude-driven. Btw, I just fixed the whole article in 1 h 50 mins with 25 fixes, and I did not read the opening paragraph when I began. I'm glad I didn't! "Reason conquers ignorance, no matter what"

Correction: IP 69.134.151.43 sabotaged it while I was working on the rest of the article! How does one revert to the older one? What kind of dicplinary actions can be done to 69.134.151.43? . Teemu Ruskeepää 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing by anon editors

I was surprised to find that I was really close to violating 3RR here - so I need to watch myself. There seems to be a single anonymous editor who continually reinserts the same problematic language - this diff sums it up pretty well. I thought we had come up with "leader" as acceptable terminology a while ago, and now we're back and forth with 800 different words there. I also don't like "ill-planned and disastrous attack", "economy is in shambles", the "ironic" source of much of the Cuban economy (which is uncited), and the rest of the additions, while cited, don't really seem completely encyclopedic. I don't want to be acting unilaterally here... (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you just hate when that happens? Some #¤&!&¤&!@£$s do on the web what ever they feel like! Teemu Ruskeepää 10:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Help Please?

I am not too sure how accurate or unbiased this article is, I want to find more information on some figures such as William Wieland and Sumner Welles etc. So could any one please give me some book titles, auhtor names or sites? it would be very helpful if you could.

You might find it useful to follow the links provide and the hard copy sources in literature list provided. El Jigue 4-7-06

Teemu Ruskeepää

Teemu Ruskeepää, please stop inserting huge blocks of unwikified and uncondensed text without proposing your major changes for other editors to review here on talk. I reverted your edits. Nevertheless, you will be able to continue your plans for a sweeping rewrite of this article. I suggest while you are building a consensus here, you work on your personal draft in a sandbox in your username space. I suggest something like User:Teemu Ruskeepää/Fidel Castro sandbox. 172 | Talk 10:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignore this critique. It's designed to disrupt the work on this article. If you look deeper, and see for yourself what I modified, you'd see that I inserted no huge blocks of textes. This is probably a counterattack for my critisim of the people who "do what ever they want on the web. There are bitter people against Fidel Castro. I don't know any of them. I'm a young man from Finland. Teemu Ruskeepää 08:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

dispute

I dispute the characterization of Castro as a "leader" and/or omission of any reference to his official capacity as a dictator, which he he has been since 1959. Irrespective of one's views of Castro as a "leader", he has been and continues to be the totalitarian dictator of Cuba.

Webster's defines "dictator" as: "one holding complete autocratic control". and "totalitarianism" as: "centralized control by an autocratic authority" and "the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority".

There is no reason whatsoever why the edits, which refer to Castro as a dictator, are consistently changed. Thus, I dispute this article.

The article states Castro is a highly controversial leader who is viewed as a dictator. "Leader" is a general value-neutral term. The dispute is unnecessary. 172 | Talk 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Leader", a term with a positive connotation, is used in the initial and upfront

characterization. I would have no problem if the 'controversial' language was used initially.

Should we then call Stalin and Hitler 'leaders' as well? I think the notion (in the article) that none of Castro's family members have never been elected to any of the posts they hold, as proof enough?--Constanz - Talk 16:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are we being "value-neutral"? If the man is a dictator, say the man is a dictator. I do not understand this "value-neutral" terminology. Wikipedia is all about accuracy and there is nothing inaccurate about calling Castro a dictator.

anon one, leader...oversaw are euphamisms for dictator...forced. As euphamisms they are not value neutral. The real terms should be used. Did Castro use dictatorial powers and force or not? It wasn't just in the beginning, in the last year he is still preventing people from escaping his brutal rule.--Silverback 21:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon editor, Wikipedia editors discussed this issue in great detail already. The reason we state "Castro is a highly controversial leader who is viewed as a dictator" without calling him a "dictator" in the lead sentence is because some people understand Cuba as ruled by a dictatorship of the Communist Party, not a single individual. 172 | Talk 21:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussing in great detail did not mean that the issue was settled. He is dictator of his hand picked communist party too and has hand picked his successor. Perhaps you can explain what "oversaw" means in that first paragraph if not "forced".--Silverback 21:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion archives. I'm not interested in beating a dead horse. 172 | Talk 22:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't interested in discussing it, you shouldn't be interested in reverting it.--Silverback 09:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I already discussed the matter, as did many other users. Please review this discussion thread [1], among others, on identifying the subject in the lead sentence. 172 | Talk 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again the term "leader" has been reinserted back into the article. I thought "ruler" was an accurate and more fair compromise. I do not understand why this article continues to not even attempt to follow wikipedia's policy of neutrality. If there is not some attempt to reach a compromise, for reasons discussed ad nauseum in other areas, then I will continue to try and reach Wikipedia to arrive at a more formal resolution. Let's all be adults here and try to work together.

Maybe the reason "leader" has been preferred to "ruler" is because more of us feel that it is the term carrying the least baggage.

The reason neutrality is so difficult to achieve in this area is because it is a very live issue where neutrality does not exist, except in trying to ensure that the whole range of viewpoints are represented. Hence the relative stability of the formulation of "leader" at the start and further in the 'some say dictator, others say legitimate leader' wording. MichaelW 18:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't be neutral upfront. That is the section that is most widely read. "Leader" is actually the least neutral of all terms that can be used. "Ruler" is an adequate compromise although I still insist he should be referred to by what he is, a "totalitarian dictator". For instance, Wikipedia itself lists Castro as an example of a dictator! If we cannot at least attempt to be neutral upfront in the first and initial characterization, I refuse to acknowledge this site as neutral or aspiring to be. Not only are the editors not working to achieve neutrality, they are biased, characterizing him in positive terms as a "leader" in the first sentence of the article! This is outrageous and completely against the values of Wikipedia.

Can you understand that, while everyone has a POV, on nearly every subject, some are inherently negative, some positive? This issue seems emotionally charged for you, but I think the article makes clear that his government is, indeed, a communist regime and dictatorship. Do you agree that not all leaders/political viewpoints/citizens of Cuba view Castro in a negative light? CMacMillan 19:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See, this is exactly why I have a problem with the editors of this page. While you are mainly concerned with whether people view him in a "negative" as opposed to positive light. I am concerned with significant lack of neutrality this article exhibits and how that is inconsistent with Wikipedia values. Leader is a positive term used in the initial and upfront characterization. Irrespective of whether you view him positively or negatively, THAT IS NOT NEUTRAL. I just want us to be NEUTRAL, which is why I thought ruler was an adequate compromise.

I'm not mainly concerned with Castro as positive or negative, and please do not assume a POV on him based on my paragraph. Sorry, I just don't have one yet. Your point that "leader" is construed as positive has some validity. Your assertion that he should be referred to as "totalitarian dicator", however, leads me to believe your interests don't lie with upholding the Wikipedian values. My assertion about a non-universal negative view was as an example to balance your obviously negative view. In plain English, I couldn't give a shit how he's viewed - in the US, Italy, or anywhere else. You want to slap a negative label on him, go ahead. His official title is apparently President. Call him what you want. CMacMillan 20:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Totalitarian dictator" does not indicate a negative view. I see where you're coming from but he is a dictator. I don't see how you can discern my position on Castro based on this, especially since earlier today [mysteriously changed since I mentioned it] he was listed as an example of a dictator on Wikipedia's "dicator" page. Additionally, it should not matter whether I have a subjective aim of neutrality. Wikipedia does. Irrespective of my position on Castro, if leader is not a neutral term than it should be changed [period]. And because of their refusal to even work a compromise on this issue, I have a big problem with the editors of this page and its neutrality.

He is still listed on the Dictator page, Banwo, and that page has no record of editing today. In any event, I don't think I can help with any of this. You don't see "leader" as neutral, yet you see "totalitarian dictator" as such. You can admit that your view is not neutral, but see only your view as the "compromise" that should be sanctioned. I'll leave this to more experienced editors. CMacMillan 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No! Please don't mischaracterize my position!!! I have repeatedly stated that I saw "ruler", which was ::used but then changed as a good compromise. I do believe he is a "totalitarian dictator" but I would ::be open to working out a compromise with the editors, which is what Wikipedia is all about. The frustrating thing about this page is not that I am not getting my way but that the senior editors refuse to compromise, sort of like a . . . well I think I'll leave that alone.

I've been reviewing this article for other areas where I think its neutrality can be improved and have found them. I am considering moving this article to mediation since no one appears willing to work with me on the initial "leader" characterization. I will open talk categories in regard to the other areas as well. If there continues to be no attempt at compromise, I will move to mediation and possibly formal Wikipedia arbitration. I just thought people should know.

For Chirst sake. In many many years studying history since graduate school nearly four decades, I've never heard anyone carry on and on about the positve connotations of the word "leader" until seeing a few of these debates break out on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if the intro refers to Castro as "leader" or "ruler." "Leader" is not a legitimating term. In fact, it's de-legitimating in the context of this article. The usage of the word "leader," as opposed to Castro's formal titles (prime minister from '59 to '76, and president since '76), implies that his personal power is more relevant than his formal institutional posts. In contrast, for a legitmate head of state or government, the law matters more than his or her personal power. Notice that legitimate statesmen are not described as "leader" in their intro. For example, no one would introduce George W. Bush as the "leader of the United States" or Tony Blair as the "leader of the United Kingdom." Nevertheless, since a couple of users are making such a big fuss about the matter, I've gone ahead and changed the description in the lead to "ruler," which some people prefer because they think it sounds worse. 172 | Talk 07:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is fair. I just want to emphasize that this is not over whether it sounds worst. That is what is most frustrating over this debate. My aim is reviewing this article is not to taint Castro, it's just to make sure this article accurately reflects the historical truth. Leader does have a positive conotation but more importantly, it implies a certain level of solidarity that is not factually accurate. For example, "Leader of the communist regime in Cuba" would have been an accurate use of the term of "leader" in this instance. It would never be acceptable to refer to G.W. Bush as the "leader" of the United States. You refer to him by his political office. You could call Castro "President" or whatever but then you would have to make explicit mention of his political status as a dictator, again to be historically accurate for the same reasons why you would have to mention it in regard to Mussolini, Idi Amin, etc. For some reason people are uncomfortable with this type of initial characterization. Thus, I think ruler is an adequate compromise.

Let's not butcher the English language. Usage of the term "leader" in and of itself does not imply "a certain level of solidarity." The term simply refers to somebody in charge of others. How that person got to be in charge of others is neither here nor there. The relationship between leader and those who are led may be involuntary. So any dictator is accurately and neutrally described as a "leader." If there a specific reason to use "ruler" instead "leader" it's not that the term "leader" is inaccurate, it's that the term "ruler" may be more precise. Every head of state or government can be described as a "leader," though the term "ruler" is hardly ever used to describe heads of state in Western democratic systems. 172 | Talk 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that leader is a general value-neutral term in this instance. I also resent your statement about butchering the English language. For your information, I am a native speaker of English and can speak and write it very well. We should all be respectful of one another as we work towards making this article more neutral and more accurate. Thank you.

The term does not necessarily imply a voluntary power relationship or legitimate authority. Nevertheless, I will continue backing you on "ruler" because I think the term "ruler" has the best chance of keeping the page history stable and putting to rest this horribly tedious conversation. By the way, don't take my comment personally. I am commenting on your comment, not you. 172 | Talk 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the point made by 172 that "Leader" is a general value-neutral term. Ruler, on the other hand, gives association to monarch or dictator, which there is broad disagreement over whether or not it is the case here. Jens Nielsen 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

People want that association to monarch or dictator here. Why not just let the term stay so that we can put this tedious conversation to rest. The term is accurate enough. 172 | Talk 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is not accurate at all. I am at my wits end 172. You refuse to compromise on this issue. I am going to look into pursuing a formal mediation on this and other matters.

My 25 edits

One of them was in the About Cuba section. I added a link which didn't link correctly and I mentioned that it only works by copying. The link was directed to About Cuba -Issues and Answers, which should be among the links. I'm going to revert it. Teemu Ruskeepää 09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

172 took it off saying "online discussion pages don't go on external links". This person interpret things for his own benefit and totally unrealistically. You can find my 25 edits on the history sheet at 2nd of april 2006, which 172 also claims to have taken off due to "huge blocks of textes". I'd say 172 is one of the biggest problems in Fidel Castro article. This is not a forum of discussion but an archive of information and answers to common questions about the political system in Cuba. There is the critisism of the system and the responds to that, but no futher debate. It's purely an information forum. Don't believe anything what this troll tells you.

• (cur) (last) 19:59, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (dictator to president - president can be totalitarian, but dictatorship is a form of totalitarianism)
• (cur) (last) 19:50, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:49, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:48, 2 April 2006 69.134.151.43
• (cur) (last) 19:47, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:46, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:45, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→About Cuba - Added an external link)
• (cur) (last) 19:39, 2 April 2006 PseudoSudo m (Reverted edits by 71.247.67.52 (talk) to last version by Teemu Ruskeepää)
• (cur) (last) 19:39, 2 April 2006 71.247.67.52 (→Human rights in Cuba)
• (cur) (last) 19:35, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Family and health)
• (cur) (last) 19:34, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Family and health)
• (cur) (last) 19:33, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Family and health)
• (cur) (last) 19:32, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Family and health)
• (cur) (last) 19:30, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Popular image - to hink, to "reason" out - internal link)
• (cur) (last) 19:25, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Popular image)
• (cur) (last) 19:24, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Popular image)
• (cur) (last) 19:18, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Human rights in Cuba - leadership to presidency -more accurate and less implying)
• (cur) (last) 19:16, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Religion)
• (cur) (last) 19:13, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Remaining as president)
• (cur) (last) 19:04, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Cuban Missile Crisis - removed the dang thing due the existence of the main article)
• (cur) (last) 18:55, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Bay of Pigs)
• (cur) (last) 18:54, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Bay of Pigs)
• (cur) (last) 18:53, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Bay of Pigs - Cuban manuel artime to cuban manuel artime)
• (cur) (last) 18:52, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Bay of Pigs - manuel artime links)
• (cur) (last) 18:50, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Early years in power - removed economic and military aid "from them". It's an unnecessairy complication of the language.)
• (cur) (last) 18:45, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Early years in power - fixed the previous name and link)
• (cur) (last) 18:43, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Early years in power - Enrique Lister Farjan --> Farjan included in the link marks)
• (cur) (last) 18:06, 2 April 2006 Teemu Ruskeepää (→Attack on Moncada Barracks - removed double "Castro was sentenced to...")

As you can see from my reasons, there is nothing added Teemu Ruskeepää 12:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please hold off on the attacks. Since you're a new user, I think you're reaching a misunderstanding. I removed some edits that may be helpful in the future but were not ready for the article becuase they did not include wiki hyperlinks and because the prose was uncondensed. In particular, see the changes to the "early life" section over the course of Teemu Ruskeepää's edits: [2]

Teemu Ruskeepää, you are welcome to rewrite the article. But until you have a finished product, I suggest that you work on it in a user sandbox... I myself use user sandboxes becuase I write work that is not ready to go in articles. Check out, for example, my sandbox on state at User:172/State. I have another unfinished sandbox (and I'll get around to finishing it someday!) at User:172/Populist movement sandbox. 172 | Talk 12:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Early life was sabotaged by IP 69.134.151.43. I didn't do those fixes as you can see in the list of my fixes. I even mentioned it here in the "tone of the opening paragraph". I think 172 has the error. Teemu Ruskeepää 12:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I missed the 69.134.151.43 edit. So I take back my comments asking you to work in a personal subpage and direct them to 69.134.151.43. Now that that's cleared up, let's look at the changes you're interested in proposing. 172 | Talk 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The sabotage attempts and chaos

It seems too easy to lie about editors, sabotage the text and to submerge the work into all kinds of conflicts. This place needs a neutral authority and a strong enforcements of order. Can you ban the IP that continuously do this kind of thing? Teemu Ruskeepää 09:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is sabotaging your work... Major changes should be proposed on the talk page. I recommend copying the article and pasting it into a personal sandbox like User:Teemu Ruskeepää/Fidel Castro sandbox, where you can work on your revisions freely. Then you can build a consensus for your changes here on the article talk page. 172 | Talk 12:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Teemu Don't you think your jackboots are beating a little too hard on the cobblestones. El Jigue 4-7-06

1927

Castro was born in 1927, not 1926. You MUST correct this.

Do not be so sure as so much of Castro's life this too is obscure. El Jigue 4-7-06

LGBT rights opposition link

Why on earth put a link to LGBT rights opposition? I could care less about people's political issues with Cuba, but it seems silly to have a biography of a politician and to put a link to LGBT rights opposition with nothing in the article discussing anything about LGBT people much less his opposition to them. --M Drusus 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read the novel "Before Night Falls" by Renaldo Arenas. Castro is much more anti-gay then any pope. User:Mistico

Fabian whitewashering

One cannot help but notice the activities of the Fabian whitewashers...who delete unfavorable facts on Castro's life. Thank goodness this gets corrected. Castro did read a lot of Hitler's and Mussollini's writing and then took them as his own. El Jigue 4-705

And let us not forget User:Comandante's whitewashing campaigns: [3](whole paragraphs),[4],[5] etc --Constanz - Talk 07:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Faulty Link

The link in the article to Ramón Castro links to a major league baseball player born in 1976 - some 50+ years after he was born. It's obviously not the same person. Perhaps somebody could create a page for Ramon Castro (Fidel Castro's brother) OR remove the wikilink around the name. I'd remove the wikilink (since I know nothing about Ramon Castro), but the page is locked. takethemud 06:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud

T:Ramon, the elder brother, mainly takes care of the family farm (which by sleigh of hand is still held by the family. El Jigue 4-10-06

Semiprotection - open note to the anonymous editor

If you are an "anonymous" (not logged-in) user trying to edit the page, I have requested semiprotection because everyone else seems to be doing an excellent job of discussing edits here. I presume a single individual is behind the particular wording that we all keep reverting, and I would appreciate some explanation/sourcing/something here - I would also encourage you to get a username so that we have a constant way to communicate with you - your IP is dynamic, which essentially means we have no way to leave messages we can be sure you will receive. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

SK interesting tactic now you have eliminated at least one person who has talked with Castro. BTW both Hitler's (and or Mussolini's) and Castro's speeches are on line; Castro is known to have read both fascists' speeches. For instance Castro's slogan !Victoria o Muerte! is taken from Mussolini [6] [7] . Apparently even Hitler used that phrase in orders to Rommel Military history of Egypt during World War II. El Jigue 4-10-06

Interesting. !Victoria o Muerte! is attributed to another man some regard as a traitor: General George Washington. [8] CMacMillan 16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Off hand I would say it was Patrick Henry not GW. El Jigue 4-11-06

And, look, you'd be wrong again. The lesson here is the word "I". Your point of view is important, just not within articles, and strong feelings such as yours often colour the overall picture. !Victoria o Muerte! is associated - in English as well as Spanish - with George Washington, Churchill, Castro, Mussolini, and even both sides of the Alamo ("Por dios y Tejas, Victoria o Muerte!"). Its most recent incarnation, in English, was by George Bush to the US Ryder Cup team, echoing what he knew as the Alamo quote from Colonel William Barrett Travis: "... I shall never surrender or retreat. Victory or death". Patrick Henry's most famous line is "... give me liberty or give me death." CMacMillan 18:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comandante is going to town

One notes that Comandate's whitewashing is going to town big time the last thing he deleted was:

"Curiously, some have pointed to certain parallels in this speech to words of Adolf Hitler on trial after his failed 1924 coup attempt [9]"

This already had been abbreviated from a more detailed version, using original text to show parallels. El Jigue 4-11-06

Perhaps this would be acceptable NPOV wording:

"Critics of Fidel Castro have pointed to certain parallels in this speech to words of Adolf Hitler on trial after his failed 1924 coup attempt [10], though supporters describe this observation as ridiculous propaganda."

User:Comandante and others, would this be an acceptable compromise? BruceHallman 18:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggestion makes sense, as long as someone can cite an actual source. Who has pointed out "certain parallels"? What article/book/scholarly journal? Which supporters think it's propaganda? My mother thinks Castro and Bush are both a lot like Hitler, too, and she thinks I look like Brad Pitt, but no one's willing to take her word for it. CMacMillan 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (disclaimer: She doesn't actually think I look like Brad Pitt.)

Good point.

El Jigue: can you provide citation(s)? Otherwise, Comandante's edit appears to comply with WP:NOR and WP:V. BruceHallman 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Humbug!!!!! Bruce I placed a carefully anotated section on this, and it was removed. Will place here again, for I do not have access anymore. However, and an article by a respected historian follows (I have other first and personal sources of information, but you will have to wait until my book comes out). El Jigue 4-12-06

Why do you greet a straight forward request with "Humbug!!!"? I suggested some compromise wording, and asked if it was acceptable. I am guessing that you don't like it. How would you word the sentence? BruceHallman 15:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I say humbug!!! with good reason for once again in mendacious fashion, my citations were removed, and then in a second state my input is challenged and then deleted because it lacked the necessary citations. BTW “El Comandante” was a usual reference to Castro in early times in the Sierra Maestra. El Jigue 4-12-06

Parallels between Castro's and Hitler's speeches at their trials for failed coup attempts

History Will Absolve Me is the title of a speech made by Fidel Castro in 1953. It has been later published as a book. Castro made the speech in his own defense against the charges brought on him after the attack on the Moncada Barracks by the 26th of July Movement, which he led. The speech received its title from its last sentence: "History will absolve me".

However, the last three sentences of this speech read Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me. [11] Thus many critics of Castro have pointed out that this speech given contains s loose translation of the words found in Hitler's Mein Kampf "The judges of this state may go right ahead and convict us for our actions at that time, but History, acting as the goddess of a higher truth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict, acquitting us of all guilt and blame.'" [12] Castro is known to have read "Mein Kampf."

Is this original research, or is there a verifyable credible source? BruceHallman 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No no you will not get me on this one. It is an often cited parallel e.g [13] [14] even as far away as Sri Lanka [15]where Hitler is mention in an edited version of this speech. El Jigue 4-12-06

So what's your conclusion? You mean it merits to be mentioned as a trivia?! Szvest 16:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research or not, it is utterly absurd that the matter could be of any relevance whatsoever. Give me a speech of any politician and with enough research I could find close parallels to something Hitler said, or Churchill, or any other politician. It does not mean a thing. Trying to establish a connection with Hitler serves only disgraceful propaganda purposes. Jens Nielsen 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

El Jique cites two references, so it is not original research. It may be 'extreme partisian analysis' but per WP policy I think the 'Hitler comparison' can be mentioned if properly qualified, with words like 'Castro's critics make the comparison..." or something. . BruceHallman 16:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing refs or not is not the issue Bruce. The issue is the conclusion! Did Castro declare to invade Poland or to persecute anyone? What is the message of El Jigue? -- Szvest 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Clearly, El Jigue and others seek to be critical of Castro, and that criticism is 'on topic' in a Castro article, though also 'on topic' is rebuttal of the criticism. I would support isolating the criticism in a separate section perhaps, but realistically, Castro is the target of a remarkable amount of criticism, and descriptions of that critism is a valid thing to report in an encylopedic article. BruceHallman 16:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean Bruce. However, random criticism is not worthy. There are many parallels between speeches of leaders and politicians around the world and many of them are unrelated.-- Szvest 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

However, these fascist tone of these pronouncements are not out of character for Castro. One only has to consider the influence of fascism in Castro's complex political persona (see Jaime Suchlicki below). This strange linkage to fascism manifiested itself early in Castro's acceptance of funding from Juan Peron during the Bogotazo, has lead to some most odd (for a self admitted Marxist Leninist) such as his alliance with and admiration for Francisco Franco and Castro's support for the Argentine Junta Leopoldo Galtieri during the Falklands War (Falkland/Melvinas war). El Jigue 4-12-06

Perhaps this can be constructively, neutrally and collaboratively edited into the article, except... Comandante, do you have an opinion? Would you please discuss this and collaborate on this? BruceHallman 17:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce thank you for your attempt at mediation but this is not going to work. Remember that El comandante had an enormous jpg of Che Guevara at his site until it became so embarrassing that he had to delete it. After all I am merely one of a "Truly Repellent" [16] Minority and my words, thoughts and input have no value. Oh by the way how come here blank statements of others (such as that absurd statement about Castro never having persecuted anybody) have weight without supporting references, yet for mine references are required. xe xe El Jigüe 4-12-06

Personally, I've been very kind with your opinions but you seem that you lack some depth on how to analyze other's intentions (mine as well of others when it comes to mediation). Kindly, call me by my name or my signature and avoid the term others! However, and back to the issue, i didn't ask anybody for any reference as long as i believe there is no logical parallel to talk about (same is said about Bush's salutes as if he is a Nazi and you can see demonstrators around the world calling him a Nazi,etc... You can draw many parallels if you wish and then try to conveince us to post them in his entry!!!) If Castro said such words or Bush raised his palm as Hitler used to do than it is just NOTHING and not a parallel. Cheers -- Szvest 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Well personally, I too admire Che Guevara, but that is irrelevant. I also advocate, that for Wikipedia to work, we all need to follow Wikipedia policies. If, after due process, someone refuses to follow Wikipedia policies, perhaps the Arbitration Committee could enforce a block. Though, I have not given up hope that Comandante can cooperate, he/she is obviously smart and well considered, though he/she needs to also show good faith through cooperation and collaboration.

BTW, I oppose 'blank statements' both for and against Castro that are not backed by citations per WP:V. BruceHallman 17:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce the Che was extremely ruthless and was loyal only to the idea of a takeover of the revolution against Batista by communist ideologues. While in the mountains he alleging all kinds of spurious accusations he tried to purge the rebel army of those whose ideology he opposed. He executed a rebel friend of mine because he apparently wanted to use the money my friend had brought into the mountains from the plains. He was notoriously self-serving in his descriptions of military actions such as Pino del Agua and El Hombrito. Guevara left "Daniel" unsupported during the ofensiva and as a result Daniel slowly bled to death. The Che never gave credit to the "escopeteros" for their work screening attacks, (this turned out to be fatal in Bolivia.) Guevara does not mention "los muchachos de Lara" or the men of Jaime Vega whose actions and losses allowed him to cross the plains of Oriente and Camaguey with essentially no opposition. In las Villas much of the fighting was done by Camilo, not the Che. His famous "victory" over the armoured train in Las Villas was bought and there was very little real fighting. Luckily Guevara's incompetence in guerrilla war and his rather misleading manual on guerrilla warfare let to the elimination of many communist guerrilla groups such as the one led by Massetti one of his inconditional admirer, in Argentina. El Jigue 4-13-06

External link

• History Will Absolve Me (The complete speech)

Category:Speeches

Jaime Suchlicki, A Short Biography of Fidel Castro

A Short Biography of Fidel Castro Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas Issue 74, April 7, 2006 [17] 2006-04-08 Jaime Suchlicki Foto: Alexis Gainza Solenzal.

• The following biography is being released since Fidel Castro's health has continued to deteriorate recently.

• • biography snipped **--Silverback 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ANON ONE, the talk pages are no exception to the rule against violation of copyrights. Is the above text copyrighted? Or are you the author releasing it to the public domain?--Silverback 12:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This piece was widely released to the general public domain, however, one should cite author and URL from which it was obtained. If you want a personal release contact Jaime Suchlicki, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. His e-mail address jsuchlicki@miami.edu, phone number is (305) 284-2822. BTW I disagree with a number of details such as exact number of kills Castro had had as a student "activist," and I totally disagree with number of casualties after Castro's 1955 landing in Cuba for as most other authors agree the percentage of survival of the landing party was far higher El Jigue 4-13-06

The one who posted the article should be the one to obtain the release. Unless there is documentation online for your claim that it was "widely released to the general public domain"--Silverback 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please at least remove the entire article and keep the link and your comments? It is making the talk page longer. Cheers Done! -- Szvest 20:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}