Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Picture of genitals

• Can we unprotect this page? Whatever vandalism there was, none of the most recent edits were vandalism, so the page was fine. This is a current event article that needs to be opened. -- TexasDawg 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted the image on the page. It was completely inappropriate. I would love to know who did it. They should be blocked. Why is this article such a magnet for vandals recently? Is this page semi-protected?--Chili14 (Talk)

What pic? You dont appear to have edited the article at all. TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not, but when I got to the article, it had a picture of human genitals and I went to delete it and when I clicked the save page button, it was no longer there. I think I might have done it before I logged in... check for IP edits. But, I ask again: Why is this page not semi-protected? It could benefit a lot from it. At least until we know for sure that he is dead or alive.--Chili14 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How gross. And I agree. Try the requst for page protection page or if there are any admins out there? TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a vandal magnet because a lot of people dislike Fidel really really really much; and they're reminded by it by the recent media attention to him. As they are too stupid to engage in actual political work, they think they somehow discredit Fidel by inserting picture of genitals into an article read by absolutely noone living in Cuba. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected. I just logged out and tried to edit this article and it said 'View Source". So that's done.--Chili14 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is also on the main page, and many pages that get linked to the main page are heavy vandal targets. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Jobjörn, people have good reasons to dislike this dictator, but I agree that pictures of genitalia are absolutely inappropriate for this article. Actually, I doubt that whoever did it even cares about Fidel either way and had any motive other than vandalizing the article to get "a kick" out of it.--Tuxley 10:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I know. I don't like him either. Protest against the dictatorship anywhere and everywhere, but NOT in the encyclopedia! And considering the many vandals stating his evil, a dictator, a piece of genitals etc, it's quite clear they don't like him. It just shows these right-wingers are just as stupid as the left-wingers vandalizing George W. Bush. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, I do not think the vandalism might be politically motivated at all, since vandals want to insert their dicks whenever they can on anything. Plus, with it being on the main page, their resulting damage can be big, and not hard to find since it is linked there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Image of Castro tripping

In these two edits, Demfourlife refers to the talk page regarding the issue of the image he inserted. However, I fail to find any discussion on the image in question (except an old and finished one, concerning another image).

As thus, I'm beginning again!

To me, the image feels slightly out of context. The size of the "image" (consisting of SIX images) is relevant to TWO lines in the article. I definitely think that image should be replaced with a WAY smaller one, for example one of the six images the large one is composed of. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought I should investigate why Demfourlife referred to the talk page, so I looked up his latest edit to it, which was two days ago and consisting of this not all too polite diff. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I found, and discussed this image with him, at Talk:Fidel_Castro#picture_of_Castro_falling. I also cropped the image to where it is just one frame, since that was probably one of the reasons why it was deleted in the past since it was almost a college of images from possible mulitple sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, I re-inserted your one-frame image into the article again as per talk page consensus (meaning you and me, the only ones to have partaken in the discussion), despite him trying to use the old multi-framed one. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted the multi-frame photo since it is redundant to the image we already have. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooo, I'm speaking with an admin! :P Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You just figured it out :P User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

one frame is perfectly ok!  :) :) :). Mission accomplished! Thanks Zscout for your input with all of this! (Demfourlife)

Welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should there be a picture of Castro falling if we can't have George W Bush falling off a Segway? Blue Leopard 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the decision you have to decide at Bush's article. But if you decide to get that photo; cite the source and make sure you have a valid fair use claim. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That several year old image has little to do with 'Succession issues', and in my opinion is unencylopedic. Further, it seems to be over the line towards the anti-Castro POV, and we should try to error on the neutral side, and not add even more extreme POV issues. This article is challenging to keep at a neutral POV, that image clearly hurts the goal of keeping the article neutral. BruceHallman 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the picture (related to his health) is very much related to "succession issues" - that entire section deals with his health problems, more or less. Furthermore; I fail to see why a picture of a person falling would be considered a bias against said person... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the photo I uploader; so if it is decided to use that photo again, i'll just undelete it (yes, we have photo undeletion now). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the pic of Casto's fall??? It was deleteted?? Put it back and stop vandalizing!!!--Demfourlife 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

BruceHallman had not been part of the discussion for a while now regarding the picture of Fidel castro. I, demfourlife, had a problem with the POV picture of Fidel castro walking down a red carpet. After much discussion, after heated conversations and explainations, I agreed to not fight the red carpet pic if a pic of the dictator was allowed to be shown in balance. It was finally agreed that the pic of Fidel falling would stay on. There is an entire section devoted to his health. It was agreed that it fit. Now this BruceHallman guy decided that the pic is POV cause he says so and removes it. No other person dissagreed when it was decided that the pic would stay up. Who is this guy? I thought that Wikipedia says anytime there was a dispute to try and solve it like men and women by discussing it which is what we did. Why does this guy remove the pic?

Zscout or any other want to input on this? If this is the case, then please tell me how to file a formal complaint and with who?--Demfourlife 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Demfourlife, about the image deletions, come talk to me about them. I'll take care of it since the deletions were performed by me. The reason why is that unused fair use photos are deleted, so what I will do is undelete the version where it is one frame (originally six) and stick it back in the article. If the falling photo is kept, can the photo of Castro on the red-carpet be kept as well? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the one frame photo has been restored, the red carpet photo is still in the article. Does this sound good? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I would still have a problem with the pic glamorizing the dictator on a red carpet, fair is fair. I would not have a problem in keeping the pic of the guy on the red carpet. If it were not for people like you Zscout, I would have given up on Wikipedia a long time agao. Thanks for being fair and for playing "Switzerland." lol

Thanks. What is going to happen, most likely, is that the 6 frame photo might be up for deletion soon, but if there is a mistake, I can undelete it like I did with the one frame photo. I am not sure what other POV issues are there, and honestly, I am not well versed in Castro's history, but I hoping that I can stick around until all of the issues are solved, and this article getting off the main page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how a photo of Fidel Castro tripping is relevant? It is a very minor incident, at a minor event, resulting in a minor injury, since healed, from several years ago. Rationally, this is a trivial thing. Why does this belong in an encyclopedia? BruceHallman 15:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely! The picture of him walking the red carpet is also completely irrelevant where it is currently: under "Personal". It should be under foreign relations or the like. A picture I do think is needed is one of Castro and the Pope under "Castro and religion"; that would make a nice addition! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's an incident that's mentioned in the article, so it makes sense to me. I also like the cutline of the photo, which gives a little more information than the actual article text... that's how cutlines should be, plus that extra information helps to justify the photo (the exploitation of the clip by anti-Castro parties). I think it's fine. -Vontafeijos 15:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that extra info isn't there anymore. We should add it back. -Vontafeijos 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, when I added the picture it, I did not see the above into that Vontafeijos is talking about. I also remember that this video loop was not only used by the major news media to report the news, it became some sort of online joke (reappearing after the Zidane head-butt in the FIFA World Cup). I still wish that the photo could be used, but what Jobjorn said is a pretty good idea; get pictures with the Pope and Castro first, then come back to this fall photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that the photo keeps dissapearing? Stop erasing it. I thought we had an agreement? This is now a personal attack against me by this BruceHallman guy whose only goal is to make this a pro Fidel article. Where is the picture???? Why do I need to wait til there is a picture of castro and the Pope? That is ludicrous! This guy has the blood of thousands on his hands and you want a pic of the guy with the pope? How many head shots do you need of this guy talking to world leaders at one point or another?

The photo keeps disapearing because it has no encyclopedic value. There is no agreement upon using the picture. Describing the incident is enough, no need to illustrate it. Besides, what is it you're trying to prove by including the article? The image doesn't illustrate the possible weakness of his health, only a minor incident which happened to be reported internationally, because tripping presidents aren't what you call a regular thing (just like Bush choking on a pretzel, which isn't even mentioned in the article on George W. Bush, actually).

Furthermore, Bruce Hallman isn't attacking you personally and he certainly isn't out on a quest to make this article pro Castro, on the contrary... mensch • t 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this "what does the picture add" bullshit! What the hell does the picture of Castro walking on a red carpet add? I have said 1000 times before, we already know what he looks like. Why do we need a pic of the murderer walking on the red carpet "Academy Awards" style? Is it rub in the faces of those who think he is a killer? The picture is in bad taste! We don't need it as it adds nothing! I have removed it until someone can explain why the picture is so important we need to have it on the page. Give me real reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demfourlife (talk • contribs)

Just because you want the image removed doesn't mean everyone else wants the image removed. It's an free image. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and just becuase two guys want the pic of Fidel falling removed, does not mean that it should be removed. Did you read entire text above asshole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demfourlife (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NPA. Your the only one who wants the pic removed. I'm Cuban-American and I agree we should hve an better pic, but let it stay until a better free pic comes. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Long before you got involved, there was an open dialogue with Zscout as far as cropping the image, reducing it to one frame, and allowing the red carpet pic to stay. We reached an agreement which is what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia when there is a dispute....right? Now, you mean to tell me screw that? Another guy comes along and says he thinks my pic has no place on here? Not everyone agrees! AGAIN, the pic of Fidel is offensive!!! We already know what he looks like. Why do we need another pic of the guy, this time walking on a red carpet? It's POV Pro-Castro!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demfourlife (talk • contribs)

The red carpet picture, as many people explained earlier on, doesn't express any particular POV and isn't pro-Castro. It does however portray Castro as a leader in the 21st century. A picture of Castro tripping and falling doesn't have any added value, it illustrates a minor event in Castros life in spite of the relatively extensive media coverage. Cropping the tripping and falling image was a proposal of Zscout, but that proposal never received any substantial endorsement. mensch • t 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, I (demfourlife) was blocked. Fow what you asked? Incivility in Talk room. What a joke! So you are saying that the pic of Castro walking on a red carpet is needed to show that he is alive in the 21 century? You are joking right? We need that pic to show us he is still alive? It does not matter that the pic offends some of us? You need the pic that bad. It is that important to the article correct? I am glad for the talk page so others can see what really goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia. It pure POV, especially by those who continuouslly use it as an excuse to remove or add.

I also removed a sentence where it said Castro was not bothered by the fact that the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated him. I asked for you to cite it mensch and you put it back on, still not citing it, writing "Fact!" If it did not bothere him at all, if you are so sure, then why did he get so emotional when the Pope passed away? Could it not have been becuase he was glad he was "accepted" for lack of a better world in the religion again. If he did not care, why did he recognize Christmas again? Again, please cite where it is sted anywhere that he did not care that he was excommunivcated in 1962. I think it bothered him a great deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demfourlife (talk • contribs)

I also added this line under religion: "The Pope also stated Cuba's "material and moral poverty" arises not only from "limitations to fundamental freedoms," but from "discouragement of the individual." I added it next to a line that said the pope said part of Cuba's problems were becuase of the embargo. It needed balance. There was no mention that, again, the pope said, on CUBAN SOIL, that "Cuba's "material and moral poverty" arises not only from "limitations to fundamental freedoms," but from "discouragement of the individual."

This is BIG! Give me one other timeor momemt when the Fidel castro allowed someone to take an open mic in front of the worl and critisize the regime in any way. yet, Mensch deleted it and stated he was "correcting" vandalizim. What do youi guys think? You guys approve of whats going on? You happy with yourself Jranda being Cuban American as am I? You are young, but you seem to be smart. Don't let these other folks railroad you into believe you have to be anti-Cuban to be "cool" and liked. Respecy your heritage and respect what our people have gone through.

Don't you see their pro-castro POV? Have they explained why the red carpet pic is so important? NO! Have they stated why the Fidel falling pic is irrelavent, even thould it mentions his health in the article and this is the only pic in 47 years that shows castro in any type of ill health? Of course is relevant! Even now, a day after intestinal surgery, they wanted us to believe he sat up in bed and wrote notes which is impossible by most doctor's opinions considewring his age and health. That is why the pic is important,becuase it shows a castro his goverment would never want you to see.

They want you to see the pic of him walking on the red carpet, eating dinner with Marcos, lauging it up with the canadian PM, as a war hero, etc. Now there are looking for a pic of castro and the Pope. They want to make this guy out to be a movie star. Then again, what could you expect from Wikipedia when the article on Adolf Hitler wraps up his involvement in the Holocaust in three short paragraphs.

be proud of who you are and where you came from Jiranda. Don't be ashamed to be a Cuban American who wants the truth to be told. It's not un cool. (Demfourlife) Again, I was suspended and censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demfourlife (talk • contribs)

I'm currently looking for an free image in flicker. I'm trying to contact the person who created this image http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcelo_montecino/9610032/ to release it to an free licence to replace the red carpet one. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nice. Good job Jaranda. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

About Hilter and the Holocaust, the Holocaust has it's own article and sub articles, so the Holocaust was briefly mentioned and then expanded in it's own article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So explain to me why we have to replace the pick of the murderer with yet ANOTHER picture? Just remove the pic altogether. What relevance does an early 1980's pick have to the section in the article? Just as you have removed my pic of "fidel falling" countless times without a substitution, why must you know feel you need to add ANOTHER pic of of all things, a 1980's pic of Fidel...you guessed it....talking. Please explain. Also, please explain why my addition of:

"The Pope also stated Cuba's "material and moral poverty" arises not only from "limitations to fundamental freedoms," but from "discouragement of the individual."

was removed/deleted by Mensch. I still have received no response. It was inserted right after the POV of the Pope saying the USA embargo of Cuba had hurt the island. Again, this was inserted in the section of Castro and Religion. It is the first time any person has ever publicly, on Cuban soil, denouced any part of castro's regime. It was not even mentioned so I added it. Moderatos, please tell me why you will not allow it. At the time it was removed becuase Mensch said it was "vandalism." Please see log. I'll await your responses. Come on guys, let's play fair. keep your POVs out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demfourlife (talk • contribs)

Do you have any sources to back that particular sentence up? mensch • t 11:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you would have read the ref. before you deleted it, you would have found that it was taken from the same paragraph that mentions the embargo. Now why was it removed. It is entirely relevent and not POV considering the magnitude of the satement, where it was made, and that Fidel was next to the Pope when he said it. Stop removing everything automatically and think things through. Now either place it back where it was, or give me another bogus reason why my addition was removed.

You're senctence doesn't do justice to the Pope's statement, which is both a conviction of the United States Embargo and Cuban government repression. From the article:

"Later in the day, though, the pope also made his most critical reference yet to the American economic embargo of Cuba. At a departure ceremony at Jose Marti Airport this evening, he said that Cuba's "material and moral poverty" arises not only from "limitations to fundamental freedoms" and "discouragement of the individual," but also from "restrictive economic measures -- unjust and ethically unacceptable -- imposed from outside the country.""

It's a critique of both the repressive nature of the Cuban government and of the American Embargo. The way you've written it down makes it sound like Pope John Paul II is only addressing the Cuban influence, not the American. The quote maybe relevant, but only if it's represented in full. That's why it should be removed or radically rephrased. mensch • t 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it needs to be rephrased with the "limitations to fundamental freedoms" and "discouragement of the individual" phrase inserted. It is nowhere to be found. Again, this statement was made by the Pope, beside castro, in front of the "world." It is no secret, unless you also want to fight with me and dispute the fact, that castro makes no bones about locking people up for saying the same. It is no secret that castro has "casas de el comite" (committee houses) on each block whose sole pourpose it is to disclose any possible "subversive" activity to casto's dictatorship.

Now, we have the Pope saying to the world that the castro government needs to do away with "limitations to fundamental freedoms" and "discouragement of the individual," and this is not included in the section refering to the Pope's visit. That's a travesty.

Unlike you, I am not saying that the part bout the Pope's opinion on the embargo should not be included. It should for the same reasons. usually, it's castro saying this. Now you have the Pope saying this to the world causing people to think about it. Both phrases must be included. I will even allow you to rewrite it. But deleting it like mensch did citing "vandalism" is and insult and a form of wikipedia vandalism in itself. Please insert the phrase.

Also, please tell me why you needed to find another picture when deleting the red carpet pic. What is the need for another castro mug shot? What does this pic add to the article. A mug/face shot?Demfourlife 23:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's indeed nowhere to be found. I deleted your sentence because it didn't describe the full argument the Pope expressed. This is what he said:

""[..] he said that Cuba's "material and moral poverty" arises not only from "limitations to fundamental freedoms" and "discouragement of the individual," but also from "restrictive economic measures -- unjust and ethically unacceptable -- imposed from outside the country.""

The way your sentence is constructed leaves out all the stuff about the economic measures and only reflects the part where the Pope convicts the lack fundamental freedoms in Cuba. If we're going to put this into the article the sentence should rather be a direct quote from the cited article, than a chopped up misquote expressing an anti-Cuban POV which was never expressed in that way by Pope John Paul II. Removing your sentence isn't vandalism, I merely re-instated the article to its former version, because you deleted the red carpet picture again (which is vandalism) and added a sentence which misquoted a reference.

About the picture, I didn't try to find it, because I still think the red carpet picture is fine, it shows how the man looks at his current age. The new picture portrays him during a political speech in the 1970s, which is also an important part of his life as a politician. mensch • t 23:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the entire quote as it appeared in the referenced material. Demfourlife 01:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Hallman

Look at this folks. This is from his Talk page:

"Hi Bruce

Thank you for your constructive edits to Cuban Five I've had enough of Wikipedia for today, I need a break. A few suggestions: add info outlining arguments for why the trial was so flawed. I think the conclusions of the UN commission of why the trial was arbitrary[5], or general conclusions from the overturning would be even more convincing than the Amnesty claims, which are not very strong. Also, the Cuban Five website seems a good resource of legal documents. Surely there's plenty reliable material there we can refer to[6]. I think we can make agood article out of it if we include good bits of court material, and a solid sections on criticism of the trial, and to balance that to include prosecution arguments too. Jens Nielsen 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"

Keep in mind guys, that these five people that they are refering to were Cuban spies that had a fair federal trial in the United States. He, Hallman, believes that they got a raw deal. This is the guy who is being allowed to strike down everything I write? Where is the fairness in that? He obviously is PRO Castro. There is no room for folks like him on here when we are suppose to be NPOV. Time and time again, he is alowed to massivley edit, but he has admitted being pro-castro. Saomeone must stop him.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demfourlife (talk • contribs)

Demfourlife, What do you need to be happy? Is there anything we can do to get along with you? Seriously, I hope there is a way we can co-exist and I hope there is a way to share and co-edit this article without aggravating each other so much. I am willing to hear your answer and suggestions. BruceHallman 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

absolutley, stop allowing other points of view and refering to us as POV zealots who are strictly here to spout anti-castro rhetoric. While I do think he is the devil, I have not attacked any section of the page in an uneducated way. I simply want people to know the truth about this man.

You can also have have your folks stop removing all my inclussions citing vandalism. Another thing you can do is make sure that when we have heated debates on the talk page, that I am not suspended due to "incivility." (Give me a break). Yet another, is to try to pretend you are here to create balance and look back at all your pro-castro work you have done. In fact, give me an example of just one time when you have fought someone as you have fought me to make sure a pro-castro picture, sentence, or phrase is not used. This is a start. So stop the whoe is me, can we get along BS.Demfourlife 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can understand that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being fully 'pro-Castro' and 1 being fully 'anti-Castro', that you are at 1 or 2. With neutrality being a 5, then, most edits (not made by you) are movements in the 'Pro-Castro' direction. This is a normal and natural result of the fact that Wikipedia is a 'shared' thing. None of us own it. Hopefully you can learn to be at peace with the fact that we all must share Wikipedia with other people who usually do not agree with us. If you can learn this, Wikipedia will become a forum for (sometimes strained) cooperation between people who don't always agree, not a forum for fighting. BruceHallman 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that in recent days, the page has been more civil and fair. I am sorry if sometimes my words have been angry words, but please understand that my family has suffered alot, becuase of this man. It's difficult to be balanced when he , for 47 years, has not. What can you expect from a man that will not relinquish power after 47 years. In any case, I understand that it is not as personal for other as it is for me. I understand that article need to have balance even if it hurts. Sorry for ny of the off-color things I may have said, and I look forward to collaborating with all of you. I am still new at this and learning. (dem)

I promise to try to understand and appreciate you, even when we disagree. BruceHallman 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist

How many people have this article on their watchlists?--Chili14 02:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

so do I (demfourlife)

And I, along with 150 other articles, some noteworthy, some not, some interesting to me, some not, some hunted by vandalism, some not. Demfourlife, did you know you can sign your name, leaving a link to your userpage and a timestamp, by typing in four tildes (~~~~~)? It ends up like this (in my case, that is): Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he signed out, since his last edits were done by an IP address. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Who has this page on their watchlist seems to have little importance on improving this article and Wikipedia in general. This section of the talk page should be deleated if there are no complaints to doing so. Blue Leopard 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not doing any harm, one of my 4539 pages watched, SqueakBox 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Folha de Sao Paolo

The name of the Brazilian newspaper is spelled incorrectly as Folha de Sao Paolo. The correct name of it is Folha de São Paulo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.227.33 (talk • contribs)

Please do go ahead and edit! Uhm, no, wait, you probably can't... I'll do it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jobjörn is kidding right? He is actually throwing his "wikipedia weight" around? Bragging that he is the only one who can edit when he locks the site. This guy must not have no life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.9.161 (talk • contribs)

YOU'RE kidding, right? I tend to encourage users to edit away faults they find and mention on the talk page, and as such get pushed into actually editing the encyclopedia for themselves. I've done this countless times. As it happens; s/he probably wouldn't be able to edit the article considering it's semi-protected (I think), and as thus, someone else has to do it - like myself. And I did. And it was NOT to throw my "wikipedia weight" around.

Further, I haven't "locked the site" - I'm not an administrator; I'm a perfectly regular wikipedian. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is now unprotected.--Chili14 17:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

confusion about the post of "Secretary"

Did Castro first become Secretary, or did he become the first Secretary or was he "The First Secretary" of the Communist Party? --Ezeu 00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he became the "First Secretary". Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird approach ?

The article seems to ignore large portions of Castro's reign, focusing merely on his Cold War interactions. Given that the cold war is long over, and Castro has some influence throughout the Caribbean and the Americas this seems 'odd'. I realize that Cuba is a closed society, but surely events within Cuba - good and bad - do deserve some mention. And I have no info, else I would've done it myself. --Blakdogg 17:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias?

How is including the fact that Castro is viewed as a dictator bias? This is true; the statement includes citations. This language belongs back in the article; I'll add it again:

He is frequently described as a dictator, [1][2]and is accused of gross human rights violations including the murder of thousands of political opponents.

—Chidom ^talk  18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

One man's dictator is another man's savior; the same can be said of Kim Jong Il, Putin, Lukashenko, Mugabe and other leaders. While, of Wiki, I refer to Castro da a dictator, but since the project is NPOV, then we must act that way and not call him a dictator. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think NPOV has been violated in this case. Acknowledging that Castro "is frequently described as a dictator" is to acknowledge a fact, not to put forth a point of view. In other words, we're not calling him a dictator, merely passing along the fact that many do. In fact, he made "Dictator of the Month" for December 2004 here. Also, see Castro's response to being called a dictator.—Chidom ^talk  04:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, there is the Parade list of "10 Worst Dictators" every year, so that is something we could use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree w/ Zac. We never confirm things here. We only report cited sources w/ no commentary or original research. -- Szvest 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Yes, various people describe Castro differently, ranging from positive to negative. That is why some editors have favored this 'second paragaph' which tries to capture the full range of these descriptions:

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

Certainly, it would be POV to include the negative word 'dictator' without counter-balancing. Does anybody object to insertion of this proposed 'second paragraph'? BruceHallman 15:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your paragraph needs to be cited Bruce as I've said before. Which shouldn't be too difficult. I'm not sure about benevolent dictator, I think you'll struggle for that citaion and I set you a challenge - it perhaps also should read "symbol of revolution in Latin America and the third world". There is also a need on this page to show the vast criticisms of Castro as a bourgoise nationalist by many groups on the international left, which are numerous and will help dispell some of the misconceptions about Castro's affiliations, such criticisms began in Cuba in the late 50's when he was hated by the Communists. What is certainly verifiable is that all mainstream international reports and newspapers describe Castro in the terms Bruce has laid out here - and thus they should be represented in some form on the page.--Zleitzen 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This reference[3] seems neutral and credible, meeting WP:V for 'benevolent dictator'. (Interesting, and irrelevant, to see Jimmy Wales described in analogy to Fidel Castro) Are there any other phrases you would like cited? When I originally composed that paragraph, for source data, I did broad Google searches, and they all were well cited per Google and are not WP:OR. BruceHallman 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a mirror site to this one Bruce so my "benevolent dictator" challenge still stands. A common description of Castro is "quixotic" [4] - which is always rolled out and I can't stand personally. Pragmatist - Yes. Nationalist - Yes. Charasmatic - Yes. Dictator - Yes. Despot - Yes. Murderer - Yes. Authortitarian - Yes. Here are some articles which demonstrate the range of views [5], [6] and this paragraph is typical of the kind of thing one would expect to read here...

One of the world's longest-ruling leaders, Castro is admired by many in the Third World as a fighter for social justice. He is also vilified by critics, most notably the United States and Cuban exiles in Miami, who see him as a tyrant who has brought Cuba to the verge of economic ruin. [7]--Zleitzen 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are seven recent examples:

1. This person going by the handle "Otter" describes[8] Fidel Castro as 'benevolent dictator' on this discussion board, 05 August 2006 09:47 AM.
2. This blog[9] also, though indirectly.
3. Henry Gomez, June 27, 2006 here describes[10] that some people consider Fidel Castro to be a 'benevolent dictator'.
4. On this forum, user 'themainblack' describes[11] Fidel Castro as a 'benevolent dictator' on Aug 1, 2006.
5. Hedley Lamarr on July 12, 2004 12:35 PM uses the description[12].
6. Here is another 'benevolent dictator' description [13] from the website www.nationstates.com.
7. The website 'El Confeti' describes[14] him that way too.

I think I could easily find many more examples of people describing Fidel Castro as a 'benevolent dictator' though I admit I didn't find an overt political scientist. But my suggested 'second paragraph' says "...has been variously described as..." so I think the blogger descriptions I have provided meet that standard. BruceHallman 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure that only "opponents" describe Castro as a dictator? Not everyone thinks that dictators are a bad thing.—Chidom ^talk  21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody will publicly say that a dictatorship is a good thing, but rather state the same in less obvious terms. The word "dictator" brings up too many negative assocations. Even if one strongly believes in a dictatorship being the ultimate way to rule a nation, blatantly saying that in public won't create much understanding among the general public. I think the current balance between describing Castro as being seen as a dictator on the one hand and as a progressive liberator on the other, is the best possible way to refer to Castro as a leader. mensch • t 22:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, look at this Mensch guys views on everything that MIGHT be percieved as anti castro. Of course he is a dictator! Some people might not even have a problem with a dictator, but he is what he is. This guy mensch will fight tooth and nail to make sure the word "dictator" is not included, trust me on this one Chidom, trust me. This guy has fought me evry inch of the way anytime he percieves I am writing anything anti-castro. He has even had his cronies censor me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demfourlife (talk • contribs)

The word dictator wasn't always negative. But it is now. Even the Soviet Union and it's Dictatorship of the Proletariat removed all references to "dictator" and "dictatorship" in it's constitution in the 1970s. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

By any reasonable definition of the word dictator this man is a dictator. This is a statement of fact, not opinion. The article should not state "viewed as a dictator by many" at all. It should simply acknowledge the fact that Cuba is a dictatorship, and Castro is the dictator. If the word dictator is seen in a negative light, that is because it deserves to be. I also see no reason to contest that fact that he and his regime have imprisoned and executed their political opponents. PJ 10-3-06.

Should we change Cuba desciption to one party socialist dictatorship rather than a republic. by wilkipedia definition of republic (which is selected by people) Cuba does not qualify.Tannim 13:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Will you also change the People's Republic of China, and Vatican City? CMacMillan 14:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In the first paragraph the description is a socialist republic and I maintain Cuba is not. Cuba may call itself what it wants but if it is given a description dictatorship is more accurate than republic.Tannim 14:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you lost the point of my comment. It doesn't matter what you think the country is. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. What you or I maintain is irrelevant - though possibly interesting. CMacMillan 15:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Cuba should not be described as a republic. But what is not saying what is black and what is white an oppinion? How about this as a compromise a socialist state.Tannim 16:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have this discussion with many, many people on subjects they feel they have some ownership over. If you feel strongly about something, have some passion around it, then you really should remove yourself from editing an encyclopaedic article about it. Find the reputable sources to back your argument, list the discussions surrounding the position you choose to put forward, and convince people that what you say is the generally accepted view. You have not been given the International Rubber Stamp of Cuba Categorization. I understand your point, I've seen it here many, many times from mostly US-based editors, but even the CIA Factbook lists it as the Republic of Cuba, a communist state. CMacMillan 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Table of Political Actions

I want to put together a table of his political actions. These are the links I have assembled for research. Please contribute. Thanks. translations of his speeches and edicts[15] List of links to links to history of cuba [16] Mrdthree 04:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC) [17]. discussions of economic policy and nationalization [18] [19]; generally[20]. Proceedings on economic policies[http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/asce/publications/proceedings/ Timeline[21] of Fidels life and policies(PBS) [22] health[23] MSN encarta FIdel profile[24] Reporters sans fronteirs summary[25][26] Mrdthree 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's important to clarify certain aspects of Castro's policies on this page which I agree is presently of a poor standard, but remember that this is a biography page of an individual. All these pieces of research have been expanded at length on the 50 or so articles relating to Cuban politics and economy. I understand that the longevity of Castro's dominance and his micromanagement in Cuba sets a rare precident. But I wouldn't want you to waste your time delving into an area well represented elsewhere. To give you an example - one of your links relates to the Economy of Cuba during the 90s, is this worthy of expansion on this page, given that the chief advocate of policy was a team headed by Carlos Lage? They just need to be linked from here - which I believe they are. Please familiarise yourself with the many pages on this complex subject.--Zleitzen 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove lock, let others participate

yo wat's up in the hood castro How long do you folks in the "know" plan on keeping the Fidel Castro page locked? Let's give others a chance to participate.Demfourlife 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Now its off the front page you are probably right and I would support such an unlocking. Put in an unprotect request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, SqueakBox 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue when the lock will be removed, but every time we had, we had major problems. Probably will wait maybe until the weekend and see if it can be unprotected (but the move lock will still be in place). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of this section was originally all in caps. -- Kjkolb 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

8 pics of Fidel and counting

How many more pics of this guy dow we need? We have him smiling, hugging, marching, talking, romancing, etc. Do you really think we need any more?Demfourlife 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, and I took two out for dubious copyright issues. So now, we have 6. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job Zscout! Demfourlife 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be noted that George W. Bush has 16 pictures featuring said Bush, many which could be considered offensive if applying your very weak standards; such as the one where he is in his uniform (considering his disputed military service), the Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act into law picture, as it is, well, a law that not everybody loves, the Bush, Mahmoud Abbas, and Ariel Sharon picture as both Abbas and Sharon have been described as terrorists, the picture of Bush with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as it shows George W Bush walking on a red carpet, another one of him with a red carpet, etcetera, etcetera! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, Castro != Bush. What works for the Castro article might or might not work for Bush, and vice versa. I know that many of the photos on Bush's articles are in the public domain/free license, with the exception for maybe one or two. The photos I kept in the article are under some type of free license; the red carpet photo and the falling pic are not used at all. The gallery of Castro photos is at the Wikimedia Commons, which is one of the reasons why we have that link at the bottom. The falling pic was deleted by me, since I know now that the photo will not be used and we cannot have un-used fair use photos in the article. Personally, unless one of the current photos faces some kind of dubious copyright issues, I wish for the images here to stick, and all of the other free ones get sent to the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but I was making a point in response to Dem, not arguing that we should have more pictures. Although; he has been in power for a darn long time - way longer than mr Bush. That means there are a lot more to show - in example a picture of him and the Pope; as that would be a picture not showing only him and his beard (we've had enough of that), but also, well, the Pope, which is a very interesting juxtaposition indeed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While I wish to use a photo of the Pope, I do not think and free images of them are out there on the Net, so I think we should avoid that pic for now. And if it is free, just stick it at the Commons, since that is mainly a gallery. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In Office Since

In the box to the right it refers to Castro as having been in office since 1976 at the top. This is contradicted further down the box. --KenWalker | Talk 16:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Read it again, Ken. President from 1976, Prime Minister from 1959. --Zleitzen 16:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got it, thanks! KenWalker | Talk 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Babelfish

"Me llamo Fidel Castro." comes out as "I am called Fidel I castrate." Arbitrary username 16:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Interesting. Perhaps we should include it in the article? </sarcasm> Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC) ;)

Transfer of Presidential Duties link

• I think we should add a link at the top of this article letting people know that updates to the ongoing transfer of duties event and updates to Castro's health should go to this article. -- TexasDawg 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos of Castro have odd shadows suggesting he has joined the undead

Today’s photos of Castro “recovering” [27] are much better than yesterday’s, however the lack of clinical paraphernalia and most odd shadows, can be taken to suggest that either the photographs have been altered, or that Castro has become a vampire so I naturally “believe” the latter. One would think that the use of a respirator would require shaving Castro’s beard. For a rousing discussion see [28] Xe xe El Jigue 8-14-06

Here are more hospital bed photos, http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/secciones/siempre_con_fidel/art-051.html, though I can't say I see the 'most odd shadows'. Maybe a credible forensic photo expert might be found with a WP:V opinion? BruceHallman 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmm Photo 2 shows Chavez's shadow on the wall while Castro does not cast any not even on his pillow. In the next to last photo one can follow the outline of Chavez's arm as if it were a cut and paste. As to yesterday's here is one of the originals [29] Xe xe El Jigue 8-14-06

Well if the photos are faked then the video footage of the meeting must have been created using a computer generated or robotic Castro. Either that or your vampire theory holds true? Keep us posted on the latest developments, El Jigue. And it's good to see you remain sceptical about the whole thing. (note my characteristic English spelling of the word sceptical)! --Zleitzen 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we start a death clock?

He certainly appeared very ill but definitely still alive on TV last night with Chavez visiting him, doesnt mean he is going to die of course but he is clearly is a sick man and you can see why he had no choice but to cede power, SqueakBox 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

SB: The trouble is we cannot be sure that those videos are real or current. The last statement by Raul Castro [30], can be taken to imply that he is in a power struggle. El Jigue 8-18-06

What do you mean, power struggle? With who?--Chili14 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Internal Raul Loyalists vs younger Mayimbe El Jigue 8-24-06

Wealth

I have restored this to the Wealth section: "The Castro family's substantial wealth was in no way spared from the expropriations of the immediate post-revolutionary period."

The Forbes methodology is nonsensical - if we are going to include a section based on it then we should also allow counter-evidence regarding Castro's alleged money-grabbing. The point should be made in this section that Castro came from a wealthy background and sacrificed his patrimony for the cause. User:prem28885

You need a source. Simple as that.--Zleitzen 11:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You could have added a "citation needed" instead. I'll add a ref. User:prem28885 11:36, 25 August 2006 (GMT)

On a BLP (Biog of living person) page, we should remove everything that lacks a source. (See top of this page for more information).--Zleitzen 11:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Z: Yes, yes thus the only thing that those whitewashing Castro have to do is remove the source, then complain the source is missing. A far more logical and honest way would be to seek or restore the original source; however, that appears not to be the Wikipedia way. For example no mention will be made of Ramon Castro being given charge of the whole kit and caboodle of rural north Oriente agriculture. Then one does not have to mention that there the roads are guarded or were so for a long time. When dealing with a totalitarian one has realize that all official records are controlled. So by demanding official records one merely helps these tyrants along. For example Díaz Versón, Salvador 1980 One man, one battle. World Wide Pub. Co. New York ASIN B0006E1ULI p. 93 mentions that Felipe Mirabal is the real father of Raul Castro. However, one can also be sure that Wikipedia will demand DNA evidence, even though it did not demand it for Elian, and CNN just went on data in birth ledgers. xe xe El Jigue 9-4-06

This is an attempt at an encyclopaedia article - not a collection of malicious gossip by a assorted Batististas. Nobody cares who Raul's father was. ISTR that a study in England showed about 20% of kids have different biological fathers to the name on the birth certificate. The principle that counts is that evidence for an assertion should be credible. Look at this way - if there were an El Jigue article and someone suggested your father wasn't Senor Jigue you might appreciate the need for credible sources.

User:prem28885 7-Sep-2006 11:49 GMT

I tried to add a footnote and something strange happened

I tried to revert it but the strangeness stayed. So I am leaving it alone. Just want you to know I was not trying to vandalize it. Something quirky happened. Maybe because the article is so long, it can't hanle any more.

Anyway, I decided not to try to revert it again because what is happening is so odd. But it is screwed up now, at the bottom of the Succession section. Flinders 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was able to figure out how to fix it shortly after. Flinders 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The danger of an angry dying Castro

By asking for prayers that the Catholic Church might be trying to molify Castro and persuade him not to go on a mad rampage of killing. After all his doctors had promised him 140 years of life and he must be very angry at the probable cancer eating at his guts. El Jigue 8-26-06

Further rumors suggest that Fidel is trying to kill Raul to preserve his "Legacy." El Jigue 8-27-06

Um. Yeah. Let the nice Dr. help you now. CMacMillan