Talk:Fidel Castro

Archive 1 -- Archive 2 -- Archive 3 -- Archive 4

Dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista

One of the most anti-Castro sites on the net, usembassy.state.gov/havana titles it "the Batista dictatorship." El_C 15:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but apparently there's been a Wikipedia determination that "dictator" is pejorative. Otherwise I would insist that Batista and Castro be referred to as dictators. Also, please consider what an easy target you're making yourself to the right-wingers here by calling for Batista to be called a dictator and Castro not. It looks uneven to me, and to them, this is red-hot ammo that you're giving them. --Rroser167 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a target regardless of what I say or do. I haven't read this article closely (I only came here at request to look at one specific issue). I was neither aware that Castro wasn't called a dictator, nor was I privy to this decision. Sorry for wasting your time. El_C 17:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No apologies are necessary. I was not privy to the decision, either, yet it appears to be gospel. Don't say that you're a target no matter what; it sounds like a persecution complex, kind of like some others that I've seen. --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I will think it, not without some basis! :D El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following is the definition of dictator: in modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch). I don't know the historical facts about Fulgencio Batista (other than the fact that he was the democratically elected president of Cuba for a while). Fidel Castro is absolutist in the sense that he exerts unlimited personal power over the politics of his country, opposition to communism is illegal (personified by himself) and he leads the Council of State, which is the supreme authority in the country, though he doesn't exert sole power over the state (at least on paper). Kapil 18:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll reassert my opinion that both Castro and Batista should be referred to as dictators. By the way, Kapil, I would have been able to support more of your arguments if you covered your personal sympathies better. Saying that you don't know anything about Batista except that "he was the democratically elected president of Cuba for a while" seems disingenuous. --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar (January 16, 1901 – August 6, 1973) was the de facto leader of Cuba from 1933 to 1940 and the country's official president from 1940 to 1944 and again from 1952 to 1959. -> That's what I meant. I don't know if he was an actual dictator, but I do know he was at least president for two terms.

You misunderstand me. I knew what you meant, but I'm also sure that this doesn't represent your total knowledge of Batista. For instance, surely you've heard that the second term was achieved by coup. I understand that you feel that Wikipedia has many left-wing editors, and that because of this, you think the proper thing to do is to bring balance by being an advocate for the right. 'sokay, I'm not frothing about it. --Rroser167 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't know anything about Batista other than the fact he's had power both by democratic and non-democratic means. That's why I'm requesting other user's contributions on this. Kapil 20:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to summit readers of this talk to the excelent book "Bertillón 166" of José Soler Puig, a cuban writer. That book may illustrate you about the popular meaning of "dictator" and "State of Terror". It was wrote in the regimen of Fulgencio Batista, but I think it's not a pure Cuban heritage, but also a common point in many latinoamerican countries.

Castro is not a dictator: he is more like a ship's captain weathering a storm blowing in from the US. Is a captain a dictator? How can Castro be a 'dictator'(with all that that word implies:yes, the word is perjorative),when a million people march with him in support of his government and against US intervention. [1] Dictators do not have the support of a large portion of the population. Someone has posted saying that Castro has suppressed emigration. In fact, Cuba had an agreement with the US to allow a quota of cubans to emigrate to the US. 'It wasn't until four years later, in 1984, that Cuba and the U.S. discussed the issue: As a result of these discussions, some of the Mariel entrants were returned to Cuba, and both countries agreed that a ceiling numberor quotaof 20,000 Cubans would be allowed to emigrate legally to the United States each year. This marked the first time that an immigration agreement was struck between the countries. ... For the first time in history, however, the U.S. administration refused entrance: Attorney General Janet Reno, using her discretionary powers (and, in the opinion of some, exceeding her authority), announced that those who entered without documents would be detained indefinitely at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station. The rafters continued to take to the sea, to be picked up by U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships and carried around the island to Guantánamo.

After several days of negotiations in September, an agreement was reached whereby Castro would stop the departure of boats and rafts, and the U.S. quota of 20,000 Cuban immigrants per year would be reinstated. Cubans wishing to immigrate would be required to apply at the U.S. Interests Section office in Havana, and those interned at Guantánamo would have to return to Havana to apply and wait.

[2] Brian

Castro photo

My two cents: this picture is composed in a severely dramatic fashion - making it a lightning rod for criticism that this page is not neutral. Surely someone can come up with a more appropriate portrait. --Rroser167 16:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about: [3]? Or [4]? --Rroser167 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first one looks rather demonic, the 2nd looks like he's picking his nose almost. I appreciate the point you make about the background and overtone (though I don't view is as that much of issue really), but I want to find a more neutral-looking image (of his face) in that sense. El_C 17:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with El C... Where does everyone keep finding these horrible Castro photos? Outside Wikipedia I rarely see such bad photos of him. For example, it's odd that in just about every AP photo of Castro taken in recent weeks, Castro looks so much younger and healthier. 172 19:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of [5]? Kapil 19:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny how the objections to the red star photo, which made us look for an alternative one, were made primarily by Grace Note (the one who keeps reverting to it now). I don't object to the red star photo if everyone else wants to leave it there. Kapil 18:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I understand that this is a very minor issue, so if there is no opposition, I won't keep cryin' about it. I'm a little surprised that you're not opposed to it, Kapil, but I guess the big red star in the background may have sealed the deal for you. Cool. --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first one is a bit weird, he looks like he's having a stroke. The second one's a bit blurry. How about [6]? Looks neutral and serious. Wouldn't object to the red star one, but I like this one better. Kapil 19:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I find Kapil's image to be a good compromise, I just wish we can find a higher quality version of it. I have no objections to using it in the lead. What do you think, 172? El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not bad, but it's quite small and would be blurry if it were enlarged. 172 06:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what the need is to find a "bad" pictures of a generally good-looking and charismatic man who frequently poses in dramatic positions. If you're THAT concerned about NPOV, you should go through the articles for Hollywood actresses and pop singers and replace their pictures with ones of them picking their noses/farting/whatever. --B. Phillips 15:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Great" healthcare and literacy increases

I object to the use of this term because the increase can't be categorised as great. A simple look at one of the sources in the article reveals:
The health care system is often touted by many analysts as one of the Castro government's greatest achievements. What this analysis ignores is that the revolutionary government inherited an already-advanced health sector when it took power in 1959.

Cuba's infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades[7].

Cuba’s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied.

In terms of physicians and dentists per capita, Cuba in 1957 ranked third in Latin America, behind only Uruguay and Argentina -- both of which were more advanced than the United States in this measure. Cuba's 128 physicians and dentists per 100,000 people in 1957 was the same as the Netherlands, and ahead of the United Kingdom (122 per 100,000 people) and Finland (96).

Unfortunately, the UN statistical yearbook no longer publishes these statistics, so more recent comparisons are not possible, but it is completely erroneous to characterize pre-Revolutionary Cuba as backward in terms of healthcare.

Cuba has been among the most literate countries in Latin America since well before the Castro revolution, when it ranked fourth. Since then, Cuba has increased its literacy rate from 76 to 96 percent and is tied today for second place with Chile and Costa Rica[9]. Argentina is the most literate country in Latin America. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. Panama, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Haiti -- which all ranked just behind Cuba in this indicator during the 1950's – have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms[10].

I believe to categorise their increases as "great" in the introductory paragraph is misleading, as one would not think this is a regional trend (I was one of those to think the healthcare and literacy increase was great, and also thought it was greatest among South American and even developed countries) but a great Cuban accomplishment. As it stands, the Cuban increases in these indicators is nothing more than part of a regional trend, though you don't see pages on Colombian or Argentinian presidents mentioning "great" increases or "availability of universal healthcare", and their inclusion in the biography of Fidel Castro (above political repression) would make believe that this was a great, unique accomplishment when data displays this is not the case. Also, note that the data is mostly UN, which would contradict claims of US government bias or misinformation. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. - This should be included, or the whole "great increase" should be dropped. So should this: The health care system is often touted by many analysts as one of the Castro government's greatest achievements. What this analysis ignores is that the revolutionary government inherited an already-advanced health sector when it took power in 1959. [7] Kapil 21:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, I have no idea what this source comes from (in the article), but this World Health Organization piece (PDF) states that: Post-revolutionary Cuba constituted an important example of "good health at low cost" that did not make it onto the agenda of the 1985 [respective WHO] conference. Cuba's population health profile more closely resembles wealthy countries like the US and Canada than most other Latin American countries xxxv. While Cuba had likely attained one of the most favourable mortality levels in the developing world by the end of the 1950s, further significant declines in mortality took place following the socialist revolution of 1959. The revolution brought medical and public-health resources within the reach of formerly marginalized sectors of society. By redirecting national wealth towards the fulfilment of basic needs, the standard of living for the more disadvantaged social groups was improved despite the country's faltering economic performance in the 1960s and 1970s. Rural-urban differences in health and its social determinants were reduced as the state invested more national resources in rural areas xxxvi. In 1959 the country's infant mortality rate was 60/1000 live births and life expectancy was 65.1 years. By the mid-1980s Cuba had attained an infant mortality rate of 15/1000 and female life expectancy of 76 xxxvii. [...] Cuba's literacy rate is 96.7 percent, remarkable considering that before the revolution, one quarter of Cubans were illiterate and another tenth were semiliterate. [35] El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About infant mortality, my source refutes: Cuba’s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied. Kapil 01:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Kapil, what reference is that passage from? The WHO is an authoritative source, and this is a 2005 report. CIA World Factbook says 6.6/1000 (immediately followed by Taiwan at 6.40 and the U.S. at 6.50), that's ten-fold the 60/1000 in 1959, and ten-fold is a lot (double is a lot), all these contributing factors, which I was not fully aware of —thanks for that— (nor do I discount) overall notwithstanding. El_C 02:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see above you added that this is a U.S. State Dept. source. Far from discounting it offhand, they do of course exhibit the strongest anti-Cuban bias, more so than any other country on the planet. I would tend to see a, let say a study by the, Canadian or Japanese or Spanish, etc. govts., or the WHO, as more detached — as neither enemies nor allies. El_C 03:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've done all this. Literacy doesn't just improve itself. It makes no difference that it's a "regional trend". It's not that there was something in the latinoamericano water! What you fail to understand is that Castro is not being singled out for his achievement. This article is about him, not about comparative Latin leaders! Because of your bias, you simply cannot see that. Cuba's improvements came from a relatively high base -- nowhere is this disputed. But it compares favourably with other high-base nations, as Trey Stone showed with his statistics.

And it's a misuse of statistics to quibble that countries with very poor literacy had much bigger improvements in percentage terms: if populations are the same, 1% to 3% is the same increase in terms of people who were not literate who now are as 95% to 97%, but it is obviously a much bigger percentage increase. This is absolutely elementary stuff. You are not comparing like with like.

As for infant mortality, it's of less account than you are suggesting that there are lots of abortions. Your argument seems to suggest that countries with high mortality rates are simply seeing nonviable children die. This is not generally the case (as you could easily ascertain by considering whether countries with high infant mortality lose most or even many of their infants to at-birth defects), nor is it necessarily true that no fetuses are terminated that would not, on completion of gestion, have been viable. You should note that "high-risk" pregnancies are of a high risk for a reason! It shouldn't be a surprise that they make a majority of terminations, given that the thing they are at risk of is something being wrong. Grace Note 02:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as we have pointed out, other countries have made similar gains without command economic structures... the point is that there are different factors in increasing literacy. the fact that Cuba has a literacy rate, say, two points higher than that of Paraguay does not negate this J. Parker Stone 19:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to quote myself: As it stands, the Cuban increases in these indicators is nothing more than part of a regional trend, though you don't see pages on Colombian or Argentinian presidents mentioning "great" increases or "availability of universal healthcare", and their inclusion in the biography of Fidel Castro (above political repression) would make believe that this was a great, unique accomplishment when data displays this is not the case. Also, note that the data is mostly UN, which would contradict claims of US government bias or misinformation. "This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries." - This should be included, or the whole "great increase" should be dropped. My main problem with the categorization of "great" is that it perpetuates the stereotype that the Castro government not only increased literacy and health care, but did this in historically great levels. My source clearly states this isn't so, both because other Latin American nations did (so it should be mentioned that the increases are in no way unique nor grander than the increases made in other countries in the region) and that because of this fact, comparatively, the increase really doesn't represent a trend change between Cuba pre-revolutionary times and communist times. This fact should be mentioned, once again, because it is general belief that the increases in literacy and healthcare were both immense and unique, when this clearly wasn't the case. Yes, the percentage increases were "great", but so were every other countries' (in some cases even greater), and it's a fact that should be pointed out so people don't think it's the specific case of being communist that allowed cubans to have a high literacy rate and levels of healthcare. Kapil 05:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Health care under Castro is not only way better than under batista, but it better than in the US. Cuba's infant mortality rate under Castro, and in spite of the US efforts to squeeze the life out of the country with its economic blocakade, is 6.33 / 1000 [8]Thats way below the 1957 figure, and even better than the US(6.5). And did Batista send doctors abroad to other countries to aid them in their health programs? 32/1000 is not a good figure. On Health care in Cuba: 'In the Cuban Socialist Constitution, health care is considered a right, guaranteed to every citizen. Medical care, along with food, clothing, housing and education, is "of the highest priority" . ... '. Health care is a human right rather than a product for economic profit. Therefore, all Cubans have equal access to health services, and all services are free'( Was this true under Batista? I doubt it.)

That figure of 32 / 1000 for infant mortality is made understandable, when you consider that amponst POOR(mainly black) cubans, the infant mortality rate was baout 60//1000 live births:

'The pre-revolutionary health statistics of the Cuban population were poor. The poor population who live in conditions with poor hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition, contributed to the infant mortality rate of 60 per 1000 live births, a maternal mortality rate of 125.3 per 1000 live births, a general mortality rate of 6.4 per 1000 person, and a life expectancy of 65.1 years (Nayeri, 1995). They "inherited a for-profit health care system that was plagued by political corruption, poverty, illiteracy, economic inequality, and social injustice" (Iatridis, 1990:29).'[9]

Brian 15 August 2005.

Systematic repression of all [political] opposition

I wouldn't object removing the term "political" from this phrase. Here's my source: It is no exaggeration to state that during the 1950's, the Cuban people were among the most informed in the world, living in an uncharacteristically large media market for such a small country. Cubans had a choice of 58 daily newspapers during the late 1950's, according to the UN statistical yearbook. Despite its small size, this placed Cuba behind only Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico in the region. By 1992, government controls had reduced the number of dailies to only 17.

There has also been a reduction in the number of radio and television broadcasting stations, although the UN no longer reports these statistics. However, it should be noted that in 1957, Cuba had more television stations (23) than any other country in Latin America, easily outdistancing larger countries such as Mexico (12 television stations) and Venezuela (10). It also led Latin America and ranked eighth in the world in number of radio stations (160), ahead of such countries as Austria (83 radio stations), United Kingdom (62), and France (50), according to the UN statistical yearbook.

This goes to show that whereas discussion and debate in pre-revolutionary times were among the most informed in the world, now people have to read government controlled papers (ever taken a look at the Granma? They even pick ugly photos of Castro's enemies, kinda like what anncol.org does) and the like. It's not far out to define Cuba's attitude towards plurality as "the systematic repression of all perceived opposition".

Also, to note:
Dozens of small, illegal opposition groups exist in Cuba, but have no access to the media, cannot hold public meetings and do not threaten the Communist Party's political dominance.

The internal dissident movement is generally perceived by analysts and diplomats here as relatively weak, marginalized and handicapped by both internal divisions and state control.

Cuba's four best-known dissident prisoners - Martha Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, Felix Bonne and Rene Gomez Manzano - remain in jail without trial since July 1997. [10]

The most decisive of all in my case for using this sentence is the following, from Human Rights Watch:
Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces, aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile. Cuba uses these tools to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights of expression, association, and assembly. The conditions in Cuba's prisons are inhuman, and political prisoners suffer additional degrading treatment and torture. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals for reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners. To note: over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression and Cuba has added new repressive laws. This clearly states repression, systematic repression. [11]

Finally, a jewel:
The goal of the Castro regime has been to "fuse state and society."36 The two principal, overlapping instruments are the PCC, which "rules over every level of Cuban life,"37 and the Ministry of Interior (MININT). The MININT contains within it a vast, nationwide surveillance and repressive apparatus to keep the population in line. The principal departments in the MININT for exercising political and social control are the Departamento de Seguridad del Estado (DSE), Department of State Security, commonly referred to simply as "State Security," and the Departamento Técnico de Investigaciones (DTI), Department of Technical Investigations. The headquarters of State Security is housed in a former seminary in the Havana section of Villa Marista and is often referred to simply as "Villa Marista." Through the use of electronic surveillance, undercover agents and a widespread network of informants who are often coerced or blackmailed, MININT has the capability and the mandate to spy on or forcibly intrude in the lives of any citizen for any reason, anytime, anywhere. According to the U.S. Department of State:

The State has assumed the right to interfere in the lives of citizens, even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.38

Human Rights Watch/Americas has described the situation this way:

The violation of the right of privacy is systematic and pervasive. Tight political control in Cuba is maintained through extensive monitoring of Cubans’ daily lives.39

MININT, like the PCC, is deeply imbedded in the structures of the military,40 and also controls the uniformed Revolutionary National Police (PNR). [12]

Note the use of the word "systematic", not just of political repression but of simple privacy. This means, not just political opposition, but perceived opposition, as is stated in even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.
Here's an additional source, just in case. [13]
Please, present your sources or desist in reverting, and unless there's some charming information against, I will change it to "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition". It's hardly my opinion, it's the verbatim opinion of various informed and respected sources. Kapil 05:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific. All states engage in repression, and what you are adding to the intro is so vague that it could conceivably be added to an intro on any world leader. Consider that most political scientists and sociologists work with the Weberian definition of the state, as an entity that claims a monopoly on violence and coercion within a given territory. States inherently engage in repression. 172 06:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost. You're not even making sense now. You're comparing the "monopoly on violence" with communist repression. And terms like "Weberian" don't impress me nor do they help your point. Bring forth some sources which dispute my claims or leave the article as it is, or I'll have you banned. Kapil 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you consider "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition" to be vague, then you'll have to expand it, taking into account the plethora of sources presented and the fact you now accepted it to be true. What about "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition to his iron fisted rule"? Or "The installation of a police state which constantly and systematically spies on an represses its population"? Should it be mentioned they also act upon imaginary crime? Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terms like "Weberian" don't mean anything to you because you have no idea what they mean. Grace Note 07:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, they don't mean anything because they're being used to change the rules of the game when you notice you've been beaten. Everybody knows about the Weberian definition of the state, though having a monopoly on the use of force is quite different from state repression in Cuba to supress dissent. Read the sources, comment on them or stop making jibes against me, you're not gonna win the argument by making personal attacks and you might just get yourself banned. Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article already mentions that opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression. Please deal with 172's concerns, Kapil. And no, he won't be banned for removing your POV pushing. Grace Note 07:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is not about how "opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression", but how Castro turned a once pluralistic society into a police state. I have displayed evidence, and 172's refutation is naïve in that it tries to dismiss Castro's repression as the state's monopoly of force, saying "every state represses". Faced with my sources, the only solution would be to enlarge the line to include mention of said police state, as this is neither my invention nor a simple display of the state's monopoly of force. Kapil 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to do that. Quite the opposite. I was pressing you to be more specific or not to add any unnecessary verbiage to the intro at all. The fact is that what is implied with respect to repression by bringing up Cuba's transformation into a Communist state is more specific on the nature of repression under Castro's regime than the extremely vague statement that his regime engages in repression. All states engage in repression, but a single party does not monopolize power in all states... There is just no need to tell the reader what has already been established, especially when it is so vague that it could in theory be stuck in the intro on any politician. 172 07:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dude, what it all boils down to is that the change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned, as it is as important (or more important) than increases in literacy and healthcare. To let it out would not be fair to the reader, as the Castro presidency has engaged in repression, independent of this being in the definition of a communist country or not. Yes, people can follow the wiki hyperlink, but why should the increases in literacy and healthcare have introductory paragraph mention when a change which is as important (political repression) is not mentioned as it is mentioned elsewhere? Also, in-depth mention of the political structure of Cuba and its changes under the Castro regime are further down in the article, but that's exactly what an introductory paragraph should do - introduce the changes under his presidency, which include the political clampdown. That this is obvious is not entirely true, though I maintain it is worthy of mention, considering that publishing one positive fact but leaving out another equally important, negative fact (in the first paragraph, the one most people read and the one summarizing the contents of the article) does not contribute to neutrality, regardless of the reason being a completely neutral one (wiki readability/redundancy). Kapil 07:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the lengthy response, what I'm saying is basically that removing mention of political repression (or however you want to call it), though it does serve a legitimate purpose (to remove wordiness/redundancy) disbalances the first line of the article. That's my complaint. Kapil 07:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned Uh, that's not going to fly anywhere, barring journals of hardline Cuban American exile groups... For now, what you keep on adding is just redundant, regardless of whether or not someone considers "repression" legitimate. But if you can think of something that adds to the intro in content and not just verbiage, it will be, of course, considered. 172 07:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe your mention of "verbiage" would seem to be selective, seeing as how the increases in healthcare and literacy are also mentioned further down the page. I would propose to include "his presidency has seen ... the implementation of repressive state policies hostile towards real and perceived opposition to his rule (common to other communist countries previously aligned to the Soviet Union)". Yes, wordy, but something to that effect, as balance is desperately needed in the introduction. Kapil 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the content on health and education is down the page. The point of an intro is to establish broad themes that will be elaborated on down the article. 172 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. "Human Rights and Under Castro's Leadership", one of the themes elaborated on down the article, is not even mentioned. It reads: Many argue that several thousand unjustified deaths have occurred under Castro's decades-long rule. Some Cubans have been labeled "counterrevolutionaries", "fascists", or "CIA operatives", and imprisoned in extremely poor conditions without trial; some have been summarily executed. The level of political control in Cuba has relaxed somewhat since the USSR's collapse, but some people still view Castro as presiding over a totalitarian state. Kapil 08:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for the sake of keeping us focused on NPOV, one could bring up that criticisms of (say) Colombia's human rights record would seem even more egregious. And someone could also bring up that prison is a far more prominent institution here in the U.S. than in Cuba. The U.S. incarcerates five to eight times more of its people per capita than other rich industrialized countries, and possibly has the world's highest per capita prison in the world, much higher than Cuba's. 172 08:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, we're not talking about Colombia, we're talking about Cuba. I'm pretty sure (willing to bet) that human rights worries are mentioned in the Colombia page. Independently, prison conditions in the US are monitored (except for Guantanamo) by international bodies and stuff. We know what's going on in a US prison, and even if there's lots of prisoners, they're subjected to minimum standards. In Cuba, prisons are unmonitored and according to some of the stuff I have read (if you want I can research about it and post it here), pretty spooky shit. But, even if conditions in US prisons were as appalling or whatever, it should be mentioned in the US page and should not remove mention from this page. Also, the US holds people for petty crimes (stealing a car? vandalism?) whereas Cuba holds people for their political beliefs (political prisoners) which is a far graver matter independently of if per capita cuban prison population is smaller than that in the US. Kapil 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the difference is that Cuba has not been facing a 50-year old insurgency and we are not talking about criminals, we are talking about political prisoners. J. Parker Stone 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, El C, you might find these Monthly Review articles interesting if you haven't seen them already. [14] [15] 172 08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tried to give Kapil my take on some of the concerns listed above on his talk page. I am hopeful that with such dialogue all the participants will be able to establish consensus with him rather than against him. El_C 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the talk page, 172. It was becoming a bit too scorlly, and there were too many issues that were seemingly resolved or redundant. Some items do seem a bit too recent though. I don't really mind myself, but to Kapil: if you wish to restore any parts of the recently archived material, please feel free to do so, or I can do it for you if you like (the last thing I want to see is a new dispute over archiving). El_C 08:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say you're welcome, but I didn't archive it. I guess Grace did. Anyway, it timely, considering how unwieldy the page was getting. 172 08:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! Soggy about that! El_C 08:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I archived it :) Kapil 01:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ahah! We were close, but way off! :D El_C 02:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172 is arguing semantics... this concept of "inherent repression" has nothing to do with whether or not a state actively stifles dissent, which Cuba does, while democracies like the U.S. don't, despite having a "monopoly" on repression. By this logic we should just say military juntas are military juntas and leave it at that since most of them have involved violations of basic rights J. Parker Stone 08:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1959 America and 1959 Cuba

You guys really don't want to get this article involved in comparing Cuba now versus before Castro. Everything is too changed. In USA back then Blacks were systematicly discriminated against. Lynchings occurred and the Congress refused to act. Strange Fruit indeed. Before Castro, Cuba was a kleptocracy with American mobsters running drugs, prostitution, and everything else. Health and Education were a joke. Castro is one of the best of the communist dictators. Some think America drove him into soviet arms with our behavior. I've seen USA sourced statistics showing better health care for the poor in Cuba than America. Casro has done both good and bad. He'll be dead soon and we'll "help" a new government replace the existing dictatorship machinery (so that they, like us, can have the best government money can buy). 4.250.168.126 08:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Health and Education were a joke - Health and education were among the highest in the world, and they certainly were better than in other Latin American countries. Read some of the sources, they repeatedly say so. Kapil 17:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from what i've read, the healthcare system was far from catastrophic like the Castro regime likely portrays it as (just like everything else in the 1933-59 era) but services in rural areas were generally lacking. J. Parker Stone 08:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop copying old versions from a text editor or from old diffs, you are erasing any new contributions and I am currently treating your actions as vandalism, which you may be blocked for, though I won't be doing the blocking because it would always look politically motivated, even when warranted. Those are the given conditions. Anyway, as I cited in thw WHO 2005 report, infant mortality was at 60/1000 in 1959 (yes, significantly lower than Haiti's 73/1000 today), today it is at 6/1000. That's a tenfold drop, which by any measure, is a lot (double is a lot). I've already said all this. Sigh. Anyway, this argument seems redundant, not sure what purpose it serves. El_C 08:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't see how this negates any of what i said. i never said Cuba didn't make progress in healthcare. the issue is how much of it is due to natural developments (as may've been seen in other developing countries) and how much of it is due to state investment. J. Parker Stone 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey was blocked by Neutrality and he's out on an extremely short leash. He has been blocked for six hours to slow down this kamikaze edit warring he's started up since I unblocked him just a few minutes ago. He knows that if he does this again I'll just restore Neutrality's indefinite block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(in)definite block. El_C 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the current revision by Trey Stone. It's the least biased of all the versions because it mentions the police state apparatus. Any final version must contain mention of this in the introducion. Kapil 19:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Trey Stone. If 172 feels it has "excessive verbiage" he better come up with another version which is not as unbalanced to Castro's opponents, though not the euphemistic one he constantly reverts to. If not, I'll just have to revert every chance I get. Sorry, but we have a legitimate point of view and we really don't need to convince 172, no matter how rude he is with his "excessive verbiage" and "POV vandalism" claims. Kapil 23:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions

State your reasons for removing the political repression phrase, create ones of your own or stop reverting. Kapil 00:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did, on your talk page. You never got back to me though. El_C 00:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, but I don't agree with it: In communist countries, healthcare is by definition public, therefore (and by definition), universally available. Why should availability of healthcare be mentioned in the introduction, then, if it's obvious? Isn't this also "excessive verbiage" and "redundancy"? The point is, for the sake of balancing out the introduction, what Castro did must be mentioned. That the state's repressive machinery was laid down by his orders during his tenure, is something worthy of being mentioned, as it is more important than the healthcare and literacy advances. Of course, it can be redundant, but then again, for the sake of not being redundant the introduction makes it look as if Fidel Castro is not a dictator, but a healthcare-giving literacy-hiking genius. Also, even if this is in some way obvious (I still maintain it is not), this article talks about his life's work, which includes creating a police state. Therefore it should be mentioned somehow, possibly with a link to "human rights concerns in communist countries" or something of the like, but it shouldn't be let entirely to the user's common sense (many people don't have one). It should be mentioned that he helped build the repressive apparatus that makes his kinda state possible, even if this is by some stretch of the imagination "redundant". Mentioning political repression, police state stuff and the like in one phrase is not redundancy, it would be if an entire paragraph were devoted to it. It's important, and to omit it breaks the balance of the introduction and therefore of the entire article. Kapil 01:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rather, scratch that. This is not for the sake of balance in the introduction, this is for the sake of factual accuracy. You can't mention Idi Amin was a dictator then omit an explanation of his actions claiming he did what most dictators do (bad example, I know, but you get my point). Yes, Castro turned Cuba into a communist state. But the user must know how he did this, what exactly he created, what's the result of his life's work. One of the results of his life's work is that now Cuba is a police state where people get harrassed because of a paranoid central machine. So this should be posted. This is unfortunately common to communism, sure, but even so, it should be mentioned and in no way constitutes verbiage nor redundancy. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, it should be noted due to the dramatic impact it has had as seen in various demographic indictaors (see WHO 2005 report; tenfold drop in infant mortality, literacy rate improvements being "remarkable," et cetera, etc.). As I also argued, a Communist party, by definition, represses political opposition; this is wikilinked, and as such, it is reduandant and actually hinders the flow of the lead. El_C 01:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then why shouldn't the construction of a monolithical central repressive police state apparatus be noted if it had an even more dramatic impact in various other indicators (freedom of press, freedom of speech, number of political prisoners, Cuba's pariah status, etc)? It's the exact same thing. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also maintain that it doesn't hinder readability, and is worth having. Why should your point of view on this be considered over mine? Moreover, why shouldn't a small readability "bump" be permitted for the sake of factual accuracy? Kapil 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i trust we'll able the same "standard" to military juntas, almost all of which have engaged in basic violations of human rights and been hostile to political activity? J. Parker Stone 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that it had more of a dramatic impact on those things (viz. the Batista regime), Kapil, I tend to view as your opinion. El_C 01:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. But if you consider it to have had less of a dramatic impact, it's also an opinion. It's of equal importance. Kapil 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the problem is that you guys want a view of Cuba in the intro that is not supported by the majority of the Western world or even several previously sympathetic third world governments... Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) the fact that you guys think it shouldn't be this way does not change things.

and no Che, it is not a matter of opinion. Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. J. Parker Stone 01:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whereas I don't agree with Trey's calling you "Che", I agree almost wholeheartedly with his statement. Especially the following: Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) To claim otherwise is just not true. Also, the following: Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. Those aren't opinions, or rather, to claim otherwise would also be an opinion call (therefore both sides of the story should be included). Kapil 01:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, Batista never had the enemies Castro has. The US government is permanently trying to undermine the communist government of Cuba. Castro would be gone by now if the US had never declared war on him. US makes Castro stronger by opposing him. US gives him the right excuse.--tequendamia 11:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. Kapil 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As beggars like to say in Latin America

"We are hungry, don't have clothes, don't have shoes, don't have teeth, don't have opportunities, but we are free carajo!" unsigned comment by User:Tequendamia. — Chameleon 13:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No they don't. Kapil 02:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you are aware that Cuba itself is suffering from severe consumer shortages, including food...? J. Parker Stone 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has Tequendamia known any homeless people in Latin America? I agree with Kapil, SqueakBox 03:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 03:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Beggars, when they talk of freedom, are talking in spite of governments, not because of them. The idea that a beggar saying they are free thanks to some government which gives them this freedom to be a beggar is clearly well off the mark, SqueakBox 15:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

oooh!

Protection

I've unprotected the page. The dispute behind the revert war it was protected for doesn't seem to have progressed since then, but then, we're not going to penalize all users because a few seem to have trouble containing their, ahem, enthusiasm. Please use the talk page to discuss changes, not the edit summaries in reverts. See Resolving disputes and ask the mediation cabal if you can't seem to reach agreement. Anyone who persistently reverts risks breaking the three-revert rule and getting a 24-hour block, which is not what you want. JRM · Talk 10:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Response to 172's continued RVing

Fidel Castro is known in the West for his attitude toward democracy and political opponents much moreso than his achievements in healthcare or literacy. This info is no more "POV verbiage" than the aforementioned positive info, and both should be included.

As I have said, military dictatorships frequently abuse human rights, but that is not cause for removing info about said dictators' human rights violations as "POV verbiage." the same applies here. J. Parker Stone 08:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

100% behind you. Kapil 17:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My 2p worth. We are not creating an encyclopedia for western people; indeed we must avoid western centrism. Here in CA he is known for his healthcare programmes, but not the literacy campaigns, because people here have benefitted form the health care, especially in terms of offering training. The Americans also come here to help poor people with health issues, but you have to be rich to study medicine in the States, whereas that is not the case to study in Cuba, SqueakBox 15:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Intro

There is no reason to replace the version of the intro mentioning the suppression of opposition parties with Trey Stone's verbose reference to the 'creation of the centralized state apparatus that systematically engages in repression.' What does he even mean by "systematically" anyway? He just seems to have a fetish for that word. 172 08:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you mean like you have a fetish for RVing any info that might damage the reputation of el lider maximo?

systematically means... exactly what it means J. Parker Stone 08:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and if you think it's "verbiose" (speaking of "fetishes") then feel free to edit in a less verbiose reference to the issue, rather than censoring it out entirely so it only mentions his glorious contributions to Cuban health and literacy. J. Parker Stone 08:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i mean one that actually makes it noticeable, rather than putting it in with a laundry list of his economic reforms when it's a totally different issue. J. Parker Stone 08:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have provided sources which say what you do almost verbatim. So don't worry, 172's reversions aren't useful at all, they're extremely annoying and I'll support you in the current revision (the one with mention of systematic repression), independent of what 172 may say (as we don't need his permission in any perceivable way to do our reversions, as I provided sources and he didn't). Kapil 17:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to make sure, I'll couple my line with lines from sources (HRW and the like, as I posted above): he has prohibited opposition parties -> No need for a quote, we all know this, the constitution says it. and created a strong, centralized state apparatus that systematically represses suspected political opposition -> The MININT contains within it a vast, nationwide surveillance and repressive apparatus to keep the population in line. and The violation of the right of privacy is systematic and pervasive. Tight political control in Cuba is maintained through extensive monitoring of Cubans’ daily lives.

Please remind me of the 9th word in the last quote? That's right. I'm quoting verbatim. So stop reserving for yourselves the right to revert informed, sourced editions. Kapil 18:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't know, 172 seems deadset on RVing this nonstop with the excuse of "verbiage" (funny how it only applies to the negative aspects) J. Parker Stone 22:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just don't care, I'll keep rving until 172 can interact like a normal person and give reasons to constantly be reverting my informed, sourced changes. Kapil 04:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd source the HRW link in the intro. To 172, do you think it's cute to tuck "suspended opposition parties" in with a list of his economic policies? J. Parker Stone 04:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cuba has received far more international attention for its human rights practices than several other countries under Communist rule, anyhow. J. Parker Stone 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the page, and I'm loath to unprotect it until a consensus introduction has been hammered out. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here== Provided universal healthcare?? ==

Castro oppresses healthcare workers, refusing to let them emigrate. It is these and other oppressed workers who are violently restricted from emmigrating that "provide" the services. He has turned Cuba into a gulag. Castro deserves no credit for the health care or "low cost" he "achieves" through oppression of labor. Essentially everyone in Cuba is a prisoner who is not privleged to rule.--Silverback 12:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please understand that the revloutionary leaders of cuba are Fidel, Raul, and Che. Guess what Che was. A doctor. You must understand that this was a revolution of the time, for that split second in history there could have been a revolution in cuba. And it happened. What im getting to is that everyone of the passengers abord the Gramma were very close. If you knew/know the story of the revolution, you would know that after the landing 12 people regrouped in the moutains of southern cuba. From those 12 they won the revolution against a modern military. As they fought together they all became as brothers for the socalist cause, giving up indivdualism.

Che helped modernize cuba, not only industrialzation but health care as well. He created the univesal healthcare. And after he died Fidel withheld it to Che's wishes. So fidel is not the provider of universal healthcare, but he deserves cridet for his role.

Sorces(che: a revoultionary life, and Modern cuba)

Anonymous one, you don't address the point, as an MD, Che could provide health care to only a few, he used labor that was prevented from emmigrating by force, to provide cheap health care to all. By using such means, and Castro's failure to protect the rights of the Cuban people, neither deserves any credit for the healthcare system, and certainly any glowing mention should be balanced with the severe violations of human rights that enabled it.--Silverback 07:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

obviously, Silverback has never been to Cuba.

They dont let people go out for economical reassons. First take in consideration that Cuba is actually a really poor country, then take in consideration that education is completely free (and one of the best in the world also).

its not very good business for the state that after they have becomed doctors, they would flee the country. (the main reasson obviously is because they could make far more money elsewhere than in Cuba).

please document specifics of the criticisms

Could whomever put the statements about Castro calling corporations exploitive, and criticising the state of US public health care please be specific and cite sources. These are pretty meaningless statements. What behavior, by which corporations does he consider exploitive? What aspects of the state of US public health care does he criticise, does he oppose kidney transplants or what?--Silverback June 28, 2005 05:31 (UTC)

while i don't really agree with your edits, i'd note that 172's Mexico:Cuba analogy is not exactly...exact. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:02 (UTC)

I do see some of the irony, although I don't know why he mentions Fox. As a person who would love to emmigrate to Mexico if it weren't for the risks of kidnapping for ransom, and armed shakedowns on the highways, and restrictions on property ownership by foreigners, I find current US policy misguided. It should focus more on why Mexicans want to leave, and why more US citizens aren't balancing the flow of people by emmigrating. The question here, is why does Castro want to repress emmigration, if not to maintain the capitivity that leaves him with labor to exploit at below market, in fact, barely above subsistence rates. --Silverback June 28, 2005 09:48 (UTC)

My point was not to compare Mexico and Cuba but to comment on the vagueness of the writing that I had removed. The note on the "suppression of emigration and those trying to escape" could also hypothetically describe policies that the U.S. pressures Mexico to enforce in order to reduce illegal immigration. Because the situations are not comparable, though poverty is a major force behind the migrations from both Cuba and Mexico, the wording was problematic , being so vague that it could describe both Cuba and Mexico... Further, this topic is already addressed by the sentence on the mass exodus of the Middle class and the rise of the Cuban exile community in South Florida-- a sentence that is more concrete and less confusing. 172 28 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)

My old, senile great aunt was just executed as being "no longer a contributing member of Cuba," meaning she was in her 80s; so I will gladly be a first-hand source of the Hitlerian atrocities of Castro. They didn't execute her per se, they sent her family a letter saying that the government wasn't allotting enough food for her, so they should do what they felt was in the best interest of the nation. At that point they locked her out in the cold to scratch at the door until she died. Feel free to contact me [16] if you need someone to say this aloud on the radio, 'cause I'm pretty sad about it. mrcolj 17 July 2005 22:28 (MST)

Archive 1 -- Archive 2 -- Archive 3 -- Archive 4

Dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista

One of the most anti-Castro sites on the net, usembassy.state.gov/havana titles it "the Batista dictatorship." El_C 15:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but apparently there's been a Wikipedia determination that "dictator" is pejorative. Otherwise I would insist that Batista and Castro be referred to as dictators. Also, please consider what an easy target you're making yourself to the right-wingers here by calling for Batista to be called a dictator and Castro not. It looks uneven to me, and to them, this is red-hot ammo that you're giving them. --Rroser167 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a target regardless of what I say or do. I haven't read this article closely (I only came here at request to look at one specific issue). I was neither aware that Castro wasn't called a dictator, nor was I privy to this decision. Sorry for wasting your time. El_C 17:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No apologies are necessary. I was not privy to the decision, either, yet it appears to be gospel. Don't say that you're a target no matter what; it sounds like a persecution complex, kind of like some others that I've seen. --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I will think it, not without some basis! :D El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following is the definition of dictator: in modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch). I don't know the historical facts about Fulgencio Batista (other than the fact that he was the democratically elected president of Cuba for a while). Fidel Castro is absolutist in the sense that he exerts unlimited personal power over the politics of his country, opposition to communism is illegal (personified by himself) and he leads the Council of State, which is the supreme authority in the country, though he doesn't exert sole power over the state (at least on paper). Kapil 18:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll reassert my opinion that both Castro and Batista should be referred to as dictators. By the way, Kapil, I would have been able to support more of your arguments if you covered your personal sympathies better. Saying that you don't know anything about Batista except that "he was the democratically elected president of Cuba for a while" seems disingenuous. --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar (January 16, 1901 – August 6, 1973) was the de facto leader of Cuba from 1933 to 1940 and the country's official president from 1940 to 1944 and again from 1952 to 1959. -> That's what I meant. I don't know if he was an actual dictator, but I do know he was at least president for two terms.

You misunderstand me. I knew what you meant, but I'm also sure that this doesn't represent your total knowledge of Batista. For instance, surely you've heard that the second term was achieved by coup. I understand that you feel that Wikipedia has many left-wing editors, and that because of this, you think the proper thing to do is to bring balance by being an advocate for the right. 'sokay, I'm not frothing about it. --Rroser167 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't know anything about Batista other than the fact he's had power both by democratic and non-democratic means. That's why I'm requesting other user's contributions on this. Kapil 20:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to summit readers of this talk to the excelent book "Bertillón 166" of José Soler Puig, a cuban writer. That book may illustrate you about the popular meaning of "dictator" and "State of Terror". It was wrote in the regimen of Fulgencio Batista, but I think it's not a pure Cuban heritage, but also a common point in many latinoamerican countries.

Castro photo

My two cents: this picture is composed in a severely dramatic fashion - making it a lightning rod for criticism that this page is not neutral. Surely someone can come up with a more appropriate portrait. --Rroser167 16:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about: [17]? Or [18]? --Rroser167 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first one looks rather demonic, the 2nd looks like he's picking his nose almost. I appreciate the point you make about the background and overtone (though I don't view is as that much of issue really), but I want to find a more neutral-looking image (of his face) in that sense. El_C 17:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with El C... Where does everyone keep finding these horrible Castro photos? Outside Wikipedia I rarely see such bad photos of him. For example, it's odd that in just about every AP photo of Castro taken in recent weeks, Castro looks so much younger and healthier. 172 19:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of [19]? Kapil 19:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny how the objections to the red star photo, which made us look for an alternative one, were made primarily by Grace Note (the one who keeps reverting to it now). I don't object to the red star photo if everyone else wants to leave it there. Kapil 18:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I understand that this is a very minor issue, so if there is no opposition, I won't keep cryin' about it. I'm a little surprised that you're not opposed to it, Kapil, but I guess the big red star in the background may have sealed the deal for you. Cool. --Rroser167 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first one is a bit weird, he looks like he's having a stroke. The second one's a bit blurry. How about [20]? Looks neutral and serious. Wouldn't object to the red star one, but I like this one better. Kapil 19:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I find Kapil's image to be a good compromise, I just wish we can find a higher quality version of it. I have no objections to using it in the lead. What do you think, 172? El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not bad, but it's quite small and would be blurry if it were enlarged. 172 06:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The introductory photo looks quite menacing; definitely not an objective start to a complex article, though I personally am not bothered by the other photos. grapeflux

"Great" healthcare and literacy increases

I object to the use of this term because the increase can't be categorised as great. A simple look at one of the sources in the article reveals:
The health care system is often touted by many analysts as one of the Castro government's greatest achievements. What this analysis ignores is that the revolutionary government inherited an already-advanced health sector when it took power in 1959.

Cuba's infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades[7].

Cuba’s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied.

In terms of physicians and dentists per capita, Cuba in 1957 ranked third in Latin America, behind only Uruguay and Argentina -- both of which were more advanced than the United States in this measure. Cuba's 128 physicians and dentists per 100,000 people in 1957 was the same as the Netherlands, and ahead of the United Kingdom (122 per 100,000 people) and Finland (96).

Unfortunately, the UN statistical yearbook no longer publishes these statistics, so more recent comparisons are not possible, but it is completely erroneous to characterize pre-Revolutionary Cuba as backward in terms of healthcare.

Cuba has been among the most literate countries in Latin America since well before the Castro revolution, when it ranked fourth. Since then, Cuba has increased its literacy rate from 76 to 96 percent and is tied today for second place with Chile and Costa Rica[9]. Argentina is the most literate country in Latin America. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. Panama, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Haiti -- which all ranked just behind Cuba in this indicator during the 1950's – have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms[10].

I believe to categorise their increases as "great" in the introductory paragraph is misleading, as one would not think this is a regional trend (I was one of those to think the healthcare and literacy increase was great, and also thought it was greatest among South American and even developed countries) but a great Cuban accomplishment. As it stands, the Cuban increases in these indicators is nothing more than part of a regional trend, though you don't see pages on Colombian or Argentinian presidents mentioning "great" increases or "availability of universal healthcare", and their inclusion in the biography of Fidel Castro (above political repression) would make believe that this was a great, unique accomplishment when data displays this is not the case. Also, note that the data is mostly UN, which would contradict claims of US government bias or misinformation. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. - This should be included, or the whole "great increase" should be dropped. So should this: The health care system is often touted by many analysts as one of the Castro government's greatest achievements. What this analysis ignores is that the revolutionary government inherited an already-advanced health sector when it took power in 1959. [21] Kapil 21:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, I have no idea what this source comes from (in the article), but this World Health Organization piece (PDF) states that: Post-revolutionary Cuba constituted an important example of "good health at low cost" that did not make it onto the agenda of the 1985 [respective WHO] conference. Cuba's population health profile more closely resembles wealthy countries like the US and Canada than most other Latin American countries xxxv. While Cuba had likely attained one of the most favourable mortality levels in the developing world by the end of the 1950s, further significant declines in mortality took place following the socialist revolution of 1959. The revolution brought medical and public-health resources within the reach of formerly marginalized sectors of society. By redirecting national wealth towards the fulfilment of basic needs, the standard of living for the more disadvantaged social groups was improved despite the country's faltering economic performance in the 1960s and 1970s. Rural-urban differences in health and its social determinants were reduced as the state invested more national resources in rural areas xxxvi. In 1959 the country's infant mortality rate was 60/1000 live births and life expectancy was 65.1 years. By the mid-1980s Cuba had attained an infant mortality rate of 15/1000 and female life expectancy of 76 xxxvii. [...] Cuba's literacy rate is 96.7 percent, remarkable considering that before the revolution, one quarter of Cubans were illiterate and another tenth were semiliterate. [35] El_C 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About infant mortality, my source refutes: Cuba’s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied. Kapil 01:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Kapil, what reference is that passage from? The WHO is an authoritative source, and this is a 2005 report. CIA World Factbook says 6.6/1000 (immediately followed by Taiwan at 6.40 and the U.S. at 6.50), that's ten-fold the 60/1000 in 1959, and ten-fold is a lot (double is a lot), all these contributing factors, which I was not fully aware of —thanks for that— (nor do I discount) overall notwithstanding. El_C 02:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see above you added that this is a U.S. State Dept. source. Far from discounting it offhand, they do of course exhibit the strongest anti-Cuban bias, more so than any other country on the planet. I would tend to see a, let say a study by the, Canadian or Japanese or Spanish, etc. govts., or the WHO, as more detached — as neither enemies nor allies. El_C 03:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've done all this. Literacy doesn't just improve itself. It makes no difference that it's a "regional trend". It's not that there was something in the latinoamericano water! What you fail to understand is that Castro is not being singled out for his achievement. This article is about him, not about comparative Latin leaders! Because of your bias, you simply cannot see that. Cuba's improvements came from a relatively high base -- nowhere is this disputed. But it compares favourably with other high-base nations, as Trey Stone showed with his statistics.

And it's a misuse of statistics to quibble that countries with very poor literacy had much bigger improvements in percentage terms: if populations are the same, 1% to 3% is the same increase in terms of people who were not literate who now are as 95% to 97%, but it is obviously a much bigger percentage increase. This is absolutely elementary stuff. You are not comparing like with like.

As for infant mortality, it's of less account than you are suggesting that there are lots of abortions. Your argument seems to suggest that countries with high mortality rates are simply seeing nonviable children die. This is not generally the case (as you could easily ascertain by considering whether countries with high infant mortality lose most or even many of their infants to at-birth defects), nor is it necessarily true that no fetuses are terminated that would not, on completion of gestion, have been viable. You should note that "high-risk" pregnancies are of a high risk for a reason! It shouldn't be a surprise that they make a majority of terminations, given that the thing they are at risk of is something being wrong. Grace Note 02:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as we have pointed out, other countries have made similar gains without command economic structures... the point is that there are different factors in increasing literacy. the fact that Cuba has a literacy rate, say, two points higher than that of Paraguay does not negate this J. Parker Stone 19:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to quote myself: As it stands, the Cuban increases in these indicators is nothing more than part of a regional trend, though you don't see pages on Colombian or Argentinian presidents mentioning "great" increases or "availability of universal healthcare", and their inclusion in the biography of Fidel Castro (above political repression) would make believe that this was a great, unique accomplishment when data displays this is not the case. Also, note that the data is mostly UN, which would contradict claims of US government bias or misinformation. "This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries." - This should be included, or the whole "great increase" should be dropped. My main problem with the categorization of "great" is that it perpetuates the stereotype that the Castro government not only increased literacy and health care, but did this in historically great levels. My source clearly states this isn't so, both because other Latin American nations did (so it should be mentioned that the increases are in no way unique nor grander than the increases made in other countries in the region) and that because of this fact, comparatively, the increase really doesn't represent a trend change between Cuba pre-revolutionary times and communist times. This fact should be mentioned, once again, because it is general belief that the increases in literacy and healthcare were both immense and unique, when this clearly wasn't the case. Yes, the percentage increases were "great", but so were every other countries' (in some cases even greater), and it's a fact that should be pointed out so people don't think it's the specific case of being communist that allowed cubans to have a high literacy rate and levels of healthcare. Kapil 05:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Its actually much better than the one in the united states (mainly because its free and really advanced). Cuban medicine is the field of some of the most advanced medical investigations. Examples of this is a "vaccine" for diabetics that you have to inject it only once every 6 months (wether if it works for all cases of diabetes, im not sure), or how they are developing a vaccine for cancer based on the poison of a scorpion. All of those things are miles ahead from American medicine.

Systematic repression of all [political] opposition

I wouldn't object removing the term "political" from this phrase. Here's my source: It is no exaggeration to state that during the 1950's, the Cuban people were among the most informed in the world, living in an uncharacteristically large media market for such a small country. Cubans had a choice of 58 daily newspapers during the late 1950's, according to the UN statistical yearbook. Despite its small size, this placed Cuba behind only Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico in the region. By 1992, government controls had reduced the number of dailies to only 17.

There has also been a reduction in the number of radio and television broadcasting stations, although the UN no longer reports these statistics. However, it should be noted that in 1957, Cuba had more television stations (23) than any other country in Latin America, easily outdistancing larger countries such as Mexico (12 television stations) and Venezuela (10). It also led Latin America and ranked eighth in the world in number of radio stations (160), ahead of such countries as Austria (83 radio stations), United Kingdom (62), and France (50), according to the UN statistical yearbook.

This goes to show that whereas discussion and debate in pre-revolutionary times were among the most informed in the world, now people have to read government controlled papers (ever taken a look at the Granma? They even pick ugly photos of Castro's enemies, kinda like what anncol.org does) and the like. It's not far out to define Cuba's attitude towards plurality as "the systematic repression of all perceived opposition".

Also, to note:
Dozens of small, illegal opposition groups exist in Cuba, but have no access to the media, cannot hold public meetings and do not threaten the Communist Party's political dominance.

The internal dissident movement is generally perceived by analysts and diplomats here as relatively weak, marginalized and handicapped by both internal divisions and state control.

Cuba's four best-known dissident prisoners - Martha Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, Felix Bonne and Rene Gomez Manzano - remain in jail without trial since July 1997. [22]

The most decisive of all in my case for using this sentence is the following, from Human Rights Watch:
Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces, aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile. Cuba uses these tools to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights of expression, association, and assembly. The conditions in Cuba's prisons are inhuman, and political prisoners suffer additional degrading treatment and torture. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals for reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners. To note: over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression and Cuba has added new repressive laws. This clearly states repression, systematic repression. [23]

Finally, a jewel:
The goal of the Castro regime has been to "fuse state and society."36 The two principal, overlapping instruments are the PCC, which "rules over every level of Cuban life,"37 and the Ministry of Interior (MININT). The MININT contains within it a vast, nationwide surveillance and repressive apparatus to keep the population in line. The principal departments in the MININT for exercising political and social control are the Departamento de Seguridad del Estado (DSE), Department of State Security, commonly referred to simply as "State Security," and the Departamento Técnico de Investigaciones (DTI), Department of Technical Investigations. The headquarters of State Security is housed in a former seminary in the Havana section of Villa Marista and is often referred to simply as "Villa Marista." Through the use of electronic surveillance, undercover agents and a widespread network of informants who are often coerced or blackmailed, MININT has the capability and the mandate to spy on or forcibly intrude in the lives of any citizen for any reason, anytime, anywhere. According to the U.S. Department of State:

The State has assumed the right to interfere in the lives of citizens, even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.38

Human Rights Watch/Americas has described the situation this way:

The violation of the right of privacy is systematic and pervasive. Tight political control in Cuba is maintained through extensive monitoring of Cubans’ daily lives.39

MININT, like the PCC, is deeply imbedded in the structures of the military,40 and also controls the uniformed Revolutionary National Police (PNR). [24]

Note the use of the word "systematic", not just of political repression but of simple privacy. This means, not just political opposition, but perceived opposition, as is stated in even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.
Here's an additional source, just in case. [25]
Please, present your sources or desist in reverting, and unless there's some charming information against, I will change it to "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition". It's hardly my opinion, it's the verbatim opinion of various informed and respected sources. Kapil 05:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific. All states engage in repression, and what you are adding to the intro is so vague that it could conceivably be added to an intro on any world leader. Consider that most political scientists and sociologists work with the Weberian definition of the state, as an entity that claims a monopoly on violence and coercion within a given territory. States inherently engage in repression. 172 06:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost. You're not even making sense now. You're comparing the "monopoly on violence" with communist repression. And terms like "Weberian" don't impress me nor do they help your point. Bring forth some sources which dispute my claims or leave the article as it is, or I'll have you banned. Kapil 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you consider "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition" to be vague, then you'll have to expand it, taking into account the plethora of sources presented and the fact you now accepted it to be true. What about "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition to his iron fisted rule"? Or "The installation of a police state which constantly and systematically spies on an represses its population"? Should it be mentioned they also act upon imaginary crime? Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terms like "Weberian" don't mean anything to you because you have no idea what they mean. Grace Note 07:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, they don't mean anything because they're being used to change the rules of the game when you notice you've been beaten. Everybody knows about the Weberian definition of the state, though having a monopoly on the use of force is quite different from state repression in Cuba to supress dissent. Read the sources, comment on them or stop making jibes against me, you're not gonna win the argument by making personal attacks and you might just get yourself banned. Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article already mentions that opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression. Please deal with 172's concerns, Kapil. And no, he won't be banned for removing your POV pushing. Grace Note 07:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is not about how "opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression", but how Castro turned a once pluralistic society into a police state. I have displayed evidence, and 172's refutation is naïve in that it tries to dismiss Castro's repression as the state's monopoly of force, saying "every state represses". Faced with my sources, the only solution would be to enlarge the line to include mention of said police state, as this is neither my invention nor a simple display of the state's monopoly of force. Kapil 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to do that. Quite the opposite. I was pressing you to be more specific or not to add any unnecessary verbiage to the intro at all. The fact is that what is implied with respect to repression by bringing up Cuba's transformation into a Communist state is more specific on the nature of repression under Castro's regime than the extremely vague statement that his regime engages in repression. All states engage in repression, but a single party does not monopolize power in all states... There is just no need to tell the reader what has already been established, especially when it is so vague that it could in theory be stuck in the intro on any politician. 172 07:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dude, what it all boils down to is that the change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned, as it is as important (or more important) than increases in literacy and healthcare. To let it out would not be fair to the reader, as the Castro presidency has engaged in repression, independent of this being in the definition of a communist country or not. Yes, people can follow the wiki hyperlink, but why should the increases in literacy and healthcare have introductory paragraph mention when a change which is as important (political repression) is not mentioned as it is mentioned elsewhere? Also, in-depth mention of the political structure of Cuba and its changes under the Castro regime are further down in the article, but that's exactly what an introductory paragraph should do - introduce the changes under his presidency, which include the political clampdown. That this is obvious is not entirely true, though I maintain it is worthy of mention, considering that publishing one positive fact but leaving out another equally important, negative fact (in the first paragraph, the one most people read and the one summarizing the contents of the article) does not contribute to neutrality, regardless of the reason being a completely neutral one (wiki readability/redundancy). Kapil 07:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the lengthy response, what I'm saying is basically that removing mention of political repression (or however you want to call it), though it does serve a legitimate purpose (to remove wordiness/redundancy) disbalances the first line of the article. That's my complaint. Kapil 07:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned Uh, that's not going to fly anywhere, barring journals of hardline Cuban American exile groups... For now, what you keep on adding is just redundant, regardless of whether or not someone considers "repression" legitimate. But if you can think of something that adds to the intro in content and not just verbiage, it will be, of course, considered. 172 07:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe your mention of "verbiage" would seem to be selective, seeing as how the increases in healthcare and literacy are also mentioned further down the page. I would propose to include "his presidency has seen ... the implementation of repressive state policies hostile towards real and perceived opposition to his rule (common to other communist countries previously aligned to the Soviet Union)". Yes, wordy, but something to that effect, as balance is desperately needed in the introduction. Kapil 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the content on health and education is down the page. The point of an intro is to establish broad themes that will be elaborated on down the article. 172 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. "Human Rights and Under Castro's Leadership", one of the themes elaborated on down the article, is not even mentioned. It reads: Many argue that several thousand unjustified deaths have occurred under Castro's decades-long rule. Some Cubans have been labeled "counterrevolutionaries", "fascists", or "CIA operatives", and imprisoned in extremely poor conditions without trial; some have been summarily executed. The level of political control in Cuba has relaxed somewhat since the USSR's collapse, but some people still view Castro as presiding over a totalitarian state. Kapil 08:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for the sake of keeping us focused on NPOV, one could bring up that criticisms of (say) Colombia's human rights record would seem even more egregious. And someone could also bring up that prison is a far more prominent institution here in the U.S. than in Cuba. The U.S. incarcerates five to eight times more of its people per capita than other rich industrialized countries, and possibly has the world's highest per capita prison in the world, much higher than Cuba's. 172 08:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, we're not talking about Colombia, we're talking about Cuba. I'm pretty sure (willing to bet) that human rights worries are mentioned in the Colombia page. Independently, prison conditions in the US are monitored (except for Guantanamo) by international bodies and stuff. We know what's going on in a US prison, and even if there's lots of prisoners, they're subjected to minimum standards. In Cuba, prisons are unmonitored and according to some of the stuff I have read (if you want I can research about it and post it here), pretty spooky shit. But, even if conditions in US prisons were as appalling or whatever, it should be mentioned in the US page and should not remove mention from this page. Also, the US holds people for petty crimes (stealing a car? vandalism?) whereas Cuba holds people for their political beliefs (political prisoners) which is a far graver matter independently of if per capita cuban prison population is smaller than that in the US. Kapil 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the difference is that Cuba has not been facing a 50-year old insurgency and we are not talking about criminals, we are talking about political prisoners. J. Parker Stone 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, El C, you might find these Monthly Review articles interesting if you haven't seen them already. [26] [27] 172 08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tried to give Kapil my take on some of the concerns listed above on his talk page. I am hopeful that with such dialogue all the participants will be able to establish consensus with him rather than against him. El_C 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the talk page, 172. It was becoming a bit too scorlly, and there were too many issues that were seemingly resolved or redundant. Some items do seem a bit too recent though. I don't really mind myself, but to Kapil: if you wish to restore any parts of the recently archived material, please feel free to do so, or I can do it for you if you like (the last thing I want to see is a new dispute over archiving). El_C 08:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say you're welcome, but I didn't archive it. I guess Grace did. Anyway, it timely, considering how unwieldy the page was getting. 172 08:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! Soggy about that! El_C 08:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I archived it :) Kapil 01:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ahah! We were close, but way off! :D El_C 02:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172 is arguing semantics... this concept of "inherent repression" has nothing to do with whether or not a state actively stifles dissent, which Cuba does, while democracies like the U.S. don't, despite having a "monopoly" on repression. By this logic we should just say military juntas are military juntas and leave it at that since most of them have involved violations of basic rights J. Parker Stone 08:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1959 America and 1959 Cuba

You guys really don't want to get this article involved in comparing Cuba now versus before Castro. Everything is too changed. In USA back then Blacks were systematicly discriminated against. Lynchings occurred and the Congress refused to act. Strange Fruit indeed. Before Castro, Cuba was a kleptocracy with American mobsters running drugs, prostitution, and everything else. Health and Education were a joke. Castro is one of the best of the communist dictators. Some think America drove him into soviet fuhk arms with our behavior. I've seen USA sourced statistics showing better health care for the poor in Cuba than America. Casro has done both good and bad. He'll be dead soon and we'll "help" a new government replace the existing dictatorship machinery (so that they, like us, can have the best government money can buy). 4.250.168.126 08:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Health and Education were a joke - Health and education were among the highest in the world, and they certainly were better than in other Latin American countries. Read some of the sources, they repeatedly say so. Kapil 17:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from what i've read, the healthcare system was far from catastrophic like the Castro regime likely portrays it as (just like everything else in the 1933-59 era) but services in rural areas were generally lacking. J. Parker Stone 08:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop copying old versions from a text editor or from old diffs, you are erasing any new contributions and I am currently treating your actions as vandalism, which you may be blocked for, though I won't be doing the blocking because it would always look politically motivated, even when warranted. Those are the given conditions. Anyway, as I cited in thw WHO 2005 report, infant mortality was at 60/1000 in 1959 (yes, significantly lower than Haiti's 73/1000 today), today it is at 6/1000. That's a tenfold drop, which by any measure, is a lot (double is a lot). I've already said all this. Sigh. Anyway, this argument seems redundant, not sure what purpose it serves. El_C 08:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't see how this negates any of what i said. i never said Cuba didn't make progress in healthcare. the issue is how much of it is due to natural developments (as may've been seen in other developing countries) and how much of it is due to state investment. J. Parker Stone 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey was blocked by Neutrality and he's out on an extremely short leash. He has been blocked for six hours to slow down this kamikaze edit warring he's started up since I unblocked him just a few minutes ago. He knows that if he does this again I'll just restore Neutrality's indefinite block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(in)definite block. El_C 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the current revision by Trey Stone. It's the least biased of all the versions because it mentions the police state apparatus. Any final version must contain mention of this in the introducion. Kapil 19:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Trey Stone. If 172 feels it has "excessive verbiage" he better come up with another version which is not as unbalanced to Castro's opponents, though not the euphemistic one he constantly reverts to. If not, I'll just have to revert every chance I get. Sorry, but we have a legitimate point of view and we really don't need to convince 172, no matter how rude he is with his "excessive verbiage" and "POV vandalism" claims. Kapil 23:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions

State your reasons for removing the political repression phrase, create ones of your own or stop reverting. Kapil 00:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did, on your talk page. You never got back to me though. El_C 00:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, but I don't agree with it: In communist countries, healthcare is by definition public, therefore (and by definition), universally available. Why should availability of healthcare be mentioned in the introduction, then, if it's obvious? Isn't this also "excessive verbiage" and "redundancy"? The point is, for the sake of balancing out the introduction, what Castro did must be mentioned. That the state's repressive machinery was laid down by his orders during his tenure, is something worthy of being mentioned, as it is more important than the healthcare and literacy advances. Of course, it can be redundant, but then again, for the sake of not being redundant the introduction makes it look as if Fidel Castro is not a dictator, but a healthcare-giving literacy-hiking genius. Also, even if this is in some way obvious (I still maintain it is not), this article talks about his life's work, which includes creating a police state. Therefore it should be mentioned somehow, possibly with a link to "human rights concerns in communist countries" or something of the like, but it shouldn't be let entirely to the user's common sense (many people don't have one). It should be mentioned that he helped build the repressive apparatus that makes his kinda state possible, even if this is by some stretch of the imagination "redundant". Mentioning political repression, police state stuff and the like in one phrase is not redundancy, it would be if an entire paragraph were devoted to it. It's important, and to omit it breaks the balance of the introduction and therefore of the entire article. Kapil 01:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rather, scratch that. This is not for the sake of balance in the introduction, this is for the sake of factual accuracy. You can't mention Idi Amin was a dictator then omit an explanation of his actions claiming he did what most dictators do (bad example, I know, but you get my point). Yes, Castro turned Cuba into a communist state. But the user must know how he did this, what exactly he created, what's the result of his life's work. One of the results of his life's work is that now Cuba is a police state where people get harrassed because of a paranoid central machine. So this should be posted. This is unfortunately common to communism, sure, but even so, it should be mentioned and in no way constitutes verbiage nor redundancy. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, it should be noted due to the dramatic impact it has had as seen in various demographic indictaors (see WHO 2005 report; tenfold drop in infant mortality, literacy rate improvements being "remarkable," et cetera, etc.). As I also argued, a Communist party, by definition, represses political opposition; this is wikilinked, and as such, it is reduandant and actually hinders the flow of the lead. El_C 01:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then why shouldn't the construction of a monolithical central repressive police state apparatus be noted if it had an even more dramatic impact in various other indicators (freedom of press, freedom of speech, number of political prisoners, Cuba's pariah status, etc)? It's the exact same thing. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also maintain that it doesn't hinder readability, and is worth having. Why should your point of view on this be considered over mine? Moreover, why shouldn't a small readability "bump" be permitted for the sake of factual accuracy? Kapil 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i trust we'll able the same "standard" to military juntas, almost all of which have engaged in basic violations of human rights and been hostile to political activity? J. Parker Stone 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that it had more of a dramatic impact on those things (viz. the Batista regime), Kapil, I tend to view as your opinion. El_C 01:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. But if you consider it to have had less of a dramatic impact, it's also an opinion. It's of equal importance. Kapil 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the problem is that you guys want a view of Cuba in the intro that is not supported by the majority of the Western world or even several previously sympathetic third world governments... Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) the fact that you guys think it shouldn't be this way does not change things.

and no Che, it is not a matter of opinion. Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. J. Parker Stone 01:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whereas I don't agree with Trey's calling you "Che", I agree almost wholeheartedly with his statement. Especially the following: Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) To claim otherwise is just not true. Also, the following: Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. Those aren't opinions, or rather, to claim otherwise would also be an opinion call (therefore both sides of the story should be included). Kapil 01:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, Batista never had the enemies Castro has. The US government is permanently trying to undermine the communist government of Cuba. Castro would be gone by now if the US had never declared war on him. US makes Castro stronger by opposing him. US gives him the right excuse.--tequendamia 11:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. Kapil 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As beggars like to say in Latin America

"We are hungry, don't have clothes, don't have shoes, don't have teeth, don't have opportunities, but we are free carajo!" unsigned comment by User:Tequendamia. — Chameleon 13:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No they don't. Kapil 02:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you are aware that Cuba itself is suffering from severe consumer shortages, including food...? J. Parker Stone 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has Tequendamia known any homeless people in Latin America? I agree with Kapil, SqueakBox 03:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 03:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Beggars, when they talk of freedom, are talking in spite of governments, not because of them. The idea that a beggar saying they are free thanks to some government which gives them this freedom to be a beggar is clearly well off the mark, SqueakBox 15:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

Protection

I've unprotected the page. The dispute behind the revert war it was protected for doesn't seem to have progressed since then, but then, we're not going to penalize all users because a few seem to have trouble containing their, ahem, enthusiasm. Please use the talk page to discuss changes, not the edit summaries in reverts. See Resolving disputes and ask the mediation cabal if you can't seem to reach agreement. Anyone who persistently reverts risks breaking the three-revert rule and getting a 24-hour block, which is not what you want. JRM · Talk 10:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Response to 172's continued RVing

Fidel Castro is known in the West for his attitude toward democracy and political opponents much moreso than his achievements in healthcare or literacy. This info is no more "POV verbiage" than the aforementioned positive info, and both should be included.

As I have said, military dictatorships frequently abuse human rights, but that is not cause for removing info about said dictators' human rights violations as "POV verbiage." the same applies here. J. Parker Stone 08:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

100% behind you. Kapil 17:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My 2p worth. We are not creating an encyclopedia for western people; indeed we must avoid western centrism. Here in CA he is known for his healthcare programmes, but not the literacy campaigns, because people here have benefitted form the health care, especially in terms of offering training. The Americans also come here to help poor people with health issues, but you have to be rich to study medicine in the States, whereas that is not the case to study in Cuba, SqueakBox 15:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

---

ive always considered Castro ahead of his time, perhaps democracy is just an utopia... specially in these days of tv and fox news.

Intro

There is no reason to replace the version of the intro mentioning the suppression of opposition parties with Trey Stone's verbose reference to the 'creation of the centralized state apparatus that systematically engages in repression.' What does he even mean by "systematically" anyway? He just seems to have a fetish for that word. 172 08:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you mean like you have a fetish for RVing any info that might damage the reputation of el lider maximo?

systematically means... exactly what it means J. Parker Stone 08:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and if you think it's "verbiose" (speaking of "fetishes") then feel free to edit in a less verbiose reference to the issue, rather than censoring it out entirely so it only mentions his glorious contributions to Cuban health and literacy. J. Parker Stone 08:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i mean one that actually makes it noticeable, rather than putting it in with a laundry list of his economic reforms when it's a totally different issue. J. Parker Stone 08:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have provided sources which say what you do almost verbatim. So don't worry, 172's reversions aren't useful at all, they're extremely annoying and I'll support you in the current revision (the one with mention of systematic repression), independent of what 172 may say (as we don't need his permission in any perceivable way to do our reversions, as I provided sources and he didn't). Kapil 17:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to make sure, I'll couple my line with lines from sources (HRW and the like, as I posted above): he has prohibited opposition parties -> No need for a quote, we all know this, the constitution says it. and created a strong, centralized state apparatus that systematically represses suspected political opposition -> The MININT contains within it a vast, nationwide surveillance and repressive apparatus to keep the population in line. and The violation of the right of privacy is systematic and pervasive. Tight political control in Cuba is maintained through extensive monitoring of Cubans’ daily lives.

Please remind me of the 9th word in the last quote? That's right. I'm quoting verbatim. So stop reserving for yourselves the right to revert informed, sourced editions. Kapil 18:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't know, 172 seems deadset on RVing this nonstop with the excuse of "verbiage" (funny how it only applies to the negative aspects) J. Parker Stone 22:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just don't care, I'll keep rving until 172 can interact like a normal person and give reasons to constantly be reverting my informed, sourced changes. Kapil 04:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd source the HRW link in the intro. To 172, do you think it's cute to tuck "suspended opposition parties" in with a list of his economic policies? J. Parker Stone 04:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cuba has received far more international attention for its human rights practices than several other countries under Communist rule, anyhow. J. Parker Stone 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the page, and I'm loath to unprotect it until a consensus introduction has been hammered out. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provided universal healthcare??

Castro oppresses healthcare workers, refusing to let them emigrate. It is these and other oppressed workers who are violently restricted from emmigrating that "provide" the services. He has turned Cuba into a gulag. Castro deserves no credit for the health care or "low cost" he "achieves" through oppression of labor. Essentially everyone in Cuba is a prisoner who is not privleged to rule.--Silverback 12:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

please document specifics of the criticisms

Could whomever put the statements about Castro calling corporations exploitive, and criticising the state of US public health care please be specific and cite sources. These are pretty meaningless statements. What behavior, by which corporations does he consider exploitive? What aspects of the state of US public health care does he criticise, does he oppose kidney transplants or what?--Silverback June 28, 2005 05:31 (UTC)

while i don't really agree with your edits, i'd note that 172's Mexico:Cuba analogy is not exactly...exact. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:02 (UTC)

I do see some of the irony, although I don't know why he mentions Fox. As a person who would love to emmigrate to Mexico if it weren't for the risks of kidnapping for ransom, and armed shakedowns on the highways, and restrictions on property ownership by foreigners, I find current US policy misguided. It should focus more on why Mexicans want to leave, and why more US citizens aren't balancing the flow of people by emmigrating. The question here, is why does Castro want to repress emmigration, if not to maintain the capitivity that leaves him with labor to exploit at below market, in fact, barely above subsistence rates. --Silverback June 28, 2005 09:48 (UTC)

My point was not to compare Mexico and Cuba but to comment on the vagueness of the writing that I had removed. The note on the "suppression of emigration and those trying to escape" could also hypothetically describe policies that the U.S. pressures Mexico to enforce in order to reduce illegal immigration. Because the situations are not comparable, though poverty is a major force behind the migrations from both Cuba and Mexico, the wording was problematic , being so vague that it could describe both Cuba and Mexico... Further, this topic is already addressed by the sentence on the mass exodus of the Middle class and the rise of the Cuban exile community in South Florida-- a sentence that is more concrete and less confusing. 172 28 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)

More on intro

please stop listing "repression of opposition" along with his economic policy as if it's insignificant, when it is a focus of international criticism. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:12 (UTC)

The list contains one sentence on his domestic actions, which include the suppression of opposition parties, and another on his international actions. There is no explicit or implied diminishing of significance. 172 28 June 2005 09:18 (UTC)

his grip on power and the methods he uses to suppress dissent are much more widely-known and discussed than any economic policies he may have enacted. this cannot be treated as if it is equal with "land reforms" and "nationalization" in terms of significance.

You're entitled to your (unsourced) opinion, with which I'm not interested in contesting here on talk, and which I am not contesting with my edits. No one is stating or implying that one is more important than the other in the intro. 172 28 June 2005 09:37 (UTC)

let's keep in mind that this man has been in power for 46 years, so he not just your run-of-the-mill Communist despot -- his personal consolidation of power and the PCC's monopoly on political power has had a profound impact on Cuban society. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:29 (UTC)

Your point? I think all the editors here know how long he has been in power and understand the magnitude of his impact on Cuba. 172 28 June 2005 09:37 (UTC)

so why is "political repression" treated as an aside when it has been a major factor in Cuba's international relations (and Cuban flight to Miami?) the land reform and nationalization programmes were carried out in the '60s -- maybe they were of some interest then, but certainly aren't widely discussed now.

Bringing up other topics in a list is not diminishing the importance of any one of the topics, explicitly or implicitly. 172 28 June 2005 10:39 (UTC)

human rights and the Castro's treatment of political opponents, on the other hand, has remained an issue, particularly with the U.S., for the whole of the regime's existence.

You yourself brought up the fact that while the land reform and nationalization programs were carried out in the early 1960s, the economy remains largely state-owned and state-run today; hence, these changes are just as relevant today as they were when they were taking place, regardless of the number of years that have passed. 172 28 June 2005 10:39 (UTC)

and if my opinion is "unsourced" (the extent of Castro's political control has been pretty amply documented by human rights groups and other organizations) then your's is an "unsourced" opinion in favor of treating Castro's consolidation of power as if it's not that significant -- a scant mention at the end of a list that amounts "oh, and he represses political opposition." not to mention i don't know why a comment about his political power is thrown in with his economic programs when it's a completely different issue. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:57

Reread your comments and my response. Your unsourced comment stated-- to paraphrase-- that 'political repression' is more 'significant' (in what sense?) than 'economic policy.' You will have to cite serious academic research if you want to make that particular argument, or any time when you want to argue that one historical trend is more important than another; stating your personal opinion-- obviously your own personal normative response-- does not cut it. (Just to give you an idea how complicated work in comparative history and politics really is, social researches carry out statistical studies based on carefully designed case and variable selection to determine the degree to which one variable significantly relates to another. Some of these studies, such as the large-n regressions, feature mathematical models as complicated as anything put out in the natural sciences. Historians too are never free to make such sweeping comparisons and assertions, as they are required to be engaged in the merits of the evidence in all of the relevant primary and secondary literature.) 172 28 June 2005 10:39 (UTC)

It is more significant especially in terms of relations with the U.S., which has played an enormous role in Cuba since the early 1900s. The only thing really significant about the economy today is that it's a basket case (which I'm sure I could dig up sources for if you really want me too, despite the fact that it's pretty much universally acknowledged,) not that it's state-run. Besides this, putting aside my whole "POV" argument, you have put his political repression in with a list of his economic policies, which doesn't make sense. And as Kapil has said below, the current sentence essentially makes it sound like he's simply prevented the formation of opposition parties, when in fact he has done more than that -- he has harassed, imprisoned, and (in the '60s, '70s and '80s) tortured opponents. This is as common knowledge as any land reforms or nationalization programmes he may have carried out. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)

The only thing really significant about the economy today is that it's a basket case Perhaps for a U.S. teenager, this is only trivia, but the economy means the reality of the day-to-day lives of the entire working population, which is Cuban history. Sorry, you have no valid point here, notwithstanding your lectures condemning Castro dealing citing things that I knew decades before you were born. 172 1 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that the Cuban economy is a basket case has had a profoundly negative effect on Cubans' daily lives. J. Parker Stone 1 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)

And more than one billion barely survive on less than a dollar a day elsewhere throughtout the world, and I'm sure that matters to you insofar as you can blame their problems on "leftists." 172 1 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

ok, getting away from this little tangent we have here, the point is that the intro throws info about political repression in with socialist economic reforms and understates the extent of Castro's power. i'm open to a version with less "verbiage," just not one that waters it down. J. Parker Stone 2 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)

You're mistaken, Trey. Not only opponents. Suspected opponents as well. There's a big difference, though 172 seems to prefer to ignore that important fact under the guise of "verbiage". It's ludicrous. Kapil 28 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Once the page is unprotected, I will continue reverting. This is because systematically represses suspected political opposition is completely different from repression of political parties. Also, I have the upper hand as I have provided sources that use the exact same adjectives, whereas you're just bending the English language and providing the word "verbiage" as a reason. I don't care how much of a historian you believe yourself to be, here in the Wikipedia your personal titles are quite worthless. It's delinquence and I will not stand for it. Kapil 28 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)

"repression of political parties" is an understatement isn't it? Do you intend to imply that political dissent or speech unaffiliated with a political party is tolerated and not repressed? The meanings are not "completely" different, one appears to be a subset of the other.--Silverback June 29, 2005 10:32 (UTC)

No, it is not an understatement. Everything that you are listing is implied under single party states, which is just about as close as you come to a law-like statement in history. If this is unclear, it's a Wiki, and click on the hyperlink to the article on Communist state. 172 1 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)

As earlier stated, various Communist states have exerted different degrees of control. Witness the Soviet Union under Gorbachev, which was still officially a Communist state in spite of his reforms. J. Parker Stone 1 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)

Under Gorbachev until February 7, 1990, when the Central Committee gave up its monopoly on power... Of course there have been different degrees of control, but this fact has nothing to do with your edits, which would describe any Communist regime, from Kadar's "goulash communism" and Tito's "workers' self-management" on one hand to the USSR under the height of Stalinist terror and North Korea today on the other... If you can think of something useful to add to the article, as opposed to the usual grandstanding, let us know. 172 1 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Sorry for "grandstanding," but while it is true that all Communist states are one-party, not all Communist states have gotten quite as much attention as the Castro regime for their human rights abuses and the control they exert on everyday life, whereas this intro completely deemphasizes the political aspect of his rule. Of course I'm open to adding more info about the subject of human rights in the intro but I know that'd just turn into a whole other edit war. J. Parker Stone 2 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)

not all Communist states have gotten quite as much attention as the Castro regime for their human rights abuses and the control they exert on everyday life Source? 172 3 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

this is ridiculous. my only point is that your intro dumbs down the human rights issue as if it's nothing, when in fact it is a focus of international attention and criticism (as recently as 2 years ago with the arrest of the 80 library "counterrevolutionaries.") the nationalization and land reforms took place 30-40 years ago -- the main issue today is the deterioration in living standards that has been going on since the USSR's collapse, as well as the ongoing human rights situation. if your gonna play this "source" game that's fine, i'll add links when it's unprotected, but i'm not gonna let Castro's human rights record be editted in like it's nothing. J. Parker Stone 4 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

No, you made the claim that "not all Communist states have gotten quite as much attention as the Castro regime for their human rights abuses and the control they exert on everyday life." So we are not just talking about Castro's regime, but all Communist regimes, since you are making a comparision. You will need to present a source. If not, you will be indicating that there is no reason to give you any further attention. 172 5 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

my main point is that human rights in Cuba is a big issue and this intro treats it like it's not. it's that simple. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 00:50 (UTC) Fidel Castro is a god

Communist state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother's name

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

Professional Baseball?

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

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

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

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

Mother's name

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

Canadian Visit

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

• yeah, fixed that and elaborated a little more

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

In Response to Natalinaspf

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

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

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

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

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

Interwiki link to vi:

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

[[vi:Fidel Castro]]

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

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

Swine Flu

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

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

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

---

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

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

really?

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

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

No. That sounds like a pasttime for Batista.

Brian August 16 2005

recent "edits"

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

Removed chunk.

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

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

Remove Spanish header calling for Cubans to rebel

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

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

-- Comandante Gomez del Ejército Cubano de la Liberación"

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

Could someone remove this?

the dictator thing

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

Dictators dont have the support of the people. [28] I've yet to see any sign of Castro's behaving brutally. Brian 15 August

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

A benevolent dictator is a contradiction in terms. Dictator is a perjorative word. AS we know, Castro has the support of the bulk of the cuban people, something Bush must envy. Castro is more like the ships captain, keeping the ship from being invaded by pirates and weathering hurricanes. The US through its so-called National Endowment for Democracy, seeks to fund counter revolutionaries, the better to destroy Cuban society, and return it once more to the status of a mafiosa playground. When the US stops striving to destroy the cuban revolution under the cover of promoting 'democracy', then you may talk of elections in Cuba. As for legitimate elections: the last two elections in the US involved vote fraud. [29] Pay heed to the role of the not-so-honorable Ohio Secretary of State Republican Kenneth Blackwell: [30] Brian August 15 2005.

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

Thats rubbish. Whats more direct than a street march? And if 1 in 11 people march for you, thats more significant than an election in which half dont even vote. And in the US many people dont vote or vote infrequently. Why? 'Alexander said the survey’s findings might also benefit those campaigns trying to reach infrequent and new voters in advance of the November 2nd election. The perception that politics are controlled by special interests is widely shared among two-thirds of the survey’s respondents, and represents a significant barrier to voter participation. A feeling that candidates don’t really speak to them was cited as the second leading reason why infrequent voters and nonvoters do not vote.' [31]

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

Brian August 15 2005.

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

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

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

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

Brian August 16 2005.

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

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

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

In the US, a march might be a social occasion, but not in Cuba, but then what do americans know aboutCuba? Given the clamp down in the US on info about the island... [32]

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

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

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

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

Brian August 19 2005.

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

"Immense" literacy increase

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

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

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

The recent revert war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's Be Honest People

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

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

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

Castro's children

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