![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
The mother's name is wrong, the correct lastname is Ruz not Ruíz.
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."
The mother's name is wrong, the correct lastname is Ruz not Ruíz.
The PM mentioned in the Canadian visit is wrong. Trudeau was not in power in 1961 (indeed, Diefenbaker was!).
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.
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)
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)
trust me, it was the C.I.A., its vox populi
Sources? TDC 22:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
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
pathetic, really. i trust someone will be NPOV enough to clean them up. J. Parker Stone 09:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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?
while the editor who keeps adding this in seems to have his own agenda, i don't really understand why wik has to be so squeamish about adding "dictator" in regarding Communist regimes. yes there are Communist states that have been governed in a "collective dictatorship" (ie post-Maoist China, Khrushchev and the USSR) but Castro's rule has been more autocratic -- he's generally been the "face" of the revolution, and had the most impact in terms of policy. J. Parker Stone 12:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Dictators dont have the support of the people. [1] I've yet to see any sign of Castro's behaving brutally. Brian 15 August
A benevolent dictator is a contradiction in terms. Dictator is a perjorative word. AS we know, Castro has the support of the bulk of the cuban people, something Bush must envy. Castro is more like the ships captain, keeping the ship from being invaded by pirates and weathering hurricanes. The US through its so-called National Endowment for Democracy, seeks to fund counter revolutionaries, the better to destroy Cuban society, and return it once more to the status of a mafiosa playground. When the US stops striving to destroy the cuban revolution under the cover of promoting 'democracy', then you may talk of elections in Cuba. As for legitimate elections: the last two elections in the US involved vote fraud. [2] Pay heed to the role of the not-so-honorable Ohio Secretary of State Republican Kenneth Blackwell: [3] Brian August 15 2005.
'A march of 1.2 million people does not provide evidence of support of the people in a nation of 11 million. Only an election can do that'
Thats rubbish. Whats more direct than a street march? And if 1 in 11 people march for you, thats more significant than an election in which half dont even vote. And in the US many people dont vote or vote infrequently. Why? 'Alexander said the survey’s findings might also benefit those campaigns trying to reach infrequent and new voters in advance of the November 2nd election. The perception that politics are controlled by special interests is widely shared among two-thirds of the survey’s respondents, and represents a significant barrier to voter participation. A feeling that candidates don’t really speak to them was cited as the second leading reason why infrequent voters and nonvoters do not vote.' [4]
Elections controlled by special interests. What does that say about 'elections'?
Brian August 15 2005.
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.
I appreciate the input by Temtem, good remedy for Brian's lefty anti-Bush posturing. good job with the "links," lol.
I think comrade Brian is overestimating el lider maximo's popularity just a wee bit. a lot of people concede that for a good while in the postrevolutionary period Castro was popular. however with the economy deteriorating post-Soviet collapse and in spite of Cuba's much-Western praised healthcare it's absurd to act like there's no dissatisfaction with the regime. it's also true that no significant opposition has been mounted, not surprising considering its constraints. J. Parker Stone 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
In the US, a march might be a social occasion, but not in Cuba, but then what do americans know aboutCuba? Given the clamp down in the US on info about the island... [5]
'and this is in a society where a march against Castro would meet quite a different fate,' Lets see your proof for this allegation. But youve spoken like a true uninformed anti-communist, Silverback. If you didnt spend you time swinging thru the trees, you might be better informed. So i wil wait for your evidence that cubans are compelled to march.
Ensign Parker: 'a lot of people concede that for a good while in the postrevolutionary period Castro was popular' Not in the US. That would result in a great case of cognitive dissonance. dont doubt there is disatisfaction with the cuban govt, just as there is disatisiftcation with the american government: witness Cindy Sheehan and tens of thousands of people condemning the US for its wars of aggression. You dont see Castro invading a country like Iraq, and creatng chaos in the bogus cause of 'democracy'.
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.
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)
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)
A few questions (I hope I'm not sounding too hostile, because I don't mean to):
I have a problem with the continual editing of this page. So I am going to make myself clear for the last time. I am a Cuban-American. My mother left in 1968. I have grown up with her stories, with those of my grandparents, with various history books, and with my first-hand experience of visiting Cuba in 2001. Some of you may believe that this already biases me, so be it then. We were all biased. That does not ignore certain facts about this regime. I will concede the point that Fidel Castro has improved literacy and health care. That is obvious. What I find disturbing however, is that people emphasize the dillusionment and opposition of upper and middle class Cubans, without realizing a harsh reality, and if you look close enough, you will find proper documentation for this fact: the very first anti-Castro revolt led by armed Cubans into the mountains, consisted predominantly of working-class Cubans. It is true, that the middle class and upper class were among the first to oppose Castro, but there were not alone. That said, there is another point that needs to be clarified. Fidel Castro began as the head of military, and the understanding given to most Cubans in the period from 1959 to 1960 was that 1) he was not a Communist; and 2) he guaranteed free and fair elections within a year's time. The reality is, that in the end: 1) he declared himself a Marxist-Leninist, and as always being a Marxist-Leninist and 2) no one can honestly state that free and fair elections were ever held, especially considering the fact that nobody runs against Fidel Castro, and that he often receives between 90 to close to 100% of the vote.
The other point that bothers me, is that the editing this has been going on is under the mistaken impression that Cuba is devastated economically, because of the U.S. imposed embargo. The fact of the matter is, is that the U.S. embargo has not accomplished what it set out to do, because very few countries followed through on the embargo. Cuba trades with the E.U., Canada, North Korea, Iran, etc. This along with the extensive foriegn invest, Spanish hotels etc., brings in significant amounts of money that almost certainly have kept Castro's government a float. The economic desperation in Cuba is a reality. I saw it with my own eyes in 2001. But don't think for a minute that this is simply a matter of the U.S. callousness toward Cuba by using an embargo. The reality is, is that for lack of a better word, Fidel Castro and his regime, the ones who are claiming to be defenders of el pueblo cubano (the cuban nation) are responsible more than anything else, for the current state of affairs in Cuba. In 2001, the official currency used and acceptable for purchasing goods and services in Cuba, was not he Cuba Peso, but the U.S. dollar (this has recently changed). Cubans call the places and the activities used in regards to U.S. Dollars "Shopping." The Cuban peso, at the time I went there, could by nothing, because it was not accepted. And I might add, most people were paid in Cuban pesos, not U.S. dollars. Furthermore, official government policy prohibits Cuban nationals from purchasing goods or services in tourist or foriegn owned areas, something that in a truly free democracy is unheard of. Cubans who have AIDS and other life-threatening illness are forcibly removed from the population (even if they show no symptons) and are placed in isolated camps under armed guard, where they will remain for their lives. Cubans are surrounded by wire-taps, and other means of espionage and repression by the government. The wording of one of the Cuban Constitutions of the 1970s stated that there is freedom of speech so long as it is in line with the vision of the socialist government, which is an oxymoronic and hypocritical statement if there ever was one.
I don't know why so many people seem to have a romance with Castro and his Revolution, but I am going to burst your bubble by simply saying the truth: Fidel Castro does not run a Communist-utopian socialist state, he runs an opportunistic repressive dictatorial regime with the trappings of socialism. And regardless of what good he may have done, it is simply outweighed by the costs to the Cuban people and the Cuban nation, he has done worse than good. Therefore, if we want to make an objective article on Fidel Castro, let's try not to glorify everything this man does, but give all sides of the issue, that of the good as well as the bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.89.185 ( talk • contribs) 02:15, August 25, 2005
If Castro was running an opportunistic repressive dictorship, millions of cubans could not be found to march with him. But they have marched, and in support of his leadership.
Brian August 26 2005
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)
Fidel guards his private life and keeps his family away from the spotlight. Alina is his only daughter, and she has always had a strained relationship with her father. In an Oct. 8 2000 article in the Miami Herald Juan Tamayo reported:
Wife, Dalia Soto del Valle, and sons Angel, Antonio, Alejandro, Alexis and Alex, have never been identified in the island's media and only in a few foreign publications not subject to Cuban censorship.
Except for brothers Raúl and Ramón and his oldest son, ``Fidelito, Castro's close relatives hold no publicly visible jobs, wield no political power, and are unlikely to play a role in the succession.
Several english kings were said to "rule" or have "reigns", and many of them had a parliament that they shared power with and had to deal with. Castro rules without any opposition or checks and balances. Where is the "state", that would not fall apart in his absense?-- Silverback 08:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Although "President" is the most neutral term, he was first Prime Minister, and then President. I think the best solution would be to write when he became Prime Minister, and President, instead of arguing about this all day and night. According to this site, he became prime minister in 1960. And I think he became President in 1976.
Over the past few days, there has been a bit of a war going on with words such as "Castro ruled" vs "Castro has been the head of state". TJive just changed it back to "ruled", as well as changing "Batista's dictatorship" to "Batista's government". He also made several minor changes, such as stating the "suppression of " over and over to emphasize it more. The word "the revolution" has been changed to "the rule". There are a dozen more changes I could list.
I'm a new contributer here, but clearly TJive has changed this page to match his point of view. My point of view differs, and I liked the page better before. I could go edit the page, but I'm sure it will just be changed back in a few hours. What is the wikipedia solution to these sort of pissing matches, and can we revert these changes? Gattster 19:18:19, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
Why not simply say "ruler AND head of state"? Using only the term "head of state" gives very little information. Just think about countries like Japan, Sweden, or Israel, where the head of state is nothing more than a powerless figurehead. Adding "ruler" or "dictator" provides more information about what particular type of "head of state" we are talking about.
Similarly, I think it is silly to say that "leave" is NPOV, but "flee" and "escape" are not. These words all have non-controversial meanings that most people agree upon. To leave is to move from a particular place to some other place. To flee is to leave due to a subjectively perceived danger. To escape is to leave in spite of some external force that is otherwise a barrier to leaving. So using "flee" and "escape" gives much more information than just "leave", whenever such information is available. It has nothing to do with POV/NPOV.
Just my thoughts. -- Shastra 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll preface this by saying I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first edit and first discussion. I apologize if I have violated any rules, official or otherwise.
I fixed up the grammar and spelling a bit in Relations with The Soviet Union. Specifically:
"The Soviet Union had subsidized the Cuban economy for decades, paying $1.23 per pound for sugar, which the world market price had been steady between 17 and 22 cents per pound. The effects where immediate and devasting:"
has become,
"The Soviet Union had subsidized the Cuban economy for decades, paying $1.23 per pound for sugar, for which the world market price had been steady between 17 and 22 cents per pound. The effects were immediate and devasting:"
(added word 'for' and changed 'where' to 'were')
I think this section is a little unclear. Did the SU completely remove the subsidy and revert to the 17-22 cent world market price for sugar? The article does not mention any of the specific economic reforms, and I think a brief overview of them is required to understand their impact on the Cuban economy.
17:36, 31 August 2005
I would like to formally encourage contributors of this page to discuss their differences and to draft a common version on the talk page rather than reverting the article. Having edit summarises such as
followed by
is not indicative of a progress in the redaction of the article, and is not acceptable.
I therefore strongly encourage all contributor to refrain from playing with the letter of rules like the 3RR and think about the real issues. Thank you. Rama 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Isn't there a way you people could be neutral about this. The revert war is getting silly, and is far from any standards that the project expects of its editors. Your personal POV should not affect the way you write articles on Wikipedia. Period. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 12:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
We give references. We source everything. They continue to revert to their POV. Do you suggest that we should just pack up and go home? Allow this to become Rightwingopedia? Grace Note 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Response to NWOG's revert & request for sources: The 7% claim comes from, among other sources, http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/80-cucas.htm, which says:
"More than 1/2 million refugees left Cuba in the first 3 years of the Castro regime"
Since the population of Cuba was about 7 million in 1961, the rest is simply pure arithmetic. If doing arithmetic counts as original research, we could of course quote absolute numbers instead. But that would make the article more verbose. -- Shastra 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Domestically, he has overseen the implementation of radical land reform, nationalization of leading Cuban industries, and social programs that increased the nation's literacy rate and instituted universal healthcare.
The following statement social programs that increased the nation's literacy rate needs a source, as it implies a relationship between an increased literacy rate, which has been seen all over Latin America during the given timeframe, and social programs. TDC 21:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The National Literacy Campaign of 1961, recognized as one of the most successful initiatives of its kind, mobilized teachers, workers, and secondary school students to teach more than 700,000 persons how to read. This campaign reduced the illiteracy rate from 23% to 4% in the space of one year.
[8]
El_C
22:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)During the year-long, massive national effort that was to be the result of Castro's daring declaration, 707,212 people became literate, or achieved a level of reading and writing equivalent to that of a first-grader. Cuba's overall illiteracy rate was reduced from over 20 percent, according to the last census taken before the Revolution, to 3.9 percent, a rate far lower than that of any other Latin American country.
El_C
01:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
After Stalin, it could be argued that the USSR became a totalitarian oligarchy rather than a totalitarian dictatorship, because there was some distribution of power and there had been peaceful transitions of power, and there was no longer a personality cult surrounding the leader. Neither holds with Castro, there is a personality cult and no proof that the "state" he established can survive him, despite the fact that he has designated a relative as a successor. Although a totalitarian oligarchy may not sound as negative as totalitarian dictator, it can be every bit as controlling and repressive. One sure sign of either is when they are so bad that they must violently suppress attempts to emigrate.-- Silverback 03:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Only his 2 brothers are mentioned. He has a sister Juanita Castro Ruz who is a vocal opponent of his. http://www.christusrex.org/www2/fcf/castrosister112497.html http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/world/12330296.htm http://www.ciponline.org/cuba/cubainthenews/newsarticles/ap071101lacorte.htm http://www.christusrex.org/www2/fcf/castrosister.html
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
The mother's name is wrong, the correct lastname is Ruz not Ruíz.
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."
The mother's name is wrong, the correct lastname is Ruz not Ruíz.
The PM mentioned in the Canadian visit is wrong. Trudeau was not in power in 1961 (indeed, Diefenbaker was!).
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.
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)
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)
trust me, it was the C.I.A., its vox populi
Sources? TDC 22:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
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
pathetic, really. i trust someone will be NPOV enough to clean them up. J. Parker Stone 09:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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?
while the editor who keeps adding this in seems to have his own agenda, i don't really understand why wik has to be so squeamish about adding "dictator" in regarding Communist regimes. yes there are Communist states that have been governed in a "collective dictatorship" (ie post-Maoist China, Khrushchev and the USSR) but Castro's rule has been more autocratic -- he's generally been the "face" of the revolution, and had the most impact in terms of policy. J. Parker Stone 12:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Dictators dont have the support of the people. [1] I've yet to see any sign of Castro's behaving brutally. Brian 15 August
A benevolent dictator is a contradiction in terms. Dictator is a perjorative word. AS we know, Castro has the support of the bulk of the cuban people, something Bush must envy. Castro is more like the ships captain, keeping the ship from being invaded by pirates and weathering hurricanes. The US through its so-called National Endowment for Democracy, seeks to fund counter revolutionaries, the better to destroy Cuban society, and return it once more to the status of a mafiosa playground. When the US stops striving to destroy the cuban revolution under the cover of promoting 'democracy', then you may talk of elections in Cuba. As for legitimate elections: the last two elections in the US involved vote fraud. [2] Pay heed to the role of the not-so-honorable Ohio Secretary of State Republican Kenneth Blackwell: [3] Brian August 15 2005.
'A march of 1.2 million people does not provide evidence of support of the people in a nation of 11 million. Only an election can do that'
Thats rubbish. Whats more direct than a street march? And if 1 in 11 people march for you, thats more significant than an election in which half dont even vote. And in the US many people dont vote or vote infrequently. Why? 'Alexander said the survey’s findings might also benefit those campaigns trying to reach infrequent and new voters in advance of the November 2nd election. The perception that politics are controlled by special interests is widely shared among two-thirds of the survey’s respondents, and represents a significant barrier to voter participation. A feeling that candidates don’t really speak to them was cited as the second leading reason why infrequent voters and nonvoters do not vote.' [4]
Elections controlled by special interests. What does that say about 'elections'?
Brian August 15 2005.
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.
I appreciate the input by Temtem, good remedy for Brian's lefty anti-Bush posturing. good job with the "links," lol.
I think comrade Brian is overestimating el lider maximo's popularity just a wee bit. a lot of people concede that for a good while in the postrevolutionary period Castro was popular. however with the economy deteriorating post-Soviet collapse and in spite of Cuba's much-Western praised healthcare it's absurd to act like there's no dissatisfaction with the regime. it's also true that no significant opposition has been mounted, not surprising considering its constraints. J. Parker Stone 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
In the US, a march might be a social occasion, but not in Cuba, but then what do americans know aboutCuba? Given the clamp down in the US on info about the island... [5]
'and this is in a society where a march against Castro would meet quite a different fate,' Lets see your proof for this allegation. But youve spoken like a true uninformed anti-communist, Silverback. If you didnt spend you time swinging thru the trees, you might be better informed. So i wil wait for your evidence that cubans are compelled to march.
Ensign Parker: 'a lot of people concede that for a good while in the postrevolutionary period Castro was popular' Not in the US. That would result in a great case of cognitive dissonance. dont doubt there is disatisfaction with the cuban govt, just as there is disatisiftcation with the american government: witness Cindy Sheehan and tens of thousands of people condemning the US for its wars of aggression. You dont see Castro invading a country like Iraq, and creatng chaos in the bogus cause of 'democracy'.
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.
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)
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)
A few questions (I hope I'm not sounding too hostile, because I don't mean to):
I have a problem with the continual editing of this page. So I am going to make myself clear for the last time. I am a Cuban-American. My mother left in 1968. I have grown up with her stories, with those of my grandparents, with various history books, and with my first-hand experience of visiting Cuba in 2001. Some of you may believe that this already biases me, so be it then. We were all biased. That does not ignore certain facts about this regime. I will concede the point that Fidel Castro has improved literacy and health care. That is obvious. What I find disturbing however, is that people emphasize the dillusionment and opposition of upper and middle class Cubans, without realizing a harsh reality, and if you look close enough, you will find proper documentation for this fact: the very first anti-Castro revolt led by armed Cubans into the mountains, consisted predominantly of working-class Cubans. It is true, that the middle class and upper class were among the first to oppose Castro, but there were not alone. That said, there is another point that needs to be clarified. Fidel Castro began as the head of military, and the understanding given to most Cubans in the period from 1959 to 1960 was that 1) he was not a Communist; and 2) he guaranteed free and fair elections within a year's time. The reality is, that in the end: 1) he declared himself a Marxist-Leninist, and as always being a Marxist-Leninist and 2) no one can honestly state that free and fair elections were ever held, especially considering the fact that nobody runs against Fidel Castro, and that he often receives between 90 to close to 100% of the vote.
The other point that bothers me, is that the editing this has been going on is under the mistaken impression that Cuba is devastated economically, because of the U.S. imposed embargo. The fact of the matter is, is that the U.S. embargo has not accomplished what it set out to do, because very few countries followed through on the embargo. Cuba trades with the E.U., Canada, North Korea, Iran, etc. This along with the extensive foriegn invest, Spanish hotels etc., brings in significant amounts of money that almost certainly have kept Castro's government a float. The economic desperation in Cuba is a reality. I saw it with my own eyes in 2001. But don't think for a minute that this is simply a matter of the U.S. callousness toward Cuba by using an embargo. The reality is, is that for lack of a better word, Fidel Castro and his regime, the ones who are claiming to be defenders of el pueblo cubano (the cuban nation) are responsible more than anything else, for the current state of affairs in Cuba. In 2001, the official currency used and acceptable for purchasing goods and services in Cuba, was not he Cuba Peso, but the U.S. dollar (this has recently changed). Cubans call the places and the activities used in regards to U.S. Dollars "Shopping." The Cuban peso, at the time I went there, could by nothing, because it was not accepted. And I might add, most people were paid in Cuban pesos, not U.S. dollars. Furthermore, official government policy prohibits Cuban nationals from purchasing goods or services in tourist or foriegn owned areas, something that in a truly free democracy is unheard of. Cubans who have AIDS and other life-threatening illness are forcibly removed from the population (even if they show no symptons) and are placed in isolated camps under armed guard, where they will remain for their lives. Cubans are surrounded by wire-taps, and other means of espionage and repression by the government. The wording of one of the Cuban Constitutions of the 1970s stated that there is freedom of speech so long as it is in line with the vision of the socialist government, which is an oxymoronic and hypocritical statement if there ever was one.
I don't know why so many people seem to have a romance with Castro and his Revolution, but I am going to burst your bubble by simply saying the truth: Fidel Castro does not run a Communist-utopian socialist state, he runs an opportunistic repressive dictatorial regime with the trappings of socialism. And regardless of what good he may have done, it is simply outweighed by the costs to the Cuban people and the Cuban nation, he has done worse than good. Therefore, if we want to make an objective article on Fidel Castro, let's try not to glorify everything this man does, but give all sides of the issue, that of the good as well as the bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.89.185 ( talk • contribs) 02:15, August 25, 2005
If Castro was running an opportunistic repressive dictorship, millions of cubans could not be found to march with him. But they have marched, and in support of his leadership.
Brian August 26 2005
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)
Fidel guards his private life and keeps his family away from the spotlight. Alina is his only daughter, and she has always had a strained relationship with her father. In an Oct. 8 2000 article in the Miami Herald Juan Tamayo reported:
Wife, Dalia Soto del Valle, and sons Angel, Antonio, Alejandro, Alexis and Alex, have never been identified in the island's media and only in a few foreign publications not subject to Cuban censorship.
Except for brothers Raúl and Ramón and his oldest son, ``Fidelito, Castro's close relatives hold no publicly visible jobs, wield no political power, and are unlikely to play a role in the succession.
Several english kings were said to "rule" or have "reigns", and many of them had a parliament that they shared power with and had to deal with. Castro rules without any opposition or checks and balances. Where is the "state", that would not fall apart in his absense?-- Silverback 08:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Although "President" is the most neutral term, he was first Prime Minister, and then President. I think the best solution would be to write when he became Prime Minister, and President, instead of arguing about this all day and night. According to this site, he became prime minister in 1960. And I think he became President in 1976.
Over the past few days, there has been a bit of a war going on with words such as "Castro ruled" vs "Castro has been the head of state". TJive just changed it back to "ruled", as well as changing "Batista's dictatorship" to "Batista's government". He also made several minor changes, such as stating the "suppression of " over and over to emphasize it more. The word "the revolution" has been changed to "the rule". There are a dozen more changes I could list.
I'm a new contributer here, but clearly TJive has changed this page to match his point of view. My point of view differs, and I liked the page better before. I could go edit the page, but I'm sure it will just be changed back in a few hours. What is the wikipedia solution to these sort of pissing matches, and can we revert these changes? Gattster 19:18:19, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
Why not simply say "ruler AND head of state"? Using only the term "head of state" gives very little information. Just think about countries like Japan, Sweden, or Israel, where the head of state is nothing more than a powerless figurehead. Adding "ruler" or "dictator" provides more information about what particular type of "head of state" we are talking about.
Similarly, I think it is silly to say that "leave" is NPOV, but "flee" and "escape" are not. These words all have non-controversial meanings that most people agree upon. To leave is to move from a particular place to some other place. To flee is to leave due to a subjectively perceived danger. To escape is to leave in spite of some external force that is otherwise a barrier to leaving. So using "flee" and "escape" gives much more information than just "leave", whenever such information is available. It has nothing to do with POV/NPOV.
Just my thoughts. -- Shastra 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll preface this by saying I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first edit and first discussion. I apologize if I have violated any rules, official or otherwise.
I fixed up the grammar and spelling a bit in Relations with The Soviet Union. Specifically:
"The Soviet Union had subsidized the Cuban economy for decades, paying $1.23 per pound for sugar, which the world market price had been steady between 17 and 22 cents per pound. The effects where immediate and devasting:"
has become,
"The Soviet Union had subsidized the Cuban economy for decades, paying $1.23 per pound for sugar, for which the world market price had been steady between 17 and 22 cents per pound. The effects were immediate and devasting:"
(added word 'for' and changed 'where' to 'were')
I think this section is a little unclear. Did the SU completely remove the subsidy and revert to the 17-22 cent world market price for sugar? The article does not mention any of the specific economic reforms, and I think a brief overview of them is required to understand their impact on the Cuban economy.
17:36, 31 August 2005
I would like to formally encourage contributors of this page to discuss their differences and to draft a common version on the talk page rather than reverting the article. Having edit summarises such as
followed by
is not indicative of a progress in the redaction of the article, and is not acceptable.
I therefore strongly encourage all contributor to refrain from playing with the letter of rules like the 3RR and think about the real issues. Thank you. Rama 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Isn't there a way you people could be neutral about this. The revert war is getting silly, and is far from any standards that the project expects of its editors. Your personal POV should not affect the way you write articles on Wikipedia. Period. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 12:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
We give references. We source everything. They continue to revert to their POV. Do you suggest that we should just pack up and go home? Allow this to become Rightwingopedia? Grace Note 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Response to NWOG's revert & request for sources: The 7% claim comes from, among other sources, http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/80-cucas.htm, which says:
"More than 1/2 million refugees left Cuba in the first 3 years of the Castro regime"
Since the population of Cuba was about 7 million in 1961, the rest is simply pure arithmetic. If doing arithmetic counts as original research, we could of course quote absolute numbers instead. But that would make the article more verbose. -- Shastra 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Domestically, he has overseen the implementation of radical land reform, nationalization of leading Cuban industries, and social programs that increased the nation's literacy rate and instituted universal healthcare.
The following statement social programs that increased the nation's literacy rate needs a source, as it implies a relationship between an increased literacy rate, which has been seen all over Latin America during the given timeframe, and social programs. TDC 21:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The National Literacy Campaign of 1961, recognized as one of the most successful initiatives of its kind, mobilized teachers, workers, and secondary school students to teach more than 700,000 persons how to read. This campaign reduced the illiteracy rate from 23% to 4% in the space of one year.
[8]
El_C
22:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)During the year-long, massive national effort that was to be the result of Castro's daring declaration, 707,212 people became literate, or achieved a level of reading and writing equivalent to that of a first-grader. Cuba's overall illiteracy rate was reduced from over 20 percent, according to the last census taken before the Revolution, to 3.9 percent, a rate far lower than that of any other Latin American country.
El_C
01:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
After Stalin, it could be argued that the USSR became a totalitarian oligarchy rather than a totalitarian dictatorship, because there was some distribution of power and there had been peaceful transitions of power, and there was no longer a personality cult surrounding the leader. Neither holds with Castro, there is a personality cult and no proof that the "state" he established can survive him, despite the fact that he has designated a relative as a successor. Although a totalitarian oligarchy may not sound as negative as totalitarian dictator, it can be every bit as controlling and repressive. One sure sign of either is when they are so bad that they must violently suppress attempts to emigrate.-- Silverback 03:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Only his 2 brothers are mentioned. He has a sister Juanita Castro Ruz who is a vocal opponent of his. http://www.christusrex.org/www2/fcf/castrosister112497.html http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/world/12330296.htm http://www.ciponline.org/cuba/cubainthenews/newsarticles/ap071101lacorte.htm http://www.christusrex.org/www2/fcf/castrosister.html