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.

This article is seriously biased in favour of the US. The idea that friction developed because of Castro expropriating US property implies that it was Castro who was to blame!! This fails to recognise the history of US supression of Cuba (and much of Latin America), for example, the US paying over the odds for Cuban sugar but implimenting sanctions that prevented Cuban processing of the sugar. Talk about neo-colonialism! Much of the artcile needs rewriting if it is to be considered neutral.

--- Come On! There was no friction before 1959. It is a fact Castro expropriated all US (and non US) properties in Cuba without compensation.

--- If there was no friction before 1959 it is because the US was in league and backed (e.g. giving military aid from the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement) Batista's corrupt military dictatorship. This backing was PURE self interest on the US's part. As I say it was a neo-colonial relation where the US gained and Cuba hardly did at all. So what I object to in the artcile is the idea that Castro's actions were unjust. If your big brother constantly steals all the sweets you buy with your pocket money, doesn't he deserve a black eye after a while?

wildeep 9/5/05

This is perhaps one of the most embarrassingly POV sections I have ever seen in this particular article, or anywhere on Wiki for that matter. TDC 19:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

ATTN whoever keeps reverting the "totalitarian" part: it is a widespread criticism of Castro's regime (and a part of the embargo rationale,) whereas Castro will label anyone opposed to him as "fascist" and "imperialist" (read the quote on Czechoslovakia.) Stop trying to push your perspective under the guise of NPOV. J. Parker Stone 05:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The totalitarian part is clearly true, but the truth is enough, and no need to magnify it. Castro is a dictator, he killed a lot of people, he put into jail a lot of oposants, and ruined his country's economy, but no need to exagerate: he is not Kim Jong-il or Saddam Hussein! The life was and is dificult for a lot of cubans but it was easier than in other communist states, and some achievements of the communist era are unmistakably positive, like the education or the wealthcare system ( better than in most developped countries).

I spotted a mistake , batista fled on the 31 January 1959 and Castro took Havana on the 8 January 1959 (see the article about Batista and " Fidel entra triunfante en La Habana el 8 de enero de 1959." [1] ZETRAT 18:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) --

Excellent healthcare? I do not know from personal experience how good the healthcare in Cuba actually is, but if it is anything like these pictures, then I doubt that the statement that Cuban healthcare rivals that of advanced nations can hardly be qualified. [2] TDC 18:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do know personally about cuban healthcare. I believe the photos are real, and I have seen hospitals in worse conditions. You should take a look at hospitals outside La Habana. --UnCubano 05:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

These are the CIA's factbook statistics

CUBA life expectancy at birth: total population: 77.04 years male: 74.77 years female: 79.44 years (2004 est.)

USA life expectancy at birth: total population: 77.43 years male: 74.63 years female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)

The figures are pretty close, it means that the health care system is not as bad as your pictures show or the difference would be bigger, of course I don't deny that there are some hospitals like that, and cubas's health care can't be as sophisticated and effective as the american, but all people are treated equally. Their treatment of HIV/AIDS is one of the best in the world. Cuba HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: less than 0.1% (2003 est.) USA HIV/AIDS more than 0.6% (2003 est.)

(also CIA's statistics)

At the beginig, Castro wasn't communist at all (he even had a quarrel with Guevara who wanted to make a more socialist revolution, he turned communist after the bay of pigs, the best way to keep the power was to have a powerful friend, if it wasn't the States, URSS will do.I personaly think that if he was an idealist at the begining (brillant but a litle mad to be true, he was called "el loco" during his youth) ,he started to like the power, and gradualy became a dictator. But at the begining he looked more like a de Gaulle, patriot, wanted democracy, but also to afirm his power and to be independent from the influence of the USA, even if it means conflict. In 1959, he was pretty popular in the states. Batista was also a bloody dictator, the US government even helped Castro's forces in the last months of rebelion. But, it is true that in Castro's jails there were up to 20.000 political oponents, and that he executed somthing like 2.000 oponents, in his first years of power( some were Batista's bastards and some were innocent). I don't think he truly belives in communism, but it is the best way for him to keep the power.

--ZETRAT 18:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A few more things on health care and Cuba. Life expectance is determined by a number of things and diet is one of them. Cubans like most poor people, eat a remarkably healthy diet unlike those in western nations. Secondly, the two other biggest factors in health are vaccinations and sanitations, Cuba has done a decent job in both areas. We should also take into account the fact that all information provided to the WHO (that’s where the CIA factbook got its statistics from) from Cuba is provided by the Cuban government and may be questionable as there is no way to independently verify them. For example: when the suicide rate in Cuba became so high that Cuba became the suicide capital of the world, the Cuban government simply stopped publishing statistics for it.

As far as Castro not being a communist until the Bay of Pigs, that is simply a laughable myth. While it is true that Castro proclaimed wildly and loudly that he was not a communist, this was done more as a PR stunt than a statement of fact. On December 2, 1961 in a five-hour-long televised address, Fidel Castro said "I am a Marxist–Leninist and will be until the day I die." In the same speech he also acknowledged that he had hidden his belief in Communism "because otherwise we might have alienated the bourgeoisie and other forces which we knew we would eventually have to fight." Couple that with the report from Mitrokhin that Castro had approached the Soviet embassy in Mexico city in 1956 and asked for aid from the Soviets and was only turned down because the despite the objections of the local KGB chief who saw Castor’s value, the Chief diplomat thought it would just be a waste of time.

Realistically, there were between 5,000-12,000 executions with some estimates placing it at over 30,000. Castro is and was a human rights violator on par with Pinochet. Just like Pinochet political opponents were killed, most without the formality of a trial. Just like Pinochet, many political opponents simply disappeared. Unlike Pinochet though, Castro opened the concentration camps, or UMAP’s, for re-education. As to the innocence or guilt of any of the people, in Chile or Cuba, no one really knows because trials, if held at all, were kangaroo circuses. TDC 19:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

-- What TDC said about Cuban's diet is simply untrue. I have spent much time in Cuba and the Cuban diet is not very healthy at all. I think that one of the greatest virtues of the Cuban diet is that red meat is very hard to come by for average Cubans, and therefore there are lower instances of cardiovascular disease (America's #1 killer). Cubans eat a lot of refined carbohydrates like white flour, and very poor quality fats such as cheap vegetable oils, partially hydrogenated oils, and saturated fat from dairy. Cubans generally eschew healthier whole foods in favour of processed and refined foods. An exception to this may be Cubans in the countryside who tend to eat healthier foods such as yucca, boniata (similar to squash), and plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables.

There have been studies suggesting that lower calorie inintake (ie eating less) correlates with longer life expectancy. This could be a contributing factor to Cuban's life expectancy.

In my opinion the lower calorie intake theory is a little absurd, somalian people would live a lot longer than us (life expectancy in somalia  : about 40 years), but to much calories are doubtlessly bad for one's health. The theory , have been criticated a lot by many scientists.

But if we take a look at Puerto-Rico , this island is very similar to Cuba in many points of view, same climate, same history, both populations have the same origins, and has been administrated by the USA.But all the statistics show that Cuban health care system is a lot better. Life expectancy at Birth: 75.96 years. Cuba: 77.04 But the most intresting part is the Infant mortality rate, because the lower it is the better the health care system. There is a direct connection between the quality of the hospitals, and the number of children who die at birth (technics, cleanliness, etc..)

Puerto Rico Infant mortality rate: total: 8.37 deaths/1,000 live births male: 9.7 deaths/1,000 live births female: 6.98 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)

Cuban Infant mortality rate: total: 6.45 deaths/1,000 live births male: 7.25 deaths/1,000 live births female: 5.6 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)

American Infant mortality rate: total: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births male: 7.31 deaths/1,000 live births female: 5.91 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)

The statistics don't need any comment. The region infant mortality rate is 43/1000.

I do think that Castro is an awfull dictator, but there is no need to denigrate some realisations, because he is communist. It does not make him better, he killed people and put other in jail,but it is enought to prove he is a bloody dicator, and it is meaningless to deny that if the cubans were dying from hunger, they were also well educated and disposed of convenient hospitals. And, the fact he was a communist or became one , is not an excuse either.The only one who knows is Castro himself. And I personaly think that if he became a communist because he wanted to keep his power, it makes him worse, because he does not have the excuse to have been a dumb idealist. But we have to present in wikipedia all the points of view, and let the reader choose his theory. Because we do not have the absolute truth, only some indirect knowledge.

ZETRAT

Dagen is playing a cat & mouse game over here. Please Dagen, use the discussion page before you edit your contributions. It seems that they got nothing to do with NPOV. Indeed, -As you know, you must cite your sources in parallel. Giving a reference to Forbes.com when talking about western reports means nothing. It is only a list (not an article) and got neither a political nor a personal view. Isn't that considered as a kind of dictatorship from your part?! Svest 04:12, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone persists on restoring a non-NPOV, poorly written, and inaccurate section in the article, backing it up only with personal attacks.

The following is a list of just the most egregious problems:

"Satellite state"

Aided by a massive buildup of Soviet advisors, military personnel, and advanced weaponry during the Cold War, Cuba effectively became a Soviet satellite in the Carribean as the years went on.

• First, the correct spelling is "Caribbean." Second, "Soviet satellite" is POV. The Americans aided just about every (if not every) anticommunist regime in Latin America with advisors, military personnel, and advanced weaponry during the Cold War. Does Trey Stone consider these regimes American satellites? He will need to describe the relationship between Soviet military aid and the level of Soviet influence on Cuban politics more clearly; otherwise, we merely have his original research and personal commentary, and a clear violation of Wikipedia policies.
  • That is a lie. The U.S. never gave Pinochet, Stroessner, Videla or any other right-wing bogeyman you can think of the sheer level of economic and military aid that the Soviet Union gave to Cuba from '61-'91. Even in El Salvador, we just cared about equipping their military to beat back the insurgency; we never became closely involved in their inner affairs the way the USSR was to Cuba.
    • Your personal opinion on a contrast in the scale of aid and the nature of the impact on domestic politics is just that, counting for nothing more than original research. What is an established fact, however, is that both powers became involved in the internal affairs of countries in Latin America. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please provide evidence that the U.S. ever became intricately involved in Latin American politics (other than Chile and Central America, which are still not as extensive as any objective observer would know -- we didn't put nuclear missiles there for chrissakes)
        • Other than Chile and Central America, well that leaves out a lot of Latin America. If you want to start with-- let's say-- Cuba, how about the Platt Amendment. The point is that no one can make a serious claim that either world powers was not involved in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. WebLuis 05:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, PA. That still does not match Soviet intervention, and you have still not proven otherwise.
            • I have not been attempting to 'prove otherwise' and I have no reason to do so. This is not a debate forum. WebLuis 21:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • You HAVE to prove otherwise if you're going to remove such a widely-accepted fact.
                • This is a diversion. It would be POV to refer to U.S.-supported regimes in Latin America as "satellite states" just as it would be to refer to Cuba as a Soviet satellite state. You could say that just about any other country in Latin America was a U.S. satellite state because of the "massive buildup of U.S. advisors, military personnel, and advanced weaponry during the Cold War." And your point about economic aid does not cut it when it comes to contrasting the power relations between the U.S. and its allies in Latin America and the Soviet Union and Cuba. You're correct in noting that the U.S. did not give heavy economic subsidies to its allies, as the Soviets did for Cuban sugar, but there were the constraints on economic policy posed by dependence on the U.S. economy and loans from the IMF and World Bank, which is another factor. WebLuis 05:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • • "massive buildup of U.S. advisors, military personnel, and advanced weaponry during the Cold War." That's a good description of South Vietnam, but I have never heard a Latin American country described in that fashion. And excuse me, but of course our developing hemispheric allies are each going to hold some degree of dependence on us -- why would they not? The difference is that what you're saying about the IMF and World Bank is POV (and if people don't like it, they're free to elect a Demagogue Chavez or a da Silva, as they have done) while the massive influx of Soviet aid is disputed by no one (and, as it is direct subsidies, is distinct from IMF loans and the like)
                      • To ignore U.S. influence in Latin America is abdurd. Just in Cuba, for example before Castro U.S. interests owned nearly all of the stakes in Cuba's utilities, around half of its sugar, and the vast majority of its mining industries. U.S. policymakers had a profound impact on the economy by changing U.S. quotas and tariffs on sugar. Further, the Platt Ammendment left Cuba a virtual U.S. colony, at least until FDR's "Good Neighbor" policy, and the U.S. intervened militarily a number of times. In addition to Cuba, one does not even have time to go through the lists of regimes that the U.S. had a role in installing or overthrowing in Latin America over the course of the 20th century... This debate, however, is irrelevant. Given the NPOV policy, it is inappropriate for the article to make the judgment that the U.S. exercised greater control of its friendly regimes in the region than the Soviets did or vice versa. There is evidence of great influence on both sides and we can leave it at that... I'm just asking you to keep out your personal opinion, i.e. that the massive buildup of advisors, military personnel, and weaponry made Cuba effectively a Soviet colony. WebLuis 05:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) BTW, I'm not just referring to 'demagogues Chavez or da Silva.' That's also the view of respected scholar Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Dependency and Deveolopment in Latin America. He's hardly a "demagogue." He went on to become Brazil's president, and governed the country under a center-right coalition and enacted orthodox economic policies supported by the United States. WebLuis 05:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                        • • • You have not proven evidence of anything more than intermittent U.S. interference in South America, and you have not proven how owning land and corporations is the same as sending intelligence advisors, nukes, stationed troops, and having a leader who aligns with you on each and every issue and supports every attempt you make to expand Communism in Africa and elsewhere.
                              • So if Cuba were a satellite in the same sense that South Vietnam was, why did Castro's regime not collapse a couple of years after the Soviet Union's collapse as South Vietnam did after the withdrawl of U.S. support? The U.S. also has intelligence advisors, nukes, stationed troops throughout the world. Are these countries U.S. satellites? Your personal opinion cannpot stand, given the NPOV policy, since there is evidence to the contrary. WebLuis 05:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe because South Vietnam did not have a neighbor launching raids against it (durr) J. Parker Stone 05:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, I meant Cuba.
  • And Cuba does not have a powerful neighbor working to undermine and isolate the Castro regime? The fact that Castro's regime did not collapse between 1989-1991 was a sign that it was not as dependent on Soviet support as the Eastern European regimes were. None of the five suriving Communist regimes could be considered Soviet satellite states. Unlike in Eastern Europe, Soviet support was not the major factor behind the rise of Communist Party rule in China, Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba. Perhaps it was in North Korea, but North Korea too was not a Soviet satellite state like, e.g., Bulgaria or Czechoslovakia, in that it maintained good relations with both China and Russia during the Sino-Soviet Split and relied on both for military and economic aid. WebLuis 21:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Cuba does not have a neighbor attacking it, no. I'm willing to change it to "client state", but the influence cannot be downplayed. J. Parker Stone 21:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Client state is also POV. There is no need to state your opinion; the facts alone will sufice (e.g., the subsidies on sugar and military aid). Besides, the issue of Soviet influence was already clear before you came along with your highly biased edits. And yes, Cuba does have a powerful neighbor working to undermine and isolate the Castro regime. WebLuis 21:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • You cannot cut out everything that may reflect on Cuba in a bad way as "POV" and leave all the stuff about "excellent healthcare" and "no homelessness." You're being impossible to negotiate with on this. And I said ATTACK. An economic embargo is not the same as murdering and terrorizing civilians in South Vietnam, as the Viet Cong notoriously did.
          • I haven't said anything about "excellent healthcare" or "homelessness." I have no idea what you are talking about. And your opinions on the Vietnam conflict have nothing to do with the terms "satellite state" and "client state" being contentious and POV in reference to Cuba. WebLuis 23:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Are you going to try and dispute that Cuba's predominant benefactor was the Soviet Union? That's the DEFINITION of a client state. J. Parker Stone 23:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Fine, then let's apply your reasoning to just about every other country in Latin America. Let's identify just about every other country as a U.S. "client state" because they too were dependent on the economic or military support of a larger, more powerful country. Then you would start making my objections above on my behalf. WebLuis 23:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Look, Mobutuist Zaire and other places contain notes on certain people's POV that they were essentially U.S. puppets due to the amount military and economic aid they received from the U.S. I don't see why Cuba, a staunchly pro-Soviet state (with a president who developed a Soviet-style internal thought police and supported the Soviets on practically every move they made, including Czechoslovakia) should be any different.
• The point is that while the U.S. may have been anti-Allende, anti-socialist Brazilian president, they were never actively intervening to help out their successor governments on the same scale as the USSR was in Cuba. Why can't you understand this?
  • The U.S. sure went out of its way to help the Contras, regardless of what Congressional action might tell you; and it's pumping quite a lot of money into Colombia as we speak... Look, it's your POV and no one is interested in your original research. This is a matter for experts in comparative politics to decide, not Wikipedia editors. The best way to avoid this problem is to keep out POV terminology like "satellite state" or "client state." WebLuis 07:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Castro's support for both Marxist and non-Marxist "wars of national liberation"

Due to this huge amount of support, Castro was able to become a major sponsor of Marxist "wars of national liberation" not only in Latin America, but worldwide.

• "Wars of national liberation" and "Marxist" are not coextensive terms, despite the impression that Trey Stone is attempting to present. For example, Castro supported the PLO, which never proclaimed itself a "Marxist" organization.
  • It's specified MARXIST "wars of national liberation" (and yes, during that timeframe, that's what they WERE.) And the PLO is NOT LABELLED a Marxist organization in case you didn't read it. Why can't you lefties ever admit to the ideology the people you sympathize with hold?
    • Please read Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I find it very insulting for you to accuse me of sympathizing with Fidel Castro. I don't want to report you again for personal attacks, but I'm afraid that I'll have to. (Further, you are editing and reverting after having been blocked.) The term "wars of national liberation" in that context should not be proceeded by "Marxist" since it is misleading; he supported both Marxist and non-Marxist "wars of national liberation." WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • A spade's a spade.
        • A "spade a spade" is not a Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, however, is mandated. WebLuis 05:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Wah.
            • Look, not all the groups he supported were Marxist. This cannot be denied. Please move on. WebLuis 21:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • But the VAST MAJORITY were, and the ones that WEREN'T are specified. You cannot whitewash his advocacy of Marxist movements based entirely on the ANC and the PLO.
                • I am not seeking to whitewash anything. I am seeking to rewrite your text so that it is accurate and neutral. And you even admit above, noting the ANC and PLO, that the fact is that Castro supported both Marxist and non-Marxist "national liberation movements." WebLuis 21:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • Two out of how many now? Don't play dumb.
                    • Does not matter. The ANC and PLO are more powerful and notable than just about all the other groups he supported and says a lot about his influence across the developing world. Besides, there is also the example of the Sao Paulo forum. WebLuis 23:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Actually it does matter a great deal. Particularly if we're trying to keep NPOV rather than water-down the fact that he is a Communist.
  • No, it does not do that. It replaces a misleading claim and replaces, as it is an accurate, factual statement that he supported and still supports Marxist and non-Marxist groups outside Cuba. WebLuis 23:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • TWO GROUPS is not enough to take away the obvious fact that the VAST MAJORITY of the groups he supported were Marxist.
      • One could name other groups or conferences, like the Sao Paulo Forum and Chavez and Moraeles' movements today. If you insist on coming up with a label describing all the groups he supported, try "leftist." WebLuis 23:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • It is noted that he supports non-Marxist groups today, but Marxist groups back when they still had credibility.
          • And no you are deciding who has credibility and who does not have credibility? Please read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. BTW, note that the Soviet Union still existed when he was supporting the ANC and PLO. The statement Castro was able to become a major sponsor of Marxist "wars of national liberation" not only in Latin America, but worldwide is misleading and does not belong in the article unless a broader term that can encompass all the groups that he supported can be agreed upon. WebLuis 07:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lack of context for intervention in Africa

Castro's support extended to groups such as the URNG of Guatemala, the FMLN of El Salvador, the FSLN of Nicaragua, and ELN and FARC rebels in Colombia. In sub-Saharan Africa he sent Cuban troops along with the Soviet Union to aid the FRELIMO and MPLA dictatorships in Mozambique and Angola, respectively, while they were fighting U.S. and South African-backed insurgent groups RENAMO (which was supported by Rhodesia as well) and UNITA.

• He were have an attempt at poisoning the well. The American and South African backed insurgent groups are apparently not "dictatorships," but the ones fighting apartheid are not. The lack of context also leaves this section quite biased. We have no mention of the fact that Portugal only relinquishing control of its colonies as late as 1975. We have no mention of the fact that rebels in Rhodesia were fighting white-minority rule. We have no mention of South Africa's internal policies, but the MPLA and FRELIMO militias, fighting Salazar's dictatorship in Portugal and later the possibility of white-minority domination, and insurgent groups restoring to equally violent and brutal tactics (if not more extreme violence in the case of UNITA) are maligned as "dictatorships."
  • Guy, it is not a "dictatorship" if they are out of power (obviously,) and human rights abuses are detailed in those groups' respective articles. Same for MPLA/FRELIMO; describing in detail their fight is not the purpose of a Castro article, but they WERE Marxist, and had extensive Soviet ties.
    • Please better explain how my version is less informative and neutral than yours. Right now, all I see is a rationale for excluding information that makes you feel uncomfortable and including information to make groups that you dislike look bad. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Look in those groups' ARTICLES for chrissakes. Calling them anything but Marxist in the '70s and '80s is revisionism, plain and simple.
        • I am not denying that these groups are Marxist. You are putting words in my mouth. What I was objecting to was your exclusion of certain kinds of information and your inclusion of information reaffirming your POV and thus I wrote the content on Southern Africa to conform to NPOV. WebLuis 05:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Look, the details of what these groups fought for is in their articles (and besides, part of what Marxists fought for was for everyone to be recognized as an "equal" proletarian). If you want a succinct description, Marxist-Leninist will do.
            • Aside from the procliamed ideologies of these groups, it is also important to pay attention to the historical context in which they were established; and apartheid and colonialism are important for understanding these groups as their ideology. WebLuis 21:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • This is not the article for providing background info on those groups. However, for a succinct definition, right, left, Marxist or fascist can be used.
                • Yes it is. The bagkground is essential for understanding why Castro sent troop there. His ideological justification was fighting colonialism, neocolonialism, and apartheid, not supporting "dicatorships." However dubious his motivations might have been, it is not up for us to make that judgment and exclude content from this article based on that judgment, given the NPOV policy. WebLuis 21:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • • All those are characteristic of Marxism. Furthermore, they were dictatorships, as any sensible person would know. Saying they are doesn't mean he supported them because he likes dictators, it just makes clear that they were one-party states.
                      • Whether or not one-party state and dictatorship are coextensive terms is disputed. Further, what you define as "characteristic of Marxism" is just nonsense. There is so much diversity within the groups and individuals who claim Marxist influence to make your assertion meaningless. WebLuis 23:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry but I don't find anti-"colonialism/imperialism" and state control of everything too hard to comprehend. Marxists had their differences, but most were extremely doctrinaire in how they went about things.
  • Sorry but I don't find... Again, your personal opinion is not a proper basis for not taking into account factual information that contradicts your POV assertions in the article. WebLuis 23:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not my personal opinion for chrissakes. Name one Marxist organization that has not been anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and for state intervention in individuals' lives.
      • That has nothing to do with the lack of context for Castro's certain groups in Africa in your biased polemic. Any version that deals with Castro's support for these groups in Southern Africa failing to mention apartheid, Portuguese colonialism, and white minority rule elsewhere is not neutral. WebLuis 07:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

He supported the Sandinista leadership of Nicaragua and the New Jewel Movement government of Grenada; following the aforementioned countries' successful revolutions in 1979, he is known to have boasted, "Now there are three of us."

• Source?
  • I'll find it.
    • For future reference, find sources before putting information in articles so as to avoid putting misinformation in articles. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • OK teach.

Activity of guerrilla groups before the '70s and '80s

Guerrilla groups supported by Castro became quite active in the '70s and '80s, particularly in Central America, with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua perhaps becoming the most unstable countries.

• Instability predated Castro's support of rebel groups. Guerrilla groups were also active going back before the 1970s. This sentence is simply inaccurate and misleading.
  • Incorrect, at least in the case of El Salvador and Nicaragua, which did not become truly unstable until the mid-to-late '70s.
    • At least in the case of El Salvador and Nicaragua is correct. But they are not the only countries in Central America. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • They are two of three countries that underwent severe civil wars in the '80s.
        • And your point? The point is that there were guerrillia groups established in Central America, but not all of Central America, before the 1970s and 1980s. WebLuis 05:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Established, but not as active (except in Guatemala.)
            • Yes. Gurrillia movements were active in Guatemala earlier than the 1970s and 1980s, and they were established (although not as strong) elsewhere. You are making my point for me. WebLuis 21:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • No, I already stated that El Salvador and Nicaragua did not become truly unstable until the '70s, something that you have so far proved incapable of refuting.
                • I don't need to refute that because they are not the only two countries in Central America. The problem is that you made the claim for the region as a whole in order to give the misleading impression that everything was just fine under dictators like the Somozas before Castro personally caused all the trouble in the region in the 1970s and 1980s. WebLuis 22:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • • if you think so then rephrase it, but don't cut it out. and it still must be clear that Castro promoted guerrilla activity in the region.
                      • My version already rephreased it and made it clear that he supported guerrilla activity in the region. I take it from your comment above that you no longer object to my edits of your text on Central America. WebLuis 23:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It should be noted that he contributed to instability and the downfall of the Somoza government (and guerrilla violence in El Salvador), even if he was not the sole factor.
  • Yes, and my version makes it clear that he supported these groups while not making sweeping statements and inaccurate claims. WebLuis 23:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you accept that El Salvador and Nicaragua were unstable in the mid-to-late '70s? Do you accept that Castro supported the FSLN and FMLN? Then we can logically come to the conclusion that he helped further instability in those countries in hopes of overthrowing their governments.
      • Familiar with the fallacy of confusing correlation and causation? Keep your original research claims out of the article... Further, your claim above does not offer any evidence against my revisions of your piece. Nothing in my revisions would serve to contradict that claim. This is just a diversion from the fact that instability in the region predated Castro's support of rebel groups and that guerrilla groups were also active going back before the 1970s. WebLuis 07:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Claim regarding Castro's influence

In the post-Cold War environment, guerrilla warfare in Latin America has largely subsided, and the region has established democratic institutions, though Peru and Colombia are still undergoing civil war and severe economic strife. Castro continues to provide assistance to revolutionary groups, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of peace in most of the developing Western Hemisphere, Cuba is not the influential Latin American power it once was.

• Has Trey Stone been paying attention to developments in Latin America in recent years? Cuba's ties with Venezuela? His strengthening alliance with China? Has he noticed that among the first actions of the other newly elected left-leaning presidents in South America (Lula da Silva, Lucio Gutierrez, Nestor Kirchner, and Tabare Vasquez) was to strengthen (if not establish) relations with Cuba? Given his ties with Chavez, and Chavez's increasing influence in the region, perhaps Castro is more influential now than ever. I'm not making this argument, but pointing out that it is one that could be made. Thus, presenting the opposing POV as a matter of fact is POV.
  • You are free to mention Castro's friendship with da Silva, Kirchner, and Demagogue Chavez knowitall, but that does not change the empirical fact that Cuba lacks the influence it once had.
    • According to your Wikipedia:No original research perhaps. But your POV is not the only POV on the issue, and it cannot be the only one accepted by the article due to the NPOV policy. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Castro specialized in supporting Marxist insurgencies. Where do you see that now, other than in Peru and Colombia (where no one likes them anyway?)
        • Your point? This is not the only mechanism of his influence in the region. WebLuis 05:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Main mechanism, genius.
            • That's your POV, and I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but others would stress the ideological influence, and this must be considered in order to adhere to the NPOV guidelines. WebLuis 21:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • NPOV does not mean remove relevant facts.
                • Indeed it does not. It means removing your personal opinions when there's evidence supporting others. Some would disagree with the statement that Cuba is not as influential in Latin America as it once was... This is not my POV, but it is one worth considering given the NPOV policy, that Castro is now more influential than he ever was, given the growing discontent with the neoliberal policies of the 1980s and 1990s in South America. WebLuis 21:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I doubt Latinos' dissatisfaction with neoliberalism means they'd like to see their country converted into a Castroite state. The point is that he is not actively influencing Latin America as he was through financing guerrilla activity 20-30 years ago, when he was advocating Marxist revolution. Now he may still have some influence, but not the same kind of revolutionary appeal he once had.
  • I doubt Latinos' dissatisfaction with... That's fine, but the article has no business making assertions based on your personal opinion, given the NPOV policy. Further, while his financing of guerrilla activity has gone down, he had some notable success in developing other chanels of influence like the Sao Paulo Forum, developing ties with Evo Moraeles in Boliva, by sending political advisors and social workers to Venezuela, etc. WebLuis 23:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Helping out socialist opposition parties is not the same kind of influence as actively helping to overthrow right-wing or right-of-center governments.
      • Your point? Deciding whether or not one strategy leaves him more influential than another is POV. Please keep your personal opinions out of the article. WebLuis 07:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the '60s and '70s, Castro openly supported the black nationalist and Marxist-oriented Black Panther organization in the U.S. Many members found their way into Cuba for political asylum, where Castro welcomed them after they had been convicted of crimes in the U.S.

Castro has also lent support to Palestinian nationalist groups against Israel, a state he claims practices "Zionist Fascism." The prominent Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the lesser-known Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) both received training from Cuba's General Intelligence Directorate, and received financial and diplomatic support from the Cuban government.

Organization

He has a good relationship with former South African president Nelson Mandela that comes out of Cuba's support for Mandela's African National Congress organization in the '70s and '80s.

• The organization of Trey Stone's section is incoherent. He was just addressing the post-Cold War international setting, but now he is back in the 1960s.
  • Then reorganize it, but keep your bullshit POV out of it.
    • Again, please stop the profanity and personal attacks. I have reorganized it, but you keep on reverting me without explanation, even after getting blocked. WebLuis 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, a spade's a spade.
        • Again, I will have to make a request that your behavior be reprimanded. WebLuis 05:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I hope you don't act like this in RL, or you probably don't have friends.
            • Our personal lives have nothing to do with making the content here neutral and accrate. BTW, by continuing to make personal attacks, you are only digging yourself deeper in the hole. WebLuis 21:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The organization of the article as a whole is flawed. Each section is in totally random sequence, with no coherent structure to the article apparent. Over time we will need to work to organize this article in a more pointed way, either chronologically or topically. WebLuis 19:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WebLuis continues to revert to his watered-down, preferred image of Castro. He has not backed up his edits with any facts, only whined about "personal attacks" (some nonexistent) and made empty statements. J. Parker Stone 04:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How dumb do you think the other users are? There's an entire discussion just above this posting making it clear that this is a complete lie. WebLuis 04:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we can get a vote? I'm flexible with my version, just not so flexible as to let an apologist completely water down the section to make it sound like Castro is an undisputed champion of international social justice. J. Parker Stone 05:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calling you a Castro apologist (or a poseur Marxist) when you are is not an insult. BTW, please don't call me a liar, it huwts my feewings Wikipedia:No personal attacks J. Parker Stone 05:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to call a vote. There is a need, however, for you to respond to the substance of the points made earlier. The political beliefs that you attribute to me (which I don't espouse, actually) are not the issue; what I have pointed out above is the issue. WebLuis 05:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I responded to everything; you responded with more empty statements that proved nothing. J. Parker Stone 05:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you gave up the dicussion, apparently when you ran out of attacks implying that I am a Marxist or cliches like "call a spade a spade." WebLuis 05:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you read? I attacked you when there was no substance to respond to. You're impossible. J. Parker Stone 05:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we possibly hold a vote on this matter so we can get it resolved without having la Castroista running to the admins about the 3RR? I'm inexperienced with this stuff so if anyone could help set it up (tomorrow or something) I'd appreciate it. Like I said, I'm open to changes as long as they don't gut the article (as WebLuis has done) J. Parker Stone 05:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please tell (exact wording) what you want the poll to be on, and then put it here as a proposal. Obviously the wording needs to be something WebLuis agrees on; something succinct as trawling through your cdispute may just leave people confused. --SqueakBox 17:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've protected the page in response to the request at RfP. Please let me know when the dispute settles down so I can unprotect. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 04:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I left a note on the RfP page in response to WebLuis' request for unprotection. I'd like to keep this protected for a couple of days so you can work to resolve the dispute. However, if the issues aren't discussed on talk, I'll unprotect it, so please do make efforts to resolve your differences. SlimVirgin 17:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Can this article be unprotected asap. Others are being punished for the edit wars of Trey and Luis. thids site is being monitored, and any 3RR or rukle breaking will be jumped on. I formally request that the protection is lifted. Trey no sooner early comes off his ban and he is edit warring to the point of article protection. The goal has been achieved: denying others the right to edit here! --SqueakBox 17:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

No Squeaker, my goal is to prevent Castroite apologists like WebLuis from keeping a stranglehold on this article's content. But you seem to have made some good edits in Roberto D'Aubuisson and the like, so maybe you can present us with an objective version. J. Parker Stone 17:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's hard for an outsider to judge what's going on here. I'd say one thing: the best way to resolve disputes is to insist on the use of reputable references for disputed edits. See Wikipedia:No original research. For example, Trey Stone deleted, regarding CIA operations, "over 600, according to Cuban sources,' and was right to do so, because it's unreferenced. He also seems to have deleted: "Castro has also lent his support to various Palestinian factions. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as well as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) have received both military training via the General Intelligence Directorate as well as diplomatic and financial support," and again was right to do so, because it's unreferenced (though a reference could probably be found very easily, as the Cuban training of secular Palestinian groups is, I believe, well known). That doesn't mean that every single sentence in the article has to be referenced, but anything contentious that is being disputed ought to be. Having said that, I've now read a bit about the sockpuppetry, so I'm not prepared to keep this page protected for much longer. Please use the time to find references for any edits that are being reverted back and forth. SlimVirgin 18:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect this article. You're all going to have to work this content dispute out for yourselves. No revert warring, you've got at least two admins watching closely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have reorganised, putting religion well down as it's more of a personal thing, and putting the foreign policy after the internal policy sections. My opinion is this article is way too interested in US involvement in Cuba; there is a lot more to Castro than just that. We need, in my opinion, to make the article less American centred (a fault of both sides of the recent dispute). People come here to learn about Castro, not aboiut America's relationship with cuba, whicgh is anyway not that well explained to an outsider (non-American) like me who doesn't automatically know about the US embargo, etc. I agree with Slim Virginia that where there is a dispute sourcing needs to be compulsory; otherwise your stuff will eventually be edited out. The article doesn't seem too POV, pretty good on that one for wikipedia, but it needs to shift the emphasis more towards an evaluation of Castro, who isn't necessarily synonymous with Cuba, and not an evaluation of how the Soviet Union and US were in the cold war. The obsession with the US and foreign policy as the article stands makes it unbalanced, --SqueakBox 18:28, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. You just corrected many of the problems that I was noting earlier. [3] WebLuis 00:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we have some solid info explaining the economic sanctions (what they mean, how long they have been in force, thier likely economic impact) in the Economic policy section? --SqueakBox 18:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I remember listening to Castro's speech on the Prague Spring (no, not live - I hadn't been born yet). It was heavily nuanced and almost tortuous; he called the invasion "completely illegal and illegitimate" (or something along those lines) but ended up justifying it by some Manichean argument, while sounding neither convincing nor convinced. Does anybody know where a transcript may be found? If we find a transcript and it is as I remember, we should edit the couple of sentences on the matter in the text; the impression that this was a ploy to get more Soviet support would be, if anything, reinforced, but a more accurate reflexion of what Castro actually said would be in order. Hasdrubal 23:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed a statement "They point to a December 1961 speech given by Castro in which he states very clearly that he had always been a Marxist and concealed this fact to avoid alienating people" which is accompanied by an edit summary: "speech is referenced in talk"

TDC, I have no quarrel with the sense of your report, but contrary to your claim there is no reference to the speech in question and so it's unverifiable. Secondly, "referenced in talk" is not an acceptable support for article content. If you give references, put them into the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jack Barnes Selected Speeches of Fidel Castro. New York: Pathfinder, pp. 11-40. I should add that Barnes is most definitely not a Castro critic and is in fact the National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party since 1972.

Good, I have no problem with your edit now *except* your habit of leaving references out because they're "in talk". The place for references is in the article. I've added this one as a footnote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just find footnotes to be clumsy and cumbersome, and make an article look more like a research paper than an encyclopedia. TDC 15:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Recently an edit was made challenging claiming that Castro and in effect Cuba only rhetorically supported the BPP. Cuba has been a safe haven for Panthers indicted and convicted of criminal charges in the US. The Cuban GDI also provided weapons, explosive and guerrilla warfare training to BPP members [4]. This claims can be placed in the article, but I really see no reason to place and caveat on them, as no one has challenged any of them. TDC 17:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

No one has challenged it before here, maybe. The referenced text itself includes no footnotes or citations. The author of the linked Word Document is a Tampa, Florida lawyer named Ralph Fernandez. His bio can be found at: http://www.fernandez-diaz-law.com/ralphefernandez.html. I'm quoting three paragraphs from the bio which cause me to question the author's objectivity.

Fernandez has also devoted a substantial amount of his practice to the defense of Cuban freedom fighters. In 1988 he represented ex-political prisoner Rolando Nieves Machado in a firearms prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. Nieves was acquitted. He later represented a former commander of Castro’s army, [external link removed], charged with federal violations in the Southern District of Florida. He represented Roberto Pizano Castillo in a prosecution by the Federal Communications Commission. He also represented Francisco Rodriguez for his First Amendment activities in opposition of the Cuban government when arrested and charged by the State of Florida. He was lead counsel in the successful defense of the California trio of Rene Cruz, Sr., Rene Cruz, Jr., and Rafael Garcia, in their Neutrality Act prosecution in the Central District of California. He has represented internationally acclaimed Cuban ex-political prisoners Eugenio Llamera [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369187/posts and] Eusebio Penalve in federal matters.

In 1997 Fernandez assumed the representation of three alleged Cuban skyjackers, Adel Regalado, Jose Bello Puente and Leonardo Reyes, on the night before testimony began in United States District Court. At the conclusion of trial the three defendants were acquitted of air piracy. Immediately the Immigration Service proceeded with detention and removal proceedings. In a highly publicized case in 1998 the Immigration Court ruled in favor of the three men granting them political asylum and withholding of removal. The government appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeal. A massive appellate process was undertaken. In October of 2002 the BIA affirmed the decision of the lower court. The trio was free at last.

Fernandez also assumed the representation of Jose Dionisio Suarez Esquival, implicated by the United States in the assassination of former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C. in 1976. During the process Suarez became entangled in the extradition proceedings of General Augusto Pinochet by the Kingdom of Spain and the ancillary investigation by the Republic of Chile. In August 15, 2001, Suarez was freed after nearly a decade of detention.

The writer is not a historian and does not appear to be a neutral source. I'm sure that corroborating U.S. Govt. reports could be found, but these are not neutral sources either. Any third party reports with footnotes and references out there? DJ Silverfish 18:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Castro Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles has just appeared in the U.S. requesting political asylum. Here are two news reports from the BBC and the Miami Herald. Here's a more specific link to the Miami Herald (registration required).

Luis Posada Carriles, although born in Cuba is the former head of the Venezuelan secret police, according to the New York Times. He was convicted of bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing 73. He subsequently escaped from prison. If asylum is denied, he may be extradited to Venezuela.

In 2000 he was convicted with Gaspar Jimenez, Pedro Remon and Guillermo Novo Sampol of conspiring to assasinate Fidel Castro. The 4 were subsequently pardoned by the Panamanian government in 2004. Jimenex, Remon and Novo were admitted into the United States. The Washington Post article mentions that Novo was convicted of the assasination of former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier. The conviction was reversed on appeal, but Novo spent 4 months in jail for perjury.

Anti-Communist Cuban activists are alleged to have carried out numerous terrorist acts over the past 40 years. It is alleged that Luis Posada Carriles has worked for the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF), which denies any connection. The Miami Herald has recently run articles querying CANF's ties to terrorism. CANF deserves an article in its own right, or a subsection within Operation Condor.

For now, we ought to be able to incorporate the attempted assassination information into the Fidel Castro article in a NPOV way. It could replace the final sentence of the Fidel Castro#Criticisms of the United States section, which reads It has been confirmed that Castro has been the target of multiple CIA-sponsored assassinations, but none have been reported since the early 1960s. DJ Silverfish 21:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first photo of Fidel Castro is not a particularly flatering image. I wonder if this was selected as a judgement at Castro and his policies. I have been looking for a better image and I am wondering If this one would be okay. [ http://www.collectionscanada.ca/karsh/05350316_e.html image of Castro]. This was taken in 1971 and purchased in 1998 by the National Gallery of Canada. Many of the other images in this series are currently used on Wikipedia. For examples please see Yousuf Karsh & Peter Lorre. I belive when they were purchased by the Canadian government they were released into public domain. Pherhaps this would be a more neutral image.

User:Dowew April 16th 2005.

The suggested picture is a better portrait. DJ Silverfish 15:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see it has since been changed to a more recent photo of Castro giving a speech User:Dowew April 20th 2005.

I do not know about you, but I think Castro has some type of medal on his jacket. Does anyone have a clue to what medal it is. Thanks. Zscout370 02:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Dagen's edit of 10:21, 20 Apr 2005, because he seemed to be inserting a lot of his personal opinions of Castro but not much in the way of fact. I think all we got out of it was "He is one of the wealthiest men in the world, with a net worth of $550 million. [5]". The rest of it seemed to be Dagen's opinion that Castro was smoking while Cuba burned, that he was an "undisputed ruler and tyrant", that Cuba's dependency on the Soviet bloc was due to the "inefficiencies of the state socialist system and gross corruption", the standard of Cuban health and education "was not consistently good", WHO was "dominated by the Soviet bloc", and so on. He also inserted the unsourced claim that "many of his supporters believe he will live for a thousand years." This turned the piece, in my opinion, into a very biased article indeed. Perhaps someone could find a way to insert the piece on astro's net worth, which is undoubtedly encyclopedia, without all the other baggage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dagen has edited the phrase "he helped overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista" to remove the phrase "the dictatorship of". This seems to me to be significant omission. Batista had been President but was forbidden to be President of Cuba again under the constitution. He seized power and became the dictator without legal backing or democratic mandate. Thus it seems to me reasonable to refer to his government as a dictatorship. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't this information being added to the Foreign relations of Cuba article? It seems more applicable there. There is already a section on foreign relations further up the page. This feels like tacking on. In particular, the first and third revised paragraph cram in too much. It sounds like Fidel Castro was outdoing Theodore Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill.

Wherever the paragraphs wind up, creating internal references isn't the same thing as citing sources. There should be a fuller explantation of where the information comes from.

The information should be arranged chronologically. Any changes in policy over time should be noted.

An internal citation for the Black Panther Party reference was removed in the edit. This should remain with the section, where ever it goes. Please see the discussion above at Talk:Fidel Castro#Cuba Castro and the Panthers.

I've broken out the different versions for comparison. DJ Silverfish 23:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its worth noting that this has been discussed before: Talk:Fidel Castro#Trey Stone, POV, and personal attacks DJ Silverfish 23:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm not gonna have a section I created (and yes Sidaway I know it's wikiproperty, I'm just saying) be butchered by a pseudo-Red hack named WebLuis. if i accidentally RVed necessary non-POV changes, then feel free to RV them back. J. Parker Stone 01:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1st Para Changed

Under Castro, Cuba has continually supported many foreign left-wing political movements. Guerrilla groups supported by Castro became quite active in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in Central America. Castro notably supported the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, which toppled the U.S.-backed Somoza regime. Castro's support extended to groups such as the URNG of Guatemala, the FMLN of El Salvador, the FSLN of Nicaragua, and ELN rebels in Colombia. Castro continues to provide assistance to revolutionary groups in Latin America, but in recent years he has worked increasingly with political allies in the region elected through the ballot box, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
to
Aided by a massive buildup of Soviet advisors, military personnel, and advanced weaponry during the Cold War, Cuba effectively became a Soviet satellite in the Carribean as the years went on. Due to this huge amount of support, Castro was able to become a major sponsor of Marxist "wars of national liberation" not only in Latin America, but worldwide. Castro's support extended to groups such as the URNG of Guatemala, the FMLN of El Salvador, the FSLN of Nicaragua, and ELN and FARC rebels in Colombia. In sub-Saharan Africa he sent Cuban troops along with the Soviet Union to aid the FRELIMO and MPLA dictatorships in Mozambique and Angola, respectively, while they were fighting U.S. and South African-backed insurgent groups RENAMO (supported by Rhodesia as well) and UNITA. He also aided the Communist regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia during its conflict with Somalia and domestic secessionists and left-wing rebels. He supported the Sandinista leadership of Nicaragua and the New Jewel Movement government of Grenada; following the aforementioned countries' successful revolutions in 1979, he is known to have boasted, "Now there are three of us." Guerrilla groups supported by Castro became quite active in the '70s and '80s, particularly in Central America, with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua perhaps becoming the most unstable countries as Havana assisted Marxist rebel coalitions dissatisfied with their respective governments.

Second Para Changed

Castro has also lent his support to various Palestinian factions. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as well as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) have received both military training via the General Intelligence Directorate as well as diplomatic and financial support.
to
Castro has also lent support to Palestinian nationalist groups against Israel, a state he claims practices "Zionist Fascism." The prominent Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the lesser-known Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) both received training from Cuba's General Intelligence Directorate, as well as financial and diplomatic support from the Cuban government.

Third Para Changed

He has a noted relationship with former South African President Nelson Mandela, for the support Cuba's government gave to the African National Congress in fighting apartheid in South Africa. Also in Africa, Castro sent Cuban troops along with the Soviet Union to aid the FRELIMO and MPLA in Mozambique and Angola, respectively, while they were fighting U.S. and South African-backed insurgent groups.
to
He has a good relationship with former South African president Nelson Mandela that comes out of Cuba's support for Mandela's African National Congress organization in the '70s and '80s.
Changed:
In the 1960s and 1970s, Cuba sometimes provided refuge for members of the Black Panther Party who had been indicted or feared arrest in the United States. Anti-Castro lawyer and Cuban exile Ralph Fernandez alleges that Castro's support for revolutionary groups also extended to explosive and guerrilla warfare training for radical U.S. organizations.
to
In the '60s and '70s, Castro openly supported the black nationalist and Marxist-oriented Black Panther Party of the U.S. Many members found their way into Cuba for political asylum, where Castro welcomed them after they had been convicted of crimes in the U.S.
and
In the post-Cold War environment, guerrilla warfare in Latin America has largely subsided, and the region has established democratic institutions, though Peru and Colombia are still undergoing civil war and severe economic strife. Castro continues to provide assistance to revolutionary groups, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of peace in most of the developing Western Hemisphere, Cuba is not the influential Latin American power it once was.
and
Rather than being a revolutionary influence on the region, Castro today works with a growing bloc of Latin American politicians opposed to the "Washington consensus," the American attitude that free trade, open markets, and privatization will lift poor third world countries out of economic stagnation. He has condemned neoliberalism as a destructive force in the developing world.
and
Currently, Cuba has diplomatically friendly relationships with Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Lula da Silva of Brazil, and Nestor Kirchner of Argentina, with Chavez as perhaps his staunchest ally in the post-Soviet era.

I have no problem with the above edit -- it groups it a lot better. i apologize if i accidentally RVed an edit like this. J. Parker Stone 01:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

oh except for the part where it refuses to call Marxist groups Marxist.

let's count 'em down

FARC ELN FSLN FMLN New Jewel Movement MAS FRELIMO MPLA Derg Black Panther Party

now let's count down the non-Marxist groups of past.

PLO PFLP African National Congress

i see a majority of about 10-3. there, quantitatively proven. J. Parker Stone 02:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't this information being added to the Foreign relations of Cuba article? DJ Silverfish 02:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's an important part of the Castro presidency. J. Parker Stone 02:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is more properly characterized as Foreign relations of Cuba. DJ Silverfish 02:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sick of this back-and-forth bullshit. If anyone can come up with a convincing case that

a) the majority of groups supported by Castro in the '60s, '70s, and '80s were not Marxist b) the Cuban government did not receive massive Soviet subsidies and military assistance c) FRELIMO-ruled Mozambique and MPLA-ruled Angola were not one-party states d) Castro's revolutionary influence has not declined post-Latin American late '80s and '90s democratization

then go right ahead. otherwise, i'd like to have a vote on the versions (see how POV some people are if they support that sanitized crap) J. Parker Stone 02:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I have included several things WebLuis complained were omitted, such as Castro's current relationship with left-wing governments and activists in the hemisphere, but he continues to summarily revert to his watered-down granma.cu version. J. Parker Stone 02:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made a series of changes which I believe remove POV and add crucial information. I would like an explanation of why these changes are not acceptable other than just asserting "vandalism". Dagen 03:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• "Dictator" and "dictatorship" are inherently POV terms. Furthermore, you have a habit of adding snarl-words like "Stalinist", "Communist", or "dictator" to the article of any individual you don't like. You need to follow the NPOV policy. I don't have any problem with removing the reference to Batista as a dictator, FWIW. Firebug 03:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which raises the obvious question, why did include the term dictator about five times in your multiple reverts? Physician, heal thyselfDagen 04:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Praise to Firebug for effecting a fair compromise that reads well. Dagen 05:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both Castro and Batista should be labelled dictators as it is an accurate description. A differentiation should be made between today's Communist Party dictatorship and Batista's personalist dictatorship, though. J. Parker Stone 06:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stone, you are shamefully soft for a neocon. I believe the lefties of Wikipedia are infecting your mind in some way. Beware. I reject your comparison of Batista's democratically elected (mostly) service and Castro's absolute tyranny. Dagen 06:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you can call me a soft "neocon" (though I consider myself plain conservative) but this's just the facts. Batista was elected once to the presidency. It's also true that he didn't possess near the amount of power as Castro in terms of economic, political, and media control, so I am not being biased here. J. Parker Stone 06:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know I'm only kidding you I assume. Nothing wrong with being a neocon, on a plain conservative. You are certainly not being biased, you have a good moderate sense of what's appropriate in encyclopedia articles, there are plenty of those who've tried to distort Castro's record to make him sound like a lovable grandfather who is president of a tropical wonderland whose only problem is those nasty Americans. Dagen 06:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to second Stone on this one Dagen. Dictator, however accurate, is a term whose use is generaly discouraged for many reasons. These reasons may not seem apparent, or may not seem to make much sense, but after seeing the selective application of the term eliminated completely, it has become a tolerable if not entirely honest compromise. TDC 03:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

--I've often heard that Castro has a degree from Columbia University in New York City, but there isn't any mention of this in the "early life" section. Does anyone know the facts behind this? --Jleon 14:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jleon. The rumors you have heard are not correct. Castro first studied at El Colegio de Belén in La Havana under Jesuit priests before entering the University of Havana. The fact is that there was a documentary called Looking for Fidel,-which was set to be viewed in Columbia University as in many other places around the globe, about Cuban politics, human rights, and Cuba's future.

The documentary was directed by Oliver Stone in 2002. The documentary icluded conversations between Castro and Stone. Svest 15:50, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

would say that "quality healthcare" in the intro and casting doubt on questions about the credibility Cuba's Red propagandists (sorry but I don't view the same organization who called Elian Gonzalez's family & friends the "Miami terrorist mafia" as reliable) is NPOV. what a load. J. Parker Stone 03:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A very sloppy deletion of the final 4 or 5 sections has been restored. Funny how this went unnoticed for a few days. Most editors are just looking at the most recent changes for revisions of their latest zingers. Point-scoring edits are simply making the article unreadable. Perhaps this is the point. DJ Silverfish 15:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I've edited the Fidel Castro article many times, initially added some "dictator" remarks (totally deletable) but then added useful information, like how Forbes recently declared his personal fortune is above 500 million dollars, and also complemented the "tensions with the United States" with reasons for these tensions. However, all these times, my edits have been reverted. Who's the idiot who keeps doing this? Are you some sort of pro-Castro communist? If there's useful information added, for the sake of not being a pro-Castro accolyte (as most left wingers would tend to be), leave my edits alone. Kapil 17:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What has this got to do with me? [6]. Please withdraw your false and (to me) offensive comment about me being a Castro acolyte, and apologise for your obscenities, --SqueakBox 17:51, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

More than "Fidel Castro". And seem to be really too long and precise for an human biography. 82.255.21.229 14:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&diff=13288922&oldid=13288797

I altered the introduction to characterize Batista as dictator, querying Batista was elected, then extended his tenure through a coup, correct?. [Not exactly true, he had been president in the 40's, but was out of office when he led a coup in the 50's]. I also contracted TDC's ungrammatical interpolation on post-revolutionary repression into dictatorial political control with a more logical placement.

TDC reverted my edit noting RV, by that logic, Fidel was never elected, so we should call him a dictator as well then)

This is sort of funny, but the language of the introduction has gotten a lot more chaotic in the succeding revisions. Can we go back my version of the introduction?

DJ Silverfish 15:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Both of them are dictators. I don't see how anyone can dispute that. I suppose you could make the case that Castro's is a party dictatorship whereas Batista's was a one-man deal, but Castro's been extremely autocratic with regards to political opponents throughout his rule. J. Parker Stone 00:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't understand how "Dramatic political and social repression" is either "severe wordiness" or "personal opinion" (in a country whose constitution bans opposition in the second or third amendment, with an unelected guy getting 75 people in jail for proposing a referendum to provide multiparty elections), but it is a fact, therefore it shouldn't be removed. Thankfully, other people think so too. So don't remove it, lest you give in to the "severe US bias" commies who keep offensively deleting facts from this page. I will keep an eye on it though, cause I won't let the more anti-US pro-Cuba elements in these page keep tampering with it to remove facts they consider to be anti-Castro. Kapil 04:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)