Maester mensch (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 338: | Line 338: | ||
'''No.''' - Ditto. Teemu’s ideas had value when the [[Cuba]] page was blocked and users could examine proposed sections on a fairly fresh talk page. On this page it has created considerable disharmony. Users are unable to locate their comments, and the talk page had grown to an unmanageable length. --[[User:Zleitzen|Zleitzen]] 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
'''No.''' - Ditto. Teemu’s ideas had value when the [[Cuba]] page was blocked and users could examine proposed sections on a fairly fresh talk page. On this page it has created considerable disharmony. Users are unable to locate their comments, and the talk page had grown to an unmanageable length. --[[User:Zleitzen|Zleitzen]] 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
'''No.''' — As per above. This way of structuring doesn't work on an ever-changing, dynamic thing like a Wiki. Furthermore, a lot of users get confused because the chronological ordering is only on a subject level. That's not something one can get easily used to. <strong>[[User:Maester_mensch|mensch]]</strong> • <strong><small>[[User_talk:Maester_mensch|t]]</small></strong> 17:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*''Could users who would like Teemu to relocate their comments please sign below this line.'' |
*''Could users who would like Teemu to relocate their comments please sign below this line.'' |
Revision as of 17:01, 25 June 2006
An event in this article is a January 1 selected anniversary
For archived discussions, please see (oldest first): /Archive 1 ... /2 ... /3 ... /4 ... /5 ... /6 ... /7 ... /8 ... /9 ... /10 ... /11
Please see /Archive 11 for earlier talk threads. BruceHallman 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- What happened to archive 5 and 9? CJK 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- According to the deletion log, archive 5 was a duplicate of archive 6, and archive 9 was deleted because its only contents were "save page" – Gurch 14:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Intro
First paragraph
Transformation of Cuba
Hopefully we can work out some neutral wording for this sentence, and avoid an edit war: "He mandated the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba." BruceHallman 13:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggestion? CJK 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Just ditch it, you're never going to explain accurately in one sentence the complex relationship as you're talking about 47 years of change in a vastly contradictary framework. Keep it as it was - "He mandated the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic". Which is true. There's enough complications in that first paragraph without adding ambiguities that could prompt more problems. I've already tried to clarify the "leader" - "ruler" - "premier" to halt one such ambiguity and edit war (not entirely to my own satisfaction I might add). There is no need for another.--Zleitzen 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I even think that 'he mandated' is POV, because clearly he did not act alone. He acted as part of a coalition. BruceHallman 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine. let's leave out "mandate". On the other hand, it would be almost criminal to leave out Communist party rule. Read it. It sounds like something someone would say about Hugo Chavez, not a dictator. CJK 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
My version is both true, short, and verifiable. CJK 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- CJK...
- socialist republic has been explained to you many, many times. See above for the encyclopedic standard for the description of Cuba. You have changed this consistently on both the Cuba and Castro pages mulitple times to suit your own wording - now you have changed it to "socialist state". This is not helpful.
- Cuba is governed by the 1976 constitution and subsequent amendments in keeping with many other republics. Whether that reminds you of Hugo Chavez is neither here nor there. Your statement is simply inaccurate. The CCP were the smallest and least influential Communist party of the old Warsaw pact countries - often subsumed and subjugated by nationalists. Non-Communist Party affiliated bodies and citizens also play a major role in the governance of Cuba as I have also explained elsewhere. So we are presently drifting away from accuracy, which should be our goal, to vague assumptions which wouldn't wash amongst serious scholars of the subject. Feel free to write what you like, but be aware that inaccuracies compromise the page and wikipedia.
- You have added a source from Freedom House the well known American government sponsored group that gave Cuban human rights a lower points total than China, against all evidence to the contrary. Can we please be serious about NPOV here?--Zleitzen 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Socialist republic can be negotiated
- I don't deny that non-Communists officials exist, it's just that they are under control of the Communist Party since it is the sole political party in the National Assembly and the National Assembly + Castro controls the country.
- Freedom House was demonstrate Communist Party control of Cuba. If you actually disbelieve that, I will find another. CJK 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No, (1) Socialist republic should not be negotiated. Editors should stick to the correct term as applied and checked by encyclopedic proof readers from all mainstream encyclopedic sources. There should be no need to contest this again and again and insist on a less accurate description, when I understand that people are working hard towards the opposite. (2) The Communist Party is not the sole political party in the National Assembly - the Communist Party do not even participate in the process, and at least 50% of the Assembly has nothing to do with the CCP. As observed by all serious scholars on the subject, echoing Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada when he was asked about Soviet communism - "Those countries had completely different models, and none of them had anything to do with ours." (3) Freedom House is not a reliable source on Cuba. You can find a thousand American sources that will tell you similar misinformation. The most reliable source on Cuban constitutional governance - is the document itself. Sure, some of it may be wishful thinking - but so are all constitutions. What you're doing is, in effect, going onto a US page and writing "The US is controlled by the Republican and Democrat parties" running roughshod over the tense relationships and historical ambiguities. This has nothing to do with POV or NPOV, it's to do with plain standards of accuracy. Besides, I'll get it in the ear from the Cuba boffins at the London Institute of Commonwealth and Latin American Studies if I don't point such misunderstandings out:( Keep working on it or just ditch it entirely.--Zleitzen 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- What other party is in the national assembly besides the Communists (or Communist-approved)? What other party is legal besides the Communists? If you answer that question with citation, this can be settled. CJK 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Why does the Cuban government=the truth while a US gov. funded organization is not? What other sources are acceptable to you? CJK 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, do most people in the U.K. have the same opinion on Cuba as you? CJK 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Why ask about political parties? The Cuban law does not allow mass media campaigning by any political party consequent to Article 53 of their constitution which limits free speech/press to state and social purposes. Cuba is a socialist republic and your question fails to accept that fact as a premise. It appears you are trying to measure a socialist republic with a liberal democracy measuring stick. BruceHallman 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- CJK asked "Why does the Cuban government=the truth...?". Per Wikipedia:policy, we should not accept, necessarily, that it does. Who said that it did? BruceHallman 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzin here says The Communist Party is not the sole political party in the National Assembly - the Communist Party do not even participate in the process, and at least 50% of the Assembly has nothing to do with the CCP. I want to know what the other parties are and whether or not they are pre-approved. CJK 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- CJK, Why do you ask about political parties in the context of a socialist republic? BruceHallman 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- You appear not to understand CJK. I respectfully ask you to do your homework on what is a complicated subject. The Communist Party is not the "sole political party" in the National Assembly. There are simply no "parties" in the National assembly. As for your question, I have no idea if most people in the UK have the same view about Cuba as me, but I imagine it would be pretty similar given that Cuba is popular tourist destination. My view is that Cuba is a unique, contradictory, fascinating country in the Caribbean - the rest of my involvement is academic. Also, a comparison between a US view on Cuba vs the Cuban Constitution is a false one. By that premise we could then use a Cuban views of the United States to inform all US political articles, we could claim in those articles that America is "an imperialist state" and other such baloney, rather than refer directly to accurate analysis or primary documents such as the US constitution. In other words - we could waste our time and reduce the credibility of the encyclopaedia. Please move on from this. --Zleitzen 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The article National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba disagrees with you. Also, it hardly matters considering they only meet a couple times a year, while the Communist-run Council of State of Cuba fills in the rest. CJK 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed it does disagree with scholarly work on the subject. That's because it's wrong.
Plus, you can't get nominated if you oppose the Communist's policies. CJK 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not true either, many of the members of the assembly have been critical of the government since the revolution including the recently elected Silvio Rodríguez. Besides, which "Communist policies" do you refer to?--Zleitzen 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I'm sick of this stuff. You aren't going to disprove that Cuba is run by the Communist Party any more than you can disprove it for Laos, Vietnam, China, and North Korea. I'm not aware of all the facades the Cuban Communists creates to fool the gullible, but the fact is that one party monopolizes the power. There is something wrong with you and these un-named scholars if you believe that any other institution runs the country. A citation would be nice for your above claim that nominations aren't curtailed. I want to ask for the last time: what source would be acceptable for you to show the Communists control Cuba? CJK 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't added anything to this article to require citations. There are no sources acceptable to show "the Communists control Cuba" because it's inaccurate. That's why it shouldn't be put in the article in the first place and you've opened up too many ambiguities with your edit - ditch it. It should be dealt with correctly and accurately in an encyclopaedic manner on the correct place, rather than your problematic brief sentence, which attempts to convey 47 years of contrasting policy and governance in a few words. --Zleitzen 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- So because you say it's inaccurate, that means no sources are good enough for you. Fine. I have no more to say on this. There are no meaningful free elections in Cuba. Period. No one except for the Cuban government, Hugo Chavez, you, and some misguided scholars believe that. Not the worldwide non-Communist media, not the human rights organizations, not the U.S. or EU government, not the vast majority of independent observers. CJK 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well we'll leave at that, CJK. Me with my wish to apply encyclopedic standards and accuracy (see britannica entry on Cuban politics) and you with what ever point you want to make.--Zleitzen 01:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Will you accept the jist of this intro? CJK 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well we'll leave at that, CJK. Me with my wish to apply encyclopedic standards and accuracy (see britannica entry on Cuban politics) and you with what ever point you want to make.--Zleitzen 01:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- So because you say it's inaccurate, that means no sources are good enough for you. Fine. I have no more to say on this. There are no meaningful free elections in Cuba. Period. No one except for the Cuban government, Hugo Chavez, you, and some misguided scholars believe that. Not the worldwide non-Communist media, not the human rights organizations, not the U.S. or EU government, not the vast majority of independent observers. CJK 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
CJK, for the life of me I cannot understand why you are so fixated on this issue. The article which, theoretically we are all working on, is about a man, a human being, not a political party or a system of government. Granted, the man of whom we speak participates in the politics of his environment. probably manipulates them. But who can for one moment think that one individual, no matter how powerful, can control a whole country (a mere 90 miles from the U.S.) single-handedly for half a century? We are talking about human beings. This article, I thought, was about Castro as a human -- that is what is so fascinating -- a man with fantastic charisma, yet ruthless, cunning and instinctively politically astute. Evidence is that he is not so much an ideologue but a pragmatist. Lets get interested in him! Go argue politics on some Cuba or Socialism page. KarenAnn 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say he controls the country single handedly--I said he and the Communist Party did. Hitler and Stalin didn't control their nations by themselves either. CJK 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, did you reach a conclusion here? I can't find the decision. The text now says "Since his assumption of power, he has led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic, with a legally enshrined Communist Party.
My suggestion: "Since his assumption of power, he has led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic."
I left the last sentence off, because the notion of the legitimate and monotonic party system can be added elsewhere in the article, or in some other form after my suggestion. Do you agree?
Why is this discussed again? Perhaps because the last versions are buried into the inaccessible archives .) Teemu Ruskeepää 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. As said earlier the complex situation in Cuba and Castro as a politician in particular cannot be grasped in one intro paragraph. Information on the political structures should be in this article, I think, as long as they deal with Castro. There are now some parts in the article (notably the Embargo bit) which don't even mention Castro and just describe the embargo in full. While the embargo should be mentioned I think the technical details which do not necessarily involve Castro should be in the Cuba embargo article. So basic information and possibly how the embargo affects Castro as a politician. mensch • t 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, see previous comments above. CJK 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You said a lot of things, CJK. Please tell your counter-suggestion. By the way, I modified the "decided things" for you. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I want the added text that you want to delete. Castro's Communist affiliations are extremely important and should be in the intro, considering they have governed Cuba for the past 47 years. CJK 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you accept this: "He has led the Communist Party of Cuba since 1957". What has the transformation of Cuba got to do with Fidel Castro, anyway?
Intro
TJive just reverted the article with the comment: "this is the most appropriate reference to the communist party; the other paragraph is overkill for sentiments already discussed in the intro." Discussion of communism in Cuba belongs in the Cuba article, this article is about Fidel Castro, so it does not actually appear to be 'most appropriate'. Second part, the paragraph deleted in whole is not 'already discussed in the intro'. TJive, please explain these inconsistencies. BruceHallman 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is not an accurate representation of my remarks. There needs to be some reference to the Communist Party of Cuba in the context of his politics and his actions in Cuba. I was attempting a rather sterile compromise from CJK's previous insertions. Thus "most appropriate" of any proposed wordings so far. As for your paragraph, there is no need for it. The various views of this man are already discussed and there is no need for a colorful retread. --TJive 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- On another note, this talk page is bewildering. --TJive 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- The word "enshrined" is a rather odd choice of words in the very first paragraph. My dictionary says: "To charish as sacred." Is that what you mean? KarenAnn 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- The word has been ripped from its context. The phrase "legally enshrined" (as well, "enshrined into law") is commonly used to refer to the instance of making a part of, or codifying, a behavior, practice, group, or individual into the legal system. --TJive 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've never heard it used that way and I am a forensic specialist in my field. It sounds rather religious to me, and someone was saying Castro wasn't at all religious. KarenAnn 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with religion and Castro is not religious. --TJive 23:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the upper branch with the same subject matter. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- TJive wrote that 'enshrined' ... 'has nothing to do with religion'. This obviously is a false statement. One definition of the word is "To cherish as sacred." which obviously is at least somewhat reminiscent of religion. In short the word 'enshrined' is too ambiguous and inappropriate for the opening paragraph. The word 'vanguard' is neutral, and taken directly from Article 1, Chapter 5 of the constitution, so it is extremely well sourced. BruceHallman 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't be retarded. "Enshrined into law" is a fixed phrase with no religious meaning, just as "in legal limbo" has nothing to do with unbaptized infants. I mean, for Christ's sake! (<- Not religious either) --4.240.72.7 05:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Bruce, if "enshrined" is an issue, would you accept my version which accurately describes the status of the Communist Party? CJK 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is an improvement thanks. The redirect to Communist State is a problem, and we probably do not agree that the Communist Party acts as a political party. I have suggested an alternative, which is ambiguous enough that it might satisfy both of us. BruceHallman 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Bruce, you and the participants of your discussion are not the only people, who have the power on this issue. Do not suggest that you are. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
First Paragraph
Trying to find a neutral compromise, I replaced with the Communist Party of Cuba functioning as the sole political party. with guided by the Communist Party of Cuba. A couple comments, the redirect of sole political party to Communist state was just wrong and POV. Also, the issue of 'political' doesn't make sense when viewing Cuba. Cuba cannot be fairly viewed and judged through Liberal democratic 'party system' glasses. BruceHallman 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have lost count of the TJive reverts, without coherent explanation or answering of questions, and feel it is prudent to add a POV tag until this changes. BruceHallman 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think either edit is worth getting into a conflict about - Tjive's version is largely correct, the Party are enshrined in the constitution, and the article carries links to both Socialist and Communist state pages. Whilst Bruce's version quotes directly from the constitution itself. Encarta get round this by saying "Castro transformed Cuba into a socialist nation" leaving it at that [1]. Why any of these additions is neccessary at all is more the question, as they open a load of problems & questions that cannot be resolved in a few words. ie. When did this happen? How are the Communist Party enshrined? Didn't the Communists and Castro dislike each other during the revolution? etc etc... The second paragraph of Bruce's, which I like as a piece of writing, could be perceived as being too journalistic in style, lacking the cold dissemination of information of an encyclopedia. --Zleitzen 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've altered that sentence to what I regard as a compromise position. It still emphasizes that Cuba is a one party state, whilst removing the phrase "legally enshrined" which implies illegitimacy. I think the new version is also plainer and easier to understand.
- The change also has the added advantage of allowing the inclusion of a link to the "single-party state" page. Gatoclass 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- People objecting to the language of "enshrined" are either misunderstanding or are being deliberately obtuse; however, I have no particular attachment to that term. As for Gatoclass's edits, while "single-party state" is still correct, "communist state" is more specific and relevant here. As for "socialist state" versus "socialist republic", I have no strong opinion though I believe "socialist republic" is the preferred self-description, and the two make more linguistic sense together (saying both "socialist state" and "communist state" sounds awkward, though in the normative definitions they can and do coexist). --TJive 03:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the objection to that is either? A socialist republic with a legally (or alternatively - constitutionally) enshrined Communist party is about the most accurate brief description of Cuba you are likely to read. Plus it had links to the various pages for detail. Bruce, could you elaborate again, I missed your reasons in the discussion tree business.--Zleitzen 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the objection to that is either?
What, the objection to "legally enshrined"? Okay, let me explain my objection.
A shrine is a place of religious worship. The term "enshrined" therefore suggests something put upon a pedestal and worshipped. I think the subtext is quite obvious, whether consciously intended or otherwise, ergo - these guys think they have a God-given right to govern. That's why I say the word hints at illegitimacy - a throwback to an earlier age, of the Divine Right of Kings etc.
while "single-party state" is still correct, "communist state" is more specific and relevant here.
I agree, and that's why I included the reference to the Communist Party of Cuba. I don't think that anyone who reads that sentence can be in any doubt that Cuba is a communist country, or indeed that it is one party state.
saying both "socialist state" and "communist state" sounds awkward
I agree, but I didn't use both phrases. The sentence now reads he has led the transformation of Cuba into a one-party socialist state, governed by the Communist Party of Cuba. No repetition.
So basically the sentence says exactly the same as it did before, but without the term "legally enshrined". And it has the added advantage of allowing the inclusion of a link to the single-party state page, as well as the other links which were already there, so it seems to me to be an improvement all around, and hopefully not one that anyone will find too objectionable. Gatoclass 04:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's less accurate Gatolass. Cuba isn't governed by the Communist party, it's governed by its consitution. This "shrine" business is a red herring, "Enshrined in constitution" is a well used expression which is perfectly acceptable (and accurate) here [2]. --Zleitzen 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was not simply inventing an argument; I was providing one for switching around the links you gave - from "socialist state" to "socialist republic" and "single party state" to "communist state". As for "enshrined", I do not understand the objection. It is not used in reference to religiosity and does not have any such connotation when speaking of law (except in any respect of law itself being sacred). This is a poor and overly defensive semantic quibble. I don't object to your wording, though I prefer mine, but I do object to your link choices. --TJive 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I changed the links, did I? I'm pretty sure they are the same links that were there before. All I've done is add an additional one, the link to the single party state page. Gatoclass 04:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No, wait, I did remove the link to the "communist state" page and, effectively, replaced it with one to the "single-party state" page.
I don't see what difference it makes though. Linking to "communist state" from the phrase "legally enshrined" wasn't exactly an obvious association to begin with, and was really quite confusing. And it's not as though it won't be obvious to the reader that what he's reading about is a communist state. And besides, there must surely be a link to the "communist state" page on all three links that are there now - the single-party state link, the socialist state link, and the Communist Party of Cuba link. Gatoclass 04:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- The link used should be the one which is most specific and informative to the reader. We also should not speculate as to a reader's general knowledge on subjects we are ostensibly informing him about. --TJive 04:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- TJ, I checked all three of the links and they all have links to the "communist states" page. How could anyone possibly miss the association? I think you're being a little overzealous here. Gatoclass 05:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Cuba isn't governed by the Communist party, it's governed by its constitution.
Now who's the one splitting hairs? And do you really believe the Communist Party is not the final arbiter of power in Cuba? Somehow I doubt it.
This "shrine" business is a red herring, "Enshrined in constitution" is a well used expression which is perfectly acceptable (and accurate) here
The point is not what the phrase means but what it can be read to mean. We are supposed to strive for NPOV language in Wiki. In reading back through this page, I see I am by no means the only person who has noted the implied tone of disapproval in this phrase.
Whatever else you may think of my edit, I think you would probably agree that it is transparently NPOV in that it states the essential facts with neither implied approval nor disapproval. That's what we should be striving to do in Wiki, and that IMO is the best way to ensure the avoidance of edit wars, either now or at some future date. Gatoclass 06:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know about splitting hairs, but Cuba is not governed by the Communist party. This is a misinterpretation, likewise, the US is not governed by the Republican party, it is governed by it's constitution. The PCC were enshrined in the constitution in 1976, which was reaffirmed after a referendum in 2002, much in the same way that specific guarantees regarding religion were enshrined in amendments to the US constitution. You ask - "do you really believe that the Communist Party is not the final arbiter of power in Cuba" - actually it isn't. The Council of State and the National Assembly of People’s Power are the final arbiters of power, of which only half are members of the Communist party. Sorry if this complicates things, but it's one of the reasons why this article should steer clear of such topics in an introductary paragraph. Cuba's just a strange place where everything is complicated. Tjive's edit was accurate enough for me, and Bruce was actually referring to the consititution itself. Neither were inaccurate or POV to my mind - but are either additions neccessary? It sat quite well before. I appreciate you efforts to find neutrality, by the way. --Zleitzen 07:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Second paragraph
Recently, TJive and CJK deleted this proposed second paragraph:
- "Castro, in his long tenure as leader of Cuba has been variously described as a totalitarian despot and a charismatic liberator, both widely hated and widely popular, courageous and cowardly, a benevolent dictator, an astute politician and an autocratic totalitarian murderer, symbol of communist revolution in Latin America, a dedicated socialist ideologue and a pragmatic nationalistic power monger. Few leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism."
Could we discuss what is wrong with this paragraph rather than just delete the whole thing? BruceHallman 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I do not intend to restate my convictions daily; I remarked on this yesterday and it has been shuffled off to the archives. All of the relevant issues - views on Castro, his effect on Cuba, nationalism, socialism, and so forth are already discussed in the introduction. There is no need for yet another paragraph in the introduction which treads over this again. --TJive 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are many items in the 'second paragraph' which are not addressed in the first paragraph. BruceHallman 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- TJive wrote: "I do not intend to restate my convictions daily; I remarked on this yesterday..." Here is a link to what you wrote[3] and your assertion "The various views of this man are already discussed..." is just not true. Please explain. BruceHallman 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering that TJive and CJK have not responded, I am re-inserting the second paragraph. Also, I continue to welcome discussion regarding this paragraph relative to whether it meets WP:Policy BruceHallman 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe take the "cowardly/courageous" out, Bruce, to curb some of the journalistic impression of the paragraph.--Zleitzen 17:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I made that change, but I am still curious to learn the real reason that CJK and TJive repeatedly delete that paragraph. I don't recall any CJK reason given, and the TJive reason is unexplained and does not appear to be based on a true premise. BruceHallman 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't try the legalisms. I never suggested that your paragraph violates policy. I simply am saying that it is inappropriate, unencyclopedic, and unnecessary. The introduction, which is already at a sufficient length, does not need yet another separate paragraph to detail varying views on Castro and his tenure, e.g. "he has invoked both praise and condemnation (at home and internationally)" and "Some credit....Others see...." The role of socialism and nationalism is given. That a controversial political figure is described as "both widely hated and widely popular" is nearly self-evident. That "[f]ew leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism" is possibly tendentious and appears to be a personal observation. There is no real value in these assertions. The only potentially useful part is that he is a symbol of communist revolution, which is not a view per se as you are describing. --TJive 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a WP:V fact that some people see Castro as charismatic, widely popular, benevolent, an astute politician. TJive wrote: "The introduction... does not need yet another separate paragraph to detail varying views on Castro" To achieve NPOV, the negative should be balanced with the positive. TJive, incidentally, advocates for removal of the paragraph that contains the 'positive'. TJive, please explain how this is NPOV? I am willing to negotiate and compromise most of this, but somewhere in the intro, that fact that some people find Castro to be charismatic and popular needs to be included, because it is an important WP:V fact (and to balance words like 'fiery'). Omitting that, in the last 40 years, Castro has enjoyed popularity in Cuba is an important thing to include in the article and is not presently included. BruceHallman 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The fifth paragraph
It says "Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies which saw the rapid centralization of Cuba's economy - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries."
I'd like it to say "Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies of centralization - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries."
Reason: The tone is blaming. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Decided things -full-speed experiment going on
This is an experiment of my discussion tree structure. The bolded are the article's content which is not currently disputed. Read about it at "Making a comprehensive discussion tree" or on my user page "Improvements to Wikipedia" Teemu Ruskeepää 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926) held the title of Prime Minister [1] of Cuba from 1959, after commanding the attack that overthrew Fulgencio Batista, until 1976, when he became President of Cuba. Since his assumption of power, he has led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic, with a legally enshrined Communist Party.
Castro, in his long tenure as leader of Cuba has been variously described as a totalitarian despot and a charismatic liberator, both widely hated and widely popular, courageous and cowardly, a benevolent dictator, an astute politician and an autocratic totalitarian murderer, symbol of communist revolution in Latin America, a dedicated socialist ideologue and a pragmatic nationalistic power monger. Few leaders in history have received such a wide range of praise and criticism.
Castro first attracted attention in Cuban political life through his nationalist critiques of Batista and United States corporate and political influence in Cuba. He gained an ardent, but limited, following and also drew the attention of the authorities.[2] His leadership of the 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks, his subsequent trial, incarceration, and planned departure for Mexico[3][4] to organize and train for the guerrilla invasion of Cuba that took place in December 1956. Since his assumption of power in 1959 he has invoked both praise and condemnation (at home and internationally).
Outside of Cuba, Castro has been defined by his relationship with both the United States and with the former Soviet Union. Ever since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 by the United States, his government has had an openly antagonistic relationship with the US, and a simultaneous closeness with the Soviet bloc. This was true until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, after which his priorities shifted from supporting foreign intervention to paternalistic partnerships with regional socialist and left wing figures such as Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia.
Domestically, Fidel Castro has overseen the implementation of various economic policies which saw the rapid centralization of Cuba's economy - land reform, collectivization of agriculture, and the nationalization of leading Cuban industries. The expansion of publicly funded health care and education has been a cornerstone of Castro's domestic social agenda. Some credit these policies for Cuba's relatively high Human Development Index. [5] Others see Castro and his policies as being responsible for Cuba's general economic depredation, and harshly criticize him for the criminalization of political dissent and free speech.
Off-topic
Can we archive this page and start over?
I replied to something on this page that showed up on my watchlist and found that my reply was surrounded by posts in April.
We need to have things in chronological order (at least I do -- as I am easily confused! KarenAnn 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are a lot of discussions on this talk page which are quite old or not relevant anymore and can thus be archived. The topics which matter should remain here in chronological order. I think that's the best solution. mensch • t 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you know how to accomplish that? (I haven't the foggist.) KarenAnn 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just create link to a new page (Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive_11) and start the page. I'm afraid we'll have to remove the content manually. But let's wait a bit until there is some consensus on what stays and what's going to be archived. mensch • t 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean that you will save my discussion tree and all the active debates? Is it necessairy to move anything to archives, when you can browse all the old and new comments in chronological order, but just in a subject based category? KarenAnn, the only difference now is that the chronological order exists separately in all headings, not simultaneously based on the entire article. You shouldn't quit trying to learn my discussion tree. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- This difference now is that I can't find anything anymore on this Talk page. It's become useless to me. This morning I had a orange banner saying there was a message for me but where? I browsed the Talk tree a while but got tired and confused. I found this message from you here accidently because am sticking to this heading as I can converse with mensch here. KarenAnn 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just think the part of the article you want to discuss. All the comments on that very part are in the same category as the part in the article. Please have an open mind for new suggestions. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have no right to archive articles when ever you damn please, infact, it should be done by all in a consensus. I don't like copying here my relevant assets from "archive 11", but I will. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just think the part of the article you want to discuss. All the comments on that very part are in the same category as the part in the article. Please have an open mind for new suggestions. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- This difference now is that I can't find anything anymore on this Talk page. It's become useless to me. This morning I had a orange banner saying there was a message for me but where? I browsed the Talk tree a while but got tired and confused. I found this message from you here accidently because am sticking to this heading as I can converse with mensch here. KarenAnn 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean that you will save my discussion tree and all the active debates? Is it necessairy to move anything to archives, when you can browse all the old and new comments in chronological order, but just in a subject based category? KarenAnn, the only difference now is that the chronological order exists separately in all headings, not simultaneously based on the entire article. You shouldn't quit trying to learn my discussion tree. Teemu Ruskeepää 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, all editors have the right to archive a talk page. Please see WP:Archive. which gives the guideline of archiving when the talk page exceeds 32kB. The archive 11 was much too large at 111kB. BruceHallman 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your law, not mine. This means that the law should be changed to include my fix on the discussion tree. The law was originally made to control the chaotic discussion tree model. If we organize it so that comments are under the correspondent headings, the discussion doesn't get hard to follow, due to the navicatory nature. Then your stupid laws wouldn't be unnecessairy. =) Teemu Ruskeepää 13:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
To all discussers
Please don't be so fatalist in engaging a rather irrelevant and abstract conversation, fail to discuss contructively with your opponent and then crash and burn and "archive" the discussion. All you need to do to be constructive is to express the problem and suggest an alternative. Don't try to prove everything by going into off-topic. Teemu Ruskeepää
- The problem is as follows, this fatalist attitude and use of force according to the POV of just a few participants pushes people away. People don't even want to try to discuss things, and they just come to Wikipedia to force articles for a while. The same people insult their views calling them "laughable POV's", fail to listen to others, perhaps because they think than others "only" want to annoy them, and then fail to see that the discussion has failed due to their own prejudice and arrogance, and then kill the discussion by moving it to the archives. This way nothing gets solved, everything is exactly how KarenAnn and BruceHallman likes it, and everything is taken up in an endless cycle of unconstructive prejudice and arrogance. I know I have seen this endogamy arrogance of the anglicans before in the finnish rugby league. Why don't you grow up, people! Teemu Ruskeepää 15:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Additions and general quality
Making a comprehensive discussion tree
I think that rather than burying old discussions into an inaccessible archive, the list should be organized. This way the discussion could expand without the need of archives. Make a categorial order which deepens in an orderly fashion. I've thought of a basic root of all the present headings in the article and a two permanent "control" categories: 1. Off-topic and 2. Additions and general quality. Depending on the article, the discussion categories should include all the present titles in the article and if necessairy, categories for "photos" and "sources", which are not displayed in the article's tree of contents .
Please express your will freely at the appropriate category of your choosing. Please do not add new discussions outside the discussion tree. You can also suggest new categories at "additions and general quality.
DECIDED THINGS
This is a new feature to my discussion tree structure, which makes conclusions valid and repetition unnecessairy. It improves my design, whose purpose is to eliminate the need for discussion archives. This will be added, I hope, at the end of every paragraph, where there will be a copy of the present section of the article. Decided things will be highlighted and the others are not. New articles will always be highlighted (decided) at first. If a user wishes to re-open discussion, the part will be unbolded, and futher arguments ensue at the end of the old discussion.
The discussion tree should be maintained simultaneously with editions of the discussion as well as the article. When editing the article, the "decided things" should be edited to correspond with the article. When editing the discussion, the "decided things" should be edited (highlight - unbold ) to show what is under dispute and what has been concluded. The editors may do this themselves, or then observers can do it, voluntarely.
The Wikipedia structure should be modified to include the present discussion headings in the discussion page, so that when a user starts a new discussion, he could choose a present heading, which together form a universal category. Also the "decided things" at the end of every main discussion heading, should be programmed to appear automatically every time someone adds a new heading to the article, along with the new heading, of course. Teemu Ruskeepää 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate the good intentions, but I find that the sorting of the talk page into a discussion tree makes the talk page nearly unusuable. Please do not do this sorting. It makes the page far too hard to read. BruceHallman 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just think the part of the article you want to discuss. All the comments on that very part are in the same category as the part in the article. Please have an open mind for new suggestions. Teemu Ruskeepää 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- From my talk page - Teemu, I think the idea of seperate sections on the talk page has value and a future at wikipedia - however, your wider experiments with other aspects of the talk page may be too complicated for the Castro page. You may like to try it on a less controversial topic with less users.--Zleitzen 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but I could try it on the "intro" and leave the rest of the discussion optional. Bruce Hallman and the other one don't have any right to walk over the rest of us and hope that we won't return to demand our wishes. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Teemu, if I am "the other one" refered to above then I don't see how I 'walk over the rest of us' by merely making a suggestion. I did not archive the page, as I don't even know how to do it. I carried out no action. All I did was voice my opinion. Is that not allowed under the new rules? KarenAnn 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Teemu, Please explain how I 'walk over the rest of us'? Also, perhaps it might help if you could restate 'your wishes', they are not clear to me. Neither am I aware of your demands. Would you please restate your wishes and demands now? BruceHallman 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Teemu, you may not be aware that your restructuring of the talk page causes it to be impossible for a reader of the talk page to efficiently check the talk page for new posts and reply. Hypothetically, threading software might make this possible, but your manual 'organizing' ruins the usefulness of the talk page from my perspective. BruceHallman 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Cough! Choke! Gasp! I have to agree that Bruce is correct. So let us revert to previous format. Please!!!!!!!!!! El Jigue 6-23-06
It was about time for your constructive critisism. Thank you for that.
I have considered that before, and I found that you can check new answers the same way as always. They still exist under the category. My discussion tree doesn't change the chronological order of the comments, which is what you are really after, but just attaches a new information to them, which is what part of the article the comment is about.
You are afraid of the new looks, and you can't even try to understand that the category I have created is equal to the article. You still look it only as different from the way it used to be, and completely "irrelevant".
I wouldn't have made this tree if I didn't understand how it works for all.
Going back to the way things were will make the comments mixed and repetitive, the same subjects under different names, same subjects repeatedly and unreadable lists of mixed comments.
Remember that the new people coming here do not know what the discussion history is about, and my tree makes it easier for everybody. Don't be so self-centered.
I'm sure you can make the right decision of letting go your old habits of learning from memory the places of old comments, and commenting without relevance, without expressing the problem and without expressing an alternative.
If you don't understand this explanation, please let me demonstrate the difference between my tree and you tree, by organizing only the Intro section, and letting you add what ever you want about the rest of the article.
Remember too, that others don't even know the old way, that you are accustomed to. Are you going to force them your way and over my opinion? Teemu Ruskeepää 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, I see you have good intentions here. I have tried your new system, and I regret to say, that no it does not make it easier to read the new unread messages and reply to those messages. BruceHallman 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- The editors around have given your system a try for several days now. No one, besides you, believes it has a net benifit. Because Wikipedia depends on [Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus], please consider that the consensus should control, and please agree to stop your 'discussion tree' experiment. Regardless, I do appreciate your good intentions. BruceHallman 15:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Teemu, there are many users involved in a dispute over the introduction. This is not a good time or place to experiment with a new forum of discussion, and your tree is causing additional disharmony. Please consider experimenting on a different page - with less controversy and users.--Zleitzen 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Saying that you don't like doesn't meant that you understand that it's bad. Please read that again.
- There is no dispute, because you have no arguments, just feelings. You think you have tried and proved it wrong, but you haven't considered it against the old model.
- The old model mixes the subjects together, not just the Intro, but all the headings. I suggest we maintain making this organisation to be able at all to follow the conversation.
- There are no "many users" and "anti-lobby" against my tree, but just Bruce, Zleitzen, ElJique and KarenAnn, who are affiliated with my tree. Others are actually using it.
- You 4 don't use it, because you are afraid of the change. Not because you know it's bad.
- Actually, it's absolutely better than not making it. It doesn't take anything, but just gives a better forum. So stop being subjective about it and trust it.
- Please do not EDIT WAR with me until I have agreed to stop making the tree. As I said, I'm now doing it only with the Intro.
- I'd like to add that I know the 1.1.1.1. system is bad, but it's not because of the tree, it's because users are not using the tree. The same mixing occures now in the tree, but atleast it's not mixed with others headings, when they are started. So I'm not stopping anybody from doing anything. They should write according what has been said, and not the old way of not reading the entire unorganized discussion list. It's easier now to find out what has been said, and users should do it. By questioning by tree, you discourage people from doing this. Teemu Ruskeepää 06:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- New comments are in the bottom of the article-consentrated headings Teemu Ruskeepää 07:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I just moved the headings in the same order as in the article, contrary to people talking about the article in a chaotic order. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This talk page
Teemu has moved comments around this talk page again despite comments to contrary from a number of users that he leave this page be.
- Could users who would rather Teemu didn't relocate their comments please add their names below.--Zleitzen 09:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No - sorry Teemu, I'm sure you mean well, but your constant reorganization of posts just makes it harder to find them. Wiki has a convention that the latest post gets posted at the bottom of the page, and if everyone followed this convention there would be far fewer problems.
Trying to reorganize stuff by topic is not going to work because there are a theoretically limitless number of topics and there are also new contributors who will be arriving all the time who don't follow your scheme. So, I think you should stop doing this. It's a waste of your time and everybody else's. Gatoclass 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No. — Teemu, thank you for trying help, but please do not rearrange the talk page into a discussion tree. BruceHallman 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No. - Ditto. Teemu’s ideas had value when the Cuba page was blocked and users could examine proposed sections on a fairly fresh talk page. On this page it has created considerable disharmony. Users are unable to locate their comments, and the talk page had grown to an unmanageable length. --Zleitzen 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No. — As per above. This way of structuring doesn't work on an ever-changing, dynamic thing like a Wiki. Furthermore, a lot of users get confused because the chronological ordering is only on a subject level. That's not something one can get easily used to. mensch • t 17:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Could users who would like Teemu to relocate their comments please sign below this line.