Talk:Mario Chanes de Armas

The action at Moncada (1953)is thoroughly discussed in El Jigue 3-5-07

President/dictator Castro

Guys, the edit war over Castro's title is plain stupid. I'm removing "President/dictator" for several reasons:

1. It is essentially unrelated to the article
2. At the time they were allies, Castro was neither President nor dictator (if you want to call him that) but a fellow revolutionary.
3. The new wording is now similar with the article on Gustavo Arcos.

Tunold 11:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me.

I concur with that wording, especially as seen in the light of the temporal contextuality of the bond between the two men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.134.72.26 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Why the Robert Quirk chapter?

I struggle to see the relevance of the included chapter from Quirk's massive biography "Fidel Castro". Chanes is not mentioned in it at all. Remember, this is an entry about Mario Chanes de Armas, NOT on any and all dissidents under Castro's very long reign of power in Cuba.

Also, Quirk's book is counted among those quite sceptical of its subject (Castro). This feels like just another propaganda move against Castro to me. I suggest this unnecessary, biased and inherently irrelevant external link is removed.

TIA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.134.72.26 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Re:

Actually, I meant "references and footnotes". Not "external link". Which makes it even more absurd to me, as there is no reference to Chanes in the selected chapter at all, and also no part of the article/entry here on Chanes refers to that chapter(?)

Re: again

I'd like to request documentation that the particular segment culled from that Quirk-article is actually related to Chanes in any way, shape or form. I feel it is far too generic and broad-scoped in its nature, to be related to the person Chanes. Remember, this is an entry omn Chanes, the person - not on any broader subject. I fear that the inclusion of the reference from Quirk's book is arbitrary and not chosen by an expert on Cuban affairs. I encourage editors here to be more discerning when choosing reference-material. At the very least some hint should be given in the article as to why it is concluded that a given government process, as mentioned by Quirk, is directly related to Chanes' decisions and/or actions.

Also, may I suggest using chapters? The entire article seems a rather happenstance affair, compiled rather randomly and on the basis of recent obituaries (and only from inherently anti-socialist publications as such - which in and of itself may not be wrong, but the one-sided selections seem to give the article a biased and agitatorial slant, something which at least I personally would deem to be not quite compatible with encyplopedic standards).

Over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.134.72.26 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC).