Changes

::It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist.  If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so.  The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear.  The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist.  If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so.  The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear.  The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)