Talk:Cult of personality/Castro archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following erupted into a rather long discussion, so I archived it here, leaving the essence in Talk:Cult of personality#Fidel Castro. The thread is rather badly structured because at one point an earlier discussion was added in and the present discussion then continued before that. The 'last words' are in the section that runs off to the right, near the bottom.


Should Cuba's Fidel Castro and the "Fidelistas" be noted here? I'm not an expert, so I won't edit the page, but it seems from what I've read that he definately should be included in the list of notables. --Cryptnotic 23:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it is a glaring omission, but expect to be quickly embattled with some of those very "Fidelistas" from the bourgeois comforts of the American and Western European homes they inhabit. --TJive 20:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

SOL :) . I wouldn't call myself a 'Fidelista' (I had never even heard of the word). Castro has some serious shortcomings to put it mildly (though I'm not sure how much of the wrongdoings in Cuba can be accredited to Castro). But there is hardly a personality cult around him. Sure, he's on TV a lot, but which leader of a country isn't? You gave the url to a website that had a photograph of a poster with Fidel on it. But I've traveled around Cuba for five weeks and I haven't seen a single one! And as the article says "The leader's picture appears everywhere, as do statues and other monuments to the leader's greatness and wisdom." None of that. There are some depictions of Che Guevara (although, apparently, he hated this sort of adolation). Actually, I've seen more posters of the Pope than of any of the Cuban leaders. The only person you run into constantly (there's a statue or bust of his on almost every square) is José Martí. So maybe he could be put on the list? There are books of his everywhere, more than of Castro (well, the guy was a writer...). His adolation is indeed almost religious (a third requirement mentioned in the article). But people talk more of the pros and cons of Socialism (eg free health care vs high taxes) than about the leaders. DirkvdM 17:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This list article limits the use of the term to those who had a cult of personality during their lives. On that basis Marti and Guevara wouldn't count. -Willmcw 23:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
You are taking one single line out of context from the article and attempting to instill the impression that because your own personal observations differ it is an errant conclusion to reach. First of all, that constitutes original research. Second, there is a fuller discussion of this which I am moving from User talk:Mihnea Tudoreanu (and responding to). --TJive 08:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'll continue here, so as not to break up the storyline (btw, the discussion below is difficult to follow since it is taken out of context). Strictly speaking, me hardly seeing any depictions of Castro is original research. But come on, that makes it blatantly obvious that that aspect of Cult of personality is not present in Cuba (regarding Castro). If the weatherman says it's pouring in Amsterdam and I look out the window and don't see a cloud in the sky, then that is original research. So am I to believe the weather man then?
About the copied discussion below. It doesn't add too much to what's been said. Again, it all seems to hang on the appearance of the persons image. Sure, Castro will have appeared on posters and stamps. So does the Dutch queen. She appears on Dutch coins too. And there is even a national holiday in her name. What matters is to which extent something like that happens. As the article says The leader's picture appears everywhere. And that is most definitely not the case. Another one: The leader's slogans and other quotes cover massive billboards. Sure, there are many such billboards in Cuba (which irritated me at first until I noticed that there are actually not quite as many huge billboards as in the Netherlands - the commercial ones are almost totally absent). But the most quoted person is, again, José Martí. I can't remember having seeing any quoting Castro. Not that I was looking for them, but if there would have been many I would have noticed - it actually surprised me how little reference I saw to Castro, since I really expected something like a personality cult. As for writings of Castro, yes there many to be bought in Cuba, but, again, not as many as from José Martí. What struck me most in this respect is that there is an abundance of Communist writings, so there certainly is indoctrination (but don't think we in 'the West' don't get indoctrinated - I could name a few examples, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion). But that's not the issue here. Castro certainly doesn't dominate this. The ideology does, but not Castro personally (nor writings about Castro, for that matter). DirkvdM 12:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in tertiary discussions over relativist musings about indoctrination, and it is absurd that you insert casual musings to trump long considered observations. No one here has ever contested that similar post-humous "cults" have surrounded other personalities for the specific purposes it serves the regime but this in no way minimizes the effect of Castro's own.
To complete your analogy, it is as if your town is flooded by rain, an obvious judgement long accepted, but you personally look outside and find that there is nothing falling from the sky so you deny that the flood can even exist. It serves to prove a certain level of needless obstinacy but everyone still ends up getting wet. --TJive 12:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a video of Castro which shows examples of billboards and propaganda bearing his image and quotes, with Castro in the background denying this cult.

http://www.nocastro.com/contradiccion.ram

--TJive 12:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a demonstration that deals with propaganda from various totalitarian personality cults:

http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/socrealism/tot/

Castro features in many of them:

Here's some others:

Here's someone who traveled to Cuba, saw plenty of celebratory Fidel (and other) pictures, and liked it:

--TJive 13:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The analogy you use is (sort of like mine) about one observation that isn't enough to disprove something that happens elsewhere, just not where one looks (if I get your point). Which would indeed be wrong. But I travelled around Cuba for 5 weeks. And I do get around a lot (I spend most of my time walking around and talking to people when I'm travelling). So if there were enough posters of Castro to support the notion of a personality cult, I certainly would have noticed. And I can't remember a single one!

About the links. Mostly, what these prove is that posters have been made of Castro, which isn't surprising and doesn't prove anything. Only some of them are displayed and most of those are just photographs (hardly huge posters) hung in windows and such. The one on the side of the hotel (which indeed seems to be Castro) is more like it. But the big question is how many of such posters there are (and who says that photograph was taken in Cuba?). To continue an analogy I used before, I've seen such posters of the Dutch queen too. Not that many though, as I haven't seen enough in Cuba to remember any. The text you can't make out is 'Protecting and developing that which we have achieved and to do for humanity through our strength what we think we have done for our fatherland' (and that would then be the first goal of the party congres in 2002, it seems). Yes there are loads of such slogan-posters in Cuba, but not that many with texts by Castro.

Oh, and that last link with the text with photographs. Not a single one of Castro, so I don't get your point. But the third photograph shows depictions of Che Guevara, Jesus and the Pope. Like I said, there are loads of posters of the Pope in the streets of Cuba (though still not enough to classify it as a personality cult). The guy says Castro is also in the photo, but can you make him out? I can't (below Jesus maybe?). He also says " It's much easier to romanticize a dead man than to argue with him", which may very well be a reason to portray el Che in stead of Castro. He died to young to get his hands (too) dirty, so he's more easily revered than Castro. Which is a clever move and that can be used to argument against the propaganda in Cuba. But that also underlines that there is no personality cult around Casto. This may very well be intentional. But there you go. DirkvdM 18:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Mostly, what these prove is that posters have been made of Castro, which isn't surprising and doesn't prove anything. Only some of them are displayed and most of those are just photographs (hardly huge posters) hung in windows and such.
This is what you two were asking for: evidence of monument and tribute to Castro; posters, billboards, and paraphernalia which is not merely "revolutionary" propaganda but intertwines and links Castro's own identity and personality to the survival of the regime and the "revolution". So since the beginning of this you have qualified your claims from "[t]here isn't even a single poster of Castro in the streets of Cuba," to now, "I haven't seen enough in Cuba to remember any." You seem to think I am going to pursue my own original research on the subject until such a point as precise census figures of posters to the Cuban population is determined, as well as perhaps the picture to display ratio in all locations. This is ludicrous; my own personal observations cumulatively are not enough just as yours are not, and simply asserting that something is true or false because of my own personal opinion alone is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. The contention (very widely-held) that Castro is the subject of a personality cult is not novel.
As for the link, I gave it not for pictures (which I would have directly linked to) but to show an account which describes an experience in Cuba that suggests what you claim to not have seen: namely that Che Guevara is not alone in being the subject of personal and vain adulation in this form. I have not once questioned that it has served Fidel's purposes well to utilize Che's personality in revolutionary propaganda and I could have given many examples of this if it were necessary or all that relevant, ones I came across by accident and many more I am sure could be discovered. Since the topic is about Castro, though, and since the promotion of a cult surrounding another (dead) leader does nothing to disqualify that surrounding the living, it is not particularly conducive. --TJive 02:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Here is the caption that accompanies the picture to the original AP news story:
A family walks past a poster showing a photo of Cuban President Fidel Castro that reads 'We're going fine' in Havana, Cuba, Tuesday, July, 26, 2005. Castro was to address the nation during an event of select government faithfuls inside Havana's Karl Marx Theater, an unusually controlled gathering contrasting with the large gatherings of masses usually organized for the central July 26 celebration.(AP Photo/Javier Galeano)
Once again revealing not only an intertwining of the revolution with Castro's own personality but also an assurance about the good works of rule since. --TJive 02:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

This is not leading anywhere. I find myself typing things I've already typed before, which is not constructive. So we're in the same sort of deadlock as in Template talk:Cuba infobox. One more thing though. I didn't want to bring this up so explicitly, but since you have now... I've been to Cuba and obviously you haven't. Who's better equipped to judge if there are loads of posters of Castro in the streets of Cuba? Or, more generally, if there's excessive adoration of Castro? You call that original research. But what else can you want for? Can you point out more than one independent (!) source that says there is a personality cult around Castro? After all, you have to prove this to include him in the text. DirkvdM 08:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. I am simply defending against the deletion of one (out of a dozen or so) names on the list and now you wish for me to find explication on the question, after already asserting there were not even pictures of him around Cuba? Your own personal observations are fine for you to have but not to disrupt an article with. I already culled plenty of examples to countervail your own experience and now you change tack and demand sources that aren't even given for Hitler and Stalin. As I said previously this is an assertion frankly admitted in the Fidel Castro page even though qualified by the more tepid Castro apologists with acceptance of his denials ("apparent", "despite....attempts to discourage it"). How am I to know should I bother to find such sources that you would accept them and not simply ask for more, especially when you give a cryptic "!" alongside the already appropriately vague "independent" - independent of what, each other? Independent of other criticisms of Castro? Independent of the corporate media? And am I really to take you are suggesting this is a new interpretation of the man? --TJive 08:48, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

By independent I meant independent of each other. And I said at least two because, I believe, that is the standard requirement for placing something in a newspaper. The exclamation mark was indeed rather cryptic. I included that because one can easily find statements from the same camp. I know from experience how indoctrinated one can get by one's own culture, so I really meant sources from different cultures. Which observations would be sufficient for a 'disruption' of the article, as you call it? Which source is better than someone who has actually been to Cuba? The burden of proof lies with those who wish to include Castro in this list. That's elementary, dear TJive. DirkvdM 17:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If you allow for it without summarily reverting I will insert a more substantive passage (maybe a paragraph) that reflects the nuance of "cult of personality" in Cuba. --TJive 17:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Following text copied from user talk page User talk:Mihnea Tudoreanu.

Actually I would guess that the picture is not the totality of my "logic" in reinserting the section of Castro considering that the previous edit asserted that, "There isn't even a single poster of Castro in the streets of Cuba," which, very demonstrably is false. Incidentally, the picture you listed notes that it was not even authorized by any candidate or campaign, much less the government itself. --TJive 10:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

From the intro of the article: "Cult of personality or personality cult is a term for what is perceived to be excessive adulation of a single living leader. The term was coined..." Nowhere does it say that it necessarily has to be paid for by the government. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The article also goes on to say:
Personality cults usually characterize totalitarian states or countries which have recently experienced revolutions. The reputation of a single leader, often characterized as the "liberator" or "savior" of the people, elevates that leader to an almost divine level. The leader's picture appears everywhere, as do statues and other monuments to the leader's greatness and wisdom. The leader's slogans and other quotes cover massive billboards, and books containing the leader's speeches and writings fill up the bookstores and libraries. The level of flattery can reach heights which may appear absurd to outsiders....Personality cults aim to make the leader and the state seem synonymous, so it becomes impossible to comprehend the existence of one without the other. It also helps justify the often harsh rule of a dictatorship, and propagandize the citizens into believing that the leader operates as a kind and just ruler. In addition, cults of personality often arise out of an effort to quash opposition within a ruling elite. Both Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin used their cults of personality to help crush their political opponents.
None of which may reasonably be inferred simply by "excessive adulation", which can otherwise frivolously apply to anyone a particular author dislikes, and render the applicability of the term quite meaningless. Which is why the examples culled in support of this are all despots who utilize(d) their personality to help justify their extended rule.
Incidentally, in your fervor to protect El Presidente from this slander, you undid completely unrelated and legitimate changes would should be put back in the article. It is not hard to delete a single phrase that offends you. --TJive 10:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, my undoing of those changes was intentional: One user removed the text noting that George Orwell never makes it clear whether Big Brother is real in 1984. The other changes, as far as I could see, consisted merely of breaking up or uniting paragraphs, with no information either added or removed.
Also, I suggest you take a closer look at your own quote:
"The reputation of a single leader, often characterized as the "liberator" or "savior" of the people, elevates that leader to an almost divine level. The leader's picture appears everywhere, as do statues and other monuments to the leader's greatness and wisdom. The leader's slogans and other quotes cover massive billboards..."
Is that the case in Cuba? Hardly. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you are relying on block quotes to justify your deletion rather than specific arguments it is difficult to discern what exactly you are attempting to argue by referencing this specific passage.

I am attempting to argue that Castro's Cuba simply doesn't belong in the same league as Stalin's USSR or Kim Jong-Il's North Korea (at least as far as personality cults go). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
There are no gradations or qualifications of comparable "leagues" in this article. That Stalin has a personality cult and Castro has a personality cult does not imply that they are identical or equal. --TJive 08:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

So, I will go through it in a few points:

The reputation of a single leader, often characterized as the "liberator" or "savior" of the people

Castro is most definitely characterized in official media as being a "liberator" of the Cuban people from the Batista dictatorship. That much is indisputable. The actual titles do not matter, anymore than "Dear Leader" (Kim Jong Il) is substantively different in this context from, say, "Savior of the Fatherland" and "Maximum Leader" (as bestowed upon Castro).

True enough; however, this is not sufficient for a personality cult. See below. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The leader's picture appears everywhere

Not only is this true, that the very much living Castro appears and has appeared on billboards, postage stamps and other official paraphernalia and propaganda, but he makes frequent and extended public appearances with large culled groups of faithful and cheering onlookers. This charismatic ability has served him not only in advertising and justifying particular policies but in extending his own personal tenure as ruler for decades now. Even those most timid in criticizing any aspect of Cuba or Fidel at all describe his relationship in this manner as "paternalist"; Fidel watches, Fidel looks out for you, Fidel is defending our revolution.

Every major politician who ever ran for a certain office in a democratic country had his face on billboards during electoral campaigns. A personality cult requires the face of the Great Leader to be everywhere - that is, is requires at least one or two billboards in every city, a multitude of propaganda posters, portraits of the leader hanging in all public buildings and many private ones, etc. You seem to believe that any dictator who holds public speeches has a cult of personality. This is not the case. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Every major politician who ever ran for a certain office in a democratic country had his face on billboards during electoral campaigns.
What....? I'm not sure where you live but this is not commonplace in any experience or knowledge of my own. Billboards are used, yes, but they are not commonplace and they are for the purposes of advertising a particular campaign. The comparison is null because:
  1. Cuba is not a "democratic country" as such.
  2. Castro does not participate in "electoral campaigns".
  3. The billboards and related propaganda has nothing to do with running for office but in celebrating and justifying already existing rule. This does not occur in such a form of any normal democratic country I am aware of.
requires at least one or two billboards in every city, a multitude of propaganda posters, portraits of the leader hanging in all public buildings and many private ones
Who decides what "everywhere" is, whether one or two per city is sufficient (or relevant), or that this is of particular importance next to other qualifications? My (re)insertion is not a novel observation. Some posters' travels are. --TJive 08:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

as do statues and other monuments to the leader's greatness and wisdom.

He is of course praised profusely in the official media and his birthday is practically a national holiday.

You intentionally missed the point. Where exactly are the statues and other monuments to Castro's greatness and wisdom? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I have mentioned these all throughout this--billboards, propaganda pamphlets, postage stamps, birthday celebrations, extensive and theatrical public appearances (recall this as a prime theme of many other such rulers as Mussolini and Hitler), laudatory and adulatory official media, etc. --TJive 08:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The leader's slogans and other quotes cover massive billboards

Fidel is an author but I do not know how proliferated his works are among the population. I do know that it does not matter as in this case his many personal and televised appearances serve the purpose of spreading every pertinent message he has. There are billboards that carry his likeness and there long have been, contrary to previous assertions.

How many billboards with Castro's quotes are there in Cuba? I personally do not know of any. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, despite every effort to thoroughly sanitize his biographical page, there is still a reference to Castro's "apparent cult of personality", "despite his personal attempts to discourage it." --TJive 11:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I also notice how, in your instance of emphasizing what you assert basically to be an inapplicable passage that you remove from the context of a "liberator" or "savior" that personality cults appear in "totalitarian states or countries which have recently experienced revolutions" which contextualizes the following sentence in a manner that recalls Castro probably more than any other leader in recent memory and which also recalls that the "revolution" is a primary theme not only in official works but general discourse in the country, whose "revolution" continues and whose "revolutionary leader" as such remains over four decades after the fact. --TJive 11:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Again, you're implying that every revolution-themed dictatorship must necessarily be accompanied by a personality cult, which is simply not the case. "The revolution" is a pervasive theme in all communist states, but many of them did not have personality cults. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
No I am "implying" that the quote you gave strips it from direct context which recalls Fidel Castro and that this "revolution-themed dictatorship" has certain personalities which are inextricable from the continuance of rule, in this case Fidel Castro. --TJive 08:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seens to have had a look around to see whether Castro is often refered to as having a cult of personality, which is surely needed to avoid original research? Here is a selection: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] -- Joolz 14:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that is that many people will claim such a thing out of spite (notice the many revert-wars in articles concerning Cuba). But no-one will (unprovoked) explicitly state there is not such a cult, and anyway, how would one research that? So this research is inherently biased. The first link is even to a 'conservative monitor'! And another is a neoliberal site. Well, at least those aren't sock puppets :) . The third and fifth article are from US sites (the lethal enemy) and the reviews in the fifth certainly classify as 'original research'. A page that uses terms like 'outlaw culture' and call 'socialist paradise' an oxymoron can't really be classified as neutral. The second one is from the BBC, which is a whole lot better (one of the last vestiges of reliability, imho). They raise an interresting aspect; Castro may not want a cult of personality, but that doens't mean there isn't one. But note that they don't actually state that there is one. The term is merely mentioned but then it goes on about his (in)fame (is 'infame' a word?) and that doesn't suffice for a cult-status in the way it is defined in the article. DirkvdM 20:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Original research refers to research undertook by wikipedia editors on wikipedia, so you can't call reviews on amazon.com original research (but obviously you can question the quality of such source). A google search for "cult of personality" Castro -wikipedia returns hundreds of results and I picked the first few which refered to them. Here's some more though, [6] (no idea what inlandpress.org are), [7] (from the Miami Herald, very likely to be anti-Castro I guess, but should we only include pro-Castro sources when evaluating this? If so, did we only include pro-Stalin sources which refers to a cult of personality?) - two mentions on The Guardian: [8] and [9] - four more on the BBC, Castro himself apparently refers to it in a speech, although obviously he denies it's existance -- Joolz 22:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I gave very explicit references in the text and even quoted them outright. This is a standard only being applied to Castro, yet it still remains insufficient, and now there is no discussion but to say, "I do not agree, so it can not be so". Not even a word on my actual text, and there are completely unrelated changes once again being reverted blindly. --TJive 00:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Come on, you use the detailed explanation as an excuse to push Castro even more on the page. And on top of that a photograph, placing him side by side with Hitler and Stalin. As for the other edits, I wasn't aware that you had made other changes as well, I just saw Castro reappear. Considering the controversy it would have been a better idea to do those separate. DirkvdM 08:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Not that this proves anything, but I just had a look at the articles in other languages (except for Chinese and Hebrew, which I really can't decipher). The only one that mentions Castro is the Italian one (though I can't make out what it says). The German talk page has a short discussion, after which he was dropped because only dead people have such a cult in Cuba (Guevara, Cienfuegos and Marti), there are no cities or streets named after him and his frequent appearance in the Granma is no different from Schröder in Die Tagesschau (tv news). At least, those were the arguments used there. DirkvdM 17:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that those are authoratative sources on the issue (for example the Romanian article is a translation from English), and they don't convince me that Castro shouldn't be mentioned. How about a statement such as this "Some people (links to articles here) consider Fidel Castro, the President of Cuba, as having a personality cult, however this is disputed by others, including Castro himself. (link to speeches here)"? -- Joolz 17:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I had something like that, and it was promptly reverted and moved. --TJive 20:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to put it into the article until DirkvdM responds and has any suggestions (or whatever) to make. -- Joolz 10:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
What Tjive wrote took up about one third of the article, which was a bit of overkill (to put it mildly), so I moved that to the Fidel Castro article. I also wrote something like that (on 16 august), but Tjive removed that completely. The problem is that once you start to put in people whose cult-status is disputed and give detailed explanations, there is no end to it. Most likely the article will get filled with long stories about leaders of the US and Socialist states (judging by the discussions on this page). One solution to all this might be to make a list of aspects of a personality cult (including the living/dead thing) and put those in a table against various people and tick them off. As I already suggested under the Bush header below. That would be a bit of work, though. DirkvdM 14:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I already know you objected to what Tjive wrote, I'm asking for your objections to the statement I suggested above. I think your suggestion that we should have some kind of criteria for inclusion in that way might amount to original research because it involves us deciding who has a personality cult and who doesn't. -- Joolz 17:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I did react to your suggestion, or did I misunderstand it? If you give a detailed discussion about Castro you have to give that for everyone who has some aspects of a personality cult. And with more than just what you say, and not just with links to the argumentations. So that would become too long. Hence my suggestion to put it in a table. The only short alternative to this is to only mention those who unequivocally have a personality cult. DirkvdM 08:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe that such a checklist would amount to original research. The suggestion I gave was not particularly detailed, you argue that including it would be a slippery slope, is there anyone else who has seriously been accused of having a personality cult and is disputed in the way that Castro is? -- Joolz 10:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Skimming through this discussion page I see mentioned Mao Zedong, Lincoln, Jefferson, Kennedy, Hirohito (there's an obvious one - why is he not in the article?), Berlusconi, Chiang Kai-shek, George Bush, Robert Byrd (whoever he is), Ataturk, Washington and Reagan. None these are discussed as lengthily as Castro, but that's irrelevant. The point is that most of them have some traits and there's some disagreement about them. Most of the arguments seem to be about the presence of images in public life and whether the cult should be during the lifetime of the person. And two I mentioned are the Dutch queen Beatrix (or any other royalty for that matter) and the Pope. And if you'll allow me to move on dangerous grounds, what about God? Or Gods? They may not be alive or existent to many, but to their believers they are. And anyway, this whole discussion is really about whether someone should be included when not all the traits of a Cult apply. At least that is my point, which Tjive doesn't agree with (ie, doesn't know), that images of Castro hardly appear in public life in Cuba.
The original research thing is indeed tricky. But what is the alternative? Find a source (any source?) that says someone has a personality cult? That would result in an endless list. Try Googling ' "personality cult" x', where 'x' is some name. Here are some scores: Castro 4000, pope 5500, Washington 17000. Try some names (any names) yourself (I tried mine and got zero hits :) ). Of course the sources have to be authoritative, but then who decides that? On the one hand I agree with the non-original research bit, but on the other hand if one were to adhere to that strictly almost nothing could be done on Wikipedia (for how much of what you contribute do you use a reliable source?). Tjive has also accused me of original research because I base my assertment on what I have seen in Cuba. But what more can one want? DirkvdM 18:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe we should decide independently of other cases who to include and exclude in the article. I do not agree with the argument "we can't mention Castro because someone might mention person_x", nobody is currently arguing for the inclusion of person_x and we should assess the merits of including person_x when somebody presents such argument. I believe Castro is significant enough to include, there are a number of different sources which accuse him of having one, and he has refered to those accusations himself, in at least a couple of speeches. I'm not arguing that the article should take up the POV that Castro has a personality cult. I think the way forward to resolving this now is to set up a survey and ask for other peoples opinions on this, and try to find a consensus. Oh, and by the way, a search for "cult of personality" Joolz -wikipedia returns 10 results ;) -- Joolz 18:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I just did another one: ' "cult of personality" god'. Quite a lot of those were about Bush! :) So he's up for sure. And, well, all those others I found on this page. And then some. Like I said, the list would be endless. This just wouldn't work. I also no longer think the table would be a good idea, for this reason. Asking people's opinions would certainly be pov and original research. Anyone who hasn't been to Cuba can't really judge (how could they?). Right now I see only two solutions: either exclude anyone whose inclusion is disputed or find an authoritative source (or preferably more than one). Then who is to decide what is authoritative? Social psychology has some external links that might be useful. This selection is not based on whether someone should be included here, so that should at least make them unbiased sources (unless they're all from the US - or any other capitalist country - oh dear). It's too late now, so I might look into that tomorrow (the time stamp is two hours slow I notice). DirkvdM 19:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Asking for other views and trying to reach consensus about this dispute is POV now? Oh dear, maybe we should unlist the page from WP:RFC then! If you're limiting people who can comment on this to people who have visited Cuba, then I guess we're in trouble over at the Moon article ;) I disagree with your assertion that mentioning Castro means we have to mention anybody else, I disagree with your assertion that only visitors to Cuba are capable of comment, I disagree with your assertion that all sources from "capitalist countries" are inherently biased. I propose we create a survey to acheive consensus where there is none. -- Joolz 19:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I know, I'm moving to and fro to find a reasonable way out of this (the wink was implicitly understood, though). I put up the rfc and now I'm saying that comments would not work. Well, of course they're needed, but they need to be based on some reliable source(s). Ironically, yesterday I made a comment on the Castro talk page that people in the US (and elsewhere of course) may have access to all sorts of information, but don't actually make use of it (something extremely important now and in the future). And now I find myself having made the same mistake. Let me rectify that. By the way, I didn't say that "all sources from "capitalist countries" are inherently biased", just that it wouldn't work if all sources were from the US or any other capitalist country (because there would be too much risk of bias). Of course this goes for most sources in some way. I suppose (major) universities are the most reliable sources.
Anyway, I checked out the external links at Social psychology and Political psychology, but that resulted in very little (searching for 'personality cult' on the pages). This is all I found: specific: [10] and general: [11]. So I asked if anyone at Social psychology or Political psychology knows more. And I Googled ' "personality cult" site:edu '. That was a much better move. Still need to work through it. Combine that with 'castro' and you get some interesting results; in [12] the second paragraph coincides exactly with what struck me in Cuba. Others, however, do say or suggest there is a personality cult. But all entries still have a pov feel to them (one way or the other). Of course it can be combined with many other names, but it would be nicest if the non-specific search would result in a list of characteristics and people somewhere. DirkvdM 11:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I've given it another go, but it turns out very difficult to find a general paper on the subject in the Internet Also, I get the impression that .edu is only used in the US and like I said, we need a somewhat wider perspective. One strange text I found (in [13]): "the cult of personality goes hand in hand with the rise of capitalism." Haven't read the context, but it goes against all those links with Socialist States. Anyway, I want a general text on the subject, about what constitutes a cult. Maybe I'll drop by the library this afternoon.
Over at talk:social psychology someone suggests that the term is a Max Weber-ism. Maybe that will help. DirkvdM 08:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I haven't gotten around to digging up general info yet, but i have put up a posting at three travel forums and the first results are in. See travellerspoint, lonely planet and aardvark. The last one at the moment has just one entry, which is the same as one at travellerspoint. DirkvdM 17:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
hmmm, it sounds like you're trying to find out whether he did or didn't have a cult of personality, I'm not advocating a position where we say "castro has a personality cult", I'm simply suggesting that we state the fact that some people (with sources) believe he does, and Castro has refuted that in [these speeches]. -- Joolz 13:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, all this started with whether or not Castro should be mentioned at all. But now, if we mention him it doesn't have to be something vague like 'some people believe'. What these people give is not an opinion but an observation of a fact, namely that images of Castro in public life are rare. So we can just state that. What about an adapted (shorter) version of what I wrote earlier? A personality cult can also appear without any official incentive. For example in Cuba public images of Fidel Castro are rare, and a personality cult around Castro is not officially encouraged. But Castro has been in power so long that he and Cuba have come to be identified with one another, which is a trait of a personality cult. That illustrates another aspect of a personality cult, so is worth a mention in the article. This might be followed up by something about Martí, but then it would start to be more about Cuba. DirkvdM 06:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
In other words, you will only accept a passage which explicitly makes an argument for your own view. --TJive 07:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I still think it would be a good thing to mention his speeches where he refers to personality cults -- Joolz 14:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
You mean like one in the piece Tjive wrote (which I moved to the Castro article)? Fine with me. It shouldn't get too long, though. So either a short quote or links, as you originally suggested. But to what then?. Other than that, what about the new text I propose? DirkvdM 15:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the text could do with a little bit of tweaking here and there (I'm not quite sure in what way yet though - I'll try and draft a version in a little while) - but definetely to mention his speeches refering to it (the transcripts are around somewhere), it would be good if we could get in the Satre quote (from the BBC article, somewhere above ;) but that would definately be pushing it lengthwise :p -- Joolz 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I've been away for a bit and I see nothing has happened yet, so I'll just place the text I suggested above and see what happens. DirkvdM 09:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I've been rather distracted with other things. Put th version you suggest in and I'm sure it will be edited and tweaked in pure wiki fashion until we get a consensus version :) -- Joolz 14:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Well the 'tweaking' that took place is that TJive has simply reverted it all again. Alas that is also 'pure wiki fashion' :( . I suppose we need more people casting a vote on this (what is the official way again to do that?). For that this enormous thread has to be condensed into something legible, though. The way it is now no-one is going to read it all. And especially the fact that it's latest additions are somewhere in the middle is very confusing (who else but us is going to notice where to pick up the thread?). So I suggest archiving this discussion and inviting everyone who has been involved (Cryptnotic, TJive, Willmcw, Mihnea Tudoreanu, you and me) to present their main arguments anew. DirkvdM 09:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor patience for a retread of an already stale conversation. --TJive 09:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Now you see what I've been dealing with for the past few weeks. Little in the way of serious comment, just original research musings inserted into the article with polemical digressions that presume the zaniest sorts of prejudice in the reader. It's not just about the personal biases of a source now but whether it is from a "capitalist" country; oh dear. --TJive 21:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
And if you ask me the rest is an implicit threat to weight the article down in contemporary political arguments (i.e. we need to put in some US presidents since Castro is being offended). No real point to that. --TJive 21:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Joolz, this is what I inserted:

Since Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba, he and his government have exhibited many traits of personalist rule commonly attributed to a cult of personality. Large throngs of people are gathered to cheer at Castro's fiery speeches (which typically last for hours), and the Cuban government heavily saturates among the population "revolutionary" slogans and propaganda in the form of such items as billboards and posters. Castro features prominently in much of this, his own persona being intertwined with the Cuban flag and identity, and the revolution itself. Some believe this affection to be genuine. A BBC article focusing on the longevity of Castro's concludes that, "[for many Cubans], everything about Castro is Cuban and everything Cuban is Castro." [1] This style of leadership has lead to a common characterization of Castro as being a subject of such a cult, especially by critics. Sam Dolgoft, in an anarchist critique of Castro's government, wrote that Castro attempts to justify oppressive rule by projecting a messianic image:
The way he treats his friends and collaborators convincingly reveals this condition. He goes to extremes in persecuting those who dare question his orders or dissociate themselves from him; he insults collaborators in public; is enraptured to the point of hysteria by public ovations; basks in the adulation and servility of his subordinates. His ideology is, in effect, "the cult of personality."...Castro projected a godlike image of himself, as a sort of earthly Messiah. He encouraged the illusion that only HE and his select group of "disciples" and the "heroes of the Revolution" have earned the right to wield unlimited power over the people of Cuba. [2]
Unlike most rulers considered the subject of a cult of personality, however, many details of Castro's private life, particularly involving his family members, are scarce. He is also not the only individual that figures prominently in official propaganda as fellow Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara appears not only on billboards and posters but on the sides of buildings and in various trinkets sold to tourists. This sort of post-humous imposition of a personality cult is similar to the usage of Vladimir Lenin's persona during the era of Stalin in the Soviet Union, in that a deceased leader is invoked in support of government policies and the state itself. Castro, however, has always maintained that there exists no such thing:
[W]e have never preached cult of personality. You will not see a statue of me anywhere, nor a school with my name, nor a street, nor a little town, nor any type of personality cult because we have not taught our people to believe, but to think, to reason out. [3]

A rather neutral and descriptive statement of the dispute. This gets moved to Fidel Castro (where the fact that there is a personality cult is not seriously contested) and he inserts this in turn:

A personality cult can also appear without any official incentive. For example in Cuba public images of Fidel Castro are less frequent than in other countries that do not have a personality cult, so that aspect is not present. But Castro has been in power so long that he and Cuba have come to be identified with one another, which is a trait of a personality cult. His right hand Che Guevara disliked personal veneration but is still portrayed quite often. The only person whose image appears everywhere in Cuba is José Martí (he was a national hero before and after the revolution). But, again, the latter two don't count because their veneration came about mostly after their deaths.

Which sounds like a personal rant and is rather explicitly making an argument over the question that reflects his own view. So instead I suggest simply leaving the name in the list but he won't accept it. If there's specific references (which he asked for), it's too long. If it's just the inclusion of Castro, it's misleading. Either he gets his way or reverts once a day until armageddon (even completely unrelated edits). Frankly the point on length has always been weak: the article is short and needs expanded anyhow; that the Castro section is longer than, say, Kim Jong Il's is no reason to delete Castro's but to expand the latter. It makes him look like he's simply shielding the guy from critical information. --TJive 16:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above, this would get too long, even with the length of my text. Let's list the traits of a personality cult, as mentioned in the article.
  • Adolation (applies to Castro, though not to the extent of absurd flattery)
  • Liberator or saviour (applies to Castro)
  • Pictures, statues and monuments (does not apply to Castro, though Tjive disagrees)
  • Renaming of streets and such after the leader (does not apply to Castro)
  • Living (applies to Castro, though whether this should be a trait is disputed, also by Tjive)
  • Many books with his speeches (applies to Castro, though they don't really fill the bookstores - Socialist writings do, but not specifically by Castro - this is an important point, there is an ideology cult, but hardly a personality cult))
  • Aim to make the leader and the state seem synonymous (Castro and Socialist Cuba are very much synonymous, though whether that is an aim is another matter)
  • Cult used to quash opposition (there is certainly some quashing in Cuba, but is Castro's image used for that?)
  • The person has real power (applies to Castro)
A totalitarian state is also mentioned, but that's not a trait of a cult, it just happens to coincide with it often. Below Tjive also mentions suppression of criticism, which is a good one. I don't know to what extent that is the case with Castro, but I've understood that at least this applies to the government. And most probably Castro. Whether the adolation is State-inspired (or even enforced) or comes from the people is another matter. This plays a role with Castro, but also with many US leaders. And many many others. So maybe it should be restricted to just State inspired (enforced or not) adolation.
The above would not fit in a table, so a table with notes might be an idea. Or another idea I suggested is a gradation in stead of just ticking off. Then of course there can be a lot of quibbling about the rating, but at least it will give a more balanced presentation.
Finally, I'd like to re-emphasise what I said above. There definitely is a Cult around the State and especially the Socialist ideology, but not around people, except Martí (who's dead), so there's no personality cult in Cuba. DirkvdM 08:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/l/Talk%7ECult_of_personality_Castro_archive_2eb8.html"