Talk:List of dictators/Fidel Castro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Initial Castro entry

I think this is a good example of how this page can work, if suitably maintained. I personally think it's quite silly to call Castro a dictator. But nonetheless, the characterization really is widespread, and the use of the description easily meets WP:V. Moreover, even the ideological claims are not completely without a basis; Castro has a fairly large degree of centralized control, and there are some personalistic elements in the rule of Cuba. Given that this is a list (not a category), we can include all of that (in suitably encyclopedic form). Let readers see what claims have been made, who makes them, what the general basis for claims is, and so on.

A list need not, and should not, be a simple bare collection of names that are advanced as uniformly consistent. Instead, annotations can give plenty of context on the respect in which a given individual is candidate for this list, including any reservations other sources might have on the categorization. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A brand new anonymous editor who has mostly edited to introduce anti-Castro rants is doing it on this page. More than the edits being entirely outrageous on their own, they are just in the wrong place. User:65.2.82.238 is sticking in all sort of rambling about the history of the Bay of Pigs, Cuban economic policy, and so on. Not necessarily untrue things (though presumably ones that the anon thinks weigh against Castro), but not at all connected to the inclusion of Castro on this list. Can some other regular editors here keep an eye on the entry to try to keep the nonsense out of there? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Now we're getting a bunch on meta-commentary within the annotation that doesn't even try for encyclopedic. Can someone try to explain to our new anon what Wikipedia is. Perhaps its a newbie who simply doesn't understand WP. For example, s/he put this in the article: (Fix this last statement to be NPOV; stop reverting to the Pro-Castro statement.) at [1]).
Incidentally, somewhere among the ranting, I guess our anon doesn't like the word "election" in regard to Cuba, despite the usage by, eg. the BBC: [2]. Obviously, pro-Cuban media sees the elections in more positive light than does anti-Cuban media, e.g.: [3]. But if we use the actual definition in this list criteria, the focus is on "rule-of-law" not on quality of democratic institutions per se. That is, elections conducted constitutionally are still per rule-of-law, even if an editor doesn't himself like that constitution. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Every dictator has false elections, that is just pro-castro propaganda to mention it there. Secondly, what you wrote, presumably is very POV: " Frequently characterized as a dictator, especially by United States press (e.g. [51], [52], [53], [54]). Castro has, to a certain degree, a cult of personality around him among the Cuban public. Although within the Cuba's single-party state, Castro is a figure on considerable influence both as elected President and informally, the Cuban National Assembly is not unanimous in opinion, and many other figures within the assembly and the party exercise considerable legislative influence as well." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.83.202 (talk • contribs) .
Most of the figures listed do not follow constitutional election procedures. Where they have, it is noted in the annotation. I realize you joined WP with a special anti-Castro agenda, but it is not appropriate to create a whole different style of annotation for one ruler to fit your political agenda.
In actual fact, Castro really does not entirely meet our stated criteria, but I thought it worth including his name with properly contextual annotations. The chief reason, really, for including his name at all (as with Khomeni) is the widespread politicized use. Take away any context about the fact he is so-called a dictator, and it is simply not appropriate to include the name at all. Similarly, I removed Kagame who was added, apparently, only in a pejorative sense, without meeting the list criteria; U.S. editors tend to be more ideological about Castro than they are about figures who are not demonized (or even mentioned) in the U.S. press. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The idea that Castro is merely "Demonized" by 'Americans' is inaccurate. He has been in power for almost 50 years without allowing any other person a chance as "president", he has imprisonend anyone and everyone who has an opinion about him, he controls the media, businesses, he has murdered many innocent civilians including the "brothers to the rescue" who flew a plane over cuba to drop pamphlets and was shot down my a Mig. These are just some of facts I know off the top of my head, maybe if you would actually research him and not read whatever propaganda it is you are reading then you would know a little more about him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.83.202 (talk • contribs) .
Ok lets take it part, first of right off the bat you are giving the illusion that its only the US press that calls him a 'dictator' and nobody else. Which is inaccurate and should not even be included in this 'list of dictators'. Then you say "Castro is a figure of considerable influence" which is to try to give the impression that he is not a dictator but only an "influential person", then you write "elected President" again he is not really elected. Then you repeat to again soften his authoritarian position by saying the assembly is "not unanimous in opinion". This is natural bias, that you may to be fair might not have noticed yourself, but you have said yourself that it is "silly" to call him a dicator and your opinion is showing through your editorial and needs to be removed. Thank you.--65.2.82.238 07:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously what you are claiming is not what the article said prior to all your POV edits and ranting. The article said something like "particularly among the US media" not "exclusively". Which is exactly correct. I get it that you dislike Castro, but this isn't a list of rulers whom 65.2.82.238 dislikes, but a list of dictators (per the stated criteria). Writing idiotic insults about other editors, like me, don't make this a different list topic than what it is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
How many times are you going to say that i dislike castro? I can say the same thing that you like castro a hundred times. That doesnt make your point any more valid. And the idiotic insults I apologize for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.83.202 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Castro edits

No one is disputing whether or not Castro is a dictator. Why is it "pro-Castro" to acknowledge that there are other influential forces within the government? Jasmol 07:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Read this statement slowly and you will see how biased it really is: Although within the Cuba's single-party state, Castro is a figure on considerable influence both as elected President and informally, the Cuban National Assembly is not unanimous in opinion, and many other figures within the assembly and the party exercise considerable legislative influence as well.
First notice how no other dictator on this list is called "elected President" yet Fidel Castro has to be called "President" twice, and has merely "considerable influence", then it is repeated again to soften his authoritarian position by saying "not unanimous". and again repetition "many othe figurues have considerable influence". If you believe that statement to be true you might not even think he is a dictator but simply an elected President just like any other President. This is Biased and needs to be fixed. Lulu says that I have an anti-castro agenda, but he obviously has a pro-castro agenda, and I am simply trying to make it neutral. (uncertain attribution)
I have now read through National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba, Council of State of Cuba, Cuba#Politics, Cuba#History, Elections in Cuba, Politics of Cuba and Communist Party of Cuba. It is clear from these articles that Castro holds the power as president, there are elections in Cuba and "independent candidates are allowed to stand and do get elected" (Cuba#Politics). What is not stated in any one of these articles is how Castro becomes/became President. At least one of the articles should say that he is elected/appointed/declared president. I will take this over to the Cuba talk page as there is clarification needed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Cuba

Essentially the same way that Tony Blair became Prime Minister of the UK. He's elected just like all the other members of the national assembly, except unlike a good percentage of the other candidates his nomination/election is certain. In the UK this is known as a safe seat. He's leader of the dominant faction of the dominant political tendency in the country and therefore ends up elected to the position of top dog. Formally the Council of State is elected by the National Assembly and the Council of State elects the inner circle. (this is from memory so I may have the names wrong but it is an identical route of indirect election/nomination as that which produces out government i.e PM and Cabinet. MichaelW 21:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed propaganda material in Fidel Castro; Now Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is adding links to propaganda material directly from the Communist Party of Cuba. Either he is highly mistaken/confused or he is trying to keep his biased stranglehold on this article.--Antispammer 08:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice that Antispammer's entire contribution history consists of adding anti-Castro material to a couple articles. However, his/her link to WP's article on single-party states is useful. The existing link, however, was indeed to a Cuban description of their electoral system (yeah, it is a bit rah-rah in tone). Readers are welcome to judge the accuracy or merit of the official description, but it is, y'know official. We're not going to insert ad hominem critique every time we link to official US government sources (e.g. whitehouse.gov, whether editors agree or disagree with the US administration. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you even read whats on that site you linked to? I'm going to leave it just so people can see how ridiculous it is. --Antispammer 18:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renewed edit war on Castro

As a rule, it seems that Castro's item gets far more attention than any other single name, rivalling the edits on all the other names combined. That's way out of proportion with his significance, "dictatorness", or anything else.

It appears that many of the edits to the item are either anon IPs or editors who edit exclusively topics related to Castro/Cuba, and who insert very unencyclopedic anti-Castro diatribes rather than pithy descriptions narrowly focused on his meeting the list criteria. That's a problem in itself. This isn't about expressing our like or dislike for the figures listed, but simply for explaining why they are listed, in a neutral descriptive fashion.

However, the entry has settled a bit, to something that seems reasonable. One clause is currently undergoing back-and-forth reversion, which is pointless:

...but within a single-party political system

I do not personally object to either the inclusion or exclusion of this clause. IMO or AFAIK, there is not a Constitutional enshrinement of the CP, but they effectively dominate the non-partisan electoral process. So it's borderline. Can editors please explain why they think this clause is correct or incorrect, and perhaps suggest some intermediate formulation, here on the talk page? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect Lulu, I know I came too POV when I first made my edits on the 'list of dictators' article. In fact most of those anonymous ips were me. Anyhow, I was suffering from wikistress due to the ongoing lame edit war in the Fidel Castro article, thanks to Comandante(as well as his anonymous ips and differnent usernames) that has been bombarding the article with propaganda for over a month, and I and a few others have been reverting his entry for a long time. I understand that I reacted wrong, but please understand where this edit war is coming from.--Antispammer 20:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. Let's work on making this article as strong as possible. Specifically, on the single-party issue, that description seems to contradict the Cuban gov't description, and also Wikipedia's description. Can you provide a citation for the fact we can use in the article? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think its surprising that the Cuban government doesn't believe its a one-party state. And Wikipedia's description is irrelevant, we can't source ourselves, if you know what I'm saying (the info about Cuba's one-party status was deleted by an anon). If you need "citation" (which you shouldn't) Human Rights Watch refers to Cuba as a one party state [4]. BTW, I'm sorry if my anti-Castro tone has bothered you, but I do not believe it was out-of-order.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJK (talk • contribs) .
Lulu, c'mon everyone knows its single party state. Even on the Single-party_state it mentions Cuba, and I did not add that in case you were wondering. It is also mentioned here. If you want refrences you can pick which ever from here--Antispammer 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding the meaning of "sources" as opposed to propaganda

Our only source in the article on Castro's dictator status is a link which supports the lie that there are free elections in Cuba. Should this not be removed or replaced by a non-propaganda source? CJK 19:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This link should definitely not be removed, since it is to an official governmental description of the Cuban electoral system. One of the marauding anti-Castro ideologues (probably an anon-IP, but maybe one of the single-topic editors) actually took out several citations that I had given to newspaper descriptions of Castro as dictator. If you want to find those in the edit history, it would be fine to add them back (but not replace the official link).
As with most listed names, the main evidentiary source for Castro is his WP article. We assume that the editors of the respective pages are responsible in following WP:V and WP:NPOV. Btw. I'm reorganizing this talk page to be more manageable. Castro (and other rulers excluded or included) have their own subpages, listed at top. Please continue any discussion of a specific ruler there (I'll leave this section here for a couple days, but then move it to the subpage). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Officially, none of these governments said they were dictators, and of course they are going to deny it, so why repeat that? The link is just propagating information that is obviously a fabrication. And even if it wasn't, the links are supposed to prove so and so was a dictator, not disprove it. CJK 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As indicated previously on this talk page and in the edit comment, the point of the link to Cuban electoral rules is to clarify the meaning of Castro's election. It is not an endorsement of the source cited, but then, I hope you don't intend to endorse the various newspapers whose links you helpfully restored to the Castro article. Likewise, if we were discussing the USAian electoral system, a link to something like the US State Department would be perfectly proper, but also not an endorsement of that source, as such. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, this article is not about Cuban electoral rules. Second, it is largely propaganda. The US State Department can be verified if it says "the US holds free elections" while the idea of Cuban "free elections" is just a sham and is almost universally recognized as such. CJK 00:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We do not have "sources" from North Korea or anyone else glorifying the electoral process because its irrelevant to the article. CJK 15:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It also certainly does not "clarify" anything about the manner in which Castro has been elected since 1976. CJK 15:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is amazing, those who have not lived in Cuba, have no idea how this works. Everybody depends on rations, getting the ration books depend on government goodwill; essentially everybody works for the government you job, your assignment your pay, the quality or lack of your housing depends on the government. Just recently Castro decided that some were corrupt so he sent agents into everyhome to inventory the goods found there, he did not ask permission he just did it. The block committees watch every step you take. The finding crimes of dangerousness (peligrosidad) or insulting the government (desacato) are decided by the government; and by present Cuban law what the prosecutor says cannot be challenged. Cuba has a huge percentage, far larger than the US, of the population in jail. One needs an internal passport to move from one province to another. Cubans cannot leave the country without permission; and if they escape they cannot reenter for years. Cubans are now serfs. This has gone far past a a dictatorship; it is like medieval times. Cubans are now possessions of an absolute monarch; voting is an absolute sham as it was once in the Eastern Block countries El Jigüe 1/2/06

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_dictators_Fidel_Castro_8d3d.html"