Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Fidel Castro (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 > 14 >>

Contents

Congratulations for a good article

I edited some points of this article maybe a year ago, and I must say that the evolution is extraordinary, the article is far more dense and at the same time focusuing on the subject. I am french, and when I took a look at the french version the differences are obvious, this article has a higher quality no doubt about it. I just wanted to congratulate all the wikiusers who have done a great job, sticking to the POV policy. I also think I 'll use the holidays to translate some parts of this article into french, in order to achieve the same quality. Good job, and keep it so

--The trat 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate Course of Action for US military

"one can only wonder if [a US invasion of Cuba] isn't an appropriate, or protective course of action." This comment by User:68.14.191.115 seems like [personal] speculation. If you must make this point, it would be more encyclopedic to attribute such thoughts to a political commentator, or someone who has some say in what the US military does, rather than an unnamed Wikipedia author who has thoughts on what the US military action should do. Does this make sense, or am I just overreacting? - Connelly 03:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I agree that mentioning such a claim in an encyclopaedic article requires credible substantiation. David Kernow 03:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Successor Raul Castro

The article says that Castro has indicated that, in the event of sickness or death, his leadership posts are to be assumed by Vice President Raúl Castro (his brother) (I just added the vice president bit). But isn't that normal for a vice president? In other words, 'Castro indicated that' sounds a bit silly. DirkvdM 07:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

After nearly 50 years in power and with a refusal to give up power until overcome by death or infirmity is what makes the succession very different from the case with, say, Bush, who will probably give up power before he dies, and almost certainly not to Cheney. Given the intense and understandabler interest over what will happen when Castro is no longer around I think we are justified in not treating this situation as normal, SqueakBox 15:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, as a President of the United States, President Bush has no choice but to give up any official powers he has at the end of this, his second term. In the event of his death or incapacitation before that point, the Vice President, Dick Cheney, will become the President. Given Cheney's advanced age and health difficulties, I seriously doubt he will run for president. It's not even a consideration. And the succession of Fidel Castro will be very interesting indeed...unless he's indeed immortal. ;D Jachra 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No Bush and Chaney were elected after their terms end they will leave. Castro took power by force and nominated Raul for the position. The present Cuban circumstance is equivalent to what many of the emperors of Ancient Rome, or William the Conqueror did. Castro is essentially founding a dynasty. El Jigüe 12/6/05

Grievances with a reversion

I wrongly accused 172 of lazy reversion. Here are his comments. Saravask 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 172's comments on the revert:

  • I meant to say that we should not write the intro from a normative standpoint. If that point did not come across, then it was an error in my formulation of the point or a typo. I am sorry for being unclear. But in the future you should keep in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith. From experience I think that that policy has made work around here much easier. 172 | Talk 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I just ran into you a couple of times. I've been reverted hundreds of times. It's not the end of the world; and it's not the end of the world when there's disagreement over reasons for a revert. Sorry you took so much offense... I will not be editing this article at all in the foreseeable future. So hopefully there will be no need for you to concern yourself with me any longer. 172 | Talk 23:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Re: Yet 172 cannot explain why my, anyone else's edits, constitute "blatant POV". Saravask, it's not I can't clarify my position; it's that I'm afraid that explaining my position and where I consider myself misunderstood will just make matters worse. I got extremely angry responses from the only two comments I ever made in relation to you, which I thought to be innocuous at the time. Such angry responses are unusual on Wikipedia after very minimal contact between editors. From that I get the impression that we have little chance of working well together. Perhaps that's my fault for failing to be sufficiently clear in the first place. For that I will take responsibly, assuming good faith on your part. So, to minimize acrimony, I chose to concern myself no longer with editing the article. Nevertheless, I wish you luck with your endeavor to write quality content in this article. 172 | Talk 00:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies to 172

I apologize to 172 for the extremely ugly and vindictive tone of the above comments. I apologize also to anyone has to trudge through my rhetorical slop, which is not at all fit for a Wikipedia talk page. As 172 rightly pointed out, my accusation that 172 did not understand the difference between the terms "normative" and "positive" was unjustified. I misread his comments — 172 was indeed calling for a more positivist (fact-driven as opposed to opinion-based) approach to the article. He merely obliquely referred to my paragraph on human rights violations as "normative", whereas I do not believe this to be the case. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that I wrongly attacked another upstanding and credentialed contributor to Wikipedia. My regrets, Saravask 01:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite relieved. Thanks so much for such an upright response and the kind words. I have no hard feelings at all, as it helped me better understand the need to take more time to explain my reasoning on talk pages of sensitive topics like this one. Again, I apologize for my lack of clarity. 172 | Talk 03:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I regret that 172 has chosen to stop his good work on this article, and I desire that he should come back soon. 172 should feel free to exercise his sound editing and POV-reverting judgment (against me or anyone else) as he sees fit. I regret any part my ranting had in his leaving. After much investigation, I have awarded 172 the Barnstar of Diligence for his contributions on Cold War and history-related subjects (see the George F. Kennan article for a superb example of 172's work). I hope such continued and sincere appreciation for his work will stop 172 from once again being forced to leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot risk losing such a prolific and fastidious contributor as 172. Saravask 15:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur, SqueakBox 15:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Is anyone going to discuss why they are undoing corrections to grammar and punctuation as well as deletions of material irrelevant to the subject, or are summary reverts again the rule of the day? --TJive 20:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Fidel Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926) has been the President of Cuba since 1959
High standard of scrutiny here. --TJive 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

TJive you're full of crap. Since when is 'US plans against Castro' irrelevant? Just because YOU don't agree with it doesn't mean you have to delete it.

TJive, do you mean to suggest you never commit any summary reverts? Let me remind you of, for instance, this, the last in a series of nine summary reverts, after which I threw i the towel. DirkvdM 07:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. No I don't suggest that.
  2. It's irrelevant.
  3. Yes I have, but not purposely.
  4. I had many problems with those edits as I explained in the talk page.

After all this time no one has even bothered to mention in talk or in summaries why the material should be included in the article, and it is has only grown larger over time. --TJive 18:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not purposely? You indiscriminately reverted bunch of edits nine times in a row by accident? DirkvdM 09:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant / POV comment?

"His father Ángel Castro, well known for his ruthlessness, is believed to have served with the Spanish troops of "butcher" Valeriano Wyler in the last 1895-1898 Cuban War of Independence."

Hello. Though I've refrained from editing this article for a couple of weeks or so, I noticed the above has been amongst the content being added/removed/reverted recently. I'm wondering:

  1. What, if any, direct relevance it has to the article - and if it has, please indicate how;
  2. If it is relevant, whether:
  • "well known [well-known?] for his ruthlessness" is (a minority) POV;
  • "butcher" is POV or is an established moniker.

Thanks,
David Kernow 03:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

For comparison, the article on George W Bush doensn't mention that his grandfather indirectly sponsored Nazi Germany - as indeed it shouldn't because it's irrelevant to the person the article is about. DirkvdM 07:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Many authors of Castro biographies consider, such as George Anne Geyer and Norberto Fuentes, emphasize the strong paternal influence of Angel Castro on Fidel. Geyer dedicates chapter 2 "Gnarled roots" to this matter. El Jigüe 12/6/05

What kind of influence does Geyer (or Fuentes or any other biographer) claim Angel Castro had on Fidel? Does Geyer et al offer substantiation? Thanks for your interest, David Kernow 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fidel demonstrates the worst in Angel Castro, the greed, the desperated need to control all. Read the references I have. El Jigüe 12/25/05

TDC's right to be reverting that text dump about U.S. plans

Castro's claims of the U.S. attempting to assassinate him are relevant, yes, especially since such plans did exist (even if they weren't implemented.) But as it is now it's just a bunch of text dumped in there to make the U.S. look bad, and it's entirely too bloated. Dr. Trey 01:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. Anything I don't agree with is anti-American, blah blah. It's not like your country has done no wrong, and you're just too ashamed or ignorant to admit it.

Great arguement.................not. CJK 13:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, whatever it is, blame America last.

Come back when you have a serious justification. CJK 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

OK why don't you go and edit that section yourself, instead of deleting it? And how is the stuff on Castro's father more relevant than U.S. assassination plans?

I don't know who added the father stuff, feel free to modify that, but the section in question is not just "assassination plans" its about general allegations of US interference in Cuba which is off topic for a biographical article and is poorly sourced with either shaky, far-left, or Cuban government sources. CJK 13:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

These are not from far-left pro-Cuban political organisations, several of them are from universities and research institutes. These also include plans to assassinate Castro the man himself. Aren't you the one who accused the World Health Organization of being a Cuban source?

You have not provided sources for much of the material you attempted to put in. And most of the sources you have used are far-left pro-Cuban political organisations. TDC 19:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Hey!Or should i say it politely as Oyea Tau don't blame TDC that was me I went to the trouble of reading the original WHO document El Jigüe 12/07/06


In response to those who wish to remove information about CIA plans to assinate Castro: It's important, and it's not just put in there to look bad. It happened, and it's true, as well as a more informative read, espiecally if researching US - Cuban relations. If it looks bad, then maybe the goverment shouldn't have attempted it in the first place rather than try to cover it up, but that's beside the point.

Stuart cobbe December 15th, 2005

New infobox

Since when is "not american" a nationality? Ojw 16:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate sources

Under the subject line titled "Life as a guerilla", near the bottom, the article reads " It is also claimed that Guevara received excessive credit, when in one instance it is alleged he abandoned another anti-Batista leader to fight to his death. [6] [7]." These links lead to a broken amazon handle and an unexplanatory info page to an all-spanish memoir that doesn't seem like it has much to do with Che Guevara's apparant cowardice in and of itself, though the book itself may be useful. I'm a little new here, so I'm not going to just barge in and try and fix them, I'd rather bring this matter to attention and see if I'm justified in this post. Otherwise, please, by all means, inform me of my impropriety. Whew. Mrpickle 04:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


Mr. Pickle You need to read more on the action of la ofensiva (Operacion Verano) and the death of Guevara's non-communist rival Daniel (Rene Ramos Latour). Still I find it troubling that you consider that "all-Spanish memoir' makes it less pertinent El Jigüe 12/6/05

These references are found in the Cuba section:

Anderson, Jon Lee 1997. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life,Bantam Press, ISBN 0553406647 or Grove Press, ISBN 0-8021-1600-0

Bonachea, Ramon L and Marta San Martin 1974. The Cuban insurrection 1952-1959. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswik, New Jersey ISBN 0878555765

Matos, Huber, 2002. Como llego la Noche. Tusquet Editores, SA, Barcelona. ISBN: 848310944

Rojo del Río, Manuel. 1981 La Historia Cambio En La Sierra. Editorial Texto, San José, Costa Rica 2a Ed. Aumentada


Then compare them to Guevara's selfserving writings

Guevara, Ernesto “Che” (and Waters, Mary Alice editor) 1996 Episodes of the Cuban Revolutionary War 1956-1958. Pathfinder New York. ISBN: 0873488245

El Jigüe 12/6/05


I'm not saying it's not usable because it is in Spanish (I speak Spanish), I'm saying that one of the links leads to an error page (the first one) and another simply leads to an Amozon product information page, which supplies neither information about the book, nor reviews intelligible to those who speak only English (fine for the spanish version, but this is on the english page) I'm merely pointing out that to the average guy looking for information on Fidel Castro, this is confusing and should be removed. 206.72.81.226 15:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


You might notice that Amazon.com provides reviews of the books. However, I added more citations to keep you happy. I find it odd that you dislike Spanish language sources. So if some cannot read it others can and those you want to leave out. By the way Gott is considered by some to be a left wing agent. And leaving his book as only reference seems a little "POV" to me, so I added, some more xe xe El Jigüe 12/7/05

Should that header on the George W. Bush page be added here?

Wondering about this JONJONAUG 03:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Current Photo of Castro

Castro has not looked like that in 30-40 years, are you sure that is not one of his doubles Xe xe El Jigùey 12/07/05


  • I have just put in more recent picture --Ehouk1 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

List of dictators

  • A anon ip added a wikilink to List of dictators in see also. Please, don't revert. Since Castro is listed in that list, this wikilink shall not be removed. The matter is not wheather Castro is or is not a dictator. He is listed there, so it should be kept in See also till changes in that list. For discussion, please go to Talk:List of dictators. José San Martin 00:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Article protected

There have been almost 150 edits in the last 2 days (the history), all by anon IPs either adding the word "dictator" to the into or something very similar -- and then the edits reverting them -- with minimal discussion. I have protected it and I suggest leaving it protected for 2 days.

BCorr|Брайен 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Won't help, it will continue as it was after that. Gerrit CUTEDH 15:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bcorr is extremely abusive and Wikipedia is stuck in a medieval period

Obviously this incident has demonstrated that the wikipedia community is centered around elitist moderators/adminstrators such as Bcorr who do not care for accuracy but rather their own biased version of "neutral point of view". I expect Bcorr to defend his stance with a long and convoluted response in which he will pretend to be smarter than me but will simply evade the point. Bcorr obviously has no clue who Fidel Castro is yet has taken the side that Castro "has led" over "has ruled" or "is a dictator" etc. etc. Wikipedia is stuck in the middle ages of the internet in which one person can make a decision to affect everyone and is why it will never be taken seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.9.101.226 (talk • contribs) .

No long explanation. I have protected it due to the endless reversions the last few days coming from multiple anonymous IP addresses. Any other admin (of which there are over six hundred) can reverse it if they feel it's merited. BCorr|Брайен 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey pal, it's been a lot longer than 2 days. Are you planning on freezing this forever? -lethe talk 10:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I just finished reading WP:PPol. Bcorr, you've been involved in a reversion war of this article, and are therefore not eligible to protect it. If you want it to be protected, you must ask for another admin to do it. By protecting it after reverting it to your version, you've abused your powers. -lethe talk 10:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I will unprotect it, but honestly, this isn't as sinister as you make it sound. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
who said anything about "sinister"? Oh, maybe you're talking about the original anonymous comment. Yeah, that was kinda over the top, but that wasn't me. I just want the page unprotected (and I do think that Bcorr overstepped his bounds)-lethe talk 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I never intended to abuse my powers, and apologize for creating the feeling that I did. While I'm tempted to apologize and let sleeping dogs lie, I'll feel it's important for the sake of other admins in simnilar situations to note that I was one of more than a dozen people who reverted nearly identical POV edits by Antispammer and anon IPs over the course of a few days as shown by the history. I wasn't reverting to a version of the article that I has worked on, simply the version before the re-insertion of POV material. While it's true that I could easily have asked someone else to protect it, I honestly didn't consider myself a party to an revert war, but though that my actions were covered under Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Reverting and vandalism. However, I apologize for protecting it myself, and hope that people understand I wasn't trying to protect either my version or the "wrong version".
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I guess if that's the case then I don't think you abused your powers. I retract my defamation. I guess I was just annoyed because I hate protected pages. Cheers. -lethe talk 18:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Ru-led - time share

Wikipedia's meant to be encyclopedic which means, as I see it, the range of ways Castro (or Cuba)is seen need be represented. This whole argument expands into Castro the dictator or the popular leader. Lets either agree a week on week off arrangement - or put ruled/led and make it a link to another section or page featuring the arguments - and then concentrate on providing evidence to back up our particular view. MichaelW 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody says "has led" for any person in office no matter what. I dont say "George W. Bush has led the United States, so why would you say Fidel Castro has led Cuba? Where is he leading Cuba? That is riduculous, and it is even more ridiculous to say it to someone who is on the list of dictators. There are only two type of people that would not consider Fidel Castro a dictator and that is people that are ignorant of him and pro-castro communists. --65.2.185.203 07:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


So being on the list of dictators list is sufficient proof to render all dissenting points of view ridiculous? At a time when Wikipedia's authority is being questioned, that is heartening. As far as this point goes there are two kinds of people - those who think he's a dictator and the rest. I wouldn't say that GWB 'has led', but I believe it to be an accurate description of Castro's role. Bush is a puppet/figurehead and leads nothing but a privileged life. Okay forget about 'has led'. What would your suggestion be for a NPOV term for the leader of the Cuban government. Head of government? MichaelW 20:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignorance of Cuban history, such as questioning the nature of Castro's rule or the existence of the Castro attack on Bayamo Barracks, does not seem to disqualify comments. I have placed massive lists of references in a number of places xe xe El Jigüey 12/25/05

You may want to follow the discussions on the proposed policy about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Joss although not involved, I was in the area of at the time, the feast of Santa Ana (Saint Ann) 26th of July, plus there is a massive very carefully, detailed scholarly study ready to be published on the attack on Moncada and Bayamo. Most comments called in to question here are accurate. El Jigüey 12/25/05


Joss see my carefully documented comments at policy page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. El Jigüey 12/25/05


What careful documentation was that? Has some Castro lover already erased them or am I blind - an article about the sacking of an Iraq war correspondent is not documentation of anything relating to Cuba is it, apart from an inference of your own making? The only thing of relevance over on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page was another example of anti-Castroite delusion - (J.W. Schmidt writing that El C was in control of these pages. As if.) And what does your 'Ignorance of Cuban history...' comment have to do my suggestion that we acknowledge our differences and concentrate on mapping them? MichaelW 13:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have a sugestion. George Bush has governed the US, hasn't him? It is exactly what Fidel Castro has done in Cuba. Govern is pretty neutral. Try it. 15:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael hmmmmmmmmmmm apparently you view both your lack of knowledge of the details of Cuban history and that of the history of deceived or aberrant journalists as of no consequence or pertinence to this matter El Jigüey 12/26/05

Thus I am reposting the information on these journalist here:


I posted this to the policy site since it is terrible important if you decide to take this path it seems inevitable that it will lead to Wikipedia style control of the internet. For instance I wrote This is can very dangerous for doing this may make Wikipedia a mere tool of a totalitarian government, such as in the notorious Walter Duranty case [1]. I suggest you read the material in this citation very very carefully, e.g. from citation immediately above:

"Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty's prize-winning articles quoted not a single one — only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps. Collectivization was the main cause of a famine that killed millions of people in Ukraine, the Soviet breadbasket, in 1932 and 1933 — two years after Duranty won his prize." El Jigüey 12/26/05

In Castro's case he uses a number of reporters including CNN's Lucia Newman to whitewash his situation. It is said by reliable although private sources that Newman has turned in tape of dissidents to the Cuban authorities. It is wise to recall that after Saddam fell CNN was forced to fire a reporter filing from Bagdad (Peter Arnett)for exactly this kind of reporting [2]. El Jigüey 12/26/05


If after all this you believe the matter of lack of complete reliability of journalists has no pertinence, to the discussion, and their statements should erase first hand knowledge, then..xe xe ...you are talking about re-writing history... As to your statment "another example of anti-Castroite delusions..." it reminds me of the old Spanish proverb Castro mentioned publically soon after the Bay of Pigs "El que vive de illusiones, muere de desengaños" (He who lives with illusions will die disapointed). Remember one can interpret Castro's statment: "history will absolve me" as prediction of his continuing attempts to control history...However, perhaps Stalin thought of that first....xe xe Jigüey 12/26/05

Getting back towards the dispute, I believe "dictator" most accurately describes Castro's government. Words like "governed" and "led" can be widely interpreted, while dictator is quite frank. CJK 00:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dictator is an obvious POV and should not even be considered an option in this case. - Comandante

Yes, but POVs can be presented if attributed. The problem is with these categories, that sometime break NPOV. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reoving inline refs

Please do nor delete references, neither "assign" them to pro or anti Castro. Thanks. I have renamed the inline references section as "sources" as appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Again: Please do not remove references from the article. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I can see that User:Comandante does not want to discuss his deletions of referenced materials. Please do not remove material. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Saturates

The Cuban government saturates the population with "revolutionary" slogans and propaganda, in the form of such items as billboards and posters.

This strikes me as being a little biased and if maintained, the opposing view should be given. That is that in the West, advertisers saturate the population with "ideological" slogans and propaganda, in the form of such items as billboards and posters. In the words of Banksy:

twisted little people go out every day and deface this great city. leaving their idiotic little scribblings, invading communities and making people feel dirty and used. they just take, take, take and they don't put anything back. they're mean and selfish and they make the world an ugly place to be. we call them advertising agencies and town planners...

Should I remove the piece, tone it down or add in the opposing view? - FrancisTyers 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How about making the contrast. That the billboards and public posters of Cuba hold revolutionary slogans etc rather than commercial advertisments.MichaelW 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to The Cuban government, specifically the CDR, frequently puts up billboards and posters with propaganda slogans similar to the one shown in the picture(right).--Antispammer 06:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In defense of "dictator"

Dictator is clearly the most accurate word to describe Castro, and I disagree that it is POV. First, Castro is on List of Dictators which has undergone an AFD in which no consensus to delete had developed. Second, other "rulers" such as Batista, Pinochet, and Somoza are flat out characterized as dictators in their introductions. With all due fairness, Castro should be as well. CJK 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You may want to read Talk:List of dictators before making such an assertion of fact.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

His name is on the list. That is my point. No one has disputed that Fidel Castro is a dictator. CJK 00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay so a bunch of us Castro groupies tootle over there and start an edit war... So what that he's on the list, it just means there's a high percentage of Castro critics hanging out there.

A dictator is defined there as an absolutist or autocratic ruler who governs outside the rule of law...

As far as a whole bunch of us are concerned he's not a dictator, to be grouped with those ruthless elitists you mention, but the dominant personality of that fraction of Cuban political professionals, which heads the coalition of forces which commands most loyalty from the Cuban population. And which has commanded most loyalty for the last 46 years.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? CJK 17:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It means power relations in Cuba aren't as simple as you and your allies would like to make out MichaelW 18:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As someone once said "He's not a dictator, he's a Leo".

From where we are standing Castro is a dictator is just so POV. Now if we were to define Castro as 'the elected head of government' we'd face challenges of POV, to say the least. So here we are looking for a way of saying he's head honcho, without attaching any moral/legalist assertions. Otherwise the only stable form is going to have to acknowledge the debate. How about "Fidel Castro is, depending who you ask, a dictator or a popular leader..." MichaelW 04:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well duh... because he does not fit the definition of elected head of government. CJK 17:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
We have wikipedia to give clear definitions of the term dictator. Just because a word has been demonized does not mean you have to ban it from use. It is like when the right-wingers say liberals, are you going to assume now that the word liberal means evil? No, and dictator does not imply evil or oppression. It simply means someone with near absolute authority, and I am pretty sure that you know that Fidel Castro pretty much can do anything he wants and has for the past 46 years. Dictator simply implies that he has total control. Any other word you use to describe his position in power would be ambigious and we are supposed to be accurate.--Antispammer 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This conversation is one of the more unproductive of the kinds of conversations that periodically come up on Wikipedia articles. Hopefully everyone on this talk page realizes that Castro is no good, meaning that the anti-Castro editors don’t need to make a point here. Still, the urge to insert as many negative descriptions in the article as possible does not serve to make the article more informative. I removed the statement in the article stating that Castro is described as a dictator by some while others disagree. This point should be made self-evident when describing how opinion on Castro is polarized throughout the Americas, as a lot of political factions continue to hold up the mantle of his failed ideas on the one hand, while Cuban-Americans condemn him in the harshest terms possible on the other. 172 04:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why so many editors are afraid to call a dictator a dictator. The only people you are going to offend are the ignoramus and/or party members. Neither of which are welcome in wikipedia anyhow. --70.149.44.80 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Them and a few million poor Latin Americans who think he's pretty cool. The only basis we have for deciding between their view and yours is to recite the underlying facts without prejudice. Gazpacho 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The debate is not about whether people like him or not, but whether its okay to use the word dictator. I am fairly confident those few million poor Latin Americans who think he's pretty cool know that he is a dictator. There is nothing outlandish about liking a dictator. Everyone has their taste. Like I said the only people that really feel its against NPOV are people trying to push their own POV, and/or people that aren't familiar with history of Cuba or Castro.--70.149.44.80 06:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've visited, and worked in Cuba, read several histories of Cuba, books on Castro etc, regularly read Usenet's alt.soc.cuba and other anti Castro sources. I'm neither an ignoramus or a party member, I'm just one of millions of people round the world who see Cuba's (and Castro's) successes as far exceeding their failings. To the likes of myself, the desire to portray Castro by the simplistic and loaded term - dictator - is as ideologically charged as our desire to identify him as a legitimate leader.

Uh... "success"? CJK 17:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hopefully everyone on this talk page realizes that Castro is no good,", "The only people you are going to offend are the ignoramus and/or party members. ". These kind of statements are no more than assertions of particular moralities, political points of view, being passed off as neutral.

I'm not trying to pass my perspective off as NPOV, I'm looking for a way to craft relatively stable Cuba and Castro entries on Wikipedia. To my mind this involves the likes of 172, CJK, and 70.149.44.80 acknowledging that this is not some test of academic knowledge with a fixed answer, but a live political issue in which the only NPOV is one which illustrates the full range of opinions surrounding the issue. And all your declarations that Castro is a dictator are simply that - your opinions. MichaelW 13:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We have a definition of dictator, which Castro fits. We have a list of dictators where Castro is on. We don't need to apply double standards for leftist dictators. CJK 17:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the so-called "List of Dictators"...

"The following is a selection of national government leaders sometimes regarded as dictators in the modern usage."

"Sometimes" being the keyword, meaning that that person is not necessarily a "dictator" just because they are on that list. Fidel Castro has also been elected by the 600-member National Assembly to the post of President every five years since 1976. Comandante

  • Being elected is no real feat when there is only one legal political party, and you're the only candidate. Is that the only basis you have for believing he isn't a dictator? I do however appreciate you coming here with your comments. I think we need to develop a consensus on whether or not he is a dictator. As a result, I will not be rolling back your change here, but I would like to request that we don't get into an edit war so let's discuss it here before we make changes, or I'll have to force the issue by protecting the article. Wikibofh(talk) 02:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Consensus is that Castro is a dictator. This is taken from the discussion at Talk:List_of_dictators/Fidel_Castro as well as here. Changes to this will be treated as going against consensus. Respectfully, Wikibofh(talk) 05:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. The discussion of including him is distinct from the AfD discussion. You've been around long enough to know what a drive-by proposition AfD is.  :) Wikibofh(talk)
        • The are somewhat related. The 63% vote in favor of deletion represents the dificulties in applying the term at times, particularly in cases of the dictatorship of a political party with a collective leadership, such as Cuba. At any rate, my new working works around that problem, referencing the condemnations of Castro as a dictator, which are verifiable, as opposed to having the Wikipedia article itself classify him as a dictator. 172 07:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, then why aren't people like Somoza called a "dictator" on their articles? Dictator is completely unacceptable and nothing more than POV-propaganda. Fidel Castro has been elected to the post of President of the Council of State by the National Assembly, referring to him as a dictator is obviously bias and not paying attention to the facts. Comandante

      • I don't know why Somoza isn't being dealt with the same way. Only so much room on the watch list. As I said before, being elected in a single party state is not an effective counter argument. (IMO) Wikibofh(talk) 06:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm finally glad to see you using the talk pages, as opposed to just reverting, Comandante. At any rate, while I think that it is a bit too provocative to include the term "dictator" in the first sentence, I partially agree with CJK. It should be clear that he is condemned by his opponents, especially the exile community in South Florida, as a dictator. I have moved the reference to dictatorship down in the intro, hoping to reach some middle ground in the dispute. 172 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I like your edit, and am fine with it. Additionally, there have been some recent edits I need to go back and review, because they might have been rolled back (for other portions), but do expose some real POV in the article. Wikibofh(talk) 06:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


I think this sounds more neutral:

"Since his accession to power in 1959, Castro has become only more controversial and high-profile. Inciting much condemnation, praise and debate, Castro is condemned by some as a dictator, especially by the Cuban American community in South Florida, and by others as a democratic leader." Comandante

  • I don't like how dictator is linked to a single group, whereas democratic leader is given to the rest of the population. "By others" is weasel wording, as is "by some". How about:
Castro is simultaneously condemned as a dictator and praised as a democratic leader.
There needs to be a little more to explain the obvious contradiction though. Wikibofh(talk) 16:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is what I was suggesting in the first place. Rather than the game of endless reversion, let the advocates of each view organise their arguments with online sources and other references, and the basic entry link to a section (same or separate page) laying out each sides arguments.

And how about: "Since his accession to power in 1959, Castro has remained controversial and high-profile. Inciting much condemnation, praise and debate, Castro is viewed by some as a dictator, and by others as a democratic leader." MichaelW 18:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    • You can write anyone is viewed by some as a dictator and others as a democratic leader, but one cannot be both. He is a dictator. After he overthrew Batista, he has been the person in charge and command of everything on that island. We can sit here and write essays about his near 5 decades of power and all the good and bad stuff he has done, but this is not what the debate is about. I think it is fair to label him a dictator and have it linked to the definition so someone can read what dictator is word for word.--Antispammer 18:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • We don't really know. The political situation may be better explained in terms of a Communist Party dictatorship governed by a collective leadership of which Castro is the most influential figure. In a way, describing Castro as a "dictator" leaves the Cuban Communist Party off the hook, so to speak. 172 21:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of consistency throughout wikipedia articles on all political leaders widely considered dictators

(Note: this discussion was originally part of In defense of "dictator")

From Somoza:
Somoza was the name of an influential family dictatorship in Nicaragua.
I changed the above to "political dynasty." 172 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
From Pinochet:
General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte[1] (born 25 November 1915) was head of the military government [links to military dictatorship ]that ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990.
"Military dictatorship" --> "military rule." 172 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
From Fulgencio Batista:
General Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar (16 January 1901 – 6 August 1973) was the de facto leader of Cuba from 1933 to 1940 and the country's de jure President from 1940 to 1944 and dictator, after a coup, from 1952 to 1959.
Replaced the term "dictator" with a more precise reference. 172 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
From Efrain Rios Montt:
Ríos Montt is best known outside Guatemala for heading a military regime [links to military dictatorship] (1982–1983) that presided over some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala's 36-year civil war, which finally ended with a peace treaty in 1996. Ríos Montt, however, denies that he knew anything about the massacres that were taking place under his rule. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos caught in the crossfire. At least 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history.
"Military dictatorship" --> "military rule." 172 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


If we are going to change this one, than these must be as well. CJK 19:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change the above. NPOV applies to all articles. 172 21:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
How is calling Fidel Castro and all those people a dictator against NPOV?--Antispammer 21:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Because some disagree with the discriptions. The truth isn't always NPOV. 172 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Who is disagreeing with calling them dictators? Is it really against NPOV? I really don't understand why we have to call these dictators leaders. I think that is against NPOV. I think leaders sounds weird.--Antispammer 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Encarta refers to Castro as Cuba's leader since 1959 [3]. The term is hardly weird. It seems to be the most commonly used term to refer to him in introductions, since he did not hold his current title of "president" from 1959 to 1976. As for those who disagree with calling him a dictator, first there are the Castro sycophants, who regrettably seem to be an increasingly sizable constituency in Latin America. The serious objections come from those, as I stated earlier, who view Cuban leadership in terms of a Communist Party dictatorship led by a collective leadership in which Castro is the most influential member. 172 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be fair to add totalitarian in Castro is widely condemned as a totalitarian dictator?--Antispammer 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Are there any non totalitarian dictators? Wikibofh(talk) 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Please see Authoritarianism and Kirkpatrick Doctrine. Totalitarianism != Authoritarianism. --Michalis Famelis 03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool. Thanks. I think it's a subtle distinction, and one apparently made for political purposes in the 1980s, but it was very informative. I suspect we could have some good arguments over whether a regime is one or the other, but I'm not interested in splitting those hairs.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 03:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
We are having a discussion about one particular leader and some of us do not consider it correct to bracket him with a bunch of military dictators – autocrats ruling by military enforcement. All you are doing by the tactic defined above is proving your unwillingness to accommodate any other view than your own. My tabled proposal does not remove your right to define Castro as a dictator, it says okay then, argue it through, with adequate references, sources and definitions. Those of us who think differently will do the same. Readers can check out our sources and reasoning and make up their own mind – have you ‘democracy’ advocates a problem with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelW (talk • contribs) 22:58, January 2, 2006.
I'm confused. What is my tactic? Personally I think he's a dictator, but other disagree so we're trying to come to consensus. I think having sources for the view points would be good and then we can craft based on their credibility. Wikibofh(talk) 23:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Wikibofh - haven't got the hang of correct insertions in these threads - I was referring to the tactic of 'if he's not a dictator then neither are they...' being put forward by CJK and allies. MichaelW 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
MichaelW, a compromise was met. It says leader, and then it says widely characterized as a dictator, especially by Miami. You win.--Antispammer 23:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Lets see if the compromise holds - and who is prepared to defend it... I wouldn't consider it a win until we get the presentation of the reasoned and sourced assertions under way.MichaelW 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, if we're going to change this one, we need come to consensus. The others can be dealt with separately. I like this recommendation:
Rather than the game of endless reversion, let the advocates of each view organise their arguments with online sources and other references
It is not clear cut by definition (which I looked at on wiktionary and m-w.com) or we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, let's see citations for both sides and move on. I'll post over at WP:VP to make sure we get broad discussion. Wikibofh(talk) 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


A dictator is not necessarily totalitarian, Batista would let one think what one wanted or own what one wanted (subject to a little bribery), as long as you did nothing against him, so he was a kind of "protestant" dictator. Castro, perhaps because of his religious training is totalitarian, he thinks in almost catholic terms of thought sins ({In MIND word or deed"). In other words if one is unfortunate enought to be subject to Castro's power, it is only necessary to think danger (peligrosidad) to his rule. Castro also views all property subject to his whim or pleasure much like a medieval king. El Jigüe 1/2/06

This is starting to turn into an internet debate forum. No one can disagree with the language that he is condemned as a dictator by th Cuban American exile community. Let's just keep that assertion in the intro and archive this talk page. We are going to off topic here with the discourses on totalitarianism and authoritarianism, which are more complicated than many users realize. In fact, a year long college-level course in comparative politics hardly gets around to answering some of the questions that have been posted up here in talk under this heading. 172 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to reach a consensus

  • I don't like the following:
In certain sectors, Castro is condemned as a dictator, especially by the Cuban American community in South Florida, although some others consider him a democratic leader.

In particular I believe "in certain sectors" and "some others consider" to be weasel words. They do not add anything but ambiguity, and if "sectors" and "others" believe that we should be able to identify them and document it. I think the first one can be removed because we identify the ex-pats and the second should be removed unless we can substantiate it. Wikibofh(talk) 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This statement is much more neutral and accurate:

"In certain sectors, Castro is condemned as a dictator, especially by the Cuban American community in South Florida, although some others consider him a democratic leader."

We can't just say he's "widely condemned" as if everybody agrees with that. The statement must be balanced. Also, it's widely known that most Communist organizations and Fidel Castro supporters refer to him as a democratic leader. Comandante

  • But we can, because we have cited a group that does, whereas we have not cited a single group that seems him as a democratic leader. As I pointed out, unless we provide groups, those are inherently bad word choices because they can not be verified. Wikibofh(talk) 02:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fidel Castro is widely condemned.
    1. Results 1 - 10 of about 262,000 English pages for condemn "Fidel Castro" from Google.
    2. A chorus of Fidel Castro defenders
    3. Soviet-bloc dissidents condemn Castro
    4. Fidel Castro's Dupes
    5. Cuba Limits Free Speech to Protect People from Satanic Cults
...and I'm not even really trying. Now, all you have to do is provide citations for the supporters that refer to him as a democratic leader. I'd also like to request that you come here BEFORE reverting. You'll notice my posts here are FAR more numerous than my changes to the actual page in an attempt to prevent an edit war. Please extend the same courtesy. Wikibofh(talk) 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that your request for citations of Fidel as a "democratic leader" is null. The most fervent supporters of Communist Cuba, are communist parties worldwide, and most (if not all) will speak of "communsit" or "socialist" leader and by that they also mean "democratic" in their own sense. It is a matter of what can be called democratic, which, as you probably know does not carry the same meaning around the world. The US-style democracy is a corporate regime for some, and Castro's Cuba is a proletarian democracy for others.
But, this is not the point. It is not our job to determine what democracy is, or to say weather Castro is a dictator or not. And this goes for all the aformentioned dictators(as I see them).
According to WP:NPOV:
"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."
Which as I understand means that writing:
some people, such as Miami exiles, call Castro a Dictator, others, such as many communists and leftists worldwide consider him to be democratic leader
is not weasel talk, it is just the way Wikipedia talks about things. And I don't quite see why you cannot agree in this.
-- Michalis Famelis 03:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That is like saying some people, such as Jewish exiles, call Hitler a Dictator, others, such as many neo-nazis and ultra-rightists worldwide consider him to be a democratic leader. It sounds completely unecyclopedic and offensive. I agree that we do need consistency, but wikipedia does not exactly welcome strong POV party members their say. I agree that we do need consistency, but to find a neutral way of describing all the dictators on wikipedia will be quite interesting. --Antispammer 05:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding! An exile population, thriving in the embrace of the world’s most powerful nation comparing their situation to plight of the Jews in 1930s. Talk about hyper-inflation and hubris. In the light of the above statement from WP:NPOV your little pastiche is actually a good NPOV contribution. All this talk about consistency and neutral ways of describing dictators is a red herring. It is not about that, it is about having the main ways Castro is viewed described on his page. Is anyone over on the Somoza page arguing that he was not a dictator? MichaelW 09:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't have a problem with that wording because it calls out specific groups for both. Structurally I prefer something like Castro is condemned as a dictator, especially by the Cuban exiles in America, and many others, such as self-avowed communists and leftists world wide .... I don't like "some people" because it is weasely. We're defining the people, so there is no need for it. I like your inclusion of a group for the "democratic leader" because it now identifies "some others" instead of leaving it to ambiguity. I have no problem with your statement, I just don't like the grammar and it is much better than that which I was trying to clean up and make neutral. Does that make sense? In spite of Antispammer's invocation of Godwin's Law, there is a valid point there. Wikibofh(talk) 13:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually I wrote the sentence in a hurry just to make a point of how it could be described. I was trying to add a more precise sentence last night but due to wikiserver problems I had to wait until today. So, how about this (altered to satisfy the some people disagreement):
Castro is codenamed a dictator by the Cuban American community in South Florida as well as by many anti-sommunists around the world. On the other hand, many communists and leftists around the world, consider him a democratic, popular leader, whereas he enjoys much popularity as such in Latin America.
This is intended to include both (more or less) specific groups (Miami exiles and his popularity in L.America) and ideological alignments (leftists and anticommunists). A point needs to be made here. Antispammer wrote: wikipedia does not exactly welcome strong POV party members their say. Well, this is just not the case here. I don't know weather in Antispammer's close environment all leftists and communists are hardline partisans but it is important to understand that being a communist/leftist (as well as anti-communist) does not mean party membership. In fisrt order logic it is MemberOfLeftistParty(X)->Leftist(X), not the opposite.
Also something else I think is important. It is not altogether sane to have a blanket policy for all the people that are labelled "dictators". Cases should be examined locally and in their own light. Naming for example Fidel a dictator does not mean that it should be the same for George Papadopoulos (our Greek pet pig). Let editors of respective articles decide for each case. We are not here to decide on all "dicators" of history. We are here to write the Fidel Castro article. If the labelling of Somoza as dictator or not interests you, go and participate in the appropriate project.
-- Michalis Famelis 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I like that sentence far less. "codenamed" is awkward and the "popular leader, whereas he enjoys much popularity" is just plain ugly. Wikibofh(talk) 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, how do you think it should be worded? Share your ideas and let's reach a consensus! -- Michalis Famelis 15:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (resetting indent) Will do. Give me a while. Fighting the google battle over at Louis Braille. Wikibofh(talk) 15:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what CJK is arguing for, and something that I have always argued for, is consistency in article to article. Perhaps an RfC might be the best way to deal with this once and for all. DTC 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I hate to admit it, because RFCs are a pain, but I think you're right. Wikibofh(talk) 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think before an RfC is initiated the specific grievances need to be made clear. This clamour for consistency is based on some incredibly faulty logic. Castro is on the dictator list not through some inherent quality, like putting lorries on a transport list. He’s there because a number of people who believe so have maintained control of the edit. There has been no attempt as part of this discussion to remove him from the list. Having the debate about Castro’s role illustrated on his page is all that is being called for here. If there is anyone trying to do the same on any other individual dictator’s pages then it might become a general issue. Until then the issue here is about the wording which lets our readers know that some view him as a dictator, and some don’t, and if we ever manage to agree on that we can get down to illustrating his behaviour which supports each view.MichaelW 09:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure there is a grievance, so much as a need for assistance on dealing with the term dictator and it's application across the wiki. We just need to get consensus, because this is has been unexpectedly (at least for me) polarizing. Wikibofh(talk) 13:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


  • MichaelW the only person disagreeing that Castro is not a dictator is user:Comandante, but he has been bombarding the article, and starting an edit war, with a handful of few sentences that are propaganda lies for a about 4 months. I know where he is coming from, and I understand that little game he is trying to play. Unfortunately, your previous comment that I've got to be kidding, when I really was not, and even your comment about Bush is a puppet leader who leads a priveleged life has really made me lose all respect for your opinion. All I am trying to find is a way to describe political leaders that are widely considered dictators without leaving the article open for more edit wars. I am fine with the wording Castro is widely condemned as a dictator, especially by the Cuban American exile community in South Florida. Unfortunately, as 100% accurate in actuality that statement may be, unfortunately someone can object to it(as Comandante has) and we cannot discredit his objection, and leave the statement alone, because there is no guideline for using the word dictator. I would also kindly ask you stop trying to turn this into a discussion about Cuban history because this is not what this is about. I also kindly ask you to stop trying to counter-argue every single statement on this page for the sake of arguing. I am not here trying to make a mockery of this issue, but I am trying to settle this once and for all.--Antispammer 18:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Comandante is not the only one who thinks that Fidel is not a dictator. Personally I hold the same POV, and there are many leftists worldwide who would argue the same. But that is not the point. We are not here to enforce POVs we but to build an NPOV version of the article. In that light I disagree with the sentence Castro is widely condemned as a dictator, especially by the Cuban American exile community in South Florida as it does not take into account that he is not considered a dictator by many others, especially leftists and communists. Also, please see my comment above, that leftists are not necessarily party members.
Together with User:Wikibofh we have been trying to reach a consensus on the grounds of this sentence: some people, such as Miami exiles, call Castro a Dictator, others, such as many communists and leftists worldwide consider him to be democratic leader. Please share your views on this.
-- Michalis Famelis 19:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite confused. Is it not already assumed that communists and leftists would sympathize with him and not condemn him as a dictator? Just as it is assumed that anyone who has an extreme left or right POV would sympathize with a political leader that aligns with their political ideaology. What I was saying is that, I thought wikipedia was about the common opinion across the world, not about the opinions of the extreme left or right. But, I guess since you feel my analysis of what I consider to be common opinion is contrary to what you believe, you want to get you're say, so to speak. Then I think it would have to be more in context, perhaps not as long as I am going to write it but it needs to be in context. How about Castro's unique cult of personality, decades-long internal government propaganda tactics, and a few notable historical events that have been used as propaganda fuel by both extremes of the political spectrum has led to polarizing views. For instance, Castro is widely condemened as a totalitarian dictator among Cuban exiles living in South Florida, generally viewed as a dictator by moderates, but also viewed as a democratic leader by Communists and leftists world wide. By the way, I'm not trying to sound satirical, that is really what I feel.--Antispammer 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


The reason this discussion is going on, and on, isn't because I'm being argumentative. It's because you, Antispammer, are missing the point. I've no problem accepting that you are sincere in your beliefs, that it is really is what you feel, and I want those beliefs described as well as possible on Wikipedia. All I've been trying to do is help sort out a stable form of this article. The instability is caused by the strength of feeling which Cuba causes. The only way to stability is to make equal room for the various viewpoints. So we've reached a concensus on describing him plainly at the outset, as a leader. Now you Castrophobes are trying to deny we sycophants any visibility. Your game is understandable too.

The way I see it - either we write something short like 'some describe him as a dictator, some as a popular leader' - just leave it at that or we specify the exiles on one side and what - lefties and national liberation movements - on the other. Now personally I'd go for the most simple, but will be happy with any neutral description of the two sides. MichaelW 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Antispammer, please use some paragraphing, and please write with more clarity, as I think I don't understand some of what you've written. Apart from that please notice that leftism (not hardline communism, just plain leftism) is not considered an "extreme political view" in many parts of the world, most notably in Latin America. I don't expect you to agree to this, but please see the point that what you think is extremist (leftism) is not universally considered so. Anyway this is off-topic, so we could just drop the "political extremism" talk as slightly irrelevant.
More to the point: it is not assumed that leftists and communist look sympathetically on Fidel. It is not even true. Important leftist formations, such as Socialist Parties (for example PSOE, Parti Socialiste, etc), along with smaller groups such as Trotskyist (and in general anti-USSR) formations would consider Castro a dictator. So to say that some communists/leftists believe he is a popular democratic leader is more accurate than it looks on first sight.
Also: please bear in mind which common opinion you speak of. Is it the USA common opinion? Is it the Venezuelan common opinion? Is it the Cuban common opinion? Please understand that what we are trying to do is encapsulate as wider a perspective as possible, so as to avoid systemic bias.
Even more to the point: Your wording of the paragraph: Castro's unique cult of personality, decades-long internal government propaganda tactics, and a few notable historical events that have been used as propaganda fuel by both extremes of the political spectrum has led to polarizing views. For instance, Castro is widely condemened as a totalitarian dictator among Cuban exiles living in South Florida, generally viewed as a dictator by moderates, but also viewed as a democratic leader by Communists and leftists world wide bears in it aspects that cannot be considered NPOV. I refer to allegations of propaganda tactics and cult of personality, as well as the "extremes" factor about which we talked about earlier. Also, the idea that "moderates" see him as a dictator is definitely POV.
There are two things to take care of in this issue. One thing is to decide weather Fidel should be mentioned as a dictator or not. I believe that doing so would be POVish, so I stick to the "leader" proposal, and I think most would agree on that. The second issue is how to present the different views that are held about Fidel by various groups of people. We should adopt a descriptive wording, not a judgemental one, and we should try to be as specific as possible. In this light I think the template: (AGAINST: anti-communists + Miami Cubans)(FOR:Many L.Americans + many communists + many leftists). Maybe the latter (about Latin Americans) should be more precise but not being an expert in Latin American politics I will leave that to others. Plus, I don't think there should be any mention of "moderates" (who is a moderate?).
-- Michalis Famelis 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Why can't you just admit that he is a dictator, and has been for 47 years, and that he is a dictator that leftists and communists like?--Antispammer 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not here to discuss my POV, but even if that was so, I still could not "admit" that Fidel is a dictator, because I don't think he is. But my POV or your POV is not the point in this attempt to reach a consensus. You say he is a dictator, others disagree, so even by the mere fact that there exists a controversy, there must be considerations of NPOV. So according WP:NPOV, the way to do this is not to rule out if Fidel is a dictator or not. According to WP:NPOV the way to solve this controversy is to stick to "A says this, B says that". Please read WP:NPOV... -- Michalis Famelis 00:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to make clarification here. Those who think Castro is not a dictator either believe that other members of the Communist Party hold considerable power as well or that Castro is a democratic leader. If we are going to say that some do not think he is a dictator, it should be in the form of "many believe he is a dictator while some argue that his power is limited by other members of the Communist Party (with citations)" or something like that. The latter belief that Castro is a democratic leader should probably go unmentioned, or if mentioned made clear that the view is held by a very small minority. Also, something should be mentioned about Cuba's one-party status, which I believe is much less controversial than "dictator". CJK 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the inconsistency still bothers me that in some articles Castro is a dictator, and in others he isn't. CJK 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What we are trying to say here is that some view him one way and some another. (That worrisome inconsistency is no more than a demonstration of the fact. Let it be, remember who Wikipedia is - a collective effort, not a fully co-ordinated one. Wales for dictator anyone?) I don't think we need clarification here. I'd rather the bare statement lead to a section or separate page where the detail was worked out: what you mean by dictator, what we mean by popular leader. Trying to expand the polarities in here is clunky.MichaelW 11:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use the "dictator" thing twice so i removed the following:

"In some published biographies, Castro is characterized as a dictator." Comandante

Is it just me?

In most of the pictures I've seen of this guy, he looks a lot like Liam Neeson. Does anyone else see it?