Talk:Fidel Castro - Wikipedia
1 person in discussion
 | Fidel Castro has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 26, 2016. | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fidel Castro. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fidel Castro at the Reference desk. |
what about Fidel trialling for NY Yankees?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk • contribs) 11:15, February 9, 2016 (UTC)
WTF? is that for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the 25th November 2016, Cuban State television announced that Castro had died. As of now, the Cuban government has not released any more information in regards to his death. ElliotGrewy (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Already included in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Siva menon T N (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)please present his death in an honourable manner. he was one of the last surviving Communist ideologues.Reply
- Wikipedia shouldn't present any death in an honourable or dishourable manner, but can you describe in more details what you feel needs to change. Please rememeber the edit protected is intended as a way for you to ask for an edit your can't perform yourself due to protection, so we need to know exactly what you want to do. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- i completely agree. some people just got no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
nO POIINT LINKING TO Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro. THOTHING THERE. 06:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- That page is under construction and will be expanded with time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- link it when it is worth linking to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
The page seems well formed now - Arjayay (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- It's actually a merge discussion. See Talk:Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro#Merge. Fences&Windows 10:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
he is dead, died the 26th of november 81.110.52.171 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Not done he died on 25 November, which is why the opening line states (August 13, 1926 – November 25, 2016) - Arjayay (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He died in Havanna not in Santiago de Cuba! 89.14.117.201 (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Already done - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
It should read [...] was a Cuban politician, revolutionary, and later dictator who [...], because when Castro became engaged, it happened like this in the course of time - see also 2nd paragraph. First he had become involved in politics as a student, a little later he joined more radical groups over time, and it stayed like this until he and others managed to overthrow Batista. It would be even better to include later to symbolize it took a certain time from the moment he became a revolutionary until he reached dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.75.80 (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Did he die on the 25th or the 26th? also, the first edit on his death was made on the 26th, it could've been the 25th in the timezone where this user lives, also the Death section says it was on the 26th. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the events around 1979, the page describes Jimmy Carter as 'US President Jimmy Carter'. In the next paragraph, it describes US President Ronald Reagan as 'Right Wing'. For consistency, and in an effort to appear objective, Reagan should be described without individual opinion as his title. This descriptive causes an objective observer to doubt the validity of the entire article. 76.73.174.158 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
In the summary of legacy at the end of the first paragraph, it is exceedingly important to present a geographically balanced viewpoint on Castro's legacy. This is essential to avoid Systematic Bias. Thus, viewpoints from Asia, Africa, and Latin America must be accounted for, and viewpoints from the United States should not be over-emphasized. The Reuters article currently cited, gives a sense of the relative proportion of various viewpoints. In large parts of the world, Castro was viewed very positively but was viewed highly negatively by certain sections in the United States. To ensure neutrality these perspectives need to be brought out. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
In addition, in the first line, the word "dictator" is clearly a point of view. This is hardly something that is unanimously agreed upon, and this is clear from statements released by various countries as cited in the Reuters article but can easily be confirmed through a broader survey. Since this description appears anyway in the last line of the first paragraph, I propose that it be deleted from the first line to ensure neutrality. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Being a murderous dictator was his main job. There are multiple reliable sources who say so. You are going too far in trying to make this article undue and unbalanced. You say United States viewpoint as if that does not include Cubans and Cuban-Americans who had their family tobacco farms and sugar farms STOLEN by castro, and then if they complained they were imprisoned and murdered. That guy doesn't need your help where he is going and WP does not need propaganda in the article about this homicidal tyrant.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, what you say above clearly reflects a strong POV, "homicidal tyrant" , "murderous dictator" etc. and does not conform to NPOV. As an example, here are some links from all over the world. Note that the New York Times, which fairly represents mainstream U.S. opinion describes him as a "leader" and not as dictator. Also, note press releases from Canada, Ecuador, Bolivia, China, Russia, India, South Africa, Pakistan etc. These reactions represent the overhelming majority of world opinion, are generally significantly positive and do not refer to Castro as a "dictator". Accordingly, in the article this dominant viewpoint should be prioritized over that of fierce critics, who represent a considerably smaller section of world-population. This is because Wikipedia must reflect the preponderance of reliable sources, and not original research or the viewpoint of editors (however strongly they may hold it). Jacob2718 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- The definition of "dictator" is "a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.", he obtained power in the Cuban Revolution and ruled his country for nearly half a century, he is the perfect definition of a dictator.
∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk15:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- The Washington Post, which is known as a left-leaning liberal newspaper, did title their article on this "Fidel Castro, Cuban dictator, dies at 90" [1]. But you are more obsessed with inserting ideological which is a huge problem in 20th Century Latin American articles. Leaders of authoritarian right-wing regimes with murders are called facsist dictators, but if similar regimes happened to have called themselves Marxist, you'd just like to call them "iconic revolutionary leader and president". --Pudeo (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Washington Post left-leaning, BAHAHAHAHA. You are again analysing this situation from a USA pov. Regards from Europe. emijrp (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- User:Pudeo, I think you agree that the generally accepted description is not "dictator". You may disagree with that, but Wikipedia simply reflects the preponderance of secondary sources. So, if the world's media does not generally describe Castro as a dictator, then Wikipedia should follow that, however unfair this may appear to individual editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob2718 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry, we do not reflect original research in Wikipedia. So, google searches on definitions and then an attempt to fit the definition to your perception of a certain political system are not helpful. (As an aside, I would suggest that you read Politics of Cuba in Wikipedia, which describes the Cuban political system, which is considerably more complex than what you describe.) The issue here, anyway, is that of the preponderance of reliable sources. Since almost all reliable sources (see cited above) describe Castro as a "leader" rather than a dictator, that is the terminology that is appropriate here. Note, for example, that Wikipedia does not describe the heads of states in countries with similar political systems as "dictators". For example, consider Xi Jinping. Therefore, apart from the preponderance of secondary reliable sources, consistency is also important here. Finally, note that the critics position that he was a "dictator" is already noted in the last paragraph. I am only objecting to its presence in the first line, where it is clearly not NPOV. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- wrong. Wikipedia has a list of dictators and your friend is on it. Everyone knows this fact, it is not an opinion or "position". In order to be encyclopedic, "we" don't give undue and unbalanced applications of NPOV, we provide facts and let the reader decide.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- The General Secretary of the Communist Party of China is appointed by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and is term-limited to 10 years, so China is not a dictatorship, but it certainly isn't a democracy.
∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk15:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry, you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source for your assertion. See WP:Circular. Note that in Cuba, as well, the executive is elected by the National Assembly. But, we are not here to do original research and decide on whether someone should have been termed a dictator or not. I merely pointed out (giving multiple links above to reliable sources) that this is not the commonly adopted description for Fidel Castro --- not even by mainstream U.S. sources like the New York Times, and certainly not by the vast majority of the world's media or governments. Accordingly, it cannot be placed in the first line. It is a point of view that deserves mention, and it has already received that mention in the last line of the first paragraph. If you disagree with this, I would appreciate if you could provide links to reliable secondary sources here, rather than repeatedly presenting your POV and original research. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- "Dictator" isn't POV. Its fact. He ruled a single-party state with no opposition for 32 years and gave it over to his brother. Augusto Pinochet is labeled as a dictator, which he was, and his rule was shorter, and he voluntarily left. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco are all dictators too. Calling him is not POV, its an observation. Spartan7W § 18:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I guess you're right, Adolf Hitler effectively gained power through the Enabling Act of 1933 and it made him a dictator because he was came into power by force and wasn't elected, the elections held during his time (1933 and March 1936) were essentially "staged" elections and weren't democratic because opposition political parties were banned. And Kim Jong-un is a dictator because it's a "Monarchical dictatorship", where the office is carried down to family members, even though elections are held, they're just as democratic the ones in Nazi Germany
∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk18:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I guess you're right, Adolf Hitler effectively gained power through the Enabling Act of 1933 and it made him a dictator because he was came into power by force and wasn't elected, the elections held during his time (1933 and March 1936) were essentially "staged" elections and weren't democratic because opposition political parties were banned. And Kim Jong-un is a dictator because it's a "Monarchical dictatorship", where the office is carried down to family members, even though elections are held, they're just as democratic the ones in Nazi Germany
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please insert the following sentence to his personal life section.
Castro has an estimated net worth of $900 million at the time of death. Source of income remains unknown.
- Sorry, not a reliable source. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- This is a report about a book written by a former bodyguard and not reported as news itself. Please see the article you link to. This allegation is only marginally notable here since there is a tremendous amount of discussion about Castro, and not all of it can be included in this page. It would be better suited in an article about Juan Reinaldo Sanchez himself. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
| I'm closing this. This is not a valid request for a neutral, sourced entry. It is a wall of text attacking the subject of this article. This thread has become disruptive, nothing here is going to go into the article, and we should not waste any more time on it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Please change: "was a Cuban politician, and revolutionary who governed the Republic of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to 2008" To: "was a Dictator and revolutionary murderer who ruled over the Republic of Cuba by military force as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as unelected President from 1976 to 2008 only to give up power in favor of his brother." Because; I believe that this article in not representative of the what this murderer was. 1- He was never elected. 2- He achieved power by force and maintained it by force. 3- You will never find general elections in Cuba. 4- Why do you think that people leave the hell that is Cuba throwing themselves to the sea. Wikipedia articles: 1- Balseros (rafters) 2- Elections in Cuba 3- Cuban exile Jhaydn2016 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
There is so much care here not to call that murderer what he really was. Why? You want sources that he was a dictator, below you will find a few. But how about, if you provide the sources that say that he was a "President". You are so worried with representing the points of view of a few people, that by the way did not live under his tyrannical rule, that you are not looking at the entire picture of thousands of children separated from their parents, murders, kidnappings, violations. Following your 'opinion' maybe we should say that Hitler was not a tyrant because Iran denies the mass murders by saying that they did no happen, or because there are a few people that say that he was 'good' like the ex-president of Ecuador Abdala Bucaram. For the record I think that Hitler was a monstrous evil maniac, and that Abdala Bucaram is a another monster. I hope this is clear. What balance are you trying to keep? The murderous tyrant that was Fidel can only be defended by people that never lived under his fist like you and shamefully Pope Francis which seems to be completely out of reality, and many others who choose to turn a blind eye to the mass exodus of Cubans. Do you know that he kidnapped children by making them say at airports that if they wanted to stay in Cuba, when their parents were leaving, they could do so if they said it? Do you know that there are prisoners that their only crime is to talk about freedom? Do you know what the Dames in White are? Do you know why the Cuban police beat them every Sunday after mass? Fidel was a MURDERER, TYRANT, EN-SLAVER of a nation, OPPRESSOR, COMMUNIST, DESPOT, AUTOCRAT, AUTHORITARIAN, EVIL MONSTER, ETC. Mafia, Droga Y Terrorismo Castrista Fidelizan a la Union Europea By Raffaele Di Marzio http://infovzla.net/nacionales/el-mundo-esta-de-fiesta-muere-el-dictador-asesino-fidel-castro/ https://www.taringa.net/post/info/17464596/Muertos-en-la-Dictadura-de-Fidel-Castro.html http://www.laverdad.com/mundo/109945-fidel-sera-recordado-como-un-asesino-dictador.html http://www.abc.es/internacional/abci-muere-fidel-castro-90-anos-201611260630_noticia.html Jhaydn2016 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)jhaydn2016 Nov 26, 2016Reply
You talk about the vast majority, none of whom lived under his rule. Are the opinions of Russia, Ecuador, Bolivia, China, Iran, more important than the opinions of the exiles living in Miami? The opinion of those who were enslaved by THE DICTATOR should be the one that prevail and be the ones that are heard first. Have you read the newspapers in Miami, or just the newspapers in Russia and China or Venezuela. By the way, at some point Hitler was considered a hero not only in Germany but in many other places. Pay attention to the Cubans talking about Cuba. They are the ones that know it best, not the idiotic president of France, who says that Castro was "a leader", who never had to carry water over miles to have something to drink with his family. Listen to the dead Cubans, read their names in "The Black Book of Communism". Listen to the news reports in Miami, not just the ones coming out of Ecuador. We are Cubans, we know what we went through, we are the ones that lived that inferno. We are the ones that should be listened, no someone hundreds of miles away that only know Cuba because they went once to dine in a hotel, in which until recently, no Cuban was allowed to go inside. Your ferocity for not calling it a TYRANNICAL DICTATOR is remarkable, maybe because you never had to watch your family throw themselves in a rafter and face the ocean instead of living under that BEAST. Maybe you did not have your family incarcerated for doing nothing. Maybe you always had enough food to eat. Maybe you never saw your father being beaten. Maybe you never had to separate from your family and leave the very little that you had. Maybe you never saw someone expropriating the house of your family. Maybe you do not know anyone who was killed by the whimsical desire of a CRAZY LUNATIC. Be fair! Read the newspapers of Miami, listen to the radio in Miami, home of the largest community of exiles. Are Russia or China examples of freedom? Are the dictators that govern those places Really democratic figures elected by the people? What can a murderer say about another murderer? What can a tyrant say about another tyrant? LISTEN TO CUBANS FIRST, at least in this case. DOWN WITH SERIAL MURDERERS!!!! Truth and Freedom will always prevail. History will giving him a place of shame. He will be remembered as a MURDERER,no matter how much you want to avoid it. Maybe you would like to read the links that I am attaching here, It may give you a different point of view of the type of media you are reading. By the way, How do you keep track of the 'world opinion' how do you know that the majority of the media remains neutral about this MONSTER? Do you do some tabulation? Or do you just read the first links that appeared on Google? Because I would like to know how is that you keep a "balanced representation". How do you do it? I mean it, explain how do you do it! Give me the lists of your sources, show your "research". It is not only my responsibility to provide proof. You that are talking about a "balanced opinion" show me your proof! Show me the "vast majority of secondary sources". By the way, the only thing that "the world media" can give are opinions. "The world media reactions" are just opinions. And you say that "Personal opinions of editors don't count". If my opinions do not count, then the opinions of any other editor should not count. All the world media can do is to give opinions. If my opinions do not count, the world media opinions should not count. But here you have some facts: 1- 1,300,000 Cubans Exiles leaving in the USA. I do not know how many others leave in the rest of the world. 2- 46,000 new immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2016 3- Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 'A tyrant is dead' https://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/press-release/ros-lehtinen-comments-death-fidel-castro 4- Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, "the Cuban people finally will be free." 5- Senator. Bob Menendez "brutal dictator" https://www.menendez.senate.gov/news-and-events/press/sen-menendez-on-death-of-fidel-castro 6- Senator. Marco Rubio "Fidel Castro; it will remember him as an evil, murderous dictator" http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/11/26/what-local-leaders-have-to-say-about-fidel-castros-death/ 7- Rep. Carlos Curbelo, "the end to a horrifying chapter" 8- Former U.S. Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart "Fidel Castro's disappearance was necessary for the horror of the present to be able to end and for the future of Cuba to be able to begin." 9- Mark Rosemberg, Florida International University President, "The passing of Fidel Castro marks the beginning of the end of a most painful chapter in the lives of Cubans" 10- Archbishop Thomas Wenski "to invoke the patroness of Cuba, the Virgen of Charity, asking for peace for Cuba and its people." If anyone knows how can we include the word DICTATOR and MURDERER in the lede please let me know. I am doing research about it. http://humanevents.com/2006/08/16/historians-have-absolved-fidel-castro/ The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Barto http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/article117221468.html http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article117294263.html http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/05/cuban-immigration-to-u-s-surges-as-relations-warm/ http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuba-refugees-florida-wet-foot-dry-foot/2016/07/19/id/739400/ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us/from-cuba-to-miami-by-providence-and-a-homemade-boat.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/miami-cubans-fidel-castro.html http://wsvn.com/news/local/10-cuban-migrants-come-ashore-near-dania-beach-pier/
http://www.infobae.com/2016/03/21/1798768-este-es-el-listado-presos-politicos-del-regimen-cubano/ http://www.telemundo51.com/noticias/Lista-de-presos-politicos-en-Cuba-372998751.html http://www.futurodecuba.org/lista_de_cubanos_asesinados_por.htm http://profesorcastro.jimdo.com/fusilamientos-en-cuba/ Jhaydn2016 (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am a new editor. I do not intent to do the wall thing. I am investigating how to achieve a consensus but for what I read, the only thing that I need to do is provide proof. I have provided proof. The other side sits on a high chair without engaging and does not state how they get their "vast secondary sources". If you know what I am missing from the consensus let me know. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
How about this opinions: 3- Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 'A tyrant is dead' https://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/press-release/ros-lehtinen-comments-death-fidel-castro 4- Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, "the Cuban people finally will be free." 5- Senator. Bob Menendez "brutal dictator" https://www.menendez.senate.gov/news-and-events/press/sen-menendez-on-death-of-fidel-castro http://www.univision.com/nueva-york/wxtv/noticias/muertes/bob-menendez-el-fallecimiento-de-fidel-castro-es-un-momento-historico-para-repensar-la-politica-de-eeuu-frente-a-cuba-video Jhaydn2016 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply |
In order to make a more clear consensus here about an editing dispute and requests which have been refused by some editors while other editors agree with the requests. Should we use the word "dictator", (properly sourced), in the lede?
- Yes- he was known as a dictator by many and there are sources that support this. 2601:80:4300:155E:3184:7811:65EE:4245 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Obviously not, and this has been explained above. The question, for the first line, is "what does the preponderance of secondary sources" suggest. Consider the Guardian and Reuters article cited in the first paragraph, world reaction (including that from leaders of India, China, Russia, South Africa, Ecuador etc.) largely recounts a positive attitude. This is also the attitude reflected in the vast majority of the world's media. The point at Wikipedia is to reflect this consensus of external reliable sources. What we have here, are opinionated editors, who are trying to prove that Castro was a dictator on the talk page. This is entirely irrelevant. What they must prove is that the consensus in reliable sources, was that he was a dictator. This is obviously not the case, and I note that no one has provided any evidence to the contrary.
- It's already in the lede, in the final paragraph. It should NOT be in the first sentence, which is the issue under discussion at this page. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Obviously not, and this has been explained above. The question, for the first line, is "what does the preponderance of secondary sources" suggest. Consider the Guardian and Reuters article cited in the first paragraph, world reaction (including that from leaders of India, China, Russia, South Africa, Ecuador etc.) largely recounts a positive attitude. This is also the attitude reflected in the vast majority of the world's media. The point at Wikipedia is to reflect this consensus of external reliable sources. What we have here, are opinionated editors, who are trying to prove that Castro was a dictator on the talk page. This is entirely irrelevant. What they must prove is that the consensus in reliable sources, was that he was a dictator. This is obviously not the case, and I note that no one has provided any evidence to the contrary.
Up until today the lede paragraph said:
- Under his administration Cuba became a one-party socialist state; industry and business were nationalized, and state socialist reforms implemented throughout society.
Today it was changed to read:
- As its de facto dictator, Cuba became a one-party socialist state which imposed censorship, and operated systematic political repression on his people[2]; industry and business were nationalized, and state socialist policies implemented throughout society.
I know there has been a lot of discussion here about the word "dictator". I am new to this page so I don't know what the consensus is; does it allow for him to be called "dictator" in the lede?. Also, the highly negative material about censorship and political repression is sourced to Human Rights Watch; is that considered a neutral and reliable enough source for material to go into the lede? --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- @Spartan7W and Emijrp: Please do not edit war over this. The new material has been challenged; it should not be restored until you talk it out here. For the record, I oppose Spartan7W's changes. They are inappropriate for the lede sentence. The human rights issues are referenced in the last paragraph of the lede, and they are spelled out in detail in the text of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- @MelanieN: I wasn't edit warring. The first reversion complained about POV 'dictator' so I removed that. Spartan7W § 19:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- And you restored all the other controversial stuff. Don't do that. Instead, explain here why you think it should be included. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- @MelanieN: I wasn't edit warring. The first reversion complained about POV 'dictator' so I removed that. Spartan7W § 19:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- While some reliable sources refer to Castro as a dictator, the description is not univerally used. He did not meet the main definition of dictator, "a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome."[2] See for example the Encyclopedia Britannica. It describes Castro as "poltical leader of Cuba."[3] while his predecessor, Fulgencio Batista, is described as "Cuban dictator." Whether or not mainstream sources are fair in using this distinction, we should follow it. TFD (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
You forgot the other two definitions "b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively" Fidel meets both of these ones. By the way, I agree that he was not appointment by the senate of ancient Rome. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Totally agree he was a brutal dictator. Stop being politically correct and call him what he was; stop censoring the article with your edit protection. USATODAY should be good enough source for you: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/26/donald-trump-reacts-fidel-castros-death/94469240/ 2600:8805:5800:F500:11E9:92ED:98AA:9605 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Umm, USA Today didn't say he was a brutal dictator. Donald Trump said he was a brutal dictator; USA Today reported that Trump said it. That is not adequate sourcing for us to say it, in Wikipedia's voice. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Totally agree he was a brutal dictator. Stop being politically correct and call him what he was; stop censoring the article with your edit protection. USATODAY should be good enough source for you: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/26/donald-trump-reacts-fidel-castros-death/94469240/ 2600:8805:5800:F500:11E9:92ED:98AA:9605 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- We're really through the looking glass here. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, thousands of scholars and political scientists considered Castro's Cuba a totalitarian, dictatorial regime. What do we need here in order to print the obvious? Photos from Cuban death camps? Even MSNBC refers to him as a totalitarian dictator, for heaven's sake. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- And there is a sentence saying so, later in the lede, and a whole paragraph in the text. The only debate here is whether to also put it in the lede sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, it should be done that way. Some sources openly call him a dictator, and others resort to politically correct language to avoid doing so, but is there anyone out there who denies that he was a dictator? If not, call a spade a spade Cambalachero (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I agree with MelanieN on this. The term is too pejorative to be in the lede sentence for a Blp of a leader who appears to have as many, or more, supporters as critics throughout the world and even in Cuba. KINGOFTO (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Why is the American Spanish pronunciation of his name used and not the Cuban pronunciation? WikiWinters ☯ 韦安智 21:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
| Closing again. Wikipedia is not a place to express our opinions about the subject. If this section gets reopened again I will delete the whole thing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
In the Youth: 1926–47 section, it states "Though Chibás lost the election, Castro remained committed to working on his behalf." However, which election this refers to is not mentioned. I assume it is the 1948 general elections in which Chibás was a candidate for the presidency, but am reluctant to add without being 100% sure. Can anyone else confirm? Cheers, Number 57 00:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is discussed briefly in the sections above, but to establish a neutral point of view, it is essential to have geographical balance in various attitudes towards Castro. In particular, it is not useful to confine the viewpoints to those expressed by supporters and critics in the United States (or even just those in Europe). Castro evidently had an impact on the developing world, and in the Cold War, and so it is essential to reflect South African, Angolan, Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Russian voices as well. I will try and do this, especially in the first paragraph, but sourcing material from a broader variety of reliable secondary sources will help to improve the article and avoid WP:Systemic Bias 103.56.253.140 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Generally the Wikipedia portraits in the infobox of persons of importance tend to be of how they currently are if they are living or a picture from when they were most notable. For example, ex-US president Jimmy Carter's picture is still of his White House picture, not of the ninety-something who is still alive today. Castro was decidedly most notable as a Revolutionary, Prime Minister, and President, earlier on in his life. Before he died, the picture was of him in 1956 (I believe), so now I must ask why this was changed.
- The "S.O.P." seems to be with notable public people, after their death, an image of them in their "hayday" is usually placed in the infobox. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
The content is well sourced. Is there a consensus to keep it out?
Here is what was reverted:
...but former President Jimmy Carter had kind words for Castro, saying that he and his wife "remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country".[1] Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, praised Castro as "A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and health care of his island nation," Trudeau said. "I know my father(Pierre Trudeau) was very proud to call him a friend," he added.[2] KINGOFTO (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply