Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

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)
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) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC) 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 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/26/marco-rubio-castro-will-be-remembered-as-evil-murderous-dictator/ 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.maduradas.com/un-farsante-dictador-las-20-mentiras-mas-polemicas-de-fidel-castro-al-pueblo-cubano/ 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, 2016 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC) I have repeated this, at other points in the talk page. Obviously, some critics termed him a dictator and this is notable enough for it to appear in the first paragraph. But the vast majority of secondary sources do not do this. It is easy to determine this by quickly surveying world media reactions to his death. Personal opinions of editors don't count. Jacob2718 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC) 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 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 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://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/11/26/cuban-americans-in-miami-rejoice-at-castro-passing-fidel-was-hitler-for-us/ 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.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/10/06/18-cuban-refugees-brave-hurricane-matthew-rustic-vessel-reach-honduras/ 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/ List of Political Prisoners and Murdered People 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://www.cubaencuentro.com/cuba/noticias/la-organizacion-archivo-cuba-documenta-8-190-asesinatos-cometidos-por-el-regimen-de-castro-31912 http://www.subdivx.com/X12X68X107987X0X0X1X-listas-de-asesinados-por-fidel-castro-para-aquellos-que-no-saben-nada.html http://profesorcastro.jimdo.com/fusilamientos-en-cuba/ Jhaydn2016 (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC) @Jhaydn2016: You need consensus not endless comments - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC) 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) @Jhaydn2016: You're missing other opinions, please review consensus - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC) 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)

Declare him as a hero

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)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He was a hero who fought against the imperialist American and "Western" supremacist dogs who think they and whateve they do or have is better. They want to impose their power and way over the whole world. Democracy is a failure, all politicians just jockeys for temporary power by fooling the voter. Democracy and changing governments§ make a country weak. Human rights are a farce, USA itself violates it and has no right to lecture others about it. He was a hero who fought against these hypocrite coward world-dominating imperials. These are all facts. He was a hero and should be declared as such. Not because I am being biased, but because he is a hero in actual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.18.215 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Nope. Murdered the people of Cuba. Kept them under his rule under fear of death and torture. Canada has managed to avoid US "imperialism" and maintain their autonomy without resorting to stealing from her citizens and forcing a bloody revolution--those are the real "heros". Not this killer who stole from people then broke families with his firing squadTeeVeeed (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) TeeVeeed Nope he freed Cubans from US-backed Batista and BRCS who murdered Cubans. Who backed Batista's murder of Cubans? Who backed several assassinations against Castro and seditions against him? Who backed the Bay of Pigs? Castro was right to eliminate his enemies, otherwise they would have eliminated his government and even him. Accusations of human rights violations from those who themselves violate it or hobnob with those who do is hilarious. True heroes are those who go out and fight. Revloution is carried out by heroes. And FYI Castro has tripled Cuba's GDP despite American sanctions. You Canadians are yourselves slaves of imperialist Americans despite claiming to the contrary and follow them like puppies. Castro on the other hand broke the yoke. If you have any respect, break the yoke and toss the Yankees out! 117.220.18.215 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC) And another thing: Viva la reveloućion! 117.220.18.215 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

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)

Already included in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Baseball

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

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.

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)

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)

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)

link it when it is worth linking to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The page seems well formed now - Arjayay (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Move Merge discussion in progress

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)

It's actually a merge discussion. See Talk:Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro#Merge. Fences&Windows 10:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

he is dead, died the 26th of november 81.110.52.171 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 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)

Rearrangement

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)

Death date

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

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)

Done - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

He died in Havanna not in Santiago de Cuba! 89.14.117.201 (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Already done - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comrade was a HNWI

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.

References

Sorry, not a reliable source. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

But this is https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/fidel-castro-lived-like-king-cuba TeeVeeed (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

LL.B., not J.D.

Please add that Castro had an LL.B. since he went to law school straight out of high school.--98.88.130.183 (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Castro's time in Mexico (1950s)

There are some Spanish-language sources I've found with detailed information about Castro's time in Mexico, particularly in Mexico City, Veracruz, and Tamaulipas states. Like this source (plus other Google Books I've found). Do you guys think more should be included? I feel a lot is left out. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 08:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing article - family

This is missing a subparticle, Family of Fidel Castro -- such as other political families have like the Bush family or Roosevelt family etc -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Funeral

Castro was cremated and his ashes will be buried at a ceremony on December 4 in Santiago de Cuba. J.brooks23 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Praise of former President Jimmy Carter and Canadian Prime Minister reverted out

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)

Better placed in Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. KINGOFTO (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Early School

Link to Havana's "Colegio de Belén" is wrong; it is pointing to a Miami one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.249.238 (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead is unproportionally long

The lead starts with a lead. Is it acceptable? Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not out of proportion to the life, career and legacy of the subject Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

American Spanish pronunciation

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)

See if you can find a source relating to the Cuban pronunciation. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

Please change the fourth paragraph of the lead section to the past tense, to reflect his passing:

Castro was a controversial and divisive world figure. He was decorated with various international awards, and his supporters have lauded him as a champion of socialism and anti-imperialism whose revolutionary regime secured Cuba's independence from American imperialism. Conversely, critics have viewed him as a dictator whose administration oversaw human-rights abuses, the exodus of a large number of Cubans and the impoverishment of the country's economy. Through his actions and his writings he significantly influenced the politics of various individuals and groups across the world.Objectivesea (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

infobox template parameter: Medical leave since July 31, 2006

he died, so the text should not be "since" anymore. --Mattes (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected

I see that an administrator has locked the page to stop the edit warring. You who were adding the disputed material can consider yourselves fortunate. None of you had yet passed the 3RR limit and made a fourth, blockable addition of the material. Now we have a week to let things calm down. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

So the edit war is over a slight difference in wording? Seems to me whoever started reverting the uncontroversial change originally is at fault. Calibrador (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the edit war wasn't over a "slight difference in wording," and it wasn't an "uncontroversial change". The edit war was over an attempt to add new, unsourced material to the lede including "one of the longest-serving dictators," "totalitarian", and "police state." --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It says the page is locked to promote compliance with BLP policy. Everyone knows Cuba's healthcare system is the best in the solar system, but until Castro's condition has been officially upgraded, I'd like to file a formal objection. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually Emijrp did break the 3RR rule. 1, 2, 3, 4. But he was for removing the dictator label because an authoritarian communist can't be a dictator even with attributing RS, so that's not an issue, right MelanieN? I should be lucky not to have broken 3RR like him! Please don't use your admin privileges on this article if you are too biased to look at things objectively. --Pudeo (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC

Since I have been editing here, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and will not be taking any admin actions (with possible exceptions such as dealing with obvious, disruptive vandals or striking out material that needs to be RevDel'ed). --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There's also something unseemly (obviously, this wasn't the intention) about censoring an article about one of the world's most notorious violators of free speech (at least according to RS) in the wake of his death. In a way, it's a fitting tribute. But I don't think it advances Wikipedia's mission. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: is there a reason why Emijrp wasn't temp blocked for breaking the 3RR? I suppose reporting it to the 3RR noticeboard is no longer viable as you have already protected the article, but almost always breaking the 3RR leads to a block. --Pudeo (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In cases like this unless there evidence of edit warring across multiple articles I prefer protection to blocking. Editors who are blocked can't discuss and discussion is way better than blocking. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Read WP:BDP, which wisely warns against dancing on the graves the recently deceased (less than two days!). The edits ran contrary to basic BLP guidelines (as well as BRD, weight, npov etc), so the 3RR rule does not apply.Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It's true BLP applies to the recently dead, however Castro had been called a dictator by RS before his death as he was the unelected supreme ruler for 52 years. WP:CRYBLP. --Pudeo (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • You and Scale asked about 3RR and BLP, respectively—I answered. I don't think the timing of these edits, accompanied by claims that it's a "fitting tribute" and that BLP no longer applies (hooray!) is coincidental. The edit itself is the laziest BOLD edit I've ever seen, and has no redeeming qualities. Pretty disgusting IMO. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Cuba, and its communist government, were part of the list of countries sponsors of terrorism for 33 years. Fidel did not died and suddenly everyone started calling him dictator. To say that only shows your lack of knowledge on the Cuban issue. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your theory is on the timing, but I'll tell you flat out that his death is what drew me to the article and I was taken aback by how "gingerly" he was portrayed. I've been reading about Castro for years, and the idea that an encyclopedia would play down one of the most salient, well-documented aspects of his career and his place in geopolitical history was kind of a shock. It's Orwellian. Also, @Guccisamsclub:, you wrote "The edit itself is the laziest BOLD edit I've ever seen, and has no redeeming qualities. Pretty disgusting IMO." Instead of slinging mud, can you assume the demeanor of a serious editor and provide specifics? Scaleshombre (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with Melanie here. Adding words like "dictator", "totalitarian" to the first line do not accurately reflect the portrayal of Castro in reliable sources --- either in academic sources (as discussed below) or in the media. Moreover, with someone who is as widely covered as Castro, it is important to reflect the balance of sources. The critics referred to here, are primarily U.S. critics, and more broadly Western critics. Evidently, the attitude towards Castro in the wider world was different and this is what should be reflected in an encyclopedic article. In fact, I notice that the last line of the first paragraph, where I tried to add some of these additional sources was reverted; references were deleted, and the revert was so careless that the last line still reads "Castro is a controversial ...", instead of "Castro was a controversial ...". Jacob2718 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, tell me what are these "reliable sources" that everyone keeps talking about but no one provides links to, so that we can know their name and places of origin. Where are those "academic sources"? Is the Venezuelan media owned entirely by the socialist government a reliable source? Is the controlled media in Russia a reliable source? Is the censored media of China, including censoring Google, a reliable source? Maybe Bashar Al Asad from Siria is a good example? Or the condolences from FARC the terrorist group in Colombia? What exactly are those "reliable sources"? Here you have two Jewish sources that called him for what he was Jewish source second Jewish source Jhaydn2016 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Either way, we don't put obviously POV statements in the lead without qualification. Kaldari (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

By reliable sources we mean mainstream media sources, such as the New York Times. See their obituary, "Fidel Castro, Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90". Another example I provided above was his entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Another is the BBC: "Fidel Castro, Cuba's leader of revolution, dies at 90": "His supporters said he had given Cuba back to the people. Critics saw him as a dictator." You might find other reliable sources that describe him as a dictator, but our guide is how he is normally described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How about these examples "his followers ... some of these worry about the way in which the force of circumstances has willy-nilly given him the power of a dictator" page 72 of newspaper or page 334 of the pdf NY times march 8, 1959. Or maybe "I want these executions to end within a month, so that we can get down to happier and more important things" Fidel's quote, same Newspaper page 335 of pdf. "I am not anti-American" Fidel's quote same page. How about these ones? *** “Fidel Castro has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore the Constitution....but it amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic and therefore anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, February 1957.). *** “This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, July 1959.). *** "It would be a great mistake even to intimate that Castro's Cuba has any real prospect of becoming a Soviet satellite.” (Walter Lippmann, The Washington Post, July 1959.). Did the NY times and Others made a mistake in believing that Fidel was not Communist? Yes. Did the NY times and others made a mistake by not calling him what his own comrades called Fidel back then? Yes. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also it's important to note RS that you wouldn't expect to call him a dictator. Yet they do. For example, MSNBC "Cuban Dictator Fidel Casto Dead at 90"; The The Sun Sentinel "Fidel Castro dead: World's most enduring communist dictator held Cuba in his grip for half a century"; The New York Times; and The Atlantic, among many others, including the BBC. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I also agree completely with MelanieN here. KINGOFTO (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Death place: Havana v Santiago de Cuba

I see that some sources state he died in Havana while others state he died at his home in Santiago de Cuba. Can some verify the location of his death please? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Deaths

Are there any reliable estimates for the number of people Castro imprisoned, tortured, or put to death during his reign, in particular political dissidents and pro-democracy activists? Currently, the only mentions of "torture" are in the section about Batista. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Miami herald. Directorio Democratico Cubano. other source. Office of the High Commissioner of UN for Human Rights. NY times. another source. These are just a few examples. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

He said reliable estimates... emijrp (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

These lists are also referenced by the sites mentioned above: observacuba.org and canf.org. Sadly, they list only a few dozen currently known political prisoners. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Murdered Cubans Accounted for: 8,190. And many more. Here you can run various reports and export to excel reports. Here is the main page of the database main. Please, keep in mind the difficulty of gathering this type of data. Many Cubans have died in the sea, through the jungle of Darien in Panama, and many other places, and for those is very difficult to acquire records. 1 person killed for political reasons is too many people. News article. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It depends who you ask and how you count. Trying to find an accurate number is a challenge and looking it up I went down a rabbit hole of different claims ranging from a "few" thousand to people claiming he was directly responsible for hundreds of thousands. How you count the deaths is a another matter. Executions, people who died in prisons, and people who drowned fleeing Cuba can all be directly or indirectly linked to him. Most of the executions were show trials just after they overthrew the Batista regime. Cuba hasn't been reported to have used its death penalty in years. People who drowned or were killed trying to escape is probably around 16,000.

There is also the matter of his support for revolutionary movements in Africa. But, then again, the USA, USSR, African nations, private firms and a host of other players were involved in those conflicts. If you believe Cuba's support of African revolutionary movements should be held against him you could probably get away with saying roughly 100k. If not, the use of the death penalty(assuming everyone ever executed was innocent) would be around 8.1k, using Jhaydn's numbers. People who fled Cuba(even if it was their own choice to leave)would be ~16k probably more. Finally the people who died in jail(even if it was from neglect and not intentional) would probably be another 1-2k. Although this number is almsot impossible to verify. Combining those things together the modern Cuban government may have killed as many as 25,000 - 30,000 people.

However, my conclusions are my own research and can't be used. Feel free to cite the links provided, but I can't find a decent source that aggregates all deaths associated with the Cuban government.NeoStalinist (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean counting those imprisoned, tortured and killed in Guantanamo Bay camp? The camp is in Cuban territory but managed by US. Those numbers should be added to Barack Obama and George Bush articles. emijrp (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant to my question. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Should the picture be old like that or of him younger, as it was before?

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)

That's typically what I've seen as well, and although it seems to be an unwritten rule, it's a good one IMO. Buffaboy ^talk 05:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Geographical Neutrality

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)

I agree. KINGOFTO (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

How about these examples? Canada's largest daily Fidel Castro was Canada’s favourite dictator: Walkom. South Africa Worldwide Celebrations as Communist Dictator Fidel Castro Dies!. India India Will Pay Respects At Dictator Fidel Castro’s Funeral, And Rajnath Singh Will Lead The Delegation. UK Fidel Castro was a dictator – but the left is blind to human rights abuses when it's one of their own. We will have to wait before (those who rule without free elections over) China or Russia, and others, will call him dictator. I am still looking for it. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

Dear fellow wikipedians, this article having attained Good Article status is unbelievable. By giving equal weight to subjective and objective viewpoints, the introduction actually ends up violating the NPOV policy. Serious academic research should be the point of reference, and serious academic research on totalitarianism/authoritarianism doesn't doubt the sinister character of his dictatorship and the suffering he has caused. One might start by changing "state socialist reforms" with "state socialist policies" in the first paragraph. --Mihai (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is in serious need of reform. The page block comes down in a week. Until then, it's important to gather a solid list of RS, particularly the academic research you mentioned. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Also mentioning numerous international awards in the last paragraph of the intro as if they were a counterpoint to the legitimate criticism is ridiculous. Any leader of state/government receives during foreign visits the highest decoration of the guest country, very often the „high collar” of some order. It's just a reciprocal formality, and it's no wonder that a dictator of half a century has gathered a lot of those. --Mihai (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, international awards are irrelevant but it is important to give the reader a sense that Castro had an "enormous impact" (Obama) or was an "iconic personality" (Modi) or was "a great man of our time" (Xi Jinping). In building a list of reliable sources, please try and collect a wide variety of sources. In academic literature, as in the media, there is little consensus on Castro but the encyclopedia should reflect a neutral point of view and give the reader a sense of the numerical balance of different sources. This means, for instance, that sources from the United States should not be prioritized over, say, South African sources. Jacob2718 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about America, but one of the most iconic personalities in Europe is Adolf Hitler, pictured in hundreds of films, described in tens of biographies.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

All depends on the reliability of the sources, regardless of country. For example, if a South African publication paints a rosey picture of Castro and glosses over his crimes, then that source by definition is unreliable, at least on this topic. Not to say sources can't provide contradictory takes. The NY Times has articles that discuss Castro's dictatorship and others that don't. Scaleshombre (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's the whole point The existing lead encompasses both points of view: both accolades and harsh criticism from the Right. You want only the latter, in wikipedia's voice. Somebody even snuck "totalitarianism" in there for good measure. That was a glaring violation of NPOV. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, it does not work this way. A source is not a-priori unreliable if it disagrees with your (or indeed any) preformed opinion. For Castro, it's very much a matter of perspective. On the one hand, Cuba under Castro became a one-part state with a repressive regime. But how does that look compared to the previous Batista regime? There is a reason why the Cuban revolution succeeded from a very small seed. And while it brought large economic losses for very wealthy families of pre-revolution Cuba (who then mostly fled to the US and cried about evil communists without much reflection of how legitimate the original sources of their wealth were - Cuba e.g. only emancipated slaves only in 1886), it brought the majority of the population a much improved health care and educational system. This is not a one-dimensional picture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"One-party state with a repressive regime." Is that not the very essence of a dictatorship? No one's denying he did good things for Cuba, but he did them as a dictator. As negative as the word has become over the centuries, at its NPOV core it simply means all power's concentrated in the hands of one man. Or party. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No, because generally dictatorships do not have political parties as the legislature ceases to exist and they are not necessarily oppressive. TFD (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's called Rubber stamp. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

In the examples offered, executive orders were not "rubber stamped" by the legislature because they already had the force of law, and the legislature had been suspended. So the argument is that although under Castro Cuba was not a de jure dictatorship, it was a de facto dictatorship. Similarly, Canada is a de facto republic, North Korea is a de facto monarchy, and Saudi Arabia is a de facto dictatorship. TFD (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of children

Castro was notably secretive about his private live and there appears to be some confusion regarding how many children he had. Our article infobox says nine with no source given. Ann Louise Bardach writes in Without Fidel that he fathered at least ten children, possibly more. In the book she also provides a family three where she names the ten known children. The obituaries in Washington Post and Miami Herald says eleven. It would be good if this could be clarified once the article is open to editing again. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Worth mentioning rumours about Justin Trudeau? 70.53.192.171 (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Present tense

The last paragraph of the lead is still entirely in present tense: "Castro is a controversial..." etc. It needs to be changed to preterit: "Castro was a controversial..." and so on. – Miranche ^T C 15:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

People's reputation lives on past their death. Lenin is a controversial figure. Columbus is a controversial figure. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This proposal has not garnered consensus yet. Declined — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"Revolutionary", "Dictator"

A lot of energy's been expended on this page debating use of "dictator" in the lede. Some of the same problems arise with the term "revolutionary." Is there a consensus for using such a POV term in the lede? There's no consensus among RS that he was an "authentic" revolutionary. There's not even a clear consensus on what the term means. I think we should consider removing it from the lede. The other terms (politician, prime minister, president) are unambiguously NPOV. Scaleshombre (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, there are over 3 million google articles which have the word "revolutionary" associated with Fidel Castro. Scaleshombre, I actually feel the Blp is weighted a little bit more on the negative side than world-wide RS content justifies, so, since some seem to feel it is not negative enough, perhaps we are close to reality. However, I am interested in why you feel "revolutionary" is a POV term? KINGOFTO (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

These labels aren't meaningful. It's hard to say that he was a benevolent dictator. He didn't allow Internet in Cuba to thrive.--74.190.108.232 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Dictator" was already in the lead, and people were fine with the existing wording for quite a long time. Then the subject died and people started complaining about the fact the lead was not relaying the emotions of people like Trump and Mendez in wikipedia's voice. People are simply rushing to pronounce their judgement on the Castro era, seeking a definitive validation of their stance through Wikipedia.Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could clarify why Castro does not qualify to be described as a "dictator"? — Loadmaster (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The emotions of Trump? Then why is it that all the openly "alt-right" and pro-Trump editors come here to push the absurd notion that Castro wasn't a dictator? (which isn't that surprising considering that they are usually also pro-Putin). Articles on comparable leaders do usually mention the word dictator (or dictatorship) in the first paragraph of the lead (Augusto Pinochet is one of many examples). Describing Castro as a dictator has much more to do with describing him in the terms used by politically mainstream reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Equating Castro and Pinochet is,um, "historically challenging". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Because that is not how he is normally described in reliable sources. It could have to do with the fact that Pinochet said he was ruling by decree during an emergency (the definition of dictator), while in Cuba laws are enacted through a legislature. Note that King Salman of Saudi Arabia is not referred to as a dictator either, although he rules by decree but in law is a king rather than a dictator. Saudi Arabia is far more repressive than Cuba and may provide assistance to Islamic terrorists. Any reason why you have not tried to change that article? TFD (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's the likely reason for the difference. Right-wing authoritarians presided over the ordinary democratic system frozen in the background for the period of the "emergency powers", whereas communists came from a completely different position and transformed the whole governance in accordance with the single-party doctrine. I don't know why Pinochet and Castro couldn't be compared though, Pinochet's regime murdered 3,000 people for political reasons – the lowest estimation for Cuba starts from that and Pinochet gave up power after losing the plebiscite whereas Cuba still hasn't held free elections. --Pudeo (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Castro transformed the governance legally only in 1976. For first 17 years he ruled under old 1940 constitution, funnily enough this period is practically equal to total length of Pinochet's rule. Not to mention that Pinochet also engaged in legal BS to legitimize his rule: Chilean constitutional referendum, 1980--Staberinde (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Then why is it that all the openly "alt-right" and pro-Trump editors come here to push the absurd notion that Castro wasn't a dictator?" Who are you talking about exactly (not that it matters, given that Trump's sentiment is shared by Bob Mendez etc. Breitbart news' position on Castro is pretty clear to most people.) Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

France too summarily executed 8 to 9 thousand "collaborators" after the war. (Right-wing sources said 100 thousand.)[3] TFD (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Word analysis from Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro, reactions of world leaders:

• Dictator/ship: 7 matches (6 in USA, 1 Sweden)
• Revolution/ary: 38 matches (worldwide)

I hope this helps to give a broad picture to the issue. emijrp (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's the furthest thing from a "broad picture." If you want a more accurate reading, you'd have to do a broad survey of RS from 1959 through now. That's the only way to get a long view of perceptions of Castro. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You could read every source published and state your findings (how far along are you in that project?) or you could accept that perceptions of Castro are conflicted, something that the lead fully reflects. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Gucci, I don't think you have a very nuanced understanding of how articles evolve here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaleshombre (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Revolutionary doesn't exclude dictator. Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Guardian is quite reliable, isn't it? Fidel Castro: guerrilla leader, dictator – and an unrepentant revolutionary

The lead contains its lead, kind of superlead. Is it acceptable? As the result similar content is repeated three times - in the superlead, in the lead, in the text. Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Please add periods (full stops) to all of the image captions. Some of them have periods and some don't, it's better to be consistent. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. Only complete sentences get periods. Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: seems to be correct — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A fan of Thatcher?

befriended Manuel Fraga and took a particular interest in Margaret Thatcher's policies in the UK, believing that Cuban socialism could learn from her emphasis on low taxation and personal initiative (source: Coltman, Leycester (2003). The Real Fidel Castro)

He certainly had a funny way of showing it. I haven't been able to find this claim anywhere else. It's possible that he said something like that to [[Leycester Coltman ]], the British diplomat under the John Major govt, which does not mean he actually believed it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lede

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)

@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)

@MelanieN: I wasn't edit warring. The first reversion complained about POV 'dictator' so I removed that.   Spartan7W §   19:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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."[4] See for example the Encyclopedia Britannica. It describes Castro as "poltical leader of Cuba."[5] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here is an article from the Institute of Public Affairs, which says, "For the left, Fidel Castro was a Western dissident, valiantly resisting American imperialism, not a totalitarian dictator...." By left-wing they are including liberals, not just socialists and communists. Here is a link to the article in the Guardian, where they write, "However, his critics describe him as a dictator...." TFD (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that a consensus will be reached over whether the term dictator applied to Castro. But in the meantime, I think we shouldn't be shy about stating facts in the lede. With that in mind, I substituted "police state" for "socialist state" in the lede because while there's much debate about whether true socialism was practiced in Cuba, there's little doubt that Castro's regime satisfied the requirements of a police state. For instance, this article in the NY Times. I also noted he was a "self appointed president for life", as per the Washington Post obit. As long as we're consistent with top-tier RS, I don't see any reason to sugarcoat the most salient facts of Castro's leadership. Scaleshombre (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Scaleshombre, you were way out of line to make a POV change like this, without consensus, while there was a discussion going on about what that sentence should say. This discussion is NOT just about the word "dictator" as you know perfectly well since you have been participating here. Do not go inserting your opinion into that sentence "in the meantime"; you need consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding the word "dictator" is an entirely reasonable reflection of the truth. I would also like to see a stronger, unqualified reference to the numerous human rights atrocities that were committed under his rule more prominently in the lead.ThaiWanIII (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The "left" also has an annoying tendency to think that there are no facts and opinions, only opinions, and that it may be perfectly acceptable to deny facts if they don't fit their predefined opinion. If Castro was a dictator or not, it depends on the nature of his goverment, not on opinions. Single party, no controls, persecution of dissidents, etc, are all objetive traits of a dictatorship. In any case, the opinion would be if it was a justified dictatorship or not. Cambalachero (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

With resect to all; ThaiWanIII, we are not here to decide and encyclopediatize what is the "truth" and Human Rights Watch is not what I would consider the best source for content. Cambalachero, when one lives outside the USA, to many of us, the divisive characterization of editors, and people in general/other individuals into "left" and "right or "liberal and conservative " and even the practice of recording one's so called "race" in an election or at elementary school registration are crazily distractive, divisive, weird, simplistic, and useless from any intelligent or practical purpose, in this new millennium especially. And especially useless when used as an ad-hominem assertion toward editors with whom you need to collaborate with. Yes, a lot of RS media use the same labels so we may need to do the same in articles, but we don't need to be wasting our time making or defending against labels, whether true or false or some degree thereof, in this or any discussion. Scaleshombre, what you see as "sugar-coat" I see as a NPOV especially since the word dictator is used elsewhere in the lead. These are 3 of my opinions about how to constructively continue with this discussion and why adding the word "dictator" to the lede sentence is a bad and unnecessary idea. KINGOFTO (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

RS across the globe call Castro a dictator. All of Castro's peers from left to right (Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Batista, Mussolini, Hitler, etc.) are referred to as dictators, autocrats, or totatitarian rulers in their Wikipedia ledes. Why is Fidel entitled to different treatment than his peers? Scaleshombre (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The word dictator should be included in the first sentence. That is the way in which Hitler is referred. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 'A tyrant is dead' here. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, Senator. Bob Menendez "brutal dictator" here. Senator. Marco Rubio "Fidel Castro ... evil, murderous dictator" here. Rep. Carlos Curbelo, "the end to a horrifying chapter". Former U.S. Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart "Fidel Castro's disappearance was necessary for the horror of the present". 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". At some point Hitler was "democratically" elected. Yet we know he was a dictator. Fidel was never elected democratically, not even by faking them. 1.4 million of Cuban just in the USA here. Cubans using rafters to escape here. 8200 murdered Cubans here. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Jhaydn2016, are you under the impression that quotes from a bunch of notoriously anti-Castro Americans somehow add up to neutral or reliable sources for a Wikipedia article? Or that the opinions of a few Americans should overrule the worldwide assessment of him? Already the word "dictator" is used several times in the article. The world-wide consensus description of him is not strongly enough in favor of "dictator" to allow us to put it in the opening sentence of the article - the place where we define in a sentence who the person was. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. It is not the Encyclopedia Americana. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That "bunch of notoriously anti-Castro Americans" were democratically elected for Congress and Senate. They are backed up by all of those that voted for them in free elections. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with Melanie. Just because some members of the U.S. congress hold a position doesn't make it correct. For example, both the previous and the current democratically elected prime ministers of India described Castro in glowing terms. They represent a section of world population that is several times larger than the congressmen and congresswomen cited above. Why shouldn't their opinions get precedence? Obviously the correct position to adopt is a neutral position, eschewing words like "dictator". Jacob2718 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the word "dictator" to the lead. This is only an obsession by some users to influence readers. Maybe you should read the reactions to his death. The only leader who called him a dictator was Donald Trump. And please, stop comparing Fidel to Hitler, that only show off your ignorance. --emijrp (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

A review of recent discussions in this section and above ("Survey") shows a strong consensus (about 10 to 4) in favor of describing Castro as a dictator in the lede. Changes have been made accordingly. I know this is painful, but please don't let your emotions guide your edits. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't relevant here. This article exists since several years ago and he wasn't named a dictator in the lead. Nothing has changed. And he wasn't named a dictator by world leaders in reactions to his death. I know it is painful for you to see how many third world leaders call him an ally against oppression, colonialism and imperialism, but please don't let your emotions guide your edits. emijrp (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Emijrp. Please respect the consensus here, and stop edit warring. I know it would be so much simpler if everyone just recognized the wisdom of your opinion, but Wikipedia isn't Castro's Cuba. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

We can compare him to Augusto Pinochet, Fulgencio Batista, Hugo Banzer, Manuel A. Odría or any other number of Latin American authoritarian rulers who are called dictators in Wikipedia. We also have number of RS calling Fidel Castro a dictator. But hey, if a Spanish communist says communist leaders can't be dictators... --Pudeo (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You can compare Fidel to a potato if you want. Pinochet is called dictator in Wikipedia because he is called so worldwide. Not the case for Fidel. emijrp (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Emijrp:, please stop reverting the talk page consensus or I will report you for edit warring. You have been warned already by multiple editors.ThaiWanIII (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

History Will Absolve Me. emijrp (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"History will never absolve him" Alan P. Gross wiki page for Alan. Jailed for years in Cuba for helping Cuban Jews to connect to internet.link Jhaydn2016 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sidney Goldberg in the Wall Street Journal explained the protocol:

Castro is clearly not squeamish about using rhetoric straight out of the Marxist-Leninist handbook, or ruling Cuba the same way. And yet the imperialist bourgeoisie seems to be squeamish about labeling Castro for what he is. The latest edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary calls him merely: "Cuban revolutionary leader, prime minister and president." Sounds rather impressive--you can almost see it on the résumé for a MacArthur genius award. But is Castro a dictator? Apparently not enough of one to define him as such.

This is not the only instance of labeling-hesitation in Webster's New World--at least when the "leader" in question belongs to the "revolutionary" left. The dictionary can call Hitler the "Nazi dictator of Germany" but Stalin merely the "Soviet premier, general secretary of the Communist party of the U.S.S.R." Mussolini is an "Italian dictator," but Tito is "Yugoslav Communist Party leader, prime minister and president of Yugoslavia." Franco is "dictator of Spain" and Salazar "prime minister and dictator of Portugal," but Mao Tse-tung is "Chinese Communist leader, chairman of the People's Republic of China and of its Communist Party."

And Lenin? "Russian leader of the Communist revolution of 1917, premier of the U.S.S.R." This seems especially unfair, since Lenin's writings openly urged the deadly ruthlessness with which he ruled. Still, a good bourgeois dictionary must not go too far.

TFD (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit warring has got to stop NOW. When there is an edit war, the longstanding previous version remains in the article, unless and until there is consensus at the talk page. The paragraph that you all are adding has never even been DISCUSSED here. This discussion has been about whether to say "dictator" in the first sentence. Suddenly people are adding a whole POV sentence and claiming that "consensus" supported it. That's not even close to true. I would suggest you a) start a new section, b) state what you want to add, and c) see if there is support for it. And BTW discussions are not voting. Wikipedia's policies such as neutrality and verifiability take precedence. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere do I see a consensus to add this, and claims otherwise seem disingenuous. Dustin (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, you're a good editor and I respect your work on Wikipedia. But on this issue, the facts are not with you. If you review the discussions on this page, it's clear that a consensus has emerged. Let me recap some of the statements in support: "Yes- he was known as a dictator by many and there are sources that support this"; "other two definitions [of dictator]: 'one holding complete autocratic control: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively' Fidel meets both of these ones"; "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"; "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"; "Adding the word "dictator" is an entirely reasonable reflection of the truth. I would also like to see a stronger, unqualified reference to the numerous human rights atrocities that were committed under his rule more prominently in the lead"; "The word dictator should be included in the first sentence"; "We can compare him to Augusto Pinochet, Fulgencio Batista, Hugo Banzer, Manuel A. Odría or any other number of Latin American authoritarian rulers who are called dictators in Wikipedia. We also have number of RS calling Fidel Castro a dictator." The support isn't unanimous, but it's a consensus. If you can show otherwise, by all means do so. But until then, you have no cause for changing the lede.Scaleshombre (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You are shifting the burden of proof while ignoring points already made (by MelanieN, emijrp, TFD, myself and others). TFD already explained that the people who are desperate to call him a dictator complain that too few are ready to call him that. If you need a venue in which to make politically incorrect observations, you should try stand-up comedy. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid to say you are wrong. Ignoring the user who only registered to participate in this discussion and the IP (who has only commented here), it is, if I checked correctly, more a split or in opposition to the change than in favor of the change. Dustin (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Scaleshombre, you keep changing the subject. This discussion has been entirely about whether to add the word "dictator" to the lede sentence. Whether there is or is not a consensus here to do that is a matter of debate, and it has been noted that the word appears later in the lede and in the body of the article. But the edit you and others keep adding goes way beyond that. It does two things. It adds the word "dictator" to the description of his "jobs" (really?), AND it modifies the longstanding existing sentence:

Under his administration, Cuba became a one-party socialist state; industry and business were nationalized, and state socialist reforms were implemented throughout society.

to say

In establishing one of the world's longest-running dictatorships, he ruled Cuba as a totalitarian one-party socialist state where political dissent was routinely suppressed by secret police and other state security organs; industry and business were nationalized, and state socialist reforms were implemented throughout society.

falsely claiming consensus to do this, when in fact it hasn't even been discussed.

Look, the lede is supposed to summarize what is in the article. But there is no mention of "longest-running dictatorship" or "totalitarian" or "secret police" in the article. This is pure POV and simply unacceptable for the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've formed a POV that correlates to countless mainstream media, academic journals, eyewitness accounts, NGO reports, victim's families, diplomats from across the political spectrum, international observers and a myriad of other reliable sources. It's fortunate that there are objective editors at Wikipedia who are able to not be distracted by all those inconvenient POVs. Would it be more neutral if I only paid attention to the sources praising Castro as the reincarnation of Salvador Marti? Please, enlighten me. Like Winston in 1984, I really want to correct my aberrant thinking and embrace Castro with all my heart. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is unbecoming and does nothing to advance your cause. The article needs to reflect what reliable sources say, and not just American reliable sources. And the lede needs to reflect what is in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to think of Castro as a dictator, you're entitled to that opinion. Nobody here has any interest in changing your mind—it's not a forum. "Countless sources" describe Bush as a war criminal. It's point of view that enjoys considerable popularity even in the US, not to mention the rest of the world. I'll go ahead and add that to the lead of George W. Bush, in Wikipedia's voice, how does that sound? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't need my permission. Be bold! But keep in mind that whatever Bush did has no bearing on Castro's record. Also, since you brought up "war criminal," maybe this will help clarify the notion of Castro as a dictator in fact, not just in POV. Hitler, in many ways, is the "yardstick" for measuring both dictators and war criminals. I think most people would agree that the closer a politician gets to Hitler in the way he governs, the more accurate it is to label him a dictator. Hitler broke the mold as an abuser of human rights. But if you measure Castro against all the other leaders whose regimes overlapped with his, he comes closer to Hitler than most -- 1) because of his crackdown on free speech and other staples of liberal democracy and 2) because of the length of time he held power. I'm not quoting this from a RS, so it has no relevance to the lede. But since RS on this issue don't seem to matter either...Scaleshombre (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am going to Barack Obama article to add that he manages a totalitarian state, a state that spies all its citizens, where police kills innocents in the streets, that he signs every morning who will be dead at the evening by drones, that his secret agency operates black sites and other sites where prisoners are tortured and some other execrable activities typical for totalitarian states. How does that sound? emijrp (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

US citizens are able to discuss here, the Cuban ones aren't.Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't change that those US totalitarian state like crimes exist but they aren't added to Obama article and call him a dictator. But the case is that you are lying, there were 1.5 million visits from Cuba in the last month. emijrp (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

US press is the most high example of real free press, at least in my opinion, and I will say that is a fact. Comparing the US press to the one in China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua is very sad and ludicrous, in my opinion. Let's remove subjectivity. What is a dictator? Long un-elected time in power, killing people for being Catholics or other religious confessions, killing homosexuals and transgender just because they do not like them human rights watch, retaining power by force, prisons full of news reporters and musicians, etc, leaving power to his brother (maybe he thought he was a king). Killing children please read; you will find the quote from Fidel saying "truly patriotic effort" A 2 month old child died there among many other children. Yes, this is my first instance of contribution to Wikipedia. Does this mean that my contribution is less valuable? Older members have more value? Maybe so. However, even the most seasoned Wikipedia contributor was once a first time contributor. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Your contribution is being denigrated not because you are new but because it's a transparently crappy POV edit. Filling the page with WP:SOAPBOX comments and absurd black propaganda like "killing homosexuals and transgender just because they do not like them human rights watch" (HRW says nothing of the kind, obviously) does not help your case. In fact, it's a particularly egregious WP:LIBEL/HOAX made in connection to WP:BLP (which applies to content anywhere on the site, including talk pages), and you can be blocked permanently for this kind of stuff. What you are doing bears little resemblance to mainstream US journalism but it's pretty damn close to the fake outrage and hoaxes being manufactured daily by Russian propaganda outlets and troll armies. There are places on the web where you can successfully engage in this kind of activity—wikipedia is not one of them. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• You are right, it does not say that and I apologize. I leave it there so people can know what are we talking about and that I clearly made a mistake. Glad you are checking. It is hard to demonstrate atrocities because the perpetrators do not leave a clear trail. That happened, I had neighbors that had to suffer it. By the way, you may want to check the beatings that the Damas de Blanco have to suffer every Sunday after mass. Here is their webpage Damas de Blanco. At least we agree that Russia is not a reliable source. And please, stop the threats, this is not Cuba. Thanks for "transparently crappy POV". Even dumb people like me still are entitled to express themselves without fear and not be ridiculed by doing so. Right? Jhaydn2016 (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

[User:Guccisamsclub] read this one. How about this article citing ABC newspaper from Spain? Fidel did terrible things to homosexuals and transsexuals article.Jhaydn2016 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly consensus to include the word dictator in the lead, and we use this word in the articles on numerous comparable individuals who happen to have been right-wing dictators (e.g. Pinochet). The description of his regime as a dictatorship is extremely well supported by reliable sources, and the idea that he wasn't a dictator is clearly an extremist fringe theory. --Tataral (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Extremist is your POV, comparing Fidel to Pinochet. In Pinochet regime, dissidents were raped using dogs and rats, and thrown alive from planes. But hey, you just finished re-writing a very soft lead to Nazi lawyer Hans Globke who wrote racist laws for Hitler, and you come here to leave your super-neutral POV. emijrp (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time on you and your personal attacks and POV pushing. --Tataral (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Even so, there is absolutely no consensus to include the word "dictator" in the lede sentence....it is already in the lede, just not in the lede sentence. KINGOFTO (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong. At very least, there's consensus to put dictator in the lede sentence. You need to reread the discussion. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Color image under cc.

Fidel Castro (2014)

Can we use this color photo of Castro by cropping it? It is color and latest photo. It can be used in infobox. - Mar11 (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I really do not think that this is an ideal image for the infobox. First, why have a image of Castro as a frail old man in his retirement when we can have an image of him in the prime of life, at a time when he was highly relevant on the world stage? Castro was at the peak of his global fame and influence in the late 1950s and 1960s, so an image from that sector of his life would be most apt (and is indeed what this article has used in the infobox for a very long time). Second, while this image is quite crisp and is in colour, it is poorly framed, and merely features the side of Castro's face; a more frontal image (like that which has long been featured in the infobox) would be better. Basically, it is not up to the standard we would expect of an infobox image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should use this image. In any event, we should use a recent image, not a decades-old one. He was alive until 2016, he remained dictator until a few years ago when he was an old man (I only remember him as an old man) and he remained highly prominent until his death (it has been suggested he remained the real dictator even as his brother was installed by him as "president"). --Tataral (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, obviously we can't use it for the info box. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this is not suitable. What we usually use for an infobox image for politicians, living or deceased, is their official portrait from when they were an office holder, or something that resembles an official portrait. We don't use a picture of them in their last years, because it is not representative of the person and their life. I thought the picture we used to have of Castro [6] met the "official portrait" standard. Somebody recently replaced it with a black-and-white candid-type shot of him as a very young revolutionary, [7] and we do sometimes see that approach used with historic figures, although not usually in the infobox. I am neutral between those two images. But we absolutely shouldn't use the image proposed here as the infobox image - unless our goal is to portray him as a doddering old man. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Premiership of Fidel Castro

Please see the discussion concerning whether Premiership of Fidel Castro and Presidency of Fidel Castro should merged together into a single article. Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 01:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinions

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)

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)

Exactly, MelanieN. And NOT in Wikipedia's voice. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A review of recent discussions in this section and the related section "Recent Changes to the Lede" shows a strong consensus (about 10 to 4) in favor of describing Castro as a dictator in the lede. I'm making changes accordingly. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• No. KINGOFTO (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, he was a dictator. It does not matter how many times you move the conversation under different headings. Why is that in Wikipedia some try to misrepresent reality to satisfy the government controlled media of some countries? Google is censored in China, yet you considered them a "reliable source", Russia? Probably they do not let people see Wikipedia there, I do not know. But I know that my family in Cuba cannot access Wikipedia. How is that for a fact? Look at the people who defend him and you will notice a long line of un-elected presidents that want to maintain themselves in power. The Sakharov Prize 2010 was given to a Cuban dissident, Guillermo Fariñas, by the European Parliament. The European Parliament represents a significant part of the free world, Truly Free World, where people can even defend communism and they are not thrown in prison for that. Do you know what happens when someone screams "Cuba Libre" in Cuba? Jhaydn2016 (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't just go to Manhattan and scream "Fuck Donald Trump", "Sharia or death," "Trump that B***" etc. like a crazy person either. You might get away with it, but you are more likely to get arrested. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You cannot compare US with Cuba, IMO. You don't seem to notice the vast differences. In the US you can hire a lawyer. In Cuba, you may not leave the prison alive, an you cannot even complain. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Russia? Probably they do not let people see Wikipedia there, I do not know. People can see Wikipedia in Russia and even edit it, imagine that :) And I can say Russian Wiki often feels less biased and one-sided than the English Wiki where everyone always tries to label a regime or a popular person somehow (especially if it's origin lies outside of the Truly Free World) instead of writing a neutral article supported by neutral sources. Just my two cents. AveTory (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the part that in Cuba people cannot access WP? Jhaydn2016 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As for sources from countries living under dictatorships or cuasi-dictatorships, see Wikipedia:Propaganda Cambalachero (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect addition: "the first and only in the Western Hemisphere."

Since Castro's death a number of small additions have been made to the article lede, the majority of which are probably unnecessary. However one in particular is simply incorrect. The lede has long noted (correctly) that Castro's Cuba was the first Marxist-Leninist governed socialist state in the Western Hemisphere. Recently however this has been changed to "first and only". This however is incorrect, for under Maurice Bishop's leadership the island of Grenada became such a state and (if I am not mistaken), under Daniel Ortega's leadership Nicaragua moved in that direction as well. It would be appreciated if an administrator could remove "and only". Many thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right. The edit [8] that added "and only" also added some other questionable things, such as his father being "nouveau riche", and the qualification "de jure" for his presidency. Administrators are hesitant to edit through full protection unless there is a real problem. I'm inclined to think these issues can wait until the protection expires, unless there is a consensus here that "and only" needs to come out immediately. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I find that whole edit a little questionable. Many of the changes to the lede basically just added trivia in. I'd hope that an administrator would consider reverting the lede to the longstanding version, but I guess it could wait until full protection ends. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, the protection has expired so I reverted most of these edits. --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And I've tweaked a few more of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Which election

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)

Thanks for raising this issue. That does appear to be the election in question, so I have added a link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

False dichotomy in lede and his views on nuclear attacks

The intro to the article sets up a false dichotomy in a very POV way claiming supporters say X while critics say Y.

When in reality I think the vast majority of unbiased thought is in support of the need for the Batista regime to be overthrown but then Castro quickly lost all moral authority when he himself did not step down, becoming a dictator in his own right by not allowing more than 1 political party to exist. Amongst other far more egregious crimes against humanity. Not to mention his genocidal desire to drop nuclear weapons on the US, on more than one occasion, and how he only stopped with that grandstanding desire of his when in later years the Soviets in the 1980s and Alan Robock in 2009 convinced him of the socialization of the negative effects of nuclear war. Which is all detailed and referenced in the nuclear winter article that I've contributed to.

So this childish paragraph in the lede of the article stating essentially that "supporters say he glowed with absolute commie purity and never did anything wrong...while the imperialist dogs say he never-evers did anything good." Is a textbook false dichotomy. When in reality everyone in history is nuanced, with good and bad and grey elements to their character, some overshadowing more than others. For example, Stalin was an ok father by his daughter's account, but is 1 positive quality really going to change my opinion of his oversight over the holodomor, the gulag, the purges etc and the millions of daughters he knew he'd be killing and the murdering of their fathers? No.

So inject some neutrality into this article already and detail why Castro changed his desire about nuclear weapons. As presently readers may falsely start to think Castro had a change of heart and began to care for the people attacked, when in reality it is clear that he believed that a nuclear winter will bring about the end-of-the-world/the end of him and Cuba, and that's what lay behind his change in thinking about nuclear attacks. Boundarylayer (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I fully appreciate your concern that the wording may not reflect the nuance of the situation, but at the same time it is important that we reflect that Castro was a divisive figure with different groups of people having very different views of him. For some Castro is a villain, for others he is a hero. While neither may reflect a full, nuanced appreciation of the complexities of reality, they do reflect his legacy and the way that he has been interpreted. If you have any suggestions for how these sentences in the fourth paragraph could be amended then I would be very happy to hear them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The lead "essentially" states two legitimate points of view, not that ""supporters say he glowed with absolute commie purity and never did anything wrong...while the imperialist dogs say he never-evers did anything good." But you're right that the different points of view overlap in the minds of many observers, which the lead might need to reflect in some way. The Stalin analogy is pretty facile IMO ... we've had too many of these on the talkpage already and they led nowhere. During the missile crisis, Che and Castro publicly called for a nuclear strike in the event of an American invasion, which made sense from the point of view of the prevailing "MAD" deterrence. Until the mid-1980s, according to the Danilevich interview, Castro was basically recommending that a nuclear option not be taken off the table, though I don't know how he could have "pressed" for that (though he could have "pressed" for a "harder line" in other areas). I don't think there is anything particularly "genocidal" about this, if you look at the record of other countries on the issue. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

To the contrary, it seems to me that the lede emphasizes the views of critics in the U.S. and the West far more than it should and places them on an equal footing with views of his supporters, even though his supporters were far more numerous and far more geographically diverse. For example, consider George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. The Bush article is rated as a good article but the lede does not say that Bush was a divisive figure, and viewed as a war criminal by critics even though this certainly a widely held view in many parts of the world. The Clinton lede does not say that Clinton was a divisive figure, viewed as an icon's of women's progress in U.S. politics by supporters but also viewed as the symbol of a corrupt Washington establishment by critics. And Trump's page does not say that his supporters perceive him as someone who would shake up the establishment but critics perceive him to be a corrupt businessman with ties to white supremacists (It only says that many of his statements were controversial --- not that Trump was controversial). I give these examples, not to argue that these statements should be inserted in those articles but merely to point out a trend where editors are very careful (and perhaps rightfully so) in playing up critical views of Western politicians (many of whom are as controversial). But the same care is not taken when it comes to dealing with politicians from other places. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a case of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Hillary Clinton wasn't a dictator, unlike Castro. I would like to see accusations of war crimes mentioned in the introduction of Bush's article and I have spent vast amounts of energy in favour of including critical views on Trump in his lead section over the last weeks, but I don't understand what that has to do with Castro's article and whether we accurately decribe him as a dictator based on how he is universally viewed by serious reliable sources, for example mainstream centre-left liberal democratic non-U.S. sources.

Also, what is all this discussion about the U.S. about? Castro wasn't from the U.S. and of course, the truth is that Castro is viewed as a dictator by all serious and non-extremist sources around the world and regardless of whether they are "right wing U.S." or not. The only ones who insist he was a democratically elected leader are those on the political fringe (usually the most far-left fringe communist parties) or regimes (such as North Korea) which are dictatorships themselves and which don't speak for anyone but themselves, certainly not their own populations. --Tataral (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I never said that Clinton was a dictator, and this discussion is not about the word "dictator". My point is that, in most articles about prominent U.S. politicians, the lede does not end with a summary stating that they were "controversial" personalities. This is not restricted to the three articles above. Consider Richard Nixon or Harry S. Truman. In fact, since we are discussing nuclear issues, it seems pertinent that the lede in Truman's article does not conclude with a line stating that Truman's legacy was controversial because he decided to bomb not only Hiroshima but also Nagasaki. This information is buried deep inside the article, and uses precisely the style of "supporters say ... , critics say ... , Truman says ...". So, in fact I agree that the Castro lede uses weasel words but compared to other articles on Wikipedia, it seems to me that it is the viewpoint of critics that is overplayed here. Jacob2718 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Truman's responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and controversial legacy should be emphasized more in his article, and I encourage you to go ahead and propose such changes there which I will be happy to support, but again, this is not a reason for downplaying the fact that Castro was a dictator who was responsible for the murder of thousands of political opponents and oppression over many decades. --Tataral (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Tataral & Jacob2718 did not intend to drag-in and beat the off-topic "dictator" argument here in this discussion but to Guccisamsclub & Midnightblueowl: You both largely understood the text, agree with the underlying concern and wish to remedy the issue, do you know how rarely that happens here, with so many editors with axes to grind? Thank you for being focused and sincere, it is refreshing, I had close to given up on ever interacting with other editors who weren't "in it" for some ideological reason. To get back to editing, and to 1st respond to Midnightblueowl. While many people unfortunately have a child-like view of the world, seeing others as either a total hero or a total villain. I don't like encyclopedias insulting my intelligence by using tabloid-esque tactics, suggesting that the world is about equially divided into people who supported him 100% in everything he ever did or they 100% criticized him. As no one I've ever read approaches him like that. It is a WP:FRINGE view as far as I can see. Perhaps fostered by recent events and too many editors reading tabloids of late, afterall, tribalism and controversy sells. However I'd be open to persuasion if you have scholarly citations from historians that corroborate the pervasiveness of this unnuanced view of Castro, amongst lay-people. Of which I am one.

As a suggestion for the fourth paragraph, could the article not say something to the affect of: While not universal in either respect, most admiration and support for Castro derives from his involvement in overthrowing Batista, an event that catapulted him into a position of a world icon in the eyes of most other developing nations, symbolizing revolution against exploitation. While the largest source of global opposition directed towards him occurred afterwards when head of state, by enforcing a one party state, human rights abuses, the control of the media and other measures that quickly began to erode his reputation as a freedom fighter in the eyes of many outside Cuba. Maybe something along these lines could replace the 4th paragraph? As without replacing the present 4th paragraph, the intro has all the hallmarks of having the infamous tabloid Okrent disease.

As for Guccisamsclub it was not my intent to offend, although I don't think the off-the-cuff comparison was unfair, clearly extreme to make the point, but not unfair. Stalin was likewise largely responsible for enforcing a regime change in WWII, which is widely regarded as a positive development, when likewise it is taken in isolation. However to get back on track and move on from this over-analysis of a analogy.

The question of Castro's presistent advocacy for the USSR to mount Pre-emptive nuclear strikes, long after the Cuban missile crisis ended I think is extremely notable and neither I, the Soviet General Danilevich or anyone else I've ever read on the matter have ever down-played or engaged in whataboutery until I read your interpretation. You seem to be cherry-picking in how you chose to quote the document. It states in full: During the early 1980s...Fidel Castro recommended to the Kremlin a harder line against Washington, even suggesting the possibility of nuclear strikes. The pressure stopped after Soviet officials gave Castro a briefing on the ecological impact on Cuba of nuclear strikes on the United States. [I: 24; II: 28 (Danilevich).]

Even putting aside your refusal to accept the learned interpretation on the matter, this is irrefutably when Castro began to have a change of heart about nuclear weapons, as it is following this "briefing" that he started down the road to advocating his wild notion that a literal "armageddon" would come about and to petition other countries not to test or ever use them. All of this occurred after he was led to believe by the Soviets, that Cuba would be devastated, even if it were not hit with a single warhead. This cause and motivation for his change of heart is considerably notable and really puts into perspective why he so loudly championed against nuclear weapons in his later years. Notably, advocating from a mindset changed when self/cuban interest was threatened, but not before. It should thus definitely be in the article. Do you not agree?

Also, with respect to the Cuban Missile Crisis, why is there no mention to the insightful minutes of the meeting between Mikoyan, Castro, Guevera MEMCOM, which detail Castro's desire to hold onto the 80 or so short-range tactical nuclear cruise missiles the US didn't know about and thus didn't ask for removal? Although apparently the USSR(Mikoyan) just didn't want them near Castro so bluffed him into thinking there was some Soviet law forebading the USSR stationing the warheads in Cuba long-term and so removed them anyway. Castro comes across as rather petulent and perhaps genuinely concerned about a future US invasion here and there is a sentiment of having been hung-out-to-dry in the minutes of these discussions. However the USSR did leave him with an entire army of war materiél in exchange, so it is curious to say the least why he was looking to buy Il-28 bombers here and Mikoyan is telling him no, we're giving you fighters not bombers, comrade.

In any case, these actual sources of information, completely untainted by Castro or US spin-doctors give a real insight into the man and not the image that others want you to see.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

But it doesn't say supporters ALL undeviatingly think this, while critics All 100% think something else. It characterises broadly over what issues and why some people defend and others criticise him and fairly successfully summarises whole swathes of issues and arguments on both sides. Of course these have to be developed in the body of the article, but I don't see the problem. The lead cannot give every nuance and I don't see any "false dichotomy" in saying that critics tend to point to this while defenders tend to point at something else. There are clearly 100 shades of opinion between the two. Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply Boundarylayer. I haven't read the minutes you refer to and the link is dead. However, the Pre-emptive nuclear strike page (something quite different from Preemptive war, nevermind Preventive war) simply illustrates my point:"If the second variant takes place and the imperialists invade Cuba with the aim of occupying it, the dangers of their aggressive policy are so great that after such an invasion the Soviet Union must never allow circumstances in which the imperialists could carry out a nuclear first strike against it. I tell you this because I believe that the imperialists' aggressiveness makes them extremely dangerous, and that if they manage to carry out an invasion of Cuba—a brutal act in violation of universal and moral law—then that would be the moment to eliminate this danger forever, in an act of the most legitimate self-defense. However harsh and terrible the solution, there would be no other." (emph added) What "learned opinion" am I supposed to accept? That the Cuban leadership "pressured" the Soviets to nuke the US when the Americans were just sitting there minding their own business? Cuba was certainly not the only country that did not accept the doctrine of No first use in response to an invasion. It could be argued that risking a world nuclear holocaust to defend one's national sovereignty is grossly irresponsible (though it is by no means obvious that this the best way of frame the issue), but that's the world we live in. You certainly have a point when you say that Castro did not simply "have a change of heart" on the nuclear issue, but I don't see where the article says that he did. I suppose one could add the stuff from Danilevich—about Castro's opposition to Brezhnev's policies of no first use (reversed in 1985) and detente—to "Reagan and Gorbachev: 1980–1989". The only problem is that there probably needs to be more discussion of the issue in secondary sources. At the moment, the naked quote from Danilevich amounts to trivia and is likely to be tendentiously interpreted by some readers/editors as a demand for preemptive/preventive nuclear war. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• I think Pincrete may be right that we're reading too much into the lead. I also think that Boundarylayer's version for the 4th paragraph is basically a distillation of the liberal take on the Cuban revolution and thus clearly POV. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand whether Boundarylayer is serious that these few documents reveal "real information" whereas others come from the opinions of "too many editors reading tabloids". It might have been useful to examine some of the scholarly descriptions of Castro before arriving at conclusions of this sort. In general, descriptions written by progressive historians outside the United States are positive. To take one example, Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes, (p. 438), describes the start of the revolution as "The Cuban revolution had everything: romance, heroism in the mountains ex-student leaders with the selfless generosity of their youth ... a jubiliant people ... what is more, it could be hailed by all Left revolutionaries." Edward McCaughan, offering a critique from the left, in "Reinventing Revolution" (p.29) states that "Castro retained legitimacy because ...[he was]... seen as having finally secured Cuba's long frustrated national independence and sovereignty...However ... the Cuban revolution...never seriously challenged the authoritarian, paternalistic, and highly centralized statist paradigm that had emerged from both Marxist-Leninist and statist traditions." Jacob2718 (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, the 4th paragraph unnecessarily smacks of the tabloid-esque Supporters/critics tribalism of "love him or hate him", it fails Okrent's law. When this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, something that should strain to be scholarly. To that end, it is widely accepted the world-over that Castro's lead in overthrowing Batista is the source of his fame and from where he derived his most support while his decades long rule over Cuba is primarly what he is criticized for. This is by no means a "distillation" of the "liberal" take on history as Guccisamsclub suggests but a distillation of general world opinion. All this left/right dichotomy is beside the point, most people are centrist and don't like being present with 2 choices.

Secondly Guccisamsclub I did write the word after the Cuban missile crisis, as what happened after is most notable. Decades after the crisis, according to Danilevich, Castro continued to advocate striking the US with nuclear weapons as detailed by the General (Danilevich).]. It is this post-crisis desire by Castro which should be included in the article as it also illuminates why Castro had a change of heart in the mid-1980s about nuclear weapons. Moreover to suggest that the man's nuclear weapons views are "trivia" is laughable. I don't care if some editors don't like this being revealed or consider it a contentious addition to the article, as presently, the article lists numerous times that Castro more recently spoke out against nuclear weapons, on N.Korea etc. So are you honestly going to sit there with a straight-face and act like what Danilevich reveals, is trivia? Seems to me, What's good for the goose is good for the gander on these matters.

Thirdly here again are the minutes of the 1962 Miyokan,Castro post-missile crisis discussions now if the link doesn't work for you again, then merely use your search engine to find the minutes, one host is Foreign Policy. In these minutes amongst other lesser things, Castro wants to hold onto the smaller tactical nuclear missiles on the island and he wants to buy nuclear capable bombers, the IL-28. Anastas Mikoyan has to say no to both requests as the Soviets didn't trust him with any such "offensive" weaponry, mainly because Castro had earlier tried to play brinkmanship by attempting to inform the US about the tactical nuclear weapons on the island, by means of an intermediary ambassador in the US. - Now the fact that the Soviets thought Castro was essentially, an untrustworthy loose cannon, is extremely notable. Analysts have also noted that Castro could've held onto these specific missiles had it not been for his nuclear-uppitiness, conspiring to trouble the Soviets enough to remove these "offensive" weapons. Weapons that they actually were under no obligation to remove. The Kennedy administration only knew about the much longer range missiles and bombers.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link (i fixed a syntax error). We're now firmly in OR territory. The reasons for the Soviet removal could have been Castro's "uppityness" (the Soviet view), or it could be the Soviet's desire to deprive Cuba of independence and leverage, thereby keeping it a junior partner (the Cuban/Third Worldist view). I haven't read all the minutes yet, but the FP summary makes the power dynamics pretty clear. Castro's leaking was inconvenient or the Soviets, but the Cuban government saw it as as both a deterrent and as a way of preventing possible Soviet betrayal. It is no wonder that Cuba protested the 1968 US-Soviet-British NP Treaty, which it saw (not without reason) as ploy by the superpowers to keep their nuclear monopoly and screw everyone else. \
• If you are interpreting Danilevich as saying that Cuba lobbied Brezhnev to nuke Washington in peacetime, your interpretation is tendentious and yours only. It is simply not credible. We're asked to believe that (a) Castro though he had something to gain from starting a nuclear war over nothing (b) Castro was dumb enough to think he could pressure (or even suggest) Brezhnev to nuke the US out of the blue. There is also no evidence to support it. All the evidence from the Missile Crisis makes it clear that Castro wanted to threaten the US with nuclear weapons to deter an invasion. In other words he did NOT accept the Brezhnev's 1982 pledge of No first use, at least not in response to an invasion by a nuclear power. The Soviets of course—for their own selfish reasons—considered the idea of defending Cuba (or any other Soviet ally) with nuclear weapons insane. And of course, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, the Soviet were probably (you do have to consider deterrence) right, even if for for the wrong reasons. This is something that Castro came to realize eventually. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• As for the 4th paragraph, I still think yours is a distillation of the liberal view, which is not to say it's wrong or anything. You are saying, together with the Kennedy administration, that Batista was awful and had to go, but that the post-revolutionary government should have set up a conventional liberal democracy, and instead of going in a radical direction both domestically and internationally. It is simply not true that everyone shares this view. Castro is not respected in the Horn of Africa for the fact that he overthrew Batista—Castro is instead commended for his role in the struggle against Apartheid. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, I don't find it 'tabloidy' nor lovey/hatey. The one word I find a bit strange is 'divisive', unless it is simply repeating the meaning of 'controversial'. It is a bit strange to say divisive without saying who/how were divided and why. Clearly Cubans/exiles are sharply divided. I find it more simplistic to say he was mainly admired for Baptista but therafter disliked for limiting freedoms. He remains widely admired by some, and many have mixed feelings. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I share some of Pincrete and Gucciamsclub's concerns about the proposed fourth paragraph. I also have concerns that it makes statements that are not supported by the reliable sources, such as the claim that most support and admiration for Castro arose from his overthrow of Batista (why not for Cuba's medical internationalism? Its involvement in the anti-apartheid struggle? Or its opposition to the U.S. over issues such as the Bay of Pigs invasion?). I can still appreciate your concerns about constructing rigid dichotomies between pro- and anti-Castro camps, but at the same time I am not convinced by the proposed alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

To Guccisamsclub, so you are going to include the Anastas Mikoyan-Castro MEMCOM minutes that occurred over 2 months in 1962 Nov-December and which spell out Castro's presistent desire to keep the tactical nuclear weapons and to also buy long range IL-28 bombers? That's Great, I'm glad we're moving forward on including Castro's views on nuclear weapons. Now as for the 1980s Danilevich insight, if you had read the actual english language PDF of Danilevich's account, the document states that in the early 1980s Castro pushed for a harder line "including possibly nuclear strikes" against the US. The Soviets then sent a team of "experts" to spell out the ecological consequences that Cuba would feel if the US was hit and then directly following this, Castro "recovered from his nuclear fever rather quickly". Chapter 3 evolution of soviet strategy pg 24 by Colonel General Andrian Danilevich, Assistant for Doctrine and Strategy to the Chief of the General Staff from 1984–90 So contrary to your defensive pontifications, the document is very much the epitome of credible and does indeed spell out in plain english that Castro was pushing for nuclear strikes as he had what is described as "nuclear fever". You seemingly think (a)(b)(c) Castro had nothing to gain from this etc, but really? All that is your own personal opinion. We don't know what Castro was thinking, what leverage or lack he had, nor what motivated this fever to have the US hit with nuclear weapons, and frankly we don't need to know right now. It is WP:RS. The article is the place for it. Along with any other equally credible references on Castro's nuclear thinking.

Onto the 4th paragraph, I think you all see the problem and I have every fate that you'll sort it out and make the article read more like an encyclopedia rarther than a tabloid at some point. Never in my life have I ever opened Americana, Britannica nor my favorite, the World Book and seen an article on a man use the 4th paragraphs "supports/critics" trope. They just summarize what made them famous, what the primary public preception on them us and what if anything are they infamous for. They don't set things up with "supporters say X while critics say Y, especially when both ends are WP:fringe views. The world isn't this comically popularized over Castro, despite what the article may lead one to believe. Boundarylayer (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This is getting tiring. Are you sure you're not confusing Fidel Castro with Osama Bin Laden? The Danilevich quote in full: "In the early 1980s Fidel Castro pressed hard for a tougher Soviet line against the U.S. up to and including possible nuclear strikes. The GS had to actively disabuse him of this view by spelling out the ecological consequences for Cuba of a Soviet strike against the U.S. This changed Castro’s positions considerably." This is arguably enough to demonstrate a reckless refusal to accept No first use, but no more. The quote does not specify the circumstances under which Castro thought that using or threatening to use nuclear weapons was admissible. This is just a naked quote from an conversation, where language is usually less precise than in writing. Yet you appear to think that the quote proves that Castro, who appeared ready to threaten the US with a nuclear strike in response to an invasion during the Missile Crisis, later pressured someone like Brezhnev (who made a pledge of No first use!) to nuke the US out of the blue (i.e not threatening to respond to some serious act of aggression, but just lobbing one cause "they hate us") during detente (which ended in 1980, but it's architects remained in the Kremlin). In what alternative universe is this supposed to be a credible interpretation? It's a transparently bizarre theory that's based on absolutely no primary or secondary sources, except maybe Red Dawn. Obviously we can't have any language in the article that so much as hints at such a theory. We can have something about Castro's position on first use and the threat of first use during the Missile Crisis, which is extensively documented. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It may be tiring for you because you seem content to deliberately misattribute quotes to Danilevich and to refuse to engage with the actual document. You see, you're quoting the summary on the archive's website rather than what the more official article/Danilevich himself was conveying. Here it is again: the document states that in the early 1980s Castro pushed for a harder line "including possibly nuclear strikes" against the US. The Soviets then sent a team of "experts" to spell out the ecological consequences that Cuba would feel if the US was hit and then directly following this, Castro "...recovered from his nuclear fever rather quickly". Chapter 3 evolution of soviet strategy pg 24 by Colonel General Andrian Danilevich, Assistant for Doctrine and Strategy to the Chief of the General Staff from 1984–90

You then spend a lot of time, yet again, talking about how you personally(WP:POV) don't think this is true, as it was after the period of Detente but the "architects stayed in the Kremlin"...and how it "doesn't make sense" for Castro to have been like this "out of the blue". You really should re-read over what you've written as it comes across as very, very defensive. Not that it matters, nor is it cited but if you really cannot handle this document on its own, then I could tell you that it is likely that Castro had this "nuclear fever" due to Reagan's Grenada operation, although this is just my own hunch. Or it could've been just that Castro wanted to hit the US before the Strategic Defense Initiative became operational. Most "nuclear fever"'s probably have a myriad of "justifications" behind them and it is not our job to determine what exactly was going thru his head.

Furthermore, I'm glad however that you explained how passionate you feel and I think I may be seeing what your problem is, you are operating under the notion that just because I'm trying to have Castro's nuclear views fleshed-out in the article. This in your eyes, automatically means I'm trying to draw a line between the events in Nov 1962 between Mikoyan and Castro & Danilevich and Castro in 1982-3. When I'm doing anything but. A lot can change in a person's life in 20 years, I'm not connecting dots that have no direct evidence for a link. Only you seem to have done that. I'm saying we need to include the notable minutes of the meetings between Mikoyan on Castro over the lesser known tactical nuclear missile affair and long range Il-28 bomber desires Castro expresses(full stop, as he perhaps still feared an invasion etc. However we do know that the Kennedy-Krushchev agreement on not invading Cuba and defending Cuba against Castro's enemies in miami etc, would turn out to be a totally sacrosant agreement in the White House, even up to Reagan's era) Then once we put a nice big full stop after 1962, in a wholly separate event we need to include the next notable nuclear policy sentiment Castro expressed, in the early 1980s. In which he had what is described as a "nuclear fever" to get some form of nuclear weapon use on the US.

In conclusion, if you have a look at the beginning of this discussion, you'll see that I'm trying to flesh out Castro's views not to paint him as Osama Bin Laden or the Dalai Lama, but as himself. To that end I started off this discussion stating that we needed to include how "nuclear winter" was what changed Castro's mind, both in the 1980s and later being re-affirmed in 2009 when Castro himself invited Alan Robock over to Cuba so he could give a nationwide TV-special, on his new, "nuclear winter" computer models. Models that incidentally no other nation state has ever really taken seriously but Castro, which is all discussed here: nuclear winter#policy implications. These are notable historical documents that should be summarized and placed in the article.

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, in case it is not clear from my comments above, I disagree entirely with your additions to the proposed fourth paragraph. And I agree with Guccisamsclub that we have a long discussion here with a very low signal to noise ratio. I posted some scholarly sources above to explain what his supporters and critics state, but you haven't responded to that. You insist that the positions outlined are WP:Fringe but they are not; and I'm sorry to say what is happening here is that your own POV is far from the mainstream, and therefore you have trouble accepting the mainstream view. Guccisamsclub is right that Castro is known for far more than displacing Batista. For example, in Africa he is known for his support of various independence movements and decolonization. In parts of Asia and Latin America, he is known for the role played by Cuban doctors in disasters. In other parts of Asia, he is known for his stewardship of the Non-Aligned Movement. etc. In Cuba, itself, he was widely admired for various aspects of the socialist system he put in place --- such as universal healthcare and education --- and also for maintaining Cuban sovereignty against U.S. pressure. Even the New York Times, in its coverage of his funeral, noted that clearly. Moreover, let me point out that the sources that you cite here, show absolutely nothing, except, once again, you appear to have a strong POV on this issue. For example, the document on the evolution of Soviet strategy states nothing except that according to a Soviet general, Castro pushed the Soviets to take a harder line on nuclear deterrence, and then was persuaded not to. If you want to see Castro's own position on this issue, you should read Castro himself. Here is what he says in "My Life", p. 567: "Nor are we going to start manufacturing a chemical weapon. How are you going to transport it? Who are you going to use it against? Against the American people? No! That would be unfair and absurd! Are you going to make a nuclear weapon? You'll ruin yourself --- a nuclear weapon is a good way to commit suicide at a certain point, all right: "Gentlemen, the time has come, we're going to immolate ourselves, and this atomic bomb is just the thing.' Make an atomic bomb to destroy the country with? Against a country that must have at least 30,000 of them? And I'm not talking about strategic weapons --- [I'm talking] tactical weapons, nuclear weapons. The United States must have [tactical weapons] in briefcases, because during the Cold War both the Soviets and the Americans even manufactured briefcases with atomic bombs in them, for sabotage ... There was no horror they didn't invent." Jacob2718 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Needless to say, I agree with pretty much everything from Jacob2718 here. To pre-empt any bickering, Jacob's quote from Castro does not contradict anything Boundarylayer has said about the late Castro's position on nuclear weapons. So let's not debate that. Regarding the stuff from the 1980's, here's my further reply to boundarylayer (collapsed cause the issue has already been tortured to death)

Extended content

"you seem content deliberately misattribute quotes to Danilevich". The passage was pasted directly from Danilevich's interview (page 28), linked in the NSA summary, and that passage is paraphrased accurately in the study you just pasted. What could I possibly be misrepresenting? "(Castro's) "nuclear fever" to get some form of nuclear weapon use on the US". You now say you are agnostic about whether or not to draw the line between Castro's position during the Missile Crisis and his later position during/shortly after detente. You are making a false equivalency between the two interpretations: "opposition to no first use, opposition to taking nuclear off the table" and "lets try to nuke em when they least expect it." The first is a standard "hawkish" position; the second is the potential policy of ISIS, if even that. But shortly thereafter, you appear to revert back to the absurd second interpretation: in the early 1980s, in which he had what is described as a "nuclear fever" to get some form of nuclear weapon use on the US. No,suggesting the possibility of using nuclear weapons is emphatically not the same as wanting them to be used. By that standard any country that does not abide by No first use (have you read that article?) is itching to nuke somebody. Rather, those countries generally want to deter serious threats to their national security, and therefore won't say that using nuclear weapons is an "impossibility". I am not saying these countries are right or that their nuclear stance is invariably defensive, but that's just how things work. The essay you linked makes the context of the late Cold War pretty clear: it was a time when the Soviets not only pledged to things like "no first use" (unlike most countries) and detente, but were not even preparing a response in case of a tactical nuclear strike on a Warsaw Pact member! There was plenty of room there for a more hawkish policy, one that would resolutely defend not just the USSR but also its allies and clients against actual and perceived US/allied aggression. That's the position that Castro was articulating: the Soviets should be prepared and (be seen as prepared) for the possible use of nuclear weapons to defend its allies against attack by a nuclear superpower. I can't say what exactly what Castro had in mind beyond a general desire to see more nuclear posturing from the USSR. That info is just not there, because—to reiterate—we're dealing with a brief and naked quote. That, together with certain biases (to put it very mildly) about Castro and the Cold War which still permeate our political culture, is what makes it so open to tendentious interpretation.

Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

First Paragraph

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 15:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope. National Assembly of People's Power. emijrp (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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" [9]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 15:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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 ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 18:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, we are dealing with unsourced analogies. You can compare Castro to Kim, Hitler or whoever. Until you demonstrate that experts on Cuba think Castro is basically similar to these people it holds no weight. On the face of it, the argument is a slippery slope: dozens of leaders who did not preside over multiparty democracies could be put in the same bin. But Hitler and Kim are not exactly notable for simply violating the norms of multiparty democracies, they had far bigger fish to fry.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've restored much of the original wording of the final paragraph of the lead. The problem with Jacob's preferred version is that it's just a bad lead: there should be no citations, as all content should be drawn from the article body; two quotes are not "widely described"; and the first sentence (which keeps getting removed) gives the reader a sense of the paragraph's focus on how he is viewed. That "large parts of the world" viewed him positively doesn't mean that he wasn't divisive. Certainly he was controversial to the millions who lived there and/or left Cuba. Anyway, the lead as it stands is far superior IMHO, giving adequate credence to both sides of the argument. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Descriptions of Castro as a "dictator" are easy enough to find, but there is no consensus among the body of RS on this label, and the sources that do use this label are a very mixed bag. This label is more common in the American mass media and the "activist" media than in scholarly works. In fact, even in the mass media, the label is all too often prefaced with "considered by some/many to be", which is quite different from "is". Emijrp makes a good point: Trump, Mario Diaz-Balart, Bob Menendez are NOT WP:RS, and since Wikipedia is supposed to have an international perspective, do not even constitute an internationally prominent political judgement.The argument that Castro should be labeled as a dictator because "hitler, mussolini and stalin are labeled that too" does not hold water: it presumes there is a consensus among RS that Castro's style of rule is basically similar to Hitler etc. You may think they are similar, but what you think does not matter on Wikipedia: no matter how many of "you" there are, it remains POV/OR. I actually could make a far better argument that Castro's rule is more similar to Khrushchev's, Brezhnev's or Lenin's: all of these leaders presided over dictatorships that were more repressive than Cuba, but were not personal dictatorships (see the relevant articles). Finally, labelling Cuba "totalitarian"(!) is fringe nonsense that violates all encyclopedic norms—it's completely unacceptable. The fact that an individual died yesterday should not be seen as an opportunity to call him nasty names. It's a case of using the letter of WP:BLP in violation of the spirit It's still a violation of WP:BLP, not to mention basic decency. For all of these reasons, I had no choice but to revert the recent WP:BOLD change. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead should clearly mention that he was a dictator or that his rule was a dictatorship, and we use that term in numerous other comparable articles (for example, in Augusto Pinochet's article the first paragraph of the lead states that "His rule of Chile was a dictatorship." – Pinochet led a comparable regime in terms of lack of democracy, authoritarianism and oppression). In his case, he is widely referred to as a dictator by RS, and the idea that his rule wasn't a dictatorship and that Cuba had free and fair elections during his rule is clearly an extreme and ridiculous fringe theory. --Tataral (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Lenin and dozens of other political leaders throughout history lead "comparable" regimes, yet many of them are not defined as dictators. Facile comparisons are easiest thing in the world. This is textbook WHATABOUTISM. Read the obituaries in major papers, read other reference books: few adopt your preferred tone/POV. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's turn this into a simple vote, who supports or opposes using "dictator" in the lead:

• Support - ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - for using word dictator in lead sentence. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Take it to an RFC if you want to break the deadlock with a survey. There is obviously no consensus here and at the current rate this is looking to become a major flame war. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The word "dictator" is entirely applicable to Castro and backed up by reliable sources. ThaiWanIII (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Starting another "vote" is unhelpful and not likely to accomplish anything - especially in this thread when there are three or four other, newer threads below discussing the same issue. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - pejorative POV McArthur Parkette (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI related articles for deletion

Hello, Fidel Castro. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premiership of Fidel Castro.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Fidel Castro. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Fidel Castro.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI, Premiership of Fidel Castro and Presidency of Fidel Castro have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversial Figure

I would like to suggest that the third to last sentence of the lede which currently reads "After his death, Castro remains a controversial world figure" be replaced with something more neutral like "Opinions about Castro's legacy vary". Another alternative is that this sentence be dropped altogether; so we will have what supporters think, and what critics think, with no summarizing sentence.

The reason for this is that by saying that he is a "controversial figure" we are presenting a tacitly pejorative value judgement. Controversial is not a neutral adjective.

Almost all politicians have both supporters and critics. But I note that of the twelve presidents of the United States after the second world war Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barrack Obama and the current president-elect Donald Trump, not even one lede includes a summary statement that states that the subject was a "controversial figure" (or anything similar to such a statement). It hardly needs belaboring that many of these individuals did have strong supporters and critics. One may also consider other Western politicians who attracted strong supporters and critics. For example, consider Winston Churchill or Nicolas Sarkozy. Neither of these ledes contains a statement that states, in Wikipedia's voice, that these individuals were "controversial." In fact, looking through the list of prominent American and European leaders, the closest biography I could find was Tony Blair. This is a former featured article and while it contains the positions of the "Critics of Blair" and "supporters" it does not declare Blair himself to be a controversial figure.

In fact, I have not been able to find a single page that declares a former recent head of government in Europe or the United States to have been a "controversial figure." I haven't done an exhaustive search so if there is some example that other editors can come up with, please post it here.

What is happening here is that a tacit consensus seems to be evolving across Wikipedia, that leaders on "our side" have some critics but were not really "controversial" on the whole. On the other hand, anti-Western leaders like Castro or Evo Morales are declared to be "controversial." To avoid this kind of systemic bias, it is important to use the same neutral language for Castro, which should exclude the use of a pejorative summary adjective like controversial. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• I would personally favour adding "controversial" to the ledes of those Western leaders rather than removing it from those of non-Western leaders (it can be found in the ledes of some Western figures, such as Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson). Perhaps that is not of huge significance here, but it's just my two cents. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

But even in those cases "controversial" would not be a neutral adjective. It would suggest that Wikipedia is tacitly weighing in on the side of the critics, since controversial is unambiguously pejorative. Second, isn't this an impractical suggestion? What you are suggesting would involve altering hundreds of pages across Wikipedia, many of which have long-standing stable ledes. So, since it will probably be practically impossible to change those ledes, we end up in the wonderful situation where Western heads of government are not controversial (although perhaps some more minor figures like the previous two mayors of London are) whereas several leaders from developing countries who are regularly condemned in the Western press are controversial. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

To add to that briefly, apart from the fact that controversial is not a neutral adjective since every prominent politician has their share of controversies, it seems to be very difficult to evolve a uniform criterion for when we should use controversial. Should we use controversial for Nixon? For George W. Bush? If so, surely some would argue that the adjective also fits Clinton. Should we use it for Blair? And if so, why not for Thatcher? And, obviously, if we use it for all politicians who have had controversies that adjective would become banal since almost ever politician, except for the most inane ones, would be described as controversial. At the moment as a result of some fairly obvious WP:Systemic Bias, "controversial figure" is reserved purely for some prominent leaders from developing countries such as Fidel Castro, Evo Morales, Yasser Arafat, Muammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Julius Nyerere etc. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think "polarizing" is a better encompasser of the diversity of takes on the subject than "controversial".--Asqueladd (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be okay with "polarising" as an alternative in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with "controversial". It is not pejorative as suggested here, in fact it is almost a euphemism - a polite way to sum up the different ways he was perceived and described (revolutionary hero vs. ruthless dictator). Not many people have that broad a difference in the ways they are perceived and described. There are not many people whose death inspires mourning in some countries and celebration in others. Anyhow, the word was widely used in stories about his death in Reliable Sources, and we do follow Reliable Sources here. Here are some sources where "controversial" was actually used in the headline: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Many if not most other news stories used the word somewhere in the text. I don't see news sources saying "polarizing", so changing "controversial" to "polarizing" would be WP:OR - an attempt to pretty up what the Reliable Sources are saying. As for the complaint that no other recent world leaders are described in that way, that's because Castro was unique - often described as "one of the most controversial figures of the 20th century". --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is appropiate for a very dichotomic approach to the subject (with the so often rethorical approach "hero or villain"? and the likes) You can certainly find sources dealing with him as explicitly polarising (that's not the point, I know, as you can find sources calling him everything). Also divisive. Both better than controversial which is somewhat more WP:WEASEL. Anyways, just my 2 cents, on why I think it encompasses better the rest of the paragraph.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Could I point out that it is also easy to find RS that describe Thatcher or Reagan or Bush as controversial. And the complaint is not that "no other recent world leaders are described in that way". The complaint is that only leaders from developing countries are described in that way. Now, it is possible, of course, that this is the result of an objective perusal of reliable sources in each case, and leaders from developing countries just happen to be so much more controversial; but it seems that systemic bias is a far more likely explanation. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Systematic bias is a far more likely explanation." Do you have evidence to support that? Otherwise, this seems more like a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Scaleshombre (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Reagan is dead; I don't find "controversial" in any of the stories about his death, except for a few op-eds complaining about the LACK of coverage of controversial aspects of his presidency. ("Reagan was a far more controversial figure in his time than the largely gushing obits on television would suggest.") Thatcher is dead; a few news stories about her death did describe her as controversial. [15] We don't yet know how the media will memorialize George W. Bush. Bottom line: yes, there were controversies associated with many of the figures you name, but those controversies did not reach the level of "one of the most controversial figures of the 20th century".[16] [17] [18] I think you would have to agree that leading a revolution, replacing a capitalist government with a Communist one, and ruling that country for 40 years in a manner that caused many to call him a dictator, is inherently a different order of "controversial" than making changes in a country's economic policy. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not a talk page about the other figures, and I mentioned them only for the sake of comparison and consistency. But here are a few other sources that term Thatcher either controversial or divisive [19],[20], [21] and in fact she was also called "one of the most controversial figures of the second half of the twentieth century" (Claire Berlinski, "There is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters", Basic Books (New York)) or in another scholarly book termed "one of the most controversial figures of modern times" "Making Thatcher's Britain", eds. Ben Jackson, Robert Saunders, Cambridge University Press, 2012. The broader point I want to make is about the pattern. When these allegations of divisiveness do not make it to the lede of even a single U.S. or European leader, but regularly make it to the ledes of leaders from developing countries, this appears to be a problem. Jacob2718 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to add some more evidence. First some quantitative data might be useful. Doing a google search for "Castro controversial" I find about 1.28 million results. And for "Castro -controversial", I find about 403 million results. (Of course, these precise figures might vary for each individual search). But roughly speaking the ratio of web-pages that use controversial with Castro to those that do not mention the word at all is 1.28/403 = .00317. Of course, I have no way here of separating reliable- from non-reliable sources, but this is still a useful indicator. (By the way, this also shows that only a tiny minority of sources call Castro controversial; the absolute number of such sources may be large but that is because the denominator is large also because so many sources mention Castro)

Now, we could try and look at the same data for Donald Trump for comparison. I find here that "Trump controversial" produces 45.3 million results whereas "Trump -controversial" produces 711 million results. So the ratio of web-pages that use controversial with Trump to those that do not is 45.3/711 =.0637. This is about twenty times larger than the corresponding figure for Castro. Yet, the Wikipedia lede for Trump says only that many of his statements have been controversial, and stays carefully away from terming Trump himself as a "controversial" figure.

As I said, I don't want to discuss Trump here and, in any case, I shudder to try and edit that page, but I mention this quantitative example just to show how a uniform set of standards is not being used in these different pages. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

What Jacob2718 is saying is indisputable, in my view. "Controversial" is a pretty weasley adjective: who has the power to make something "controversial" and for what reasons? Decisions on the precise tone/emphasis in the lead are always highly subjective, especially when the question is whether or not to use such a vacuous word as "controversial." There is really no right answer and editors tend to go with their gut, which in practice means they fall back on subconscious biases. Not even particular editors, but editors as group. That's how Evo Morales becomes "internationally controversial", while Lyndon Johnson is "ranked favorably by some historians." Obviously Evo Morales' populism has been far less problematic in the eyes of US and world opinion than LBJ's massive escalation in Vietnam, but there is something that tells editors to be deferential when discussing LBJ and irreverent when it comes to Morales. Same with Thatcher, glaringly so, and same all across the board. The "controversial" Castro regime has been criticized for all kinds of terrible crimes, but the United States embargo against Cuba—a policy that has been uncontroversially condemned by the almost the entire world—is criticized only on the grounds that it is "too harsh" because US violators might theoretically "face 10 years in jail." The reasons are pretty simple: deference to authority and patriotism, continuously shored up by a reliance on major establishment sources which are similarly compliant and patriotic (for us—NYT, Newsweek, WSJ, Guardian etc.) It's all WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it is impossible detect WP:SYSTEMICBIAS unless you do look at some other stuff. This is something to keep in mind whenever editorial discretion is involved, as it is here...

...Having said that, it is hard to argue that Castro's political impact is not contested. Any revolutionary figure is going to be "polarizing" in his/her time, whether it's Washington (I don't think the loyalists or King George liked him much), Lincoln or Castro. And naturally we cannot simply erase this aspect based on the fact that Thatcher's BLP does so. You always change one article at a time, and to do that you'd need to suggest a concrete edit that works for that particular article. I've changed controversial to polarizing for now (you can find that word used too in RS, as almost any other word). It's not weasly, and it does not have the vague overtones of intellectual debate associated with the word "controversy." When we are talking about Castro, we aren't just talking differences of opinion—we are talking about political conflict and differences of interest. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• You know who's not "controversial"? Hitler's not controversial. Maybe before 1939 he was. That is, there was still serious scholarly debate as to the true meaning of his intentions. But after that, his actions gave the world its unequivocal answer. Case closed. (Stalin would cease being "controversial" a few years later, thanks to Kruschev, etc.) It's a testament to Castro's something (propaganda, censorship, staying power, charisma, attempts -- lame though many of them were -- at reform) that he is controversial. (Or polarizing. Or divisive.) The passionate discussion on this page is further proof of it. Scaleshombre (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

polarizing is certainly better than controversial. I suppose that we seem to have reached, at least temporarily, a consensus on that description. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The term "controversial" should be avoided per "Contentious labels": "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." Since all political figures can be described as controversial, the term does not provide useful informaiton.

I do not know if polarizing is an better. While the U.S. has had sanctions against Cuba since 1959, no other country (except Israel) has ever supported them. On the other hand, Castro has had very little support in the U.S. outside the political fringe.

TFD (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

United States embargo against Cuba —a policy that has been uncontroversially condemned by the almost the entire world - I don't think so. Poland (and probably other Warsaw treaty nations) had to repeat Soviet condemnations. Poland has been independent since 1989 and I don't remember any condemnation by the democratic government of Poland. I don't know any Polish politician supporting Cuban regime.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

See: "US changes vote on UN resolution against Cuba embargo", CNN, Wed October 26, 2016: "the US and Israel alone abstained, while the 191 other UN member countries voted for the resolution. The measure calls on countries to repeal laws that restrict freedom of trade and navigation." TFD (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right, Poland participates in Cuba–European Union relations, Polish politicians prefer to not inform Polish citizens.Xx236 (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Jacob2718 did a Google study, above, on the use of "controversial" when talking about Castro. They found that there were more than a million hits that included both "Castro" and "controversial", but many millions more that did not. I would like to see a similar search for "Castro" and "polarizing". I predict a far, far lower number than "controversial" - so low that we will really not be able to justify using "polarizing" here. I do favor keeping "controversial," since it has been so widely used by Reliable Sources both in the U.S. and internationally, particularly when they were summarizing his life and impact. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You are probably right, but it is primarily a stylistic choice. Wikipedia is obligated to present facts and opinions as they appear in the sources, but it is not necessarily obligated to copy their style. Here we're dealing with a weasly word that's used in the press when they're too lazy to get to the bottom of an issue or don't have enough space. "Controversial" is just a popular word in political reporting overall; it does not appear to have any special relevance to the subject of this article at all. A better idea would be to look at the connotations of the words and see if they adequately describe the subject. Both "controversial" and "polarizing" imply extreme differences of opinion. If that's a problem, then both are problematic. However while "controversial" connotes primarily ideological disagreements, "polarizing" also connotes material disagreements. Clearly we cannot imply in the lead that judgements of Castro are primarily intellectual rather than material in nature, that they are primarily matters of debate rather than politcal conflict. In practice, they're both. You could say "controversial" about the conclusions of a book; political actions are another matter entirely. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

All political figures are polarizing, that is the nature of politics. Trump, Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton are/were all polarizing. But per WP:WEASEL, we should explain how he polarizes and what the poles are, rather than just say he does that. TFD (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

we should explain how he polarizes and what the poles are, rather than just say he does that exactly. Trump, Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton are/were all polarizing. Were they as "polarizing" as Abraham Lincoln in his day? Trump hasn't done anything yet; the Obama and Clinton administrations were no more polarizing than the American establishment which they represented; Bush is pretty much universally disliked. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that "polarizing" is an equivalent word to "controversial", or that it is less "weasly" (talk about WP:OR!). I have yet to see any valid reason why we should replace the widely-used description of him as "controversial" - IMO he could be used as a dictionary example of a controversial person - with something that no RS has called him. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"However while "controversial" connotes primarily ideological disagreements, "polarizing" also connotes material disagreements." Huh? Says who? "Controversial" connotes just what it says - that there was a lot of controversy about the person, that different people or groups of people held widely divergent opinions of them. That's what it means, no weasling, no "ideological" vs. "material" - that's simply and clearly what the word means. And that was and is exactly the case with Castro, including his life, his actions, his beliefs, and his legacy. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A good reason to remove "controversial" is that the Wikipedia Manual of Style says it is a contentious label that should be avoided. "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." What is the controversy and who is controverting. I think the controversy is the US embargo. 191 countries just voted to end it and the United States and one other country abstained. No country voted to keep it. TFD (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The embargo is only "controversial" is the US—it is not controversial at all internationally. Are you perhaps saying that the controversy is fueled in part by the same political forces that have supported the embargo? If so, that makes more sense, which is why I supported the use of polarizing instead. On stylistic choices like the one between "polarizing" and "controversial", see WP:SPECIALSTYLE—I knew somebody thought of this before me. Of course with controversial, we are dealing primarily with reporting the mass media, not even "specialist sources". Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a controversy with the U.S. on one one side and the rest of the world on the other. TFD (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concerns expressed above, but we do not have a binary choice between "controversial" and "polarizing." If both terms are problematic one alternative may simply be to delete this prefatory sentence through "Castro's supporters laud him as ... However, his critics view him as." Another alternative is to replace it with something neutral and factual like "Opinion's about Castro's legacy vary", which should be okay since it is immediately followed by a description of those varied opinions and avoids any labels that could be perceived as a value-judgments. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way to avoid this whole polarizing, controversial discussion. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that is good. Western countries of course did not agree with Communism, but (except the U.S.) did not see Castro's government as any different from any other country that did not meet the standards of property and civil rights expected in developed nations. They did not oppose for example trade between their companies and Cuba or Cuban membership in the UN, OAS and other international bodies they otherwise would be entitled to join. Similarly the US invasion of Grenada was condemned by the UN with a vote of 108, 9 against, and 27 abstentions. Even the U.S. invasion of Panama was condemned at the UN by a vote of 75 to 20, with 40 abstentions. This article should not be written with the view that the U.S. position is always by default the accepted one. TFD (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Instead of "vary" - what a milk-toast word - would it be acceptable to say"opinions about Castro's legacy are sharply divided"? --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If we're talking legacy, I'd suggest "Castro's legacy remains contested." But, unless someone follows up on TFD's suggestion to we should explain how he polarizes and what the poles are, rather than just say he does that, we're just arguing over nothing really. I'll reiterate however that the lead should not imply that supporting or opposing Castro is mainly a matter of "opinion." The US govt did not impose the embargo because it had a negative opinion about Castro. We're not talking about political philosophers here, but rather organizations with sharply conflicting material interests. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In line with the comments above, I changed that line to "Castro's legacy remains contested". I agree with Guccisamsclub that it would be useful to also point out "who" it is contested by. But I'm afraid that we won't be able to find consensus on how to characterize his supporters and critics. For example, as Guccisamsclub says, some scholars would argue that the United States was trying to dismantle a challenge to the dominant world order precisely because it demonstrated an alternative system and this is what motivated his critics. But his critics would argue that they were motivated by a dispassionate concern for human rights in Cuba, as was the U.S. embargo. So I'm concerned that we will then end up with a second order conflict on how the critics and supporters characterize themselves vs how they characterize each other! But if someone can think of a good neutral way to describe the polarization, apart from simply stating that his legacy is contested, I would be in favor of inserting that. Jacob2718 (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, "Castro's legacy remains contested" sounds like a legal fight over his will. "Polarizing world figure" isn't perfect, but it states the point more plainly. Scaleshombre (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

True. That's because we are using these words in a metaphorical sense. The problem with doing that is a lack of clarity. TFD (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

advanced economic and social justice

Obviously false, any Communist state creates new ruling class. Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fidel Castro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://u.truman.edu/cuba/aboutme.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427023625/http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/cuba/2011-03-22/my-shoes-are-too-tight/ to http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/cuba/2011-03-22/my-shoes-are-too-tight/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415064631/http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-22/world/cuba.castro.party_1_raul-castro-cuban-people-cuba-plans?_s=PM:WORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-22/world/cuba.castro.party_1_raul-castro-cuban-people-cuba-plans?_s=PM:WORLD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511102235/http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41321 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41321
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141228175349/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/06aef4345e0441c3b6abe40f89327495/fidel-castro-awarded-chinas-confucius-peace-prize to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/06aef4345e0441c3b6abe40f89327495/fidel-castro-awarded-chinas-confucius-peace-prize
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/02/castros_legacy.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011191626/http://canada.com:80/topics/news/world/story.html?id=2ef037b4-5f82-4283-b1fb-2cc9e2442977 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=2ef037b4-5f82-4283-b1fb-2cc9e2442977

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was consensus against describing Fidel Castro as a dictator in the opening sentence. First off, the following principles are supported by broad community consensus: we should seek verifiability rather than trying to impose one's subjective truth, WP:NPOV mandates that no undue weight should be given to a subset of views (even if reliably sourced), and the opening sentence requires the highest level of consensus (short of the title). Hence, when sources coming from a particular country seem biased toward a certain view, it is necessary to analyze the reliable sources on an international level. It has been done here, and in order to describe Fidel Castro as a dictator in the opening sentence, we would need this descriptor applied uniformly and unequivocally across international reliable sources, which the findings below did not demonstrate. Note that I do not mean unanimously by uniformly, only that among the sources discussing his presidency in-depth, the adjective or an equivalent is, or from the context, would be, readily used among the vast majority of sources. This wasn't the case among the reliable sources provided here. (A note about 'other stuff exists', though this didn't influence my close, it would appear that this is the case for subjects like Mussolini, Stalin or Pinochet.) (And a minor note that WP:SPADE applies to user conduct, not article content.) Cenarium (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Brief question: Should this article describe Fidel Castro as a "dictator" in its opening sentence? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Longer explanation: This GA-rated article has long stated "critics view him as a dictator whose administration oversaw human-rights abuses, the exodus of a large number of Cubans, and the impoverishment of the country's economy" in the fourth paragraph of the lede. The lede has remained stable in this form for several years. Following Castro's recent death, some users are calling for Castro to be explicitly described as a "dictator" in the opening sentence, claiming this as an accurate description. Others argue against this proposed addition, deeming it to be the promotion of a non-neutral POV on what is a highly controversial topic. Some reliable sources describe Castro as a dictator, however others do not, and Castro and his supporters reject this characterisation. Some editors have pointed out that various other articles use the term "dictator" in the lede, although of those repeatedly cited as examples (Augusto Pinochet, Benito Mussolini etc) none are FA rated, and most not even GA rated; conversely our two FA-rated articles on Marxist-Leninist leaders (Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khruschev) do not uncritically label their subjects as "dictators". At the same time we must bear in mind that, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we should treat each article on its own merits. This being the case, should "dictator" be added to the first sentence or does the longstanding description already suffice to accurately reflect the situation in a neutral manner? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. The current text, "critics view him as a dictator" is accurate and neutral. Saying something like "Castro was a dictator" is not neutral at all (look at all the controversy about it on this talk page). Bradv 13:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, we should follow the lead of mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose 1) This is an international encyclopedia and we need to reflect worldwide opinion, not just U.S. opinion. See the very helpful survey of sources in the "Threaded discussion" below. 2) The current form of the article - describing him as a "revolutionary" in the opening sentence, and bringing up the "dictator" idea later in the lede as well as in the text - has been stable for years. The recent push to add "dictator" seems to have come about because his death brought many additional editors to the article - including many who violently oppose him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support See list of mainstream media below. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. To my mind, he clearly was a dictator, but the application of that word to him is contentious. The current opening section accurately and sufficiently reflects that. Aridd (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- "International opinion" almost reeks of ridicule, having people from distant lands, languages and cultures expressing approval or sympathy toward something they are mostly ignorant about. Why not pay attention to the opinions of the Cuban people, the millions of exiles, the families of the murdered & tortured & lost at sea & imprisoned & robbed of their belongings by the worst & longest dictatorship the western World has endured for 6 decades? -- There's too much obvious hypocrisy in this article, which purposely omits any reference to the above crimes, including the dreaded word "Paredón", the numerous walls where thousands of innocent Cubans were summarily executed by à la carte firing squads. Apparently no one has any misgivings about calling Pinochet a Dictator right away, but Castro seems to be surrounded by an aura of "sanctity", or of "superior standing" (Pinochet was foul, Castro was cool) while by comparison Castro's regime was far worse if one really pays attention to the numbers, e.g. the number of deaths to begin with. "Contentious"? -- application of the word 'Dictator' to Castro is just telling the truth, almost a redundancy. --AVM (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Whether Pinochet should be called a dictator straight away is a matter for that article and its talk page; that an article that hasn't even reached GA status yet uses the term "dictator" straight away does not have a whole lot of relevance for what should be done here at the Castro page. If you wish to look for comparisons, perhaps those of FA-rated articles on other Marxist political leaders might be more appropriate? Moreover, I am a little concerned that the comment above pays no attention to Wikipedia policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I've noticed (and argued bitterly about) that obviously 'Wikipedia policy' does NOT include TELLING THE TRUTH, it just seeks to be 'politically correct', which has resulted in no few or small calamities. Do you mind explaining which Wikipedia policy are you talking about? --Thanks. --AVM (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, if you restrict your survey to those that have fled Cuba or suffered directly under the regime, you're not selecting a representative sample. We could just as well ask Communist Party of Cuba functionaries, or ELAM graduates... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, let's also ask a pack of hyenas about their opinion on the benefits of eating flesh as opposed to Vegetarianism. Great idea! --AVM (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Initially I sat on the fence in order to consider the different opinions but on further contemplation I have to oppose the proposed addition. It does appear that the proposal is motivated not by a desire to improve Wikipedia through the strict adherence to its policies but by a desire to promote anti-Castro sentiment and opinion as if it were objective, unequivocal truth. It also seems clear to me that while a great many press sources refer to Castro as a dictator (often with good reason), just as many if not more do not: it is not a universally accepted description of him. Moreover, most (although not all) of the press sources that do label him a dictator have been produced by right-wing or centre-right Western or more specifically American corporate media, and that European and non-Western media has on the whole been far more reticent in using that label. To promote that label as if it was unequivocal would be appropriate for Conservapedia, but not for the more international attitude embraced by Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- Do we need to wait for China to call Fidel a dictator before we stumble upon that truth? The US press does not equal the Press in China or any other totalitarian regime. Free press does not equal Government-controlled-press. The opinion of the Cuban people should be the one that it is heard first, in this case. Someone living miles away should not be presumed to know better that the one that is being tortured every day. Damas de Blanco, these are women that are beaten every Sunday after mass, do you know why? They want their husbands out of prison. They were put there for saying out loud inside of Cuba that Fidel is a dictator. Yes, I'm Cuban, and my family and me suffered with many countless others whose name will never appear in an organized database that will be dismissed so easily by some editors drinking iced tea and secure that no one can hit him or jail him for what he writes or says in the street because they have the luck to live in a country with democracy. Property stolen and taken away by force, beatings, jail, death, balseros. You can only support him if you are part of a repressive government, and you are one of the few chosen 'militante'. Or, you can support him only if you live 3000 miles away from him. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, this argument does not make any reference to Wikipedia policy. You may well think that Castro is a dictator, and may have good reason to do so. But that is not an argument for why Wikipedia should uncritically describe him as such. Statements such as "The opinion of the Cuban people should be the one that it is heard first" demonstrate that you have not taken on board the guidance of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Moreover, "the Cuban people" are hardly a homogenous or monolithic entity. Many Cubans—both in Cuba and in the international diaspora—may despise Castro, and have good reasons for doing so. Clearly however not all Cubans feel that way, for many support him and have displayed that by mourning his death. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • When I was a child I had to sing in school all the communist songs. But now, that I am free, I do not do it. In all that theater of forced lines, many people are forced to be there, they can be fired, jailed, 'Actos de Repudio'. It is in Spanish, but you can still see the photos. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry but this is not in any way relevant to this discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It may also be relevant that Jhaydn2016 appears to be a single-purpose account founded on the day of Castro's death which has been used for nothing but criticism of Castro. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes this is my first interaction with Wikipedia, hopefully not the last. Does that disqualify me 'de facto'? Let's argue about the case and not the form. Plus, the discussion thread is found below. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • It certainly doesn't disqualify you by any means (and welcome to Wikipedia, by the way!) but it does reflect that you appear to be a 'newbie' and thus may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and the criteria for what information we include and what we omit. You for instance do appear to be ignorant of our WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:ADVOCACY rules. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This is going to be a little long...and not purely by the book, apologies Dictator is already in the lead and properly attributed. Since there is no unanimity among the sources, there can be no question of defining the subject as a dictator in wikipedia's voice, nevermind calling Cuba a "totalitarian dictatorship" which is fringe propaganda. Right-wing proponents of the "dictator" label have been known to complain about the supposed reluctance of mainstream scholars and journalists to use it (TFD gave a nice example). Arguments by way of comparison to dictators like Pinochet (btw Pinochet lede says his government was a dictatorship) and Franco are flawed to the core, and not just because of "otherstuff": these dictators overthrew parliamentary democracies in military coups/rebellions, had nothing but contempt of republican forms of rule, preferred naked autocracy and rule by decree, and had nothing but contempt for democratic values that, for better or worse, have their origins in the French Revolution. Cuban socialism emerged out of a popular revolution that overthrew a dictator, instituted a nominally representative form of government, made serious commitments to equality and (less so but still) economic democracy, championed the cause of "national liberation" at home and abroad. All of these things are part of the fabric of democracy. At the same time they do not negate the rigged nature of Cuba's representative institutions, mass executions in the first years of the revolution (1,500 as Che told his CIA interrogators before his death), bureaucratized and therefore unaccountable power, a leader serving for almost 50 years, intimidation by arrest that happens all too often to this day etc. By the same token, these do not negate the democratic and positive aspects I brought up earlier, at least not in the eyes of many observers. This is true of other leaders much closer to Castro politically than Pinochet or Hitler: from Simon "The Liberator" Bolivar (who explicitly made himself a personal dictator for life, but died too soon) to Lenin (who led a dictatorship, but obviously not a personal one, in a time of civil war), to Khrushchev (who also led a de facto dictatorship, but was obviously not some autocrat with emergency powers who ruled through mass terror). It is quite easy to define a political issue through one facet, like calling Bush a "war criminal" or Hillary Clinton a kleptocrat in wikipedia's voice, and then demand others to prove you wrong. Moreover, reference books—of which Wikipedia is one—are rightly expected to have a strong bias against these kind of value-laden labels, even if it can be plausibly argued that the language is sourced and "not wrong".Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral — While it is certainly true that Castro meets the requirements for the label "dictator" (see Dictionary.com for example), many editors here feel that use of the word "dictator" itself is contentious, i.e., that it has more meaning than its strict dictionary meaning. That being the case, perhaps we could use an equivalent term that is not so semantically loaded, such as "authoritarian ruler". — Loadmaster (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The article already states (in paragraph one, no less) that Castro established a one-party state. I personally think that this term neatly does the trick; it is a neutral way of describing the form of government that Castro established and then led. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Midnightblueowl. Just state the facts. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Dictator was his job. It does not say that on Cuban Wikipedia because they are not allowed to have internet there. It might say that in state run Cuban newspapers, but not in English. Why should we be forced to omit this word as castro's main description just because we cannot find opposing sources? We have reliable English language secondary sources confirming this fact. This is like saying that we cannot describe ice-cream as a frozen desert because African or South Korean sources do not say that. Since when do we not use reliable secondary sources in this way?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - nothing happened to shift this upwards and predominantly he is not referred to that way. Just follow the cites ...a simple Google shows 1.2M hits include 'dictator' and 24M do not. So the existing starting with the factual official titles and then in lower paragraph mention his critics view is fine. Markbassett (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I prefer browsing results in google books, where you find that the vast majority of the hits for "fidel castro dictator" or even "dictatorship Castro" either come from non-RS or are actually referring to other dictators like Batista. But for a simple google search, you can compare the results for "augusto pinochet" and "augusto pinochet dictator". Here, the ratio is 2:1. For Fidel Castro it's actually 50:1 in my search.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The lead already describes Castro as a dictator with proper context: "Conversely, critics view him as a dictator whose administration oversaw human-rights abuses, the exodus of a large number of Cubans, and the impoverishment of the country's economy." Considering that Castro is a very polarizing figure, even within the U.S., I think this is the best compromise we can hope for. Describing him as a dictator in the lead sentence is just going to cause endless edit warring (as we've already seen). Reliable sources are all over the map as far as how they portray him. It would violate WP:NPOV (and arguably WP:BLP) for us to take a side in the lead sentence without qualification. Kaldari (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. He is widely described as a dictator by reliable sources, the claim that he wasn't a dictator is a politically extreme fringe theory, and other articles on comparable dictators use the word dictator or dictatorship prominently in the first paragraph of the lead. Also, there is already consensus to describe him as a dictator. --Tataral (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "there is already consensus to describe him as a dictator." Sorry to be blunt, but no, there really isn't. This just is not true. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support he is to dictatorship what Bin laden is to terrorists (the dictionary definition), Pinochet was a dictator, there is no denying it, and he was readily declared a dictator (or at least his reign a dictatorship), that should apply here as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Evidently, Castro is not uniformly described as a "dictator" either in academic or in media discourse. As the media surveys below show, this is a term that is commonly used by Western critics of Castro but not by others. To avoid systemic bias, and to ensure a neutral point of view, this description should clearly be omitted from the first sentence and described as the opinion of critics. Moreover, in relation to some of the comments above, worldwide sources are important, and not irrelevant, because Castro had a significant impact on African, Asian and Latin American politics in the second half of the twentieth century. Since this is an important aspect --- perhaps even a dominant aspect, when one considers the number of people affected --- of his impact on world history, the way he is perceived in the world (and not just the United States or Europe) is important. The moment one enlarges sources to worldwide sources, there is no debate at all --- Castro cannot be described as a dictator. Jacob2718 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: From Timur (Tamerlane) to Pol Pot, none of the pages I've looked at list the person first as a dictator. On Pinochet and Pol Pot, for example, the word "dictator" is not in the lead at all. (The word "dictatorship" is.) For Hitler and Stalin the word is used, but not in the first sentence. SashiRolls (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Pol Pot - He presided over a totalitarian dictatorship. Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is a sizeable (main?) corpus of high quality academic and biographical sources both rejecting, avoiding or putting into context the label dictator applied to this guy. This is not supposed to be miamipedia or the place to seek moral victory.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose.My Opinion. Per WP:NPOV the current text states a neutral point of view. Modifying to the proposed text is not a neutral point of view, but is a non-neutral direct judgement. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Describe him as a dictator or his regime as a dictatorship. At some point you have to call a spade a spade, and there are plenty of RS that support this claim. I understand there are some that won't go so far, but taken in context with what Fidel actually did, calling him a dictator is a historical fact. Lizzius (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Update as of 01 December: over 24 hours after the RfC was launched, we have one statement of neutrality, seven statements of support, and twelve statements of opposition to the proposed addition. That means that nearly twice as many editors oppose the addition as support it (60% in contrast to 35% of the total). Votes aren't everything of course—important consideration must also be given to the use of argument and application of Wikipedia policy—but I think that we potentially do have a rough consensus emerging in opposition to the proposed change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, as thrusting a 'dictator' label into the opening sentence seems unnecessarily tainted with POV/PR sentiment to me. The preexisting use of the term farther in strikes me as preferable/sufficient. One might frame the choice at hand as between a qualified "critics view him as ..." and an implicit "Wikipedia views him as ..." perhaps. I think taking a tone of removed encyclopedic documentation with the former is preferable to possibly being seen as taking an active stance in shaping public narrative with the latter. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, using the term in WP voice would require almost unequivocal unanimity from RS, it simply isn't there. What is there is SOME calling him thus and many others commenting on the lack of some freedoms under his 'reign'. That's a more nuanced and informative account than the bare 'label'. Pincrete (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Unequivocal unanimity from RS does not call him president, yet that word is in the lede sentence when he was never elected, and that "term is used in WP voice". Why? Jhaydn2016 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't even understand the question, does anyone doubt that he was president? Is it a necessary condition of being president that one be elected? Queen Elizabeth wasn't elected, does that make her a dictator?

What I do know is that there is mis-represnetation of sources above. Several times it is claimed that the Guardian calls Castro a dictator, that is simply false. The truth with regards to the Gdn is that it has recently published a number of opinion pieces about him, one piece characterises him as a dictator, this one praises Castro's contribution to African struggles, the 'official' Gdn obituary actually says Critics liked to argue that “General” Castro was no different in essence from any other Latin America dictator, yet such criticism was hard to sustain. He more closely resembled the Spanish colonial governor-generals, many of whom were benign autocrats, than the sanguinary military leaders of the 20th century. Even when his regime was under attack, he retained immense popular support. His huge personal charm and charisma, and his political genius, kept him on top throughout: the only force that could defeat him was the infirmity of old age. That is the nearest that the Gdn has to having any "official" position, other than that it is printing a variety of views, which clearly endorse 'some critics describe', but clearly don't endorse 'was'. I don't have time to look through every source above but the clear mis-representation of this one makes me sceptical about the others. Pincrete (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• 48 hour update: 48 hours since this RfC was launched, we have the following situation, with one statement of neutrality, seven statements of support, and fourteen of opposition for the proposed addition. Statistically, this means that only 31.8% of those to have commented favour the addition of "dictator" to the lede sentence, whereas 63.6% oppose it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose --- with a big caveat. Using "dictator" without attribution or qualification in the first sentence does strike me as POV in Wikipedia terms, despite my personal belief that he was, in fact, a dictator. The sources--those I've reviewed and those linked here--lead me to conclude that the article should not make an unequivocal statement. However, pushing down the mention of his controversial reputation and the word "dictator" to the bottom of the Introduction section does not seem justified. Those facts about him (the controversy he engendered and his widespread if not universal characterization as a dictator) should be placed much closer to the beginning of the Introduction, because they are so essential to his noteworthiness, beyond the 'mere' fact that he led a revolution and held governing titles for decades. I support inserting a sentence immediately after the lede sentence using the following quotation as a guide: "He was seen as a ruthless despot by some and hailed as a revolutionary hero by others." That's from a caption in the NY Times. I don't propose quoting or closely paraphrasing it, but it can serve as a 'template,' because it gets immediately to the essential controversy that Castro generated for nearly 50 years. A sentence roughly in that form in that location would enable the use of "dictator" much earlier in the introduction without casting it in Wikipedia's voice.

Also, I think the phrase "Cuban politician" in the first sentence is woefully off the mark and should be eliminated. Yes, briefly in 1952 he ran for office, but the phrase makes him sound like nothing so much as a person who pursued a career in electoral campaigns and politics and held various elective offices. It's just completely inappropriate, and exists, I suspect, as a compromise between less politically correct terms. Better, in my opinion, would be: "...was a Cuban revolutionary and nationalist who ruled...." (governed--->ruled; remove "Cuban nationalist" from next sentence). DonFB (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion. I will create a discussion section for it below. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. He was a revolutionary, it is the most widely accepted description for him. emijrp (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Emihrp: So what? Can a revolutionary not be/become a dictator? These are not mutually exclusive statuses. Did Josef Stalin, a revolutionary in many respects, not too become a dictator?   Spartan7W §   15:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This BLP is deserving of the (GA) designation, I think, largely because it reads as being without bias. KINGOFTO (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose violates npov LavaBaron (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support in one way or another: dictator or dictatorship or describe the situation otherwise accurately (political murders, no real elections, absolute leader for 52 years). I agree that the article shouldn't sound like an anticommunist rant, however it's equally silly to use Marxist-Leninist jargon like "revolutionary" or "single-party republic" at face value. And by the way, Batista was supported by the trade unions and the pro-Soviet communists in Cuba. Castro's activity wasn't all that communist from the beginning until Che. --Pudeo (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• There may be some concern that Pudeo was canvassed to come here by Scaleshombre based upon their earlier expressed views; see here. Not a major offense, but worthy of consideration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• midnightblueowl, try to familiarize yourself with canvassing policy. It states that "an editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can [notify] concerned editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, or have participated in previous discussions on the same topic." Scaleshombre (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support the use of the term "dictator" as a neutral description of what he is, for reason that I explained at several subsections, and WP:SPADE. Cambalachero (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support The term dictator is a undoubtedly a prudent and accurate term to describe Castro. If he was no dictator, what was he? He was in power for half a century, there were no elections held, he wielded supreme and total power over all actions of the state in Cuba. He repressed dissent, jailing and executing those who opposed him. In Cuba there was no social, political, or economic freedom. Whatever happened in Cuba happened because Castro wanted it to. That is a dictator.

Augusto Pinochet is called a dictator in his article, and while a cruel and terrible man himself, his effect on Chile was far less than Castro's on Cuba. Pinochet was dictator for 17 years, Castro was in power for 40-50 years. Today Cuba is ranked second to last in the Heritage Foundation's freedom index (North Korea last), yet Chile is 7th. Castro's effect in repressing his people through commanding full and complete control of all aspects of life is no short of dictatorial. If Castro was no dictator, then who was a dictator? Those concerned with worldwide opinion aren't concerning themselves with the truth. Just because a multitude of regimes have nice things to say doesn't mean in any way that he wasn't a dictator, nor does it mean that the "contentiousness" of the issue means we shouldn't say it. Saying "critics say he was a dictator" is meaningless, its like saying you only see him as a dictator because you criticize him. Does support for any iota of his actions negate the facts about his rule? No. If people's opinions about effect dictate the facts, the Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia here. He should be called a dictator because that is what he was. If you don't like it then its personal problem.

Few people have exerted the kind of complete and total control over a people as Fidel Castro over Cuba. He was a totalitarian ruler that dictated every aspect of the people's lives. Everything that happened in Cuba happened because of Fidel Castro. He was a dictator, plain and simple.   Spartan7W §   15:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• That's probably an economic freedom index, which has nothing to do with democracy. For a measure of democratic rights and freedoms, from a Western neoliberal source, see the ... Democracy Index. Obviously Cuba is miles ahead of countries like North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran in the democracy department. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• There may be some concern that Spartan7W was to come here by Scaleshombre based upon their earlier expressed views; see here. Not a major offense, but worthy of consideration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It may be of interest to @Midnightblueowl: that A) there is no prohibition to notifying members of active discussion to ongoing RfC's, in fact it is common occurrence, so long as that notification does not explicitly solicit a certain response. B) Do you really thing that his neutral notification of this discussion changed my opinion in any way? Come on.   Spartan7W §   15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Your opinions on this issue are your own and you are free to express them - you are of course more than welcome and entitled to take part in this survey! However, as WP:Canvassing makes clear, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." If Scaleshombre has been contacting users that they believe will vote a certain way (based on their pre-existing comments and voting patterns) and encouraging them to vote here then that would generally be deemed inappropriate according to Wikipedia standards. It's nothing major, of course, and I would not call for sanctions against them, but I thought it important that it should be highlighted as it may reflect an attempt to skew the survey. It is something that should be taken into consideration when it comes time for an uninvolved editor to examine what the rough consensus is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Midnightblueowl:, in the same way you've routinely disavowed or ignored RS that don't agree with your POV, you've conveniently glossed over the parts of WP:Canvassing that render your opinion mute. I'm sure it's not intentional on your part. Still, uninvolved editors might want to take it into consideration when reviewing your statements here as part of the overall discussion. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• "in the same way you've routinely disavowed or ignored RS that don't agree with your POV, you've conveniently glossed over the parts of WP:Canvassing that render your opinion mute". This simply is not true in any way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• But your opinion has been rendered mute. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: It is a very common practice to notify interested parties in an RfC. Usually this is done by the creator of the RfC. Scaleshombre did nothing wrong. If anything, you are at fault for not notifying me of an RfC as it was my edits to correctly label Castro as "Dictator" which caused this whole stink in the beginning. Scaleshombre let me know in a neutral manner, don't blame him. Notification of an RfC in a neutral manner is acceptable, and it appears to me as though your only concern here is an opinion which differs from yours.   Spartan7W §   16:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Scaleshombre contacted three editors and three only—yourself, Eric0928, and Pudeo—all of whom had previously expressed support for the uncritical description of Castro as a "dictator" here at the talk page. While they did not expressly ask you to vote 'support' for the change in the survey, the fact that they selected those three editors makes their intentions clear. As per WP:CANVASSING, this is a textbook case of 'vote stacking' and is deemed inappropriate. As I said, I did not want to cause a big fuss about the situation, punish Scaleshombre, or disqualify your statement of support. I just thought that it was important to highlight that canvassing and vote stacking had taken place and that this may have an impact on the survey itself. I would equally oppose any vote stacking designed to boost the support for the 'oppose' side. Vote stacking is inappropriate, no matter who does it. Let's leave it at that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever, as long as you folks stop making up stories about Cuba in an attempt to make it look like North Korea, we'll all be OK. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is making up any stories. The only people in the world who have been more oppressed than those in Cuba over the last > 50 years are those in North Korea.   Spartan7W §   19:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Your Heritage source is about capitalistic economic freedom, not democracy and human rights. Stop pretending otherwise. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no democracy in Cuba.   Spartan7W §   00:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Who cares what you think? There are plenty of undemocratic countries. Cuba is above Russia—nevermind North Korea—on The Economist's "Democracy Index" (again, for the third time). You can have whatever opinion you wish, but we follow WP:RS Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Castro "established dictatorial control" or shorter "a dictatorship" could well be worked into the last sentence of the first paragraph in compliance with all relevant policies for a WP:BDP[22], but on this RfC proposal the oppose have the better argument. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Dictatorship certainly less controversial than (personal) "dictator," but the problem with using that is fundamentally the same: you need an overwhelming consensus among reliable sources, particularly academic WP:BESTSOURCES to say that in wikipedia's voice. That consensus is simply not there. A google books search for "Castro dictatorship" reveals that the majority of quality sources use the term in conjunction with regimes other than Castro's. This is in sharp contrast to the results for Batista, Pinochet, Somoza etc., which practically require us to use the term in their biographies. A simple google search shows a similar imbalance. The reason is that unlike the "dictators", Castro's regime has many important features that pertain not to dictatorship but to democracy: the overthrow of Batista, economic equality, cooperatives, some democratic accountability in the economic sphere, national liberation, opposition to anti-democratic regimes throughout Latin America and formal representative institutions. The dictatorial features primarily derive from the one-party state wedded to the Soviet model and operating in a state of siege. The lead already mentions this aspect. Defining the regime as dictatorship in the lead means that we lose precision and dismiss other aspects of the regime as less important. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Your argument wrong, and violates NPOV, as it is written as apologia for "dictatorship". Where someone creates a dictatorial regime, you a free to argue it was a good thing as you do (although it is odd you gloss over some history that does not fit your notions), but it is still a dictatorship (good or bad). As already demonstrated it is highly encyclopedic to call it so in Wikipedia's voice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No such thing has been demonstrated and you are misinterpreting the argument. I listed some features that could very well be seen as explicitly democratic, which is a different concept from good. In fact some conservatives think that the radical democratic ideals of the French Revolution are actually very bad things. But that does not negate the fact that these ideas remain central to democratic politics, at least according some (primarily Left-wing) interpretations of this concept Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It has, I did so in my !vote. And no, I did not misrepresent you. Earlier of course you were offering apologia saying he had to under siege, etc. Now, are you are arguing his dictatorial control was democratic -- fine, but irrelevant, it's still dictatorial control, so as I showed, it is in the encyclopedic register and it can go in Wikipedia's voice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"saying he had to under siege". Nonsense, I never said that. "Now, are you are arguing his dictatorial control was democratic". No, the argument was that the regime contains both democratic and authoritarian features, which may or may not be intertwined. Note that I did not say that Castro did some generic "good stuff" and therefore can't be a dictator. You can call my argument "POV", "apologia" or whatever, but I have never argued that Castro's regime should be labeled as a democracy in the lead, especially in Wikipedia's voice. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Overwhelming consensus? Is that the new standard? It's not enough that many of the world's leading media outlets, sociological and historical journals refer to him as a dictator? We need overwhelming consensus to call the sun a star? Since you're a fan of precision, how is "overwhelming" quantified? Scaleshombre (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus on calling the Sun a star is not overwhelming—it's total. Of course your analogy is, once again, useless since it ignores the well-known differences between political and natural-scientific categories. "Overwhelming" consensus in the relevant context, would be something comparable to the use of the term "dictator" or "dictatorship" in conjunction with "Batista." For Castro, it's simply not there, no matter how much you insist on overlooking this basic point. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I can show you overwhelming numbers of articles in RS that don't call the sun a star. They don't deny it's a star, but they take it as a given. Encyclopedic articles, on the other hand, consider it good form to point out this basic fact. As I asked earlier, do you know of any RS (the biggies -- NY Times, Wash Post, CNN, etc.) that have retracted their application of "dictator" to Castro? Scaleshombre (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That simply absurd, and false. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose calling him a dictator would be inaccurate and an unfair reflection of what the reliable sources say.—indopug (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Indopug: How is it inaccurate? How is it unfair? You make no efforts to substantiate your point. Definition of a dictator: "a ruler who wields absolute power," how is this not the case?   Spartan7W §   15:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

inaccurate and an unfair reflection of what the reliable sources say, not accurate/inaccurate, fair/unfair according to your/my/Jimmy Wales opinion, nor the opinion of a selected list of sources. Near universal agreement among sources would be required, and it simply isn't there. The supporters here are digging a gigantic hole for themselves by ignoring basic WP policies. We are not here to establish whether WE think the term apt. btw, even the Adolf Hitler article does not begin in the manner supporters here insist the Castro one must begin. Why is that? since sources would be almost universal. I imagine the article writers are more interested in informing about AH than simply attaching a 'label'. Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Leave it how it is, It's good. Changing it might constitute NPOV issues. _{Adotchar| reply here} 11:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• 96 hour update: Four days after the RfC was initiated, the survey results stand as follows: one statement of neutrality (3%), ten statements in support for the addition (31%), and twenty-one statements in opposition to it (66%). There are also concerns that at least two statements of support were canvassed in an attempt at 'vote stacking'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI. No one needs you to count for them, especially continually. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it saves people a little bit of time and energy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The only 'concerns' are your attempts to quash opposition to your preferred outcome. Again, a neutrally worded notification of a ongoing RfC is not objectionable. It does not change anybody's stated positions. 15:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC) … … this post dated but not signed by User:Spartan7W

User:Spartan7W, Midnightblueowl to clarify to both sides, a neutrally worded notifier to prev. participants in discussion is NOT canvassing, so long as the people notified are also selected neutrally ie not simply those whose prev. position is likely to be sympathetic, which is overt canvassing. I've no idea which is the case here but thought it worth reminding both. It is also worth reminding everyone that the closer must take into account the balance of arguments, not simply count votes. Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Pincrete - Scaleshombre's wording was indeed neutral. However the only three people whom they encouraged to vote—Spartan7W ([23]), Eric0928 ([24]), and Pudeo ([25])—had previously expressed support for the "dictator" label on the Talk Page. They were clearly selected because they would endorse the viewpoint that Scaleshombre favours. This is a textbook case of vote stacking. Anyone who claims otherwise has clearly either not read WP:Canvassing, not understood it, or is deliberately ignoring it so as to cover up Scaleshombre's inappropriate actions here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, all three of the users contacted by Scaleshombre were known to strongly support his own position, based on prior comments. That clearly meets the behavioral definition of vote-stacking, and that's policy. It could be argued that Scaleshombre simply had a hard time finding people with other views (the vast majority of his known opponents them had already cast their vote), but that cannot be used to muddle the underlying policy issue. Something like that should at least have been done on this talk page, where everybody can check the voting rolls. It is clear at this stage that that Scaleshombre and Spartan7W are simply not WP:LISTENING when basic points like these are brought up here. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Listen, I did not ask to be notified. As the one who instigated the insertion of the factually correct usage of the term 'dictator', I certainly would have found this on my own. Look at the wording of his notice. It is 100% neutral. That is what matters. I am not here solely because of him, and he did not tell me to come support his opinion. You cannot discount my argument, which relates to facts btw, because you oppose who he notified with neutral language. My input may not agree with your personal agenda, but that does not discard it from inclusion here.   Spartan7W §   16:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Spartan, no one is claiming that Scaleshombre's wording was not neutral. But that is not the point, so please stop emphasising it as if it were. I am not trying to bring about any strong condemnation of Scaleshombre or claiming that your vote does not count. It is nevertheless against Wikipedia's policy on canvassing to engage in 'vote stacking' and that is what Scaleshombre has done. It is important that any impartial editor who comes along to close this RfC be aware of that. That is all. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Midnightblueowl, just as long as you don't try to distract impartial editors from the main issue (which I know you'd never do intentionally, because it's clear that you're an honorable editor) -- top-tier RS (mainstream media and academic sources) in Latin America, Europe, the US, the developing world, etc. unambiguously refer to Castro as dictator. P.S., if you continue to take swipes at my reputation (again, not intentionally, because you're an honorable editor), I'll ask administrators to investigate. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I never meant to take swipes at your reputation, Scaleshombre, nor do I think that administrators would interpret any of my actions or comments in that manner. I merely pointed out that you had engaged in vote stacking. Vote stacking is an easy mistake to make if one is unfamiliar with the WP:Canvassing regulations. (Indeed, long ago I was unwittingly guilty of vote stacking on an RfC because I was unaware of those regulations). I'm not trying to cancel out the votes that have resulted from it or bring about any sort of condemnation or punishment against you. That being said, the fact that vote stacking has happened is something that needs to be brought to the attention of any uninvolved editor who closes the RfC. That's just the way it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest we all cool it. Hopefully everybody understands what canvassing is and is not and also understands that any 'canvassed' votes are liable to be ignored, (regardless of whether the editor would have found the discussion anyway), the INTENT of notification is as important as the wording and only notifying 'allies' is canvassing. I doubt if notification has had much impact on the discussion so far, and the closing editor can judge to what extent they were canvassed. Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - it does not reflect the overall tenor of reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Violates NPOV. McArthur Parkette (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Call him what he is described as in the numerous reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose with deep regret. Was he a dictator? Let's just say that if he wasn't then there is no such thing. He was one of the great tyrants of the late 20th century. To my mind denying that is akin to denying global warming or that the sun rises in the east. But we base our descriptions on guidelines and policy, and I am not seeing a strong policy/guideline argument from the supports here. In order to apply this descriptor unanimity among RS sources is not necessary. But a very strong consensus is and I am not convinced that this exists. Perhaps an argument could be made that some of the sources that steer clear of or deny the moniker of "dictator" are biased. But the same could almost certainly be applied to at least some of the sources that excoriate Castro. On an emotional and commonsense basis I am very sympathetic to the support argument. But it just doesn't conform to our guidelines. And we need to bear in mind that Castro is still subject to BLP which is even more stringent. As of right now I think the only way we could label him as a dictator in the lead without any qualifier would be by invoking IAR. Tempting as that may be, I don't think this is a good IAR case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support reliable sources and WP:BLUE all consider him a dictator. It's pretty wild that we're having this discussion. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I cannot see the controversy here. Even Wikipedia's own definition of dictatorship leaves little doubt that Castro was a dictator by any normative definition of the term. Arguing that he was not begs the question what he would be fairly described as instead? El Presidente? Generalissimo Stupendo? Comrade Castro? C'mon. This is a no brainer. Those with passionate views should step away from this article to serve a common good, which is not always the same as the silly lawyering of guidelines as if they were iron laws. Invited here to comment as a disinterested observer by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support He WAS a dictator, there's no denying what's obviously true. His brother is carrying on where he left off. Keep it in, it's fine and it's obvious . KoshVorlon 20:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Important clarification regarding the RfC: Some editors may be under the impression that this RfC is about keeping the word"dictator" in the lead. This is false: "dictator" is already in the lead and nobody is trying to change the current wording via this RfC. The RfC is about whether or not to define Castro as "dictator" in Wikipedia's voice at the top of the lead.) Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Guccisamsclub I read question, and my answer is just as I stated above. Yes we should because that's what he was. KoshVorlon 14:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No problem, I was merely responding to "Keep it in, it's fine," as well as making a general note of the fact that "dictator" is already in lead and nobody is trying to remove it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Dictator or dictatorship fits and ought to be included (in Wikipedia's voice) in the first paragraph of the lead section. Glendoremus (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - dictator or dictatorship in first paragraph, plenty of reliable sources support it. The fact that there are also sources which don't specifically spell out "dictator" doesn't mean that they necessarily disagree with the term.--Staberinde (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually quite a few sources, inc academic ones specifically refute the label (typically saying it doesn't fit despite acknowledging the limits on freedom). That is why present text (critics describe him thus) is correct and why WAS in WP;VOICE, would not be.Pincrete (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

What sources refute the label? Marxist academics aren't really credible on this issue. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite a number in the list below and specifically the Gdn obituary. I've never read the WP guideline that said that academic sources in good standing could be rejected on the basis of their political leanings (left or right), perhaps you could point me to it? Are we going to also reject all right-wing-ish sources discussing a right-wing figure or topic, or is this a one-off ruling? Even if you were right that those defending Castro were 'Marxists', this would still be a significant body of opinion. We generally believe in respect for all political viewpoints here at WP, not simply complaining about 'suppression' of our own. Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, respectfully, I can't find the sources you allude to that actively refute the dictator label. I read the Guardian obit, and the closest I could find was the passage, "Critics liked to argue that 'General' Castro was no different in essence from any other Latin America dictator, yet such criticism was hard to sustain. He more closely resembled the Spanish colonial governor-generals, many of whom were benign autocrats, than the sanguinary military leaders of the 20th century." Thus the Guardian's lumping him into the "benign autocrat" category, essentially calling him a nice dictator. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The distinction between (somewhat resembling) 'a benign autocrat' and being a 'dictator' is one the writer consciously makes, that's enough. It is not for us to interpret that as insignificant. The reader can read the criticisms and achievements and decide for themselves who has the stronger case. What is obvious is that he is STILL a highly controversial figure and opinions about him remain deeply divided.

Stalin and Mao both suffered huge dents in their reputation after their death, maybe that will happen to Castro, but we can only decide on what is printed already, and substantial sources endorse that the picture is more complex than simply 'dictator'. Nobody is after all claiming that he was a western-style democrat, nor seeking to remove the criticisms of him. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment re Pincrete, Scaleshombre several book-length sources were mentioned here already. It is impossible to refute the claim that Cuban socialism is a "dictatorship," because it does have unambiguously dictatorial features. But the point is that: (a) it depends on what you mean by "dictorship", which is a value-laden label (b) dictatorship label is a huge oversimplification of Cuban socialism, and does not commonly appear in WP:BESTSOURCES, as has already been demonstrated; (c) WP:BESTSOURCES virtually never toy around with the idea that Castro was a personal dictator, so that's not even eligible for refutation. (repeating some earlier stuff, so collapsing the remainder of my reply—click "show in the upper-right corner" to read rest) Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Marxist academics—or any academic specialists—carry more weight than random op-ed writers, per WP:BESTSOURCES. There is no single "Marxist" position on Cuba, BTW, nor do any modern Marxist claim that the Cuban system has no major dictatorial or authoritarian features. With regards to explicit refutations of the dictatorship label, when I listed the sources I admitted that they were not very numerous, though there probably are more than I had mentioned. The point was that if Cuba is an unproblematic "dictatorship" akin to others, such sources would not even exist, certainly not today. Nor would anyone be asking "Castro: liberator, revolutionary, or dictator?", like here, here, or here. Of course, many specialists may call Cuba a dictatorship when push comes to shove, but they very seldom do so in their professional work because the term is value-laden and simplistic. This has been demonstrated ad nauseam on this talk page: virtually every hit for "Castro dictator/ship" on google books actually yields some variation on "Castro led an uprising against the Batista dictatorship." Most scholars don't consider dictatorship to a very useful way of summing up the nature of Cuba's post-revolutionary regime, which unlike Batista's (etc.), is has features that pertain to democracy (national liberation, economic and social equality, representative economic and political institutions, arguably more freedom of speech and less repression than any Communist country outside the Gorbachev's USSR etc.) The dictator label—as in no formal unlimited personal power—belongs to the realm of vernacular Western and exile polemics, and almost never comes up in WP:BESTSOURCES: it's notable mainly for its use in heated denunciations of Cuban socialism as "the worst thing that's ever happened to Cuba", and thus not eligible for WP's voice. Castro presided over a single-party state like Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, or China's leaders today: none of whom were "dictators", nor are they called that by scholarly sources and wiki bios, especially in wp's voice. Hell, even Bashar al-Assad's BLP—unlike this one—makes no mention of him being a dictator at all in the WP:LEAD. (By the same token other leaders are not called in WP's voice "what they really are", per WP:TRUTH : e.g. "Bush is a war criminal who led the USA"; "Hillary Clinton is a kleptocrat who ran for..."; "Trump is a racist and a narcissist who is head of the USA govt") And by the way, Cuba is higher on The Economist's Democracy Index than Russia, China and many other countries. So singling out Castro as eligible for the "dictator" label on WP is jaundiced and reflective of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS:if we define Castro as "dictator" (as opposed to leader, or formally president) in the lead, nobody outside of the US will take this article seriously. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Guccisamsclub and TFD.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support-ish: I agree that 'The current text, "critics view him as a dictator" is accurate and neutral.' It preserves the term, which many if not most RS use, without putting the label in WP's own voice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: - I'm a little confused here. You state "Support-ish" but your comment strongly implies that you oppose the proposed addition which is currently being discussed; has there been some mistake here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I support continuing to include the word in the lead, but it need not be in the first sentence (though it could be, e.g. "was a Cuban revolutionary and politician – viewed by critics as a dictator – who governed the Republic of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to 2008"), but shouldn't be given as "was a dictator" in WP's own voice. I note that the above discussion has veered from support or oppose including the exact language in the proposal to support or oppose including the word at all in some cases.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not sure that "Support-ish" is the best way to describe your position (if you oppose the use of "dictator" in WP's voice then I'd definitely characterise you as an "Oppose"), but hopefully any uninvolved editor coming along to assess consensus will read your comment and understand your perspective. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

What the reliable sources say

While reliable sources routinely refer to some world leaders as dictators, they generally do not with Castro. Often they will make comments such as "his critics call him a dictator, his supporters deny that he is." We have discussed reasons why they may do this, but in the end we should follow their approach. TFD (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've done a fairly quick search of Google News and among those sources which do not actively describe Castro as a dictator but which then note that some people think of him as such (often by quoting Donald Trump) are Sky News ([26]), The Independent ([27]), the BBC ([28]), The Guardian ([29]), the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ([30]), RT ([31]), the Los Angeles Times ([32]), The New York Times ([33]), The News Minute ([34]), the Daily Mail ([35]), World Socialist Web Site ([36]), Morning Star ([37]), The Washington Post ([38]), Dunya News ([39]), and News24 ([40]). These sources come from a fairly global spread and those that are Western are (with the noted exception of the Daily Mail, Morning Star, and the World Socialist Web Site) generally more centrist or liberal in orientation.

Among the sources to outright describe Castro as a "dictator" are the Miami Herald ([41]), Breitbart News ([42]), Fox News ([43]), The Washington Times ([44]), The Wall Street Journal ([45]), CBS ([46]), The Australian ([47]), and Deutsche Welle ([48]), as well as op-eds in The Observer ([49]), the Toronto Sun ([50]), the National Post ([51]), National Review (which also labels Castro a "tyrant" [52][53]), The American Spectator ([54]), and The Times ([55]). The majority of these appear to be right-wing or conservative-leaning U.S. sources.

Among press sources that do not mention the term "dictator" at all in conjunction with Castro are The Christian Science Monitor ([56]), Channel 4 ([57]), Euronews ([58]), The Hindu ([59], [60]), the Shanghai Daily ([61]), Telesur ([62]), Vanguard ([63]), Reuters ([64]), Daily Trust ([65]), CNN ([66]), Premium Times ([67]), China Daily ([68]), The Zimbabwe Daily ([69]), NK News ([70]), the International Business Times ([71]), Politico ([72]), and Al Jazeera ([73]), which reflects a fairly international selection. Of course, here I have only looked at news articles and op-eds in the mainstream media, and have not consulted academic studies in peer-reviewed publications. Nonetheless, they may reflect a more general trend in the way that mainstream media portrays Castro. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this extensive review. I think this makes it clear that we cannot describe him in Wikipedia's voice as a "dictator". --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, MelanieN. I would recommend that you add your statement of opposition to the above sub-section, thus making things clearer for any readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Just did. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I was about to add (but got edit-conflicted) that this summary makes another valuable point: it disproves the contention by some there that the only sources that don't call him a dictator are "his supporters in Cuba" or "sources from China and Africa". In fact, as pointed out in this survey of sources, the overwhelming majority of European sources describe him more neutrally; it is mainly U.S. sources (and not all U.S. sources) that outright call him a dictator. However, Scaleshombre has now added a bunch more sources I will take a look at them below. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian: dictator.

Europe is big, it includes also former Communist countries.

I'm from Europe, you are not.Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry did you give the politico link to prove your point or disprove it? politico "Independent newspapers were closed and in the early years, homosexuals were herded into camps for "re-education."" "In 1964, Castro acknowledged holding 15,000 political prisoners. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled, including Castro's daughter Alina ... and ... sister Juana." It does not spell the word dictator, but come on. Below I posted links for India, South Africa, UK, and Canada. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No one is denying that Castro's regime prohibited freedom of the press, executed several thousand people, and interned large numbers of dissidents. Indeed, all of these things are described in this article and mentioned within the lede. But that does not automatically make Castro an unequivocal "dictator" and the Portico article does not describe him using that term. It should be noted, for example, that various parliamentary democracies imprison large numbers of dissidents, restrict freedom of speech, execute people, and have persecuted homosexuals (examples from parliamentary democracies as diverse as the U.S., Turkey, Nigeria, and Russia spring to mind, none of which are widely labelled "dictatorships"). We can describe all of these actions within the article without resorting to the use of contentious and largely pejorative descriptive terminology. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

First, appreciate that you recognize the atrocities. But, did you read what you posted? That is the definition of a dictator. What more do you want. How can someone, after doing all what you described, not be considered "Unequivocally" "a dictator". I don't think that you quite grasped the meaning of your last two sentences. And if they were true, which I do not think it is true in the case of the US, they are not an excuse for not calling a dictator for what he is. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice the unambiguous way leading media outlets – left, right and center, American and international – refer to Castro as “dictator.” They simply state it, as if it’s a given. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/27/fidel-castro-dictator-legacy-abuses

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/americas/cuba-human-rights-reports/

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-01-05/local/me-116_1_fidel-castro

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/cuban-dictator-fidel-castro-dead-at-90-818100803730

http://www.newsweek.com/fidel-castro-urges-cubas-communists-fulfill-vision-450333

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/11/fidel-castro-obituary/508805/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/fidel-castro-cuban-dictator-dies-at-90/2016/11/26/f37bf3bc-b399-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fidel-castros-death/fidel-castro-dies-90-obama-world-leaders-react-death-cuban-n688571

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2016-11-30/uncertainty-in-cuba-following-castro-s-death

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/1126-cuban-dictator-fidel-castro-dead-at-90-dodo-skeleton-auction-shines-light-on-lessons-from-extinct-bird/

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/11/27/days-before-fidel-castro-s-death-colin-kaepernick-praised-the-d/21614938/

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/abc-shows-sweetness-in-coverage-of-cuban-dictator-fidel-castros-death/news-story/e5fb4f2d6fa056f874aca04650adc9a7

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/30/5-things-you-need-to-know-wednesday/94555192/

http://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/columns/kats/fidel-castro-s-overthrow-reached-all-the-way-las-vegas

http://web.tampabay.com/news/world/cubas-fidel-castro-who-defied-us-for-50-years-has-died/2304161

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/article117186483.html

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/11/if_this_is_how_trump_reacts_to.html

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2016/11/26/cuban-dictactor-fidel-castro-dies-90/94462814/?hootPostID=9ffc12ada9f39b65be8a92b4378347f6

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2016/1127/Fidel-Castro-s-unusual-gift-to-history

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/filmmore/fd.html Scaleshombre (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

With respect Scaleshombre, you imply that this list reflects the force of opinion "left, right and center, American and international" and yet every single source that you cite is Western, with the overwhelming majority being specifically American. Reliable sources from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and much of Europe are absent. Moreover you have cherry picked the news sources that support the description of Castro as a "dictator" and ignored all of those which do not suit your argument. Clearly there are a great many reliable news sources that consider Castro to be a dictator, and we need to pay attention to their existence, but we should not allow ourselves to be misled by ignoring any contrary evidence or opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, nearly every major outlet that you earlier said does "not actively describe Castro as as a dictator" -- actually does. (With the notable exception of the World Socialist Web Site. You're right on the money with them.) I just want to keep the discussion rooted in facts. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That simply is not true, at least not when it comes to the articles which I have cited and linked to. Anyone is able to consult the articles and see this for themselves. These sources often quote others as describing Castro as a dictator, or note that some view him as a dictator (and many refer to Fulgencio Batista as a dictator), but they do not unequivocally describe Castro himself as such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, Scaleshombre, you cherry-picked these sources, so they are by no means a representative sample (unlike Midnightblueowl's survey). The vast majority of your sources are from the U.S. - it looks like your only international sources are The Guardian and The News-Herald. Midnightblueowl's survey found half a dozen non-U.S. sources calling him "dictator" - but another half-dozen saying "some viewed him as," and a dozen or so that don't use the word at all. Even among your U.S. sources, you might want to take another look at some of them. For example, the Free Press article you linked calls him "Among the world's most influential leaders" and does not say "dictator" anywhere in the article. Your Los Angeles Times link is an editorial, not a news story - and it's from 27 years ago. Granted, it's been common in the U.S. for a long time to describe him as a dictator. But sources in Europe and elsewhere are far less likely to use that term. And Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia; it's not the Encyclopedia Americana. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

To add to that Scaleshombre's Guardian example came from a U.S. West Coast journalist's news analysis, so that is not international either. So the only non-U.S. source in the list above is the Herald and Sun--- a Murdoch-owned tabloid. Jacob2718 (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I just want to be clear on terminology: "representative sample" means sources that support your claim, right? But when those same sources refute your claim, it's called "cherry picking". I haven't taken a rhetoric course in years. Just want to make sure I'm up to date.Scaleshombre (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite. "Representative sample" means a sample that is chosen WITHOUT bias, without cherry-picking; a sample that fairly represents the class of items being studied (in this case, how various media outlets describe Castro). Midnightblueowl did a search without bias (aka "cherry picking" to favor a particular position). The search was simply to find out what the sources actually said, and then classify the findings into three groups. You, on the other hand, set out to find sources that supported your claim, omitting any sources that would contradict your position. That's called Selection bias. And when it is this overt, it means that the samples presented cannot be regarded as actually representative of the class. They are illustrations, not data. In simple English: showing us a bunch of international articles that call him a dictator, while deliberately leaving out any that don't call him that, does not provide us with any valid information about what MOST international sources say. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, the CNN article Scaleshombre linked to doesn't use the word dictator at all. Bradv 17:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is also a selection from a very specific political spectrum, something you fail to understand when you say you expect MSNBC (Hillary Clinton's channel) to be sympathetic to Cuban Communism. Furthermore, the biases and priorities of this political political spectrum have almost nothing to do with the biases and priorities of scholars or the rest of the world. You have a good sampling of sources that go for Hillary and sources that prefer Jeb Bush, with some neutral; this is neither here nor there. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I cited the wrong CNN article. It should have been this one. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/politics/fidel-castro-us-presidential-politics/. MelanieN, please reread the Detroit Free Press piece carefully. It calls him "the iconic bearded, cigar-chewing Cuban dictator." (No one says autocrats can't be cuddly. Churchill called Stalin "Uncle Joe.") Allow me to augment my earlier list with international media outlets that call him dictator. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2016/11/26/actualidad/1480163698_811357.html

http://veja.abril.com.br/mundo/fidel-castro-10-fatos-sobre-a-vida-do-ex-ditador-cubano/

http://observador.pt/2016/11/26/morreu-fidel-castro-historico-lider-cubano/

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2016/11/507178-ditador-fidel-castro-morre-em-cuba-aos-90-anos.shtml

http://www.abc.es/internacional/abci-muere-fidel-castro-raul-siguiente-dictador-eterno-201611270408_noticia.html

http://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/nacional/chile/2016/11/26/udi-y-fidel-castro-ha-sido-el-dictador-mas-brutal-de-la-historia-de-america.shtml

https://rsf.org/en/news/demonstration-staged-support-23-jailed-cuban-journalists-eve-50th-anniversary-start-castro

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/02/09/internacional/1170991141.html

http://www.emol.com/noticias/internacional/2005/11/24/202782/fidel-castro-anuncia-correccion-al-modelo-economico-de-cuba.html

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/776750-la-creatividad-una-gran-arma-contra-castro Scaleshombre (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My mistake; I missed it. Not that it matters; we could find dozens if not hundreds of U.S. sources that reflexly called him a dictator. That's been the American attitude for decades. But American sources alone don't settle the matter for an international encyclopedia. You can keep cherry-picking international links if you want, to defend your position and try to convince other people. A bunch of cherry-picked articles have not convinced me, because I am more persuaded by the non-cherry-picked survey above. But maybe your list will convince others. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

These are mostly opinion pieces or "contain both factual content and opinion content." As such they come under "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Note for example the Herald Sun link actually says "opinion." The most the sources support is that Castro has been called a dictator, which the article already says. Also, note that the Newsweek article refers to Castro in the first sentence as "Former Cuban President Fidel Castro." In the second paragraph it refers to him as "the revolutionary leader," before referring to him as "The longtime dictator." The term is not repeated. It does not support calling Castro a dictator in the first sentence, which is the issue of the RfC. TFD (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Facts exist and a clear definition for dictator exists. The opinions of those who suffer under his tyrannical rule is far more reliable than a "opinion piece" from China or other oppressive regime. There is more than enough pieces that call him dictator throughout the world. At the beginning of the murderous revolution, the comrades of Fidel called him dictator, read below. If the opinion of the rest of the world would have to be taken the degree of care that you want to require here, I am not sure that you would be able to call Hitler a dictator.

• Reports of killed Cubans, export to excel reports. Here is the main page of the database main.
• la-organizacion-archivo-cuba-documenta-8-190-asesinatos-cometidos-por-el-regimen-de-castro.
• Jewish source reactions-to-death-of-tyrant-fidel-castro
• Jewish source Another source
• "his followers ... some of these worry about the way in which the force of circumstances has willy-nilly given him the power of a dictator" page 72 of newspaper or page 334 of the pdf. "I want these executions to end within a month, so that we can get down to happier and more important things" Fidel's quote, same Newspaper page 335 of pdf. NY times march 8, 1959
• “Fidel Castro has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore the Constitution....but it amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic and therefore anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, February 1957.).
• “This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, July 1959.).
• "It would be a great mistake even to intimate that Castro's Cuba has any real prospect of becoming a Soviet satellite.” (Walter Lippmann, The Washington Post, July 1959.)
• Canada's largest daily Fidel Castro was Canada’s favourite dictator: Walkom.
• South Africa Worldwide Celebrations as Communist Dictator Fidel Castro Dies!.
• India India Will Pay Respects At Dictator Fidel Castro’s Funeral, And Rajnath Singh Will Lead The Delegation.
• UK Fidel Castro was a dictator – but the left is blind to human rights abuses when it's one of their own.
• "History will never absolve him" Alan P. Gross. Jailed for years in Cuba for helping Cuban Jews to connect to internet. History will never absolve him

Jhaydn2016 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but this questionable list demonstrates very little. For example, "sa-news" cited above is some kind of news-aggregator website, not a newspaper, and obviously not a RS. This is clear from its headline "worldwide celebrations ..."??? The viewpoint of one "Alan Gross" is obviously not notable enough; irrelevant. The article in "The Star" is news analysis and reflects the opinion of the contributor. Indiatimes appears to be related to the newspaper "Times of India" which does not use dictator in most of its references to Castro. Obviously it is possible to find some references to Castro as a dictator in non-U.S. sources but equally obviously these far and few between. Outside a certain section of the U.S. media, this is almost a fringe description. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone's arguing that Castro was not a dictator. The point is that term is very charged, and it violates the Wikipedia principle of neutral point of view for us to put that in the opening sentence. The consensus has stood for a long time with the lede the way it is (the term is in there, but further down the page). Bradv 20:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I know what the argument is about. Dictator in the first sentence. The defense that something was a certain way for a very long time I do not think is correct. The earth was thought flat for a very long time and then not anymore. Wikipedia did not include that word in the first sentence until, hopefully, one day it did. I never worried to look for the page of this murderer, until one day that I did. I do not think that 'time freezing' is a good reply. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It's called consensus, and it's how this encyclopedia is built. Bradv 21:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

But even consensus can change. If not, Wikipedia would look like it did on the first day. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Castro ordered executions, so he is also "murderer". I'm sure it's possible to cherry-pick sources to support that statement as well. So we should have that in the lede too, in wikipedia's voice, by your logic. Calling attention to aspects of the Cuban system other than repression and one-party rule is not "flat earth", it's uh ... well rounded. I see "flat earth" applied to contentious political topics all the time, which is a fringe take on both social "science" and hard science.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean cherry-picking like the database with more than 8,000 people murdered by government instruction? [http://database.cubaarchive.org/reports/ database. Hey, if you want to add murderer I will support it. The change I am supporting is dictator in the lede sentence. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Took a cursory look... Half the names seem to come from the CANF and the US govt, and some of the stories (like the one about "blood extraction") fall under WP:EXCEPTION. For all intents and purposes the Cuba Archive is an unexamined primary source, with precious little discussion in scholarly sources]. Many of these "murders" are due to prison neglect etc. Not the most useful category. How many thousands died in US prisons, chain gangs or were shot by the police? If you narrow it down to execution, you'll get about 3,500 alleged ones. Quite a good chuck of these are supposed to have happened during the years of insurgency of 1961-65, in which the authorities lost more people than the insurgents. Trusting Cuban exile lobbyists and the US govt to distinguish between battle deaths and executions of "innocent" insurgents, is like asking Cuban Communist propagandists to document murders by Batista. They'll take battle deaths, inflate the count by ten and call it a all murder of innocents. Which is precisely what they did to demonize Batista after the revolution.Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"Do you mean cherry-picking like the database with more than 8,000 people murdered by government instruction?" - now this sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... I appreciate that English is not your first language Jhaydn2016, but some of these statements are frankly bizarre. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Read what this thread is about. It is not about Jhaydn2016 can't write properly in English, which is true by the way. Remember, discuss the merits of the case not the form. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we're all on board with Guccisamsclub's desire for a well-rounded lede. Adding as dicator after who and before governed would make it so. (ie, "Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was a Cuban politician and revolutionary who, as dictator, governed the Republic of Cuba for 47 years as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to 2006 (de jure until 2008).") Scaleshombre (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That's poor grammar: "who, as dictator...governed...as Prime Minister." Incidentally, the articles for Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Papa Doc Duvalier, Ferdinand Marcos and many others fail to mention in the first sentence that they were dictators. Why single out Castro? And if it's so important, why not get all the articles changed? TFD (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. Count with me to support your position. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Many of these are completely off-topic. The topic is "dictator", not "bad guy". In an apparent attempt to paint castro as an anti-semite, you give us one story from the Forward saying Castro opposed Israeli policy, while another does not say anything about "Jailed for years in Cuba for helping Cuban Jews to connect to internet." What's next? Saying Castro kills Jews because of he don't like em, just like you said he kills Catholics and gays because of same? I gotta wonder what political goal Castro has in mind when he's doing all these unspeakable things. To scare the world with his evilness? You really need to cut it out with this unsourced black propaganda about an individual who still falls under WP:BLP. Guccisamsclub (talk)

I said that I did not quote properly that one, and I apologized. However, you seem to read only what you want to read. I provided this ABC newspaper quote from Spain about Dr. Jorge Perez. "Castro displaced his hatred toward other social groups, among them the homosexuals" article. Now, the quote is from the lead of the article. It is impossible for you to know what is my intent because you do not read minds. The story of Alan Gross. Detainee was helping Cuban Jewish groups involved in U.S. democracy project. Inside you can read "was working on a U.S. government project to help the island's Jewish community access the Internet, according to former colleagues and other sources." This was a case followed closely by the Cuban exile. Reductio ad absurdum Jhaydn2016 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. But you did say: "Jailed for years in Cuba for helping Cuban Jews to connect to internet.", which naturally makes one wonder: why would he be jailed for that? He was charged with acting covertly as an agent of a hostile power, and that what he was jailed for. For more balanced article, see this. I don't know how anyone at the State Dept thought they'd be helping democracy promotion by sending an inexperienced individual to Cuba, where he falsely registered as a tourist, and then helped get Cuban Jews (of which there are very few) "get on the internet" by handing out satellite phones. Miami exiles appeared quite pleased by what this crisis (according to Gross' wife) did for them politically, so perhaps whoever sent him there had the same motive in mind. Apperently, one has yet to find any Jews, nevermind Jewish groups who benefitted from this alleged "internet" program. Anyway...Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

How about a little video. Exclusive Interview: Alan Gross Reflects on Death of Fidel Castro. How about this article Alan Gross spent 5 years in a Cuban prison. This is what he thinks of Castro’s death. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Some editors here seem to be treating using "dictator", as-if saying that someone was a dictator is a bad thing. That he was a dictator is not disputed. He was a dictator, so what is the problem with treating it as a fact, not a judgement?TeeVeeed (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"That he was a dictator is not disputed." Yes it is disputed, that's the point. Castro repeatedly denied being a dictator, and his supporters have argued that a socialist one-party state such as that in Cuba is actually a democratic system, albeit one that is different to the multi-party system familiar to liberal democracies (there are elections and public consultation in Cuba, for example). I'm not saying that I agree with them—indeed I think that there is a strong case for considering Castro a dictator—but my point is that we cannot just sweep away arguments to the contrary by declaring him a "dictator" as if it were an unequivocal, objective fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• If Pinochet's page says he is a dictator (or at least "His rule of Chile was a dictatorship") then Fidel Castro's should too. Both readily meet the standard definition, and indeed other definitions of a dictator, due to the degree of control they wielded. This shouldn't be about human rights, Fidel and Pinochet both did some terrible things Human rights wise, but that isn't (neccisarily) a prerequisite for being a dictator. One of them is either being the only party, or else winning every time due to control of the system. Another is the government controlling everything, as dictator's usually wield authoritarian power. The decision is not if they did bad things, but do they fit the definition, and the answer is categorically yes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As stated above, Pinochet's article is not even GA-rated. It is in a terrible state, and is not the sort of article that we should be seeking to emulate here. Instead look at the FA-rated articles on Vladimir Lenin and Nikita Khruschev, two political leaders who were closer to Castro in terms of style of governance than Pinochet ever was. Neither of those uncritically apply the term "dictator" in the opening paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin - the founder of a totalitarian dictatorship.

Nikita Khruschev replaced Stalin's dictatorship with a much milder one. We don't describe milder dictatorship as dictatorship but as a milder dictatorship, the same we describe mild winter as mild. The text Nikita Khruschev replaces the name Stalin with the word dictator several times. So Nikita Khruschev seems to be a Raoul rather than a Fidel. See also Collective leadership in the Soviet Union. Xx236 (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You misrepresent the Lenin article. It does not outright call Lenin a "dictator" in the opening sentence or state that he was "the founder of a totalitarian dictatorship". Rather, in the fourth paragraph it states that "A controversial and highly divisive individual, Lenin is viewed by Marxist-Leninists as a champion of socialism and the working class, while critics on both the left and right see him as the founder of a totalitarian dictatorship responsible for mass human rights abuses." It is therefore very similar to the manner in which the Castro lede is currently structured. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• The way it's phrased in the Lenin article (is that GA?) is actually terrible. It can't come out say that critics "on both left and right" call Lenin the leader of a totalitarian state, because that would plainly be fringe. But editors still wanted "totalitarian" in there (seems that calling it a dictatorship responsible for mass executions was deemed too conciliatory). At the same time, saying that Lenin was the founder of a dictatorship that later became a totalitarian (as some call it) one under Stalin, would let Lenin "off the hook" (and we can't let a such an awful man get off easy can we?) So the current extremely slippery wording was adopted, which still insinuates that Lenin's regime was "totalitarian, but also implicitly contains the following escape clause: it could very plausibly be argued that Lenin laid many of the foundations for the Stalin regime, which is indeed seen by many serious observers as "totalitarian." Saying that "critics on both left and right" agree that this is a good way of framing the issue (they don't)—and that only Marxist-Leninists (i.e. orthodox pro-Soviet ideologues) disagree—tells readers that there is no problem with the statement. I'd change change this silly wording right now, but I'm reluctant to trigger a massive flame war and a ton of thoughtless bickering. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's FA rated. By all means take this issue to the Lenin Talk Page, however. I'm happy to discuss it further over there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I think it's best to let it rest for now. I was just bringing it up to flesh out some of the context brought up in the current discussion. BTW: Paul von Hindenburg and Gustav Noske were the "founders a totalitarian regime, though Nazis disagree": the Weimar republic morphed quite easily into Nazi Germany; Noske crushed the Left with the proto-fascistFreikorps militia, while Hindenburg gave the Nazi dictatorship his stamp of approval. What's with all the dry historical details? Let's just call both Hindenburg and Noske "totalitarian" in the lead and be done with it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl You replied above that there are sources that say that Castro himself denied being a dictator. That's interesting can you please reference that or share those sources? So I checked his autobiography on Amazon, and I notice that the Publishers Weekly review for the book-on the page selling the book--, states in the fist sentence that he was a ..."Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly This stunning autobiography of the controversial Cuban dictator is ...". TeeVeeed (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

See the sub-section below that has just been established. Also, Castro's own views are expressed within the article itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's also notable that Clarin, Argentina's largest newspaper, calls Raul "the last of the Latin American dictators." http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Culmino-honores-Raul-Castro-Paris_0_1515448822.html Scaleshombre (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Guardian coverage. The Gdn has published quite a number of opinion pieces about Castro recently, one of those above describes him as 'dictator'. This one does not. To extrapolate from a single opinion piece in the Gdn that "the Guardian calls him a dictator", is simply false. The Gdn reflects the same breadth of praise and criticism that this talk page also shows. I cannot say, since it would take too long, how much this is also true of the other sources above, but the Gdn coverage actually endorses present text ie SOME critics call him thus. Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• No, it's not just Guardian opinion pieces. The paper has called him dictator in its own journalistic voice. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/27/fidel-castro-dead-revolutionary-history. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the article is an opinion piece written in the voice of Simon Tisdall. And Tisdall does not actually call him a dictator, the term is only used in the headline. Headlines are not reliable sources and in this case does not even reflect what is in the opinion piece. In any case, we all agree that from time to time even reliable sources occasionally refer to Castro as a dictator. The issue is whether it is so frequent that it should be put in the first sentence of the article. Note that we it is not in the first sentence of the Hitler and Mussolini or other articles about people who were unequivocally dictators. TFD (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This is very clearly an opinion piece (several have appeared in the Gdn, some praising, some criticising Castro), the inability, or unwillingness to distinguish between "what the Guardian says in it's own voice" and "what individual op-pieces say" undermines, not strengthen's your case IMO. Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Castro on being a dictator

The discussion above made me realize that Castro's own words on the issue are quite interesting and deserve some attention in this entire discussion. May be worthwhile putting some extract from this quote in the article when it is unblocked. This is what he says in his autobiography. "My Life" ,Penguin Books (London), 2008, Page 572: "I also don't understand why I'm called a dictator. What is a dictator? It's someone who makes arbitrary, unilateral decisions, who acts over and above institutions, over and above the laws, who is under no restraint but his own desires and whims. And in that case, Pope John Paul II, who always opposed war, could be accused of being a dictator, and President Bush considered a defender of peace, a friend of the poor and the most democratic of rulers. That's the way the industrialized countries in Europe treat him, without realizing that Bush can make terrible decisions without consulting the Senate or the House of Representatives, or even his cabinet. Not even the Roman emperors had the power of the president of the United States! Any American president has more possibility of giving orders, and decisive, dramatic orders, than I have. Look, I don't make unilateral decisions. This isn't even a presidential government. We have a Council of State. My functions as leader exist within a collective. In our country, the important decisions, the fundamental decisions are always studied, discussed and made collectively. I can't appoint ministers or ambassadors. I don't appoint the lowest public official in this country. I have authority, of course, I have influence, for historical reasons, but I don't give orders or rule by decree." Jacob2718 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

For me that verifies that he was known as a dictator and he confirms it right there. The fact that he says he cannot understand why, ignorance. Also, I'm assuming that his autobiography was in his own language and translated? But I could be wrong about that. If we use any statements or quotes directly attributed to Castro, I think we should use the language they were spoken or written in, with a translation?TeeVeeed (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The most interesting part of that quote is that Castro states that he was indeed widely known as a dictator. That he didn't think he should be called a dictator because he shared power with other non-elected party members has no bearing on whether we use the term in the lead section, but we can address his views below. --Tataral (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No one is denying that Castro was widely regarded as a dictator. We state as much in the article itself. What is at stake is whether this description is so unequivocal that he can be referred to as a "dictator" in the opening sentence as if it were undisputed fact (and whether it is an appropriate action for Wikipedia to take). The fact that Castro himself disputes the description and offers reasons for that makes it pretty clear that the situation is not as clear cut and unequivocal as some might like. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Re "The fact that Castro himself disputes the description and offers reasons for that makes it pretty clear that the situation is not as clear cut and unequivocal as some might like". No, Wikipedia is not obliged to find a false balance between the mainstream point of view and an extreme point of view. I have never heard or seen any serious person claiming that Cuba under Castro was a democracy; rather it is universally considered a dictatorship by non-extreme sources. If we were to take the views of the subject into account, why don't we remove "dictatorship" from the Pinochet article and numerous articles on right-wing dictators? Pinochet was even less oppressive and dictatorial than Castro (he had fewer victims and relinquished power after losing a fair election), and had numerous defenders among the western democratic mainstream, including the UK Government. I'm sure Hitler would object to one or two things in his Wikipedia biography too. --Tataral (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Except that the mainstream point of view (mainstream is not right wing U.S./Western sources in this case) is not that he was a dictator. Jacob2718 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The mainstream point of view, shared by all non-extremist sources (and indeed by all liberal democratic people on the left and right), is that he was one of the best known dictators of the 20th century and not a democratically elected leader. This accurate description of him was so widespread that he himself recognised that he was usually referred to as a dictator internationally. For Wikipedia's purposes, the extreme views of dictatorships such as North Korea or Cuba are not equally valid as the reliable sources we rely on, and we are not out to create a false balance between them. The fact that you refer to the entire mainstream press, including centre-left newspapers such as The Guardian[74] as "right wing U.S." really tells us all we need to know about you. --Tataral (who is neither right wing nor based in the U.S.) (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to respond to personal attacks, but note that I said "U.S./Western", not U.S. Do you genuinely find it so difficult to recognize that Europe and the United States make up only a small part of the world? The rest of your statement is simply false; a bald assertion with no evidence. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Penguin Books edition I am referring to is an English translation by Andrew Hurley. The book is edited by Ignacio Ramonet. Also, it doesn't confirm that he was a dictator or says that he was known as a dictator. This is getting tedious, and I'm sorry that the editors here are trying to fit the quote to their pre-conceptions. Please try and understand the context of the quote. The context is the following question: "It was clear in Argentina, and I saw it myself in Ecuador, in January 2003, in the popular demonstrations of affection for you. But at the same time, you're one of the men most hated by many adversaries and many enemies, who accuse you of being a 'cruel dictator'. How do you experience that duality -- love and hate?' The quote above is part of the answer and just before it, he says "Hatred of the Cuban Revolution happens in Latin American countries, or in the United States -- and it's understandable on the basis of frustration, the propaganda that stops at nothing..." and the "frustration" he is referring to appears in the previous para as "frustration with the ability of a small nation to resist forces as powerful as those that have tried to destroy us". Jacob2718 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

So, just to elaborate (although it shouldn't need elaboration) he is arguing that characterizations of him as a dictator are part of U.S. propaganda borne out of frustration at U.S. inability to reverse the Cuban revolution. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting quote. It confirms that many people called him a dictator; we already know that and it is already in the article, and in the lede. This passage says nothing about whether he actually was or was not a dictator. I would submit that in such cases, the person himself is probably the least reliable source to answer that question. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Castro cannot be used as a RS to decide whether he was a dictator or not. No dictator accepts that he is one. But his own response to the issue is nevertheless interesting, and possibly useful for a reader of the article. For instance it provides some details on how the Cuban government was supposed to work, and his own prescribed role in the system. (What his actual role and influence was, is a matter for another discussion.) I only provided the quote here because there was some discussion above on Castro's own position on the issue above. But as you say it is not strictly relevant to the relatively narrow issue under consideration of whether "dictator" should appear in the first sentence or not. Jacob2718 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember overhearing, in a totally different article, "This is a BLP, so the subject can defend himself." I think that's absolutely correct from a common sense perspective. Both incriminating and exculpatory quotes from the subject are generally fine in biographical articles, as long as they reflect the full breadth of the subject's thinking on an issue and don't invite tendentious interpretation. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Part of what complicates the issue is that Batista was such scum. Castro looked golden, by comparison. But make no mistake -- Castro's revolution was a textbook example of "Meet the new boss... same as the old boss." Unquestioned, unremovable authority (save for another revolution) passed from one dictator to another. This is why many of the world's most influential media outlets (The Guardian, Folha Brazil, Herald Sun, NY Times, Washington Post, Observador, BBChile, Toronto Sun, CNN, Folha Brazil, ABC Internacional, Clarin, MSNBC, etc.) and human rights groups call Castro "dicator" in their headlines and their ledes. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, your last statement is simply false. Perhaps you meant to say, sometimes, in some articles reflecting news analysis or opinion, these news-outlets use "dictator". Otherwise, if you look at the news of his death in the Guardian or the New York Times or CNN, neither the headline nor the first sentence mentions dictator. Moreover, I'm not sure how you came up with the list of "most influential media outlets"? By checking which ones had some headlines using "dictator". As a more objective survey above shows, most of the world's media does not refer to him that way. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

When you say "most of the world's media," I think you're conflating quantity with quality. Most media are not RS, and many of the smaller overseas outlets have a decidedly anti-Western perspective. So it goes without saying that they portray Castro in a more heroic light. But as far as the most influential outlets (Times, Guardian, CNN, Herald Sun, MSNBC, etc.), it's clear they have no problem calling him dictator in their own voice. Not in all their coverage of Castro, but enough times to prove that in the eyes of mainstream media, his dictatorship was a given. As axiomatic as the sun rising in the east. Maybe WP's standards on RS/verifiability are changing in regards to dictatorship. That's okay. I just hope people here are intellectually clearheaded enough to acknowledge it. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. So the Murdoch owned tabloid Herald Sun makes your list as an RS and is, furthermore, as one of the "most influential ones". But the sober newspaper The Hindu which covered Castro rather differently does not? I am afraid that perhaps you need to be intellectually clearheaded enough to recognize WP:Systemic Bias when you see it. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:Systemic Bias is definitely worth reading by anyone discussing this Blp who has an open mind or is willing to prrrry it open. KINGOFTO (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article in the Huffington Post on life as a dissident under Castro's dictatorship. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

What does the systemic bias have to do with this? Reliable sources in Spanish from Latin America (not exactly Granma (newspaper)) also call him a dictator (Spanish: dictador), just like the ones in English. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder what ordinary Cubans would make of this lively discussion on Fidel's leadership. Since their Internet access is severely restricted by the government, I guess we'll never know. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"Politician"?

User:DonFB wrote: "I think the phrase "Cuban politician" in the first sentence is woefully off the mark and should be eliminated. Yes, briefly in 1952 he ran for office, but the phrase makes him sound like nothing so much as a person who pursued a career in electoral campaigns and politics and held various elective offices. It's just completely inappropriate, and exists, I suspect, as a compromise between less politically correct terms. Better, in my opinion, would be: "...was a Cuban revolutionary and nationalist who ruled...." (governed--->ruled; remove "Cuban nationalist" from next sentence)."

This makes sense to me. If you check the pages of other leaders who rose to power through revolution, they are not called "politicians" even if they ruled for decades (see, for example, Mao Zedong).. I don't think many people would think of Castro as a "politician". More to the point, did any of the recent outpouring of news stories describe him a "politician"? I don't think so. If RS don't call him that, we shouldn't either. I suggest we drop "politician" from the lede sentence and just say "was a Cuban revolutionary who ruled the Republic of Cuba for 47 years…" --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, and believe that "politician" is our best option for the lede. A "politician" is effectively someone who operates within the field of politics and governance, and Castro clearly fits that description. Granted, he didn't operate within a multi-party parliamentary system of governance, but then again liberal democracies do not have a monopoly on the term "politician" and "politics". One can look to articles like Mao Zedong but those are not in a good state; one could equally point to articles like Julius Caesar which do include "politician" in the lede. Moreover if we look at the FA-rated articles on Marxist-Leninist leaders, Vladimir Lenin and Nikita Khrushev, we can see that they do describe their subjects as a "politician" in the opening sentence. I also fear that there will be a level of WP:Advocacy here; refusing to call Castro a "politician" because he did not operate within a liberal democratic parliamentary system raises all manner of POV/neutrality issues, in my opinion. I'm concerned that denying him the label of "politician" is similar to the impulse to uncritically call him a "dictator", i.e. it is part of a process of using Wikipedia as a means of delegitimising Castro, which is not something that he encyclopaedia should be doing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

My question would be, looking at the recent reports of his death (which always attempt to sum up the subject and his life and impact) - did they mostly call him a politician? Did ANY of them call him a politician? Did previous news stories or academic articles about him call him a politician? As I said below about "dictator", our job as encyclopedists is to fairly report what Reliable Sources say. It's not to determine our own definitions and apply them, or to use a non-sourced professional title because other articles do. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite correct. In giving my initial opinion, I did not--as I should have--rely on sources, but only on my own view, in contrast to my assessment of the 'dictator' question, where I relied on the sources. Melanie's concluding thoughts here are spot-on: "...fairly report what Reliable Sources say. It's not to determine our own definitions...." If the articles on Caesar, Lenin, Kruschev, etc. are sourced to say "politician" (are they?), so be it. But this article cannot "inherit" characteristics of those articles without sourcing specific to Castro. DonFB (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Being a dictator: opinion or fact?

Let's get a bit above this particular case and try to clarify something: what does it mean to be a dictator? Is it an opinion, a personal view that depends on some subjetive criteria, or is it a fact, a one-word description of a government that fits with measurable criteria? If it is an opinion, then it should be used as it is used now, but if it is a fact, we don't attribute that the sky is blue.

I consider that it is a fact, not an opinion. A dictator is basically a governor who has unlimited freedom to do what he wants without any oversight by other political institutions, and who can not be deposed or leave after the end of a limited term of office. Those are all things that can be measured, with clear "yes/no" answers. Some details may vary, such as having elections with a single party or no elections at all, but the final result is the same.

As for opinions, well, a dictatorship may not be a bad thing per se. Sometimes it may a necessary evil to cope with complex situations, such as after a state-collapse anarchy. It may even be possible to have a "good" dictatorship, led by some guy who is completely good and who never abuses of his absolute power, but those are usually just in the realm of fiction and not in the real world (and even in fiction, the final aesop of those dictatorships is usually to Beware the Superman). But that doesn't change the definition. A justified dictator is still a dictator. A good dictator is still a dictator. If a dictator is "good" or "justified" is an opinion, but his nature as a dictator is not. Yes, the word has a negative connotation, but so what? "Murderer" also has a negative connotation, but if someone commited a murder, then he will have to live with that.

So, if this is a fact, is it a contested fact? Not really. As far as I have seen, some sources call Castro a dictator without much problem, and others try to elude that word. But that is not a contested fact, just a hidden fact. Did someone wrote someting that can fill the following sentence? "Fidel Castro was not a dictator because [insert reason here]". Cambalachero (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Plus, the definition for the word exists. dictator. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This section is just an invitation to do WP:Original research. Our job is not to decide whether he was or was not a dictator. Our job as encyclopedists is to fairly and accurately report how Reliable Sources describe him. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources that call him a dictator. Is there any that actually disputes that in a proactive way and with some actual reason, as asked in my last paragraph, rather than just try to ignore that particular detail? Because if there isn't, then it is an undisputed fact. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read the RfC question. "Should this article describe Fidel Castro as a "dictator" in its opening sentence? (my emphasis)" Few sources do. In fact most dictators (Hitler, Mussolini) etc. are not described in the first sentence of their Wikipedia articles as dictators either. Is there any reason you have singled out this article? TFD (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone here seen RS saying affirmatively that he wasn't a dictator? Sure, there are plenty of articles that don't refer to him as such. But as stated above, many of the world's most influential media outlets (NY Times, El Pais, Clarin, Observador, BBChile, Guardian, LA Times, Wash Post, CBS News, CNN, etc.) have affirmatively labeled him a dictator. Not in quotes, but in their own voice. Some editors here have tried to imply that RS affirm that he wasn't a dictator, but have produced no evidence to back that up.Scaleshombre (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the question must be whether sufficient RS say, in their voice, that he was a dictator, not whether any say that he was not. My opinion is that he was; however in my Rfc response I !voted oppose, because the wording used in RS certainly does not show unanimity, and does not even seem to show a clear plurality. I based my assessment on the terminology used in obits and recent articles in mainstream sources, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. In my google review, the NY Times, Wash Post and LA Times did not call him a dictator, in contrast to your statement that they did. CNN called him a "despot." (The Wash Post article used 'dictator' in the url, but not in the headline or text.) DonFB (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

See Hernandez in A Contemporary Cuba Reader: Reinventing the Revolution for a Cuban perspective. See also Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion, Cuba: Dictatorship or Democracy, People's Power: Cuba's Experience with Representative Government (I haven't read these three books and don't have access to them, but I know for a fact that these authors would strongly dispute the characterization of Cuba as a "dictatorship" simply because it is not a conventional multi-party democracy. Few make the case so explicitly, so theirs are still minority views. At the same time, the view that Castro is a personal dictator similar to Stalin, Kim, Hoxha, Trujillo etc. has virtually no support in WP:BESTSOURCES (Latin America scholars). Agree or disagree, that's simply a fact about the existing body of reliable sources. In my vote on the RfC, I have already brought up the reasons why "dictatorship" may not necessarily be a useful prism for viewing the Castro regime, and why such a view might be contentious. But again, you are shifting the burden of proof. Nobody to my knowledge has proven that Hillary Clinton is not a kleptocrat (aside from Clinton's campaign, which has has vigorously denied it in their PR); the problem is that the sourcing for labelling her as a kleptocrat in her BLP and in wikipedia's voice is woefully insufficient relative the body of available sources. If you search google books for "Castro dictator," you will find that virtually all books from quality academic sources actually use "dictar" in conjunction with "Batista", "Somoza", "Trujillo" etc. and NOT Castro. As an typical example consider the flagship biography Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson, who is no leftist. The book contains 54 occurrences of the term "dictator(ship)". Of those, 53 refer to right-wing Latin American dictatorships, American support for them, or to US policy of opposing "'communist dictatorship'" (sic, Anderson puts it in quotes). There is only ONE passage in the whole book that does NOT fall into this category: "Central planning was necessary, Cuba was going to industrialize, and it needed qualified technicians—agronomists, agricultural teachers, and chemical engineers—not a new crop of lawyers. 'Who has the right to say that only 10 lawyers should graduate per year and that 100 industrial chemists should graduate?' Che asked. 'Some would say that that is dictatorship, and all right: it is dictatorship.” Students should join the “great army of those who do, leaving by the wayside that small patrol of those who simply talk.' (Two months later, in December, while accepting an honorary teacher’s degree at the University of Las Villas, Che told the gathered faculty and students that the days when education was a privilege of the white middle class had ended. “The University, he said, “must paint itself black, mulatto, worker and peasant.” This is simply a rhetorical outburst by Guevara, pertaining to the need to direct students into subjects that would be useful in the new economy, rather than to have them study any old thing on the state dole. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub In the book that you cite People's Power: Cuba's Experience with Representative Government, Raul Castro said: " In the first years of the Revolution we were not equipped to face the task of setting up representative institutions. ... We should add a certain lack of experience and understanding on the part of many of us regarding the importance of these representative institutions". Pg. 62. Do you agree with your own source and with Raul? And Fidel said: "There wasn't any classical legislative power, no judicial power or anything else left, because all that disappeared on January 1 [1959], with the collapse of the Batista regime. A de facto revolutionary government was established, and the laws were enacted by decree." beginning of page 63. "William LeoGrande characterized the fist years after the revolutionary takeover as a kind of guerrilla administration". pg.63. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• DonFB, if you do a search of the NY Times going back to the beginning of Castro's rule, quite a few articles through the years (news stories, not just opinion pieces) come up referring to him as dictator and/or authoritarian. What I'm wondering is, in those instances, did the Times ever issue an official retraction? They might well have, but I haven't been able to find any. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Don, also, please look at the sources I listed again. LA Times calls him dictator in the text. Wash Post calls him a dictator in the photo caption. I think I gave the CNN link incorrectly. Here's the right one: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/politics/fidel-castro-us-presidential-politics/ Scaleshombre (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

"President"?

The lede sentence states "President" though he was never democratically elected. That is a clear mistake. Some editors say that "dictator" carries a negative connotation, and since the entire world does not call him dictator, then Wikipedia should not either. If we were to follow that, then he should not be referred as president, because the entire world does not call him that, then Wikipedia should not either. IMO a person cannot be un-biased. Some editors refer to bias; yet if we look at their personal pages, we can find that they may be biased as well. That is the problem when the only logic applied is: let's see how many newspapers call him dictator and how many avoid doing it. So, what should we call him? Neutrality does not mean political correctness. NPV. In this case the lede sentence lacks proportion. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"President" was his official title... Plenty of presidents around the world were not elected to the position. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

For other dictators, the official title is not given because it would be nonsense. I was told here that consistency (on whether calling someone a dictator or not) was not required in Wikipedia. So, each article is decided on a case by case basis. President definition. Since consistency is not followed, then other cases do not apply here. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement that presidents be elected. TFD (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

President definition. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

By that definition, Gerald Ford was never president of the U.S. But I should have said "democratically elected. As the Routledge Dictionary of Politics, p.402, says, "they must in some sense be elected."[75] Castro was elected by the legislature. OTOH lots of presidents have assumed powers through military coups, although they usually seek to legitimize their rule through semi-constitutional means or plebiscites. Whether or not we refer to them as presidents depends on what reliable sources do. TFD (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Academic sources on Castro's dictatorship

We all agree any decision by WP to refer to Castro as a dictator should hinge on the quality and quantity of RS. Much of the discussion above cites mass media. As editors on either side of the debate, I think we should dig more heavily into scholarly research. For example, Cambridge's peer-reviewed Journal of Latin American Studies, one of the world's most respected scholarly voices on Cuba, published Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner, during the height of Castro's rule. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Defining the Revolutionary Totalitarian Personality: The Parallel Lives of Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro Comparative Sociology, 10 July 2014, Vol.13(3), pp.383-409. Read Section 2 Defining Totalitarianism. Section 1 has good insights. Beginning of page 389 talks about CDR (Comite de Defensa de la Revolucion) This is the WP page, read what this organization does. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Also important is that Comparative Sociology is a first-rate RS, a respected peer-reviewed journal. Fidel wanted history to be his judge (just like Hitler). It's clear how history's verdict is shaping up. WP has legions of bright, objective editors. I'm confident it won't be long before Castro's WP article reflects the historical record. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

WHEN CASTRO BECAME A COMMUNIST:. Go to footnote 11. Read "Destroying the evidence". Institute for U.S.-Cuba Relations Occasional Paper Series, Vol.1, No.1 November 3, 1997. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Consistency across articles

Many editors, myself included, quote other articles using the word dictator in the lede sentence. Others quote other articles that do not even have that word in the lede. Is there any criteria for consistency? It seems to me that there is none. Therefore, every article is debated on its own merits. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Jhaydn2016, that is what is known as an WP:Other stuff exists argument, so yes, every article is debated on its own merits. Otherwise, in the present context, we would be endlessly arguing if person X, why not person Y? To which the only answer is "you'll have to ask that question to the sources who've written about X and Y" and seperately to the editors writing the X and Y articles. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I know this is not the WP way, citing other crap exists, but there should be consistency among other articles. What about Hitler, Stalin, Strossner, Mugabe, Pol Pot, etc? Is there consistency in WP? The next step would be to see what terms are used in English speaking countries around the world, such as New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, South Africa, USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, etc. Usernamen1 (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fidel's own definition

If Fidel would have said that the government that he was instantiating was a dictatorship; would you agree with him?

• Fundacion Dalnet and Universidad de la Rioja (Spain) “Fidel Castro, cuatro fases de un liderazgo inacabado”. Go for the link that says “Texto Completo (pdf)”. The quote is at the end of Pg 9 of the actual paper, pg 7 of the pdf. "La dictadura debe ser substituida por un gobierno provisional de carácter enteramente civil que normalice el país y celebre elecciones generales en plazo no mayor de un año." "The dictatorship must be replaced by an interim government of an entirely civilian character that normalizes the country and holds general elections in a term not greater than one year."
• The end of page 6 and beg of 7 of the actual paper are rather good as well.
• And for those who want some statistics, go to the last section. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

He may have been using the term in the Communist sense, "Dictatorship of the proletariat" - which is theoretical and is quite a different thing from the one-person, strong-man rule that most of us mean when we say "dictator" (and that most of us here are debating). --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry [MelanieN] but when should I believe Fidel? When he said that he was not a communist and then he was? “I am not a communist and neither is the revolutionary movement.” Or maybe when he said that the dictatorship would be replaced by an interim government and then it wasn't? I provided a fact, and you still do not consider it. You provided a supposition ("He may have been using the term in the communist sense"). How do you know this? I am sorry but a supposition does not weight the same as a fact. And even if your supposition is true, he may have thought that at one time, and then he stopped thinking that at another time. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Jhyadn, I suggest you flesh out this quote a little more. The article itself is quoting from the "diary of the Cuban revolution" by Carlos Franqui who, as you know, was accused of being in league with the CIA by the Cuban government. I don't have access to the original at the moment, but from the quote (if it is legitimate) Castro may well have been referring to the dictatorship of Batista. So, if you can produce the original context from Franqui and put that here, it would be useful. Regardless, this quote would tell us little about the character of the government that was actually formed; only about what the revolutionaries thought they would form after displacing Batista. As we know these ideas evolved substantially in subsequent years. Jacob2718 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the original yet. However, anything after whatever dictatorship he might have been referring to should have lasted not more than one year. But he died without ever holding "general elections" 57 years later. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

“No somos ni seremos comunista. Nuestra revolución es genuinamente democrática, geniunamente cubana.” Fidel en el Club de Leones/13 de enero de 1959. "We are not and we will not be communist. Our revolution is genuinely democratic, genuinely Cuban." In the following link please find more contradictions. Plus see the two videos were you can also hear the contradictions. Listen to Fidel say he is not communist, and later say that he is Marxist-Leninist. this is also another instance of negation. Video Jhaydn2016 (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you may want to listen to Juanita Castro, which is the sister of Fidel. "La realidad es que mi hermano es el dictador de Cuba": Juanita Castro dice que no irá al sepelio. "The reality is that my brother is Cuba's dictator". Jhaydn2016 (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct. In fact in the sections covering the period from 1959-62 (covering his consolidation of power and the Bay of Pigs invasion) already discuss this point and the evolution of the politics of the government, and its attitude towards elections. It may be useful to expand this a little in the article, with some further analysis. It is useful and historically instructive. But this information has no bearing on whether "dictator" should appear in the lede. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it has bearing on whether "dictator" should appear in the lede sentece. It needs to be taken into consideration with all the other facts provided. No just as an isolated comment. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Jhaydn2016, you began the thread by saying, "If Fidel would have said that the government that he was instantiating was a dictatorship; would you agree with him?" When it was pointed out Castro made no such claim, you responded, "I am sorry [MelanieN] but when should I believe Fidel?" And your representation of Castro's "I am not a communist" statement, which he made April 24, 1959, is misleading. The Communist party of Cuba supported Batista, while Castro wanted a Western European style economy in alliance with the U.S. Few observers thought he was a communist at that time. TFD (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

First, it was not pointed out as a fact, but as a possibility "Castro may well have been referring". I am looking for the original article. Second, my representation of him saying that he was not a communist is not misleading. Be serious now. You heard him. Right? Whatever "you say" that "Castro wanted" would require for you to know what was inside his mind. Now, you can search for the article in which he says that. However, I have clearly and undoubtedly demonstrated that he first said one thing, and then he said totally the opposite. Not a very trustworthy person. Don't you agree? And besides, you remain silent about this sentence "However, anything after whatever dictatorship he might have been referring to should have lasted not more than one year. But he died without ever holding "general elections" 57 years later." Jhaydn2016 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

By your reasoning, anyone could be a Communist. Furthermore, we could never say that Castro ever became a Communist. Fortunately, we can compensate for our lack of mind-reading skills through use of reliable sources. Castro was not a communist, did not belong to the Communist Party, when he lead his revolution and only became one after the U.S. decided to terminate his presidency. TFD (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

How do you prove that? How can you know when he decided to become a Communist and why? "Castro was not a communist, did not belong to the Communist party, ... and only became one after the U.S. decided to terminate his presidency" How can you prove this? Luckily, I can prove totally the opposite. WHEN CASTRO BECAME A COMMUNIST:. Go to footnote 11 "Diaz-Balart knew Castro personally, his sister Mirta once having been married to Castro." Read "Destroying the evidence". Jhaydn2016 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, from having read the main biographies of Castro (and his autobiography), he was actually a convinced Marxist from a fairly early period, as was his brother. However, Fidel concealed his beliefs before and during the revolution while Raul's were well-known (as he had joined the PSP etc). Fidel continued to deny any communist leanings during the Revolution and on taking power, in particular to Americans, because he wanted to attract their sympathies in his struggle against Batista (the U.S. media and government certainly were never going to offer any support to a communist revolutionary). Only when he began openly establishing a relationship with the USSR in the early 1960s did he come out openly with his Marxist-Leninist allegiances. This generated a view within the United States that Castro had only become a Marxist-Leninist after taking power, whereas in fact he had been one for many years prior, albeit secretly. Of course, this account may come to be critiqued by historians of the future, but this is how historical understanding stands at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

On whether Cuba allowed general elections from the beginning, please read this book People's Power: Cuba's Experience with Representative Government contribution of Guccisamsclub. Raul Castro said: " In the first years of the Revolution we were not equipped to face the task of setting up representative institutions. ... We should add a certain lack of experience and understanding on the part of many of us regarding the importance of these representative institutions". And Fidel said: "There wasn't any classical legislative power, no judicial power or anything else left, because all that disappeared on January 1 [1959], with the collapse of the Batista regime. A de facto revolutionary government was established, and the laws were enacted by decree." beginning of page 63. "William LeoGrande characterized the fist years after the revolutionary takeover as a kind of guerrilla administration". pg.63. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite right, Jhaydn2016. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.