Talk:Fidel Castro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| ↓ | Skip to table of contents | ↓ |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fidel Castro article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | |||
 |
Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read the recent comments, or look in the archives or FAQ section before contributing. New topics for discussion are always welcome. |
| This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. |
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated B-Class) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | |||||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions. |
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of Fidel Castro. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fidel Castro at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. |
edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Fidel Castro: |
|
|---|---|
|
|
 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 2, 2004, January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2006. |
Contents |
[edit] Education
Someone added "Better known for going to elite Jesuit Colegio de Dolores." to info about Fidel on the Belen Jesuit school entry. I feel that info is irrelevant. Could someone please add it to his entry, because I cannot do so without an account which I have no intrest in creating. Refrence here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/05/AR2007070502153.html
[edit] False rumors of his death
It's just propoganda 151.204.231.122 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)natejoe When he actually dies, surely he will lie in state; have a massive funeral with hundreds of thousands of people attending, lining the streets of the funeral procession. I can't see how or why, when he dies, it would be kept secret. Thousands of his supporters will be crying in the streets, and a larger number, many of them in the USA, will cheer that a major enemy has permanently ceased to be a problem. The idea put forward by many people, including some on this page, that he died weeks or months ago and that his 'death' has been covered up - is surely nonsense. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, many Cubans will mourn his passing. They have no choice, in the matter. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- I don't think so. Mourning can't be really forced to individuals. So when the time comes you might see images and commentaries that suggest so but that doesn't make it real in whole. Anyway, guess we can wait just a little bit longer after so many years till there is some outcome we can add to the article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"Mourning can't be really forced to individuals"? Hah! Tell that to all the NOrth Koreans made to march and show remorse in one memorial after another for the dead "Eternal President" of North Korea, or all the millions of people, especially those in the Warsaw Pact countries and the Ukraine, who went through the public motions of grief after Stalin died. 68.164.4.53 (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- They wouldn't say he is dead because then Cuba would go crazy and people would be throwing parties,they might say that he's dead ten years later but not now when Cubans are still suffering because of his rule. I know this because my grandpa tried to kill Fidel before and he was sent to jail for seven years and everybody I know would just start like flipping cars over if they heard he was dead.Smartpotatoe (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK :oooooooooooooooooooooooooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.128.127 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The problem of with announcing Castro's death is the political turmoil the island is and would still be in for the next 10 years. Right now there are factions of people that want power and they are all in the same communist party in Cuba, and everone wants a piece of the pie and more; So Raul would need to make a run for his money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P70ferrer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
-
Castro died in the summer of 2006. Here is a brand new bogus photograph of him that was just released by the Cuban government. There's no physical contact between Castro and the other person in the image, and Castro isn't looking at the camera. There's a clear division down the middle of the picture between Castro and the other person. The Cuban government had previously published this picture of Castro holding an undated, Cuban-government printed newspaper. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
On October 29, 2006, the Wall St. Jouornal wrote: Did Brazilian President Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva misspeak when he said recently that it's a pity that Fidel Castro did not democratize the island while "he was still alive"? Or did he inadvertently blurt out a secret that only friends of the Cuban regime are supposed to know? Grundle2600 (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] typo - someone fix this
In the Decision For Revolution section, the phrase "Castro started to have money problems. He refused to go work and others..." is incorrect. It should read "He refused to go to work ..."
In the Years In Power section, the phrase "The mould was set." is not a proper sentence or idiom. The correct idiom, in that context, is The die is cast. (Reference: See Point of no return.)
Hey-Newsflash: NOBODy cares!
[edit] Dictator
Let's call things as they are. The introduction presents Fidel as a Prime Minister, President, Revolutionary... but the main point is, and that's not even mentioned: he was a Dictator, he came to power through a coup d'etat. Same as Pinochet, but just his political antipode. I think both articles should be synchronized, otherwise Wikipedia makes a veeeeery biased impression. --194.203.215.254 (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then find enough reliable sources to show, so that it can be verified, that the point of view you exposed is the mainstream point of view; then update the article accordingly. --LjL (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
um, adolf hitler came to power in a democratic republic germany. he was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. does that mean he wasnt a dictator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.70.116 (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- While he strongly denies being a dictator, a number of individuals and media outlets considered Castro to be a dictator himself. By all means, a subject's own description of himself must be presented before any other viewpoints, however, Wikipedia articles are not promotional areas by which the subject of the article may select how he or she is introduced. Richard (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- News Weekly [1]
- Orangeville Citizen [2]
- USA Today [3][4][5]
- Washington Times [6][7]
- WPLG [8]
- San Antonio Express-News [9]
- NPR [10]
- The Post and Courier [11]
- Associated Press [12]
- NY1 [13]
- CNN [14]
- firstcoastnews.com [15]
- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [16]
-
-
- Cuban National Assembly elects State Council every five years. Since 1976, Fidel Castro was always re-elected President of the State Council till his proclamation of leaving the presidency. So, dictator is quite a disputable title for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.140.181 (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Even if when he was "elected" as president, there is no question that for a period of time in the beginning of the revolution he was a dictator. He did promise multi-party elections to be held when he overthrew Batista and never held them. He had various co-revolutionaries that opposed his marxist beliefs were thrown in jail or executed. Isn't he like Stalin in that regard? so dictator should be one of his titles too.. Batista was elected President in a sham election in 1954, just as fidel has had his sham elections too. Whats the difference? Callelinea (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Dictator" is a formal title, but it is not one that Castro holds. In contemporary usage, "dictator" is an emotionally-loaded epithet, which has connotations of "tyrant", "monster", and the like. To call somebody a "dictator" these days is to assert an opinion--not to state a fact with which few, if any, will disagree. To this end, the article already notes that Castro's critics refer to him as a dictator (I've changed "describe as" to "refer to", as a "description" usually is more elaborate than a single word), and it doesn't need to push the matter any further. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Sources can call him whatever they feel like calling him. But an encyclopedia does not simply take name-calling for granted; it rather requires maximal objectivity, through which it can say that one has been called a highly debatable name, but through which it cannot so easily agree with this name and participate in the name-calling. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- P.P.S. And, speaking of horses (if you don't get it, don't worry about it), I should have just referred everyone to Talk:Fidel_Castro#Dictator_revisited, where the point I'm trying to make already has been made. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- It is incredible to me that there is a debate here on the question of whether Castro is/was a dictator (tyrant, despot, oppressor, authoritarian). Catsro is as much a dictator as Stalin, Lennin and Hitler ever were. Castro is no Jeffersonian democrat. When Castro read the novel "1984" I am sure he did not understand it was a warning, he must have thought it was a plan. He wanted to BE Big Brother!Natwebb (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which criteria for dictatorship you use to place Castro on the same level as Hitler and Stalin--even Len(n)in (half-Beatle, half-Bolshevik?). To me, comparing Castro to Hitler or Stalin is a bit like comparing a chihuahua to a T. rex: Castro didn't let millions die in concentration camps or Gulags; Castro didn't try to take over an entire continent. Perhaps, according to your definition of "dictator", these differences are nonessential or irrelevant. The problem (well, the first problem) is that there are too many definitions of "dictator". The second problem is that--even despite the multiple denotations--the connotations are not encyclopedic. If somebody whacks me with a wet trout, I may firmly believe that this person is "mean". Perhaps I couldn't even understand why anyone else wouldn't say he's mean. But if he happens to have an article on here, and if I'm editing it, I most definitely would not promote an opening sentence like, "Mr. Fish is a Wikipedian editor and a mean individual." Mean, monster, evil, tyrant, oddball, etc. are terms that implicitly moralize, whereas the encyclopedic voice is rather amoral and nonpartisan. It just doesn't care about that sort of thing. But the question is not whether Castro was a dictator, so much as whether "dictator" is an encyclopedic descriptor in the first place. As for the secondary question of whether it's an applicable one, you (and your sources) may say "yes", I (and mine) might say "no", and somebody else, simply having observed you and me, could say "maybe". As long as "maybe" factors in to the equation, the equation might not be much of an equation after all: A phrase like "Castro is a dictator" makes for a rather hasty copula. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok lets play stymatics then. He may not be in the same leagues as Stalin or Hitler but he is in the same league as Pinochet, Duvalier and Trujillo. He has killed thousands especially during his first 5 years in power. He has forced over 2 million Cubans into exile. So yea he is as much a dictaor or tyrant as any other Latin American dictator. Callelinea (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that the word "dictator" is inherently non-neutral. There are ways to describe actions in less partisan terms. Nobody denies that Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer or that Hannibal Lecter was a cannibal. But there are quite a bit of folks who would disagree that Castro is a "dictator". By the way, I used to insist that Pinochet be called a dictator on WP; but as I came to understand what an encyclopedia is really all about, I realized that my prior edits probably were not appropriate. I may feel that he was a dictator, but as long as a lot of people don't, I can't just imply on here that these people are misguided. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok lets play stymatics then. He may not be in the same leagues as Stalin or Hitler but he is in the same league as Pinochet, Duvalier and Trujillo. He has killed thousands especially during his first 5 years in power. He has forced over 2 million Cubans into exile. So yea he is as much a dictaor or tyrant as any other Latin American dictator. Callelinea (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which criteria for dictatorship you use to place Castro on the same level as Hitler and Stalin--even Len(n)in (half-Beatle, half-Bolshevik?). To me, comparing Castro to Hitler or Stalin is a bit like comparing a chihuahua to a T. rex: Castro didn't let millions die in concentration camps or Gulags; Castro didn't try to take over an entire continent. Perhaps, according to your definition of "dictator", these differences are nonessential or irrelevant. The problem (well, the first problem) is that there are too many definitions of "dictator". The second problem is that--even despite the multiple denotations--the connotations are not encyclopedic. If somebody whacks me with a wet trout, I may firmly believe that this person is "mean". Perhaps I couldn't even understand why anyone else wouldn't say he's mean. But if he happens to have an article on here, and if I'm editing it, I most definitely would not promote an opening sentence like, "Mr. Fish is a Wikipedian editor and a mean individual." Mean, monster, evil, tyrant, oddball, etc. are terms that implicitly moralize, whereas the encyclopedic voice is rather amoral and nonpartisan. It just doesn't care about that sort of thing. But the question is not whether Castro was a dictator, so much as whether "dictator" is an encyclopedic descriptor in the first place. As for the secondary question of whether it's an applicable one, you (and your sources) may say "yes", I (and mine) might say "no", and somebody else, simply having observed you and me, could say "maybe". As long as "maybe" factors in to the equation, the equation might not be much of an equation after all: A phrase like "Castro is a dictator" makes for a rather hasty copula. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is incredible to me that there is a debate here on the question of whether Castro is/was a dictator (tyrant, despot, oppressor, authoritarian). Catsro is as much a dictator as Stalin, Lennin and Hitler ever were. Castro is no Jeffersonian democrat. When Castro read the novel "1984" I am sure he did not understand it was a warning, he must have thought it was a plan. He wanted to BE Big Brother!Natwebb (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Even if when he was "elected" as president, there is no question that for a period of time in the beginning of the revolution he was a dictator. He did promise multi-party elections to be held when he overthrew Batista and never held them. He had various co-revolutionaries that opposed his marxist beliefs were thrown in jail or executed. Isn't he like Stalin in that regard? so dictator should be one of his titles too.. Batista was elected President in a sham election in 1954, just as fidel has had his sham elections too. Whats the difference? Callelinea (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cuban National Assembly elects State Council every five years. Since 1976, Fidel Castro was always re-elected President of the State Council till his proclamation of leaving the presidency. So, dictator is quite a disputable title for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.140.181 (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
-
[edit] Problems in the article
I have detected there is one photo can not be seing unless intentionallly opened and there mkhkhkhkh. --Vmmf (talk) 16:236, 03 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Canvassing
(outdent) Cerberus, this inquiry by you to User:Dodger67 could also be interpreted as an attempt to WP:CANVASS. Especially when you consider that Dodger's only edit presently on this talk page is him accusing the editors (breaking WP:NPA) here of being "Castro bootlickers". Exclusively seeking out someone who you believe may agree with your view (Roger is the only past editor that you made this request to) on a particular issue, is not proper Wiki protocol. Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Redthoreau, As I read WP:CANVASS, I stayed well in bounds. I picked Roger for three reasons (after considering some others): there was some activity on his talk page (unlike most editors of this page), he professed to be interested in balance, and he was not part of this page's triumvirate. I put little weight on the comment you cite because of its context and the kind of phrasing he finds amusing (which I deduced from his page). Naturally I would have preferred to ask a Cuba scholar, but sadly I could not find one. Suggestions welcome.
- That said, thanks for pointing me to WP:CANVASS, of which I was unaware. It seems clear to me that it authorizes a small number of public inquiries to other editors. Cerberus (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- I must admit that I don't understand Cerberus' argument. By his reasoning, you could not say "North Vietnam defeated U.S.-backed South Vietnam" because the last U.S. personnel pulled out moments before Saigon fell. The "U.S.-backed" phrasing is excrutiatingly well sourced and is perfectly clear to me, not withstanding the technical argument about when U.S. support ended. FWIW, I recommend keeping the phrase. Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight! Cwelgo (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Though I sympathize with Cerberus's fine point, I find it hard to rewrite the sentence, mainly because it is in one of the opening paragraphs. According to the sources, Batista's government was indeed backed by the US for most of its existence, but not at the end. To say all this in an introductory paragraph would make the section too cumbersome. But this is an important detail. Is Cerberus be willing to introduce this in a later paragraph within the body of the article? It would help with maintaining non POV (see WP:POV)--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems rather difficult to find an appropriate place to put further explanation within this article, since it deals with the life and actions of Fidel Castro. The article on Fulgencio Batista, wikilinked from the sentence in question, does indeed accurately describe the extent and timing of US support (i.e. right up 'til 11 days before Batista fled, although the arms embargo was the year before). So it's not like we're trying to hide or distort anything. Franamax (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Though I sympathize with Cerberus's fine point, I find it hard to rewrite the sentence, mainly because it is in one of the opening paragraphs. According to the sources, Batista's government was indeed backed by the US for most of its existence, but not at the end. To say all this in an introductory paragraph would make the section too cumbersome. But this is an important detail. Is Cerberus be willing to introduce this in a later paragraph within the body of the article? It would help with maintaining non POV (see WP:POV)--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
-
What about inserting something here like the sentence in italics:
In December 1958, the columns of Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos continued their advance through Las Villas province. They succeeded in occupying several towns, and then began preparations for an attack on Santa Clara, the provincial capital. Guevara's fighters launched a fierce assault on the Cuban army surrounding Santa Clara, and a vicious house-to-house battle ensued. They also derailed an armored train which Batista had sent to aid his troops in the city while Cienfuegos won the Battle of Yaguajay. Defeated on all sides, having lost all backup from the previously supportive US government, Batista's forces crumbled. The provincial capital was captured after less than a day of fighting on December 31, 1958.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable to me, it's neutral and factually true, so I went ahead and made a change.[17] However, I put the text in a slightly different place and added a sub-heading, since the "Battle of Yaguajay" section should be demarcated from the actual collapse of the government (and the collapse is probably a better place to clarify Cerberus's fine distinction). Franamax (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I finally made it back to this page and I must say I really like the changes. Thanks, Franamax for bringing this to such a satisfying resolution.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Resolved.[edit] Poltical beginnings
The section indicates that in "1948, Castro was thrice linked to political assassinations", but it only lists two deaths: Manolo Castro and Oscar Fernandez. Is there a third? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Fixed, the sources determined there were only 2 assassinations. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Resolved.[edit] Dictator revisited
Ok, if by "critics" you mean "the rest of the world" than yes, he is considered a dictator. This article needs to reflect the fact that during his regime ppl literally risked death to escape him, and that he was a dictator. Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Soxwon, have you ever been to Cuba? I have been there but my favorite island is Barbados, which I have been to many times, but I have also been to Bermuda, St Martin, Anguila, and St Lucia. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe not. Cuba is just another Caribbean country and America has turned it into a rogue nation. I would rather visit there than Iran, North Korea or many of the other countries that the US considers more worthy of their respect. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Could be considered a dictator a man whom has been elected every five years by a National Assembly, which is elected also every five years? The candidates for elections are not postulated by parties, they are postulated at their neighborhoods by their neighbors. Since 1976, Fidel Castro has been postulated by a district at Santiago de Cuba every five years to integrate National Assembly, and then elected as President of the State Council by each legislature of each elected National Assembly. So, dictator?
-
-
- I think we should avoid terms like dictator, tyrant, despot, or satrap, except when using them in their original meanings. Of course articles should include informed opinions which classify Castro as a dictator. Cuba is regularly portrayed in American media in a biased manner. It actually surpasses many other W. hemisphere countries in literacy public, health and other factors. Nonetheless Cuba does not allow opposition parties to form or to present candidates for office. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This being an encyclopedia, we should strive to present the facts in a non POV manner. When the article says that "Many of Castro's critics describe him as a dictator", that is a factually accurate statement. We are not attesting to the truth or falsity of this description, but simply acknowledging its existence. Similarly, it is entirely appropriate to present the opposite view, as long as properly sourced. Many view Castro as the savior of Cuba and a benefactor. It would be a good idea to present that in the same paragraph. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] NPOV?
"Castro has been portrayed as a dictator in spite of his disapproval of dictatorships."
Um...yeah. Where was his disapproval of the USSR, North Vietnam, Ethiopia under Mengistu, or Angola? He disapproved of pro-Western dictators (Papa Doc Duvalier, Alfredo Stroessner, Augusto Pinochet, etc.), but he never disapproved of the USSR and its satellites. Josh (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The letter and Fidel Castro's age
In the letter composed to Franklin Roosevelt, Fidel Castro writes: "I am twelve years old". However, the image caption says it was "written by the 14-year-old Castro". Shouldn't the caption be fixed?. --Kray0n (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Castro says in the letter he is 12 years old, however he was born August 13, 1926, the letter is written on 06 November 1940, Castro would have been age 14 years, 2 months, 24 days old when he wrote the letter. Even at this early age he was lying to the U. S. President.Natwebb (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
