Talk:Fidel Castro

; Archives
	Archive 1 (2003 → December 2004); Archive 2 (2004 → February 2005); Archive 3 (March → May 2005); Archive 4 (May → June 2005); Archive 5 was a duplicate of Archive 6; Archive 6 (June → September 2005); Archive 7 (September → October 2005); Archive 8 (October → January 2006); Archive 9 deleted: only contents were "save page"; Archive 10 (January → April 2006); Archive 11 (April → May 2006); Archive 12 (June 19 → August 4, 2006);

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:TrollWarning

Biography A‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
A	This article has been rated as A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Fidel Castro was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

An event in this article is a January 1 selected anniversary

What happened to archive 5 and 9? CJK 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the deletion log, archive 5 was a duplicate of archive 6, and archive 9 was deleted because its only contents were "save page" – Gurch 14:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of genitals

I reverted the image on the page. It was completely inappropriate. I would love to know who did it. They should be blocked. Why is this article such a magnet for vandals recently? Is this page semi-protected?--Chili14 (Talk)

What pic? You dont appear to have edited the article at all. TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but when I got to the article, it had a picture of human genitals and I went to delete it and when I clicked the save page button, it was no longer there. I think I might have done it before I logged in... check for IP edits. But, I ask again: Why is this page not semi-protected? It could benefit a lot from it. At least until we know for sure that he is dead or alive.--Ch ili 14 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How gross. And I agree. Try the requst for page protection page or if there are any admins out there? TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vandal magnet because a lot of people dislike Fidel really really really much; and they're reminded by it by the recent media attention to him. As they are too stupid to engage in actual political work, they think they somehow discredit Fidel by inserting picture of genitals into an article read by absolutely noone living in Cuba. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now semi-protected. I just logged out and tried to edit this article and it said 'View Source". So that's done.--Ch ili 14 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is also on the main page, and many pages that get linked to the main page are heavy vandal targets. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jobjörn, people have good reasons to dislike this dictator, but I agree that pictures of genitalia are absolutely inappropriate for this article. Actually, I doubt that whoever did it even cares about Fidel either way and had any motive other than vandalizing the article to get "a kick" out of it.--Tuxley 10:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know. I don't like him either. Protest against the dictatorship anywhere and everywhere, but NOT in the encyclopedia! And considering the many vandals stating his evil, a dictator, a piece of genitals etc, it's quite clear they don't like him. It just shows these right-wingers are just as stupid as the left-wingers vandalizing George W. Bush. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, I do not think the vandalism might be politically motivated at all, since vandals want to insert their dicks whenever they can on anything. Plus, with it being on the main page, their resulting damage can be big, and not hard to find since it is linked there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Castro tripping

In these two edits, Demfourlife refers to the talk page regarding the issue of the image he inserted. However, I fail to find any discussion on the image in question (except an old and finished one, concerning another image).

As thus, I'm beginning again!

To me, the image feels slightly out of context. The size of the "image" (consisting of SIX images) is relevant to TWO lines in the article. I definitely think that image should be replaced with a WAY smaller one, for example one of the six images the large one is composed of. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I thought I should investigate why Demfourlife referred to the talk page, so I looked up his latest edit to it, which was two days ago and consisting of this not all too polite diff. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found, and discussed this image with him, at Talk:Fidel_Castro#picture_of_Castro_falling. I also cropped the image to where it is just one frame, since that was probably one of the reasons why it was deleted in the past since it was almost a college of images from possible mulitple sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Yes, I re-inserted your one-frame image into the article again as per talk page consensus (meaning you and me, the only ones to have partaken in the discussion), despite him trying to use the old multi-framed one. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also deleted the multi-frame photo since it is redundant to the image we already have. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, I'm speaking with an admin! :P Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just figured it out :P User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one frame is perfectly ok! :) :) :). Mission accomplished! Thanks Zscout for your input with all of this! (Demfourlife)

Welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be a picture of Castro falling if we can't have George W Bush falling off a Segway? Blue Leopard 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the decision you have to decide at Bush's article. But if you decide to get that photo; cite the source and make sure you have a valid fair use claim. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That several year old image has little to do with 'Succession issues', and in my opinion is unencylopedic. Further, it seems to be over the line towards the anti-Castro POV, and we should try to error on the neutral side, and not add even more extreme POV issues. This article is challenging to keep at a neutral POV, that image clearly hurts the goal of keeping the article neutral. BruceHallman 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the picture (related to his health) is very much related to "succession issues" - that entire section deals with his health problems, more or less. Furthermore; I fail to see why a picture of a person falling would be considered a bias against said person... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the photo I uploader; so if it is decided to use that photo again, i'll just undelete it (yes, we have photo undeletion now). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the pic of Casto's fall??? It was deleteted?? Put it back and stop vandalizing!!!--Demfourlife 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BruceHallman had not been part of the discussion for a while now regarding the picture of Fidel castro. I, demfourlife, had a problem with the POV picture of Fidel castro walking down a red carpet. After much discussion, after heated conversations and explainations, I agreed to not fight the red carpet pic if a pic of the dictator was allowed to be shown in balance. It was finally agreed that the pic of Fidel falling would stay on. There is an entire section devoted to his health. It was agreed that it fit. Now this BruceHallman guy decided that the pic is POV cause he says so and removes it. No other person dissagreed when it was decided that the pic would stay up. Who is this guy? I thought that Wikipedia says anytime there was a dispute to try and solve it like men and women by discussing it which is what we did. Why does this guy remove the pic?

Zscout or any other want to input on this? If this is the case, then please tell me how to file a formal complaint and with who?--Demfourlife 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demfourlife, about the image deletions, come talk to me about them. I'll take care of it since the deletions were performed by me. The reason why is that unused fair use photos are deleted, so what I will do is undelete the version where it is one frame (originally six) and stick it back in the article. If the falling photo is kept, can the photo of Castro on the red-carpet be kept as well? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the one frame photo has been restored, the red carpet photo is still in the article. Does this sound good? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would still have a problem with the pic glamorizing the dictator on a red carpet, fair is fair. I would not have a problem in keeping the pic of the guy on the red carpet. If it were not for people like you Zscout, I would have given up on Wikipedia a long time agao. Thanks for being fair and for playing "Switzerland." lol

Watchlist

How many people have this article on their watchlists?--Ch ili 14 02:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so do I (demfourlife)

And I, along with 150 other articles, some noteworthy, some not, some interesting to me, some not, some hunted by vandalism, some not. Demfourlife, did you know you can sign your name, leaving a link to your userpage and a timestamp, by typing in four tildes (~~~~~)? It ends up like this (in my case, that is): Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he signed out, since his last edits were done by an IP address. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folha de Sao Paolo

The name of the Brazilian newspaper is spelled incorrectly as Folha de Sao Paolo. The correct name of it is Folha de São Paulo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.227.33 (talk • contribs)

Please do go ahead and edit! Uhm, no, wait, you probably can't... I'll do it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jobjörn is kidding right? He is actually throwing his "wikipedia weight" around? Bragging that he is the only one who can edit when he locks the site. This guy must not have no life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.9.161 (talk • contribs)

YOU'RE kidding, right? I tend to encourage users to edit away faults they find and mention on the talk page, and as such get pushed into actually editing the encyclopedia for themselves. I've done this countless times. As it happens; s/he probably wouldn't be able to edit the article considering it's semi-protected (I think), and as thus, someone else has to do it - like myself. And I did. And it was NOT to throw my "wikipedia weight" around.

Further, I haven't "locked the site" - I'm not an administrator; I'm a perfectly regular wikipedian. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now unprotected.--Ch ili 14 17:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]