Talk:Fidel Castro

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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" [1]. But you are more obsessed with inserting ideological which is a huge problem in 20th Century Latin American articles. Leaders of authoritarian right-wing regimes with murders are called facsist dictators, but if similar regimes happened to have called themselves Marxist, you'd just like to call them "iconic revolutionary leader and president". --Pudeo (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Survey

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)

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."[2] See for example the Encyclopedia Britannica. It describes Castro as "poltical leader of Cuba."[3] while his predecessor, Fulgencio Batista, is described as "Cuban dictator." Whether or not mainstream sources are fair in using this distinction, we should follow it. TFD (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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".[4] 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.;[5] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Protected edit request on 28 November 2016

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)

"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)

"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.)[6] 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)

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, the again, the USA, USSR, and a host of other nations were involved in those conflicts. If you believe Cuba's support of African revolutionary movements should be held against hi 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. Combing those things the the modern Cuban government may have killed as many as 25,000 - 30,000 people. 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)

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)

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)