Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overuse of the "totalitarian label"[edit]

"Totalitarian" appears five times in the article. While it's mostly adequately sourced, it is given way more weight than it deserves. The sources may be "reliable", but it does not mean they are using the label in a way that is suitable for an encyclopedia. For example the Shah's regime in Iran was described as "totalitarian" (in part or in whole) in several reliable sources, despite it being infinitely more liberal than than the regimes we commonly view as "totalitarian" (Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia). But since, Anglo-American editors don't have a beef with him, his article does not contain this terminology, and rightly so. I don't have any iron-clad policy case here, but I do believe we should exercise more discretion in using this kind of language to avoid crying wolf. Perhaps others can weigh in on the issue. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany was more liberal till 1938 than Castro's Cuba.Xx236 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of article and validity of citations[edit]

This article does not seem to have any strong bias. It is clearly written to give as complete a history of Fidel Castro as possible while sticking as closely as possible to the irrefutable facts, neither favoring him nor painting him in a negative light.

Similarly, I checked a few citations. The citations come from a wide range of sources. Every source that I checked was reliable and did not present too much bias.

In conclusion, I believe the article to be neutral and void of any strong bias, and I consider the sources to be generally reliable. Njaradat (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017[edit]

99.238.139.219 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reference whatsoever to his relations with women & his sense of masculinity resulting or indulged by it? Ann Louise Bardach interviewed him in Vanity Fair & wrote a book detailing it. He is credibly thought to have slept with tens of thousands. That & no mention of his wives or children despite significant detail elsewhere within the personal section that make it at the very least problematic. How is it not an invitation to doubt the entirety of the article when so much is missing here?

 Not done That proposal sounds like plain vandalism. The article is semi-protected precisely to keep such nonsenses out of it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

As it is this article has too much POV to be useful.I don't expect given the controversial nature of Castro in the U.S. this to change as there are far too many people with agendas contributing to this page.OSlatter (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to suggest changes if you have expertise in the area. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to explain my recent edits. Gott is somewhat known for his position supporting the left, I haven't seen many other biased opinions in the reception section except for maybe world leaders and Castro's biographer, so that is why I tried to attribute Gott's views. Also in the lede, it read like US policy against Castro came from nowhere when it was more due to his views and relationship with the Soviet Union. Just don't want to seem like I'm pushing a POV here, just trying to have what is read make sense.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for American opposition to Castro (and for US Cold War policy in other cases) are complex and cannot be reduced to "Anti-Commmunism," per WP:NPOV and WP:V. Gott was not a member of any Communist party to my knowledge, and the allegations of his "ties" to Soviet operatives just that: allegations. More fundamentally, an established historian is a historian is a historian. We don't preface every statement by Robert Conquest with "MI6 propagandist and spy." Let's drop this issue: it's a non-starter. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that he is a spy or anything, he just sympathizes Castro. We could just as well put the opinions against Castro there as well, but the back and forth of sources would not be NPOV. And maybe we should try to provide the best reasons in the lede as to why the US opposed Castro so the sentence doesn't seem so weird.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, calling things "propaganda" or "mccarthyism" or whatever is not the best way to address things. Just trying to help.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being frank, which is not the same as being "disrespectful." There were many reasons why the US opposed Castro: suspected/anticipated Communism was one, the Monroe Doctrine is another etc. I've already replied to the stuff about Gott. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Gott I'm not worried about since Castro is compared to Hitler and Mussolini later, which is pretty heavy POV too, but never mind. For US opposition, maybe word it as like "turn toward communism" and toward the Soviet Union? We should have an explanation.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read "Consolidating leadership: 1959–1960": your statement does adequately and neutrally summarize the sequence of events described. The US began to undermine the Castro government before any hostile alliance between Cuba and the USSR materialized and before Cuba became a one-party Communist state. The tendency to greater "hostility" was mutually reinforcing. Even "hostility" is a term that needs unpacking: Cuba faced far more hostility from the US than the other way around. The US also conducted coups against plenty of non-communist regimes during the Cold War, and plenty of colonial expeditions before that period which had nothing to fo with Communism. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read some of what John F Kennedy said in October 1960, before the Bay of Pigs incident in 1961. It seems like it has to do more with communism and USSR relations, as well as US property. I'm pretty sure we can find an explanation, it does not have to be a single answer but we need an answer.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"as well as US property." The answers are provided in the body of the article, and they are far more encyclopedic than transparently ideological POV statements about the US defending it's business interests or the US opposing "Communism". Also, JFK is not a reliable source. This article makes it clear enough that anti-Communism/Communism was one of the reasons for US hostility, so your edit seems to beating a dead horse. BUT more importantly, it is just plain wrong to reduce the conflict to any one narrative, or to two mutually-exclusive or incomplete narratives. And before any grand narratives are inserted, they have to be exhaustively documented in the body of the article, which is not something you've attempted to do. Changes to the lead, especially in a GA-rated article, cannot precede careful documented research in the body.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The review of Gott's book by Adam Feinstein in The Guardian says it is "likely that Gott's book will remain the standard work on Cuba for many years to come."[1] Calling him a "Castro sympathizer" detracts from the fact that his assessment is basically how most scholars see Castro. Also, U.S. hostility to Castro pre-dates his embrace of Communism and the Soviet Union, which in fact backed Batista. Castro's embrace of Communism came as a result of U.S. hostility. And the embargo has been universally condemned. In October's UN vote, 191 nations condemned it, while the U.S. and Israel abstained.[2] TFD (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good. My few edits were the only things I really found that stood out to me in this article that might have had to be changed. US part in the lede could be improved, but the article is more about Castro and not his relationship with other entities. Wasn't trying to place one POV, only trying to provide an explanation, but Cuban related articles seem to have many intricacies like other articles I devoted too much time to. Off to wherever Wikipedia takes me next! Thanks you two.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Positive and negative views in introduction[edit]

I realise this is probably a result of a good faith attempt to be "even handed", however, as the overall legacy of Fidel Castro and international opinion of him is positive, shouldn't less space in the introduction be given to supposed criticism? I notice, time and time again when it comes to articles on Marxist-Leninist or anti-imperialist leaders, military actions and alleged "human rights abuses" are attributed to the individual leader to the extent that is not applied to US presidents. On the article of Harry S. Truman for example, the introduction even allows excuses as to why dropping nuclear warheads on Japanese civilians was so great. This introduction does not give reasons as to why Castro may have had to move to suppress internal counter-revolutionaries forces. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also. But this being the English WP, edited and read by people in the English speaking world, mostly I would think living in the US, Canada and the UK, in this particular cultural universe, I don't think the "international opinion of him is positive." On the contrary, I guess that in this cultural universe the views and opinions about him are mostly negative, as you see below. warshy (¥¥) 22:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. Your premise is incorrect: the "overall legacy and international opinion" is not a positive one. He has a god number of supporters, yes, but he's still the quintessential dictator, and has a lot of criticism as well. Truman, on the other hand, was not a dictator, and in fact there is a big number of people who do think that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the appropiate action in the context of the war. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm from Argentina. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Castro was a pall-bearer when Canada's PM, Pierre Trudeau died, and half of Cuba's tourists come from Canada. The anti-Cuba thing is more a relic of Cold War anti-Communism. TFD (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it awkward to talk about outdated discussions in a discussion that is still raising the issue of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagazaki. Cambalachero (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lede bends over backwards to avoid offending Castroites. There's not even a hint of his dictatorship until the fourth paragraph. Scaleshombre (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these issues have already been fairly extensively debated on the Talk Page over the past few years. I'd recommend that anyone who wants to re-open this can of worms read back through the TP archives first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fidel Castro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal visits[edit]

Re

  • Neill, Brennan (28 November 2016). "How 1 man brought Fidel Castro to Montreal in April 1959". Claude Dupras, then the 26-year-old president of the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Montreal, invited Fidel Castro to visit the city for a toy drive to benefit Cuban children. Dupras never expected the Cuban leader, who just three months earlier had seized power in the revolution, to accept his invitation. Then he got the head's up: Castro would be in Montreal April 26, 1959.

I assume this was Fidel's first visit to Montreal. Does anyone know if he visited a 2nd time? Looking for sources with dates. I only see the 1959 mention which I will add this as a supporting source for. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this important? --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Comandante?[edit]

Why does "¿El Comandante?" redirect here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. El Comandante does, since it was apparently a common term for him in Spanish, though our article doesn't actually explain that, and should.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator[edit]

The page is not impartial, it has political inclinations. Fidel Castro was a dictator. On the page about Augusto Pinochet, he is described as a dictator. If he is described as such, why not Fidel? Pinochet was the ruler of Chile for only 17 years (1973-1990), while Fidel was a tyrant for 49 years (1959-2008). There is left-wing political overview on this article, and the impartiality principle is compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:7D81:1C22:51C3:9723:3A1E:2980 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because we follow usage in reliable tertiary sources such as reputable encyclopedias and university textbooks. Impartiality does not mean equal treatment, just that the treatment will reflect mainstream usage. TFD (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't; we follow secondary sources in the aggregate (which is also what proper tertiary sources do). There is clearly a PoV problem happening here, since there is no question whatsoever that Castro was a dictator (or, rather, rapidly became and remained one).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long discussion about this when he died. Some people listed sources that call Castro a dictator, to support the point of calling him a dictator. Others listed sources that talk about him without using the term, to support the point of not calling him a dictator. I asked for sources that actually deny that Castro is a dictator (not just in their choice of words, but something like "Castro is not a dictator because..."). Nobody provided such sources. My opinion? Call a spade a spade. Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Havana Declarations[edit]

Various articles refer to Castro's Havana Declaration, Declaration of Havana, Havana Declarations, Declarations of Havana, First Havana Declaration, First Declaration of Havana, Second Havana Declaration, Second Declaration of Havana, 1st Havana Declaration, 1st Declaration of Havana, 2nd Havana Declaration, 2nd Declaration of Havana, Havana Declaration of 1979, 1979 Havana Declaration, etc. These are all redlinks, and this article only mentions one of them. Information on this stuff needs to be put somewhere, with all these terms redirecting to it, and linked from where they occur.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original, like JFK's Profiles in Courage, was the pamphlet "La Historia Me Absolvera" which came from his History Will Absolve Me defense speech after he led an attack on the Moncada Barracks.Simbagraphix (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Simbagraphix (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

¿fiˈðel? exasperated![edit]

the pronunciation of fiˈðel in the sound file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Es-Fidel_Castro.ogg is clearly "D" and not "hard TH". Then I clicked ð and went to the Spanish IPA page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Spanish and I looked up those example ð words in various places and on google translate (sound) and frankly, for the most part those ð's are pretty aspirational (<-- pun was serendipitous yet entirely misleading), i.e. seems that folks wish those unaspirated D's were pronounced more aspirated ð than they are. Is this the best IPA can do, and is Castilian Fidel the appropriate pronunciation guide to this Caribbean communist dictator's name? 98.7.192.88 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DMY[edit]

The vast majority of biographical articles about Cuban people use the DMY format, but the Fidel Castro article uses MDY. Would it be uncontroversial to just jump in and change that, or is there a specific reason it uses MDY? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC):[reply]

  • I suspect that it follows MDY because it's topic is North American and MDY is more standard in the U.S., but I'd be more than happy to see the chance made. DMY is a more straightforward system. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would object to that. But YMD is not unheard of in NA (US military), it's straightforward, unambiguous, less confusing to those more used to both MDY & DMY, and most especially, it sorts nicely. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the discussion above about what system is the most readable, would anyone object to a switch to DMY on this article? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018[edit]

The section: Consolidating leadership: 1959–1960 Back in Cuba, Castro feared a U.S.-backed coup; in 1959 his regime spent $120 million on Soviet, French, and Belgian weaponry and by early 1960 had doubled the size of Cuba's armed forces.[170] Fearing counter-revolutionary elements in the army, the government created a People's Militia to arm citizens favorable to the revolution, training at least 50,000 civilians in combat techniques.[171] In September 1960, they created the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), a nationwide civilian organization which implemented neighborhood spying to detect counter-revolutionary activities as well as organizing health and education campaigns, becoming a conduit for public complaints. By 1970, a third of the population would be involved in the CDR, and this would eventually rise to 80%.[172]

Add this after that paragraph:

Despite the fear of a coupe, Castro garnered support in New York City. In on February 18th, 1961, 400 people-- mainly Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and college students-- picketed in the rain outside of the United Nations rallying for Castro's anti-colonial values and his effort to reduce the United States' power over Cuba. The protesters held up signs that read, "Mr. Kennedy, Cuba is Not For Sale.", "Viva Fidel Castro!" and "Down With Yankee Imperialism!". Around 200 policemen were on the scene, but the protesters continued to chant slogans and throw pennies in support of Fidel Castro's socialist movement. Some Americans disagreed with President Kennedy's choice to ban trade with Cuba, and outwardly supported his nationalist revolutionary tactics.

Citation: By, P. B. (1961, Feb 19). 400 picket U.N. in salute to castro and lumumba. New York Times (1923-Current File) accessed from: https://www.nytimes.com/1961/02/19/archives/400-picket-un-in-salute-to-castro-and-lumumba-pickets-march-at-un-3.html Tara.fort (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done JC7V-talk 18:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019[edit]

Fidel Castro is also a playable character in Call of Duty: Black Ops 108.29.222.106 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC) 108.29.222.106 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Biased[edit]

"Under Castro's leadership, Cuba became one of the best-educated and healthiest societies in the Third World as well as one of the most militarised states in Latin America.[426] Despite its small size and limited economic weight, Castro's Cuba gained a large role in world affairs.[430]" biased and contentious opinion from the book? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What specific part of this text do you find objectionable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"one of the best-educated and healthiest societies in the Third World as well as one of the most militarised states in Latin America" claimed by whom? "gained a large role in world affairs" how and claimed by who, Midnightblueowl THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the author of the book in question, but also I image that there are statistics and objective facts to support these claims. Were Cuba's rates of formal education and literacy higher than those of other developing/Third World states during that period? Did it have a larger military per head of the population than most other Latin American states? If information can be brought forth that indicates that these claims are simply false then we should of course discuss removing or adapting the text. But they do not to me look particularly far-fetched not necessarily an NPOV violation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I will tagging those statements per WP:INTEXT. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:YESPOV, ImmortalWizard. In-text attribution is a good idea for contentious information; in this case, you've provided no evidence that it is contentious, only that you don't like it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I over analysed POV and attribution, but I want to make it clear that it wasn't because I "don't like it." I absolutely have no comments here influenced by my political views. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: even if it's undisputed, why not elaborately explain why Cuba was like that and provide stats? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I didn't read the whole thing. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein[edit]

Castro met with Jeffrey Epstein and a photo of the meeting was found in Epstein's home; the Miami Herald theorized that Epstein was looking to use Cuba as a refuge from U.S. law. I tried twice to include this info in Castro's article, but it was removed. I believe that this info is important, even if the two men met only once, as this article is designed to let readers draw their own conclusion about who Castro was using verified information. I am seeking consensus so as not to instigate an edit war.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

This is a WP:DUE issue. How is it relevant these two historical figures met? It's WP:NOTNEWS too. Because just the existence of minimal coverage doesn't make it relevant. Basically, had Epstein subsequently fled to Cuba and taken refuge from law enforcement, it might be relevant to Castro. But he did not. They met once and went their separate ways. And as such there's no significance to the topic of Fidel Castro here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Castro must have met with literally hundreds and perhaps even thousands of noted or famous people over the course of his life. I agree with Simon that this instance doesn't seem particularly important. If Castro biographers of the future begin to discuss it, then I would probably change my view, but at present I don't really see it as being warranted in the article. User:Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223:@Midnightblueowl: Here's a question for both of you: if the fall-out from the Epstein case resulted in an allegation of sexual misconduct on Castro's part becoming public, would that warrant mention in this article? I'm not saying that Castro will be accused of anything, but one of Epstein's alleged American victims said that she was sexually abused by "foreign presidents" and Castro is a foreign president that met Epstein. Again, there is currently no direct allegation against Castro but more court documents regarding the Epstein case may soon become public if a judge decides to make them public, and its plausible that Castro is one of the "foreign presidents" in question. Also, a photograph of Castro with Epstein was discovered in Epstein's home.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Possibly. I definitely think a much stronger case for including such an allegation could be made than simply for the fact that Castro met Epstein. But it also depends to what extend Reliable Sources give credence and coverage to the allegation. At present, however, such a discussion is purely hypothetical given that no such allegation has yet been made (at least publicly). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Entertaining such speculation falls under WP:NOTFORUM. And I have a photo together with Charlaine Harris but you can bet I am not relevant to her Wikipedia page. If this is all, I think we are done here. Simonm223 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: I would never put speculation into a Wiki article. I merely wanted wanted an answer.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Inserting speculation via guilt-by-the-slightest-of-associations is what you seem like you are trying. Right now. By attempting to argue for the insertion of this undue trivia. I'd suggest dropping it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Castro must be described as a dictator[edit]

Fidel Castro has been overwhelmingly described as a dictator, especially by the people of Cuba. Why isn't this included? The issue has been discussed here but there's yet no actual obstacle for not including it •

This issue was extensively discussed in the past - I think that there was even an RfC on it. The current consensus (to state that many people call Castro a "dictator" but not to unambiguously label him as such) was arrived at through that very extensive discussion. No change could be made without a shift in that consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we could add a Frequently Asked Questions header with this question being on it. The answer would be a link to the RfC. This would avoid further questioning of the term. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

President[edit]

Castro was never President of Cuba. The post was abolished in 1976 and reestablished 10. October 2019. Fidel was President of the Council of State. Can someone change the infobox accordingly? --158.36.205.152 (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How could I edit this page?[edit]

I have suggestions for improving this article

2019KB (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error considering Urrutia's resignation[edit]

Urrutia's resignation was not a result of Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz's defection. In fact, Urrutia's resignation preceded the incident with three months. This should be corrected. --Te og kaker (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Tinhog (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

Page is protected so can't change it myself, but sustainability is misspelled as sustainbility in the Reagan and Gorbachev section. Rentak (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Tinhog (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister infobox[edit]

Fidel Castro served as head of government and head of state after 1976 as President of the Council of Ministers (prime minister) and President of the Council of State (president) until his resignation. Manuel Marrero Cruz did not succeed him as prime minister. Manuel Marrero Cruz succeeded Diaz-Canel as prime minister. Can someone change the infobox? --158.36.205.63 (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.
For clarity, for those who may find this confusing:
Fidel Castro was PM until 1976, when a new constitution abolished the position and fused it with that of the President (title: President of the Council of State and Council of Ministers)
He yielded this latter position to his brother in 2006 temporarily, and in 2008 permanently. Raul Castro then was the new President of the CS and CM
After 2 terms, Raul Castro then yielded his position of President of the CS and CM to Miguel Diaz Canel
With the new constitution, the positions were split again (back to how it was), so now there's a President (Miguel Diaz Canel) and a brand new Prime Minister (Manuel Marrero Cruz)

--Tinhog (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fidel Castro el singao" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fidel Castro el singao. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Fidel Castro el singao until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2021[edit]

I would like to suggest an edit to this page. In the beginning of this article, in the part where the following states: "...was a Cuban revolutionary and politician..." , I find it unfair and biased that it does not mention that he was a dictator, much like it's stated in Augusto Pinochet's page. This person was not democratically elected, due to the fact that in Cuba, the PCC asembly with its members also not elected, is the organ that repeatedly voted for him, year in and year out. He also ruled for many decades, which is characteristic of dictatorships. Under this rule, several violations of human rights were succesfuly proven, be it in UN councils or by other leaders in the world, some of them members of left wing political parties. 0220antillano1902 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ​This has been discussed before, so you may want to read Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 17#"Revolutionary", "Dictator", Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 16#Dictator revisited, Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 15#Dictator?, and Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 18#Dictator. Seagull123 Φ 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New image for infobox[edit]

Current image
New, proposed image

Hello everyone! I wanted to propose that we change the current image in the infobox for a new one (see both on the right) showing him speaking in Buenos Aires in 1959. I feel like the new image depicts Castro's face much clearer, without all of the people in the background of the current image. There's also the added benefit of both images being taken in the same year.

Thoughts? -HandIsNotNookls (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HandIsNotNookls, I agree the image should be replaced with a more explicit one. However, I believe the one you suggest is too grainy as it has not been digitalized. Luckily, I found another photograph on Public Domain, used on it, pl, pt, fr and ru wikis that is a much clearer face shot. What do you think? --BunnyyHop (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer (Bunnyyhop)
@BunnyyHop: I think it looks great! It could definitely be used. The only thing is that it has no clear date except that it was taken in the 1950s. Do you know if there's any more possible context behind the image? -HandIsNotNookls (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the image to @BunnyyHop's suggestion. -HandIsNotNookls (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this proposal is an improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021[edit]

In Guerrilla war: 1956–1959, paragraph five, change 'no longer would supported him' to 'would no longer support him' Gola.001 (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done LOMRJYO(About × contribs) 22:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More recent photo for infobox[edit]

I feel that the current infobox image of Fidel Castro is way too young. Here I'll list some candidates for more recent image of him for the infobox. Feel free to choose which one is more suitable InterEdit88 (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current infobox image
    Current infobox image
  • Option A
    Option A
  • Option B
    Option B
  • Option C
    Option C
  • Option D
    Option D
I prefer an image of Castro as a young man because it was the period of his greatest notability as a leader of the Cuban revolution. The image for Mao Zedong is from 1959, although he continued to lead China until his death in 1976. Note that both were iconic figures in the 1960s, with their images used in posters and on t-shirts. Articles about movie stars, such as Rock Hudson, Doris Day, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Jimmy Stewart and Buster Keaton all show them when they were top stars, not in their golden years. Of course for living persons who are still in the news, that would be different. (After I wrote this, I saw a clip on MSNBC of Jimmy Stewart playing an idealist senator in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That's how we remember him.) TFD (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021[edit]

Third paragraph of the lead says Castro "signed Cuba up to" the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas. This should be changed to "founded" or "formed", as Cuba was a founding member of the organization. BSMRD (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New images and a letter[edit]

  • Castro, second from left, at Colegio de Belén 1943, Havana, Cuba
    Castro, second from left, at Colegio de Belén 1943, Havana, Cuba
  • La Coubre explosion 4 March, 1960
    La Coubre explosion 4 March, 1960
  • Fidel Castro and his men in the Sierra Maestra, 2 December 1956
    Fidel Castro and his men in the Sierra Maestra, 2 December 1956
  • Habana entrance Fidel Castro and Huber Matos. January 8, 1959.
    Habana entrance Fidel Castro and Huber Matos. January 8, 1959.

I've uploaded a few new images to Wikimedia and to pages that I work on like the Cuban Revolution and La Coubre explosion and I've uploaded some of them to Fidel Castro if you'd rather not have them in the article I can remove them let me know. Also, today I did the Battle of Guisa page that contains what I think is an important letter by Castro under note (a) which may be helpful to include here. Cheers! ovA_165443 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021[edit]

I suggest to include that Fidel Castro was a Dictator. He took the power by force and stop presidential elections in Cuba, criminalized freedom of speech and brutally beaten people on the streets under his mandate and again under the same government after he passed his credentials to his brother and now Diaz Canel. 2601:2C1:8681:8210:9875:7040:A002:76FC (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The final paragraph of the lead already deals with this. BSMRD (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021[edit]

Can you add protection template, please? Best regards :) 201.239.205.195 (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Infidel Castro" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Infidel Castro. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 18#Infidel Castro until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MarioGom (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans' Proposed Additions to the Lead[edit]

Recently, User:Snooganssnoogans added the following sentence to the fourth paragraph of the lead: "Castro headed a single-party authoritarian regime in Cuba where political opposition was repressed, civil rights were curtailed, and censorship of information was extensive." I reverted this, as per WP:BRD, but they have since restored it. As this addition is controversial, it should not be restored without consensus here at the Talk Page.

My concerns are threefold. First, the added sentence clearly pushes a particular POV as all of the information is negative (or at least, is liable to be seen as negative by most readers). Second, it repeats information already found in the lead; the lead already mentions that Castro created a one-party state, that opposition was repressed, and that the state took control of the press. Third, it lengthens a lead that is already fairly long and does not need lengthening, least of all with repetitive information. All in all, it's an unnecessary addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There is no dispute in reliable sources that Castro headed a single-party authoritarian regime where political opposition was repressed, civil rights were curtailed, and censorship of information was extensive. (2) After your edit, the lead no longer clearly specifies that Castro ruled an authoritarian regime where basic political and civil rights were repressed. (3) Some content that touches on the repression is in the lead, but the lead never characterizes his regime as authoritarian and does not frame the repression of basic civil and political rights in the context of the fundamentally authoritarian nature of the regime. In short, your edit serves to obfuscate the nature of Castro's regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the term "authoritarian" (and a link to authoritarianism) within the lead, at an appropriate juncture. I just don't think that the proposed sentence was the right way to go about it. The concept of "basic political and civil rights" is intrinsically POV, however, so we need to be cautious to avoid language that intrinsically places (Western-style) liberal democratic models of governance as an objective normal standard against which other models of governance diverge. We need things to read in as neutral a manner as possible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tone is polemical. Per weight, descriptions should be similar to what we would find in standard texts today about the country, rather than a description we might find in the early 1960s. Also, there's no explanation from the Cuban government about why they have one party or censorship or whether or not they are authoritarian. Even when the balance of evidence supports one conclusion, we always present the response.
Notice how the wording is more derogatory than that used for Saudi Arabia, even though Saudi Arabia has no political parties and is more authoritarian and repressive. I note also the article about the United States says nothing about racism in the entire article.
TFD (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, please kindly refrain from derailing this conversation with irrelevant whataboutism and obviously false statements such as "I note also the article about the United States says nothing about racism in the entire article." A quick "ctrl + f" at United States returns "the country has received domestic and international criticism concerning inequality related to race, wealth and income ... Irreconcilable sectional conflict regarding the enslavement of Africans and African Americans ultimately led to the American Civil War. ... Blacks would face racial segregation nationwide, especially in the South. ... A combination of court decisions and legislation, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1968, sought to end racial discrimination. ... " among many other examples. While racial inequality is mentioned in the lede, you didn't even bother to qualify your observation as applying only to the lede—a rather extraordinary instance of playing chess with extra pieces. With regard to your other example, the lede of Saudi Arabia includes the following less-than-flattering text: "However, the state has attracted criticism for a variety of reasons, including its role in the Yemeni Civil War, alleged sponsorship of Islamic terrorism and its poor human rights record, which has been characterized by the excessive and often extrajudicial use of capital punishment, failure to adopt adequate measures against human trafficking, state-sponsored discrimination against religious minorities and atheists, and antisemitism, and its strict interpretation of Shari'a law." Frankly, TFD, I'm more sympathetic to Midnightblueowl than Snooganssnoogans given the biographical nature of this article, but comments like the one above are simply not persuasive and come across almost as a form of trolling.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-removal of peer-reviewed studies from body[edit]

The editor 'Hazhk' just white-washed content sourced to a large number of peer-reviewed studies that covered the nature of Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba. The editor then moved one sentence to the "reception" section and framed the peer-reviewed scholarship as if it were just the random opinion of some people. After the editor's whitewashing, the article no longer describes Castro's regime as authoritarian in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Maybe integrate your contributions into the relevant sections of the article. As it stood the 'Politics of Cuba' article was inappropriate for a biography. So, feel free to add 'authoritarian' where appropriate; I won't object. I object to your accusation of me "white-washing" the article, which is not my intention. --Hazhk (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022[edit]

Change the page summary so it reflects more substantially Castro's known severe human rights violations and authoritarianism, which affected and still affects the lives of millions of Cubans. The article seems clearly written by foreigners, who are more familiar with Castro's foreign propaganda machine than with the crude reality of his dictatorship. 2603:7000:7D01:8F01:AC07:1E87:E528:6293 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (2)[edit]

Change "Castro transferred his responsibilities to Vice President Raúl Castro" to "Castro transferred his responsibilities to his brother, Vice President Raúl Castro", as this is definitely a very relevant difference. After five decades ruling Cuba, Fidel Castro transferred power to his own brother. 2603:7000:7D01:8F01:A45E:1194:9963:E310 (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Raúl is identified as his brother in the preceding paragraph, no need to repeat. BSMRD (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022[edit]

Change this sentence in the lead paragraph into a grammatically correct form: "Under his administration, Cuba became a one-party communist state; industry and business were nationalized, and state socialist reforms were implemented throughout society Castro transformed cuba into first communist state in western hemisphrere." PugBread (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Reviewing the relevant sentence I'm not spotting the grammatical error you are referring to. It's entirely possible an error is technically present but it doesn't seem to effect readability. Feel free to re-open this request with clarification as to what is wrong. —Sirdog (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Are there any resources about how he never apologized for having done anything wrong? He seems to have never apologized nor admitted having done anything wrong in his entire life. I'd like to know more about this subject, does anyone have any resources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.251.16 (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he is a man that escaped death 638 times if not more Fidel Castro is a man who thought that what he did was right so no he never gave an apology he thought that all he was doing was helping the country the recourse of all of this is history what he did what he said and the people of Cuba under Castro's regime 107.5.134.188 (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

Life style section : " Osmany Cienfuegos designed the a private bungalow, ". Either "a" or "the" is to be kept only. - LD, Montreal. 96.43.231.202 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of removal of content[edit]

I have reverted a deletion of a source written by Gregory Wilpert. I am not aware of any consensus that he is unreliable as a source. He is definitely biased, but then so is everyone. --Boynamedsue (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question is "Wilpert, Gregory (2007). Changing Venezuela by Taking Power: The History and Policies of the Chávez Government. London and New York: Verso." Verso is a good publisher, so special reasons to doubt the author would need to exist. --Boynamedsue (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: The reliability is unrelated to the publisher, but rather the book and the author themselves. Gregory Wilpert is the founder of Venezuelanalysis.com, which WP:RS/P has already concluded that is unreliable, and was once described as "perhaps the most prominent Chavista".[1] Additionally, but he has been married to a Venezuelan government official, Carol Delgado Arria, who has served for Venezuela as consul general in New York and ambassador in Ecuador. Not only does he have a demonstrated bias towards the subject, but also a conflict of interest, which is incompatible with the NPOV policy. Speaking about reliability and not only bias, one of the clearest examples for false statements can be found at the Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration article:

In order to prevent capital flight, and maintain the stability of the Venezuelan bolívar, the Chávez administration enacted strict currency controls in January 2003, making it more difficult for investors to exchange bolívars for dollars. The controls forced many Venezuelan investors to seek out domestic investment opportunities, rather than foreign investments. It also resulted in a large increase in foreign currency reserves, which had reached $35 billion by 2006, which is as high as Canada's (which has a slightly higher population), and on a per capita basis is much larger than Germany's ($55 billion)

This is contracticted by the sources already included in the section, as well as simply how the economic situation in Venezuela turned out. Back in the day, these concerns were already brought up, and for similar reasons (Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 26). It's also concerning that this analysis, that can be as best as a primary source and a personal opinion, is presented as fact with an editorial voice. Writing in 2007, 15 years ago, about a historical process that was still unfolding, does not help either with the reliability.
The source should not be used for this topic for these reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for engaging. This does not look to me to be a question of reliability. Being a prominent Chavista does not render a writer unreliable. The quote you cite may well have been true in 2006, or at least have been a reasonable interpretation, especially given that this was prior to the collapse in oil prices. However, it is true that a book written in 2007 talking about 2006, is unlikely to be the best source for that particular page due to WP:WEIGHT.
Reliability is not generally a property of a particular individual, it is a property of a source. Wilbert is widely published in reliable journals, including ones published by Taylor Francis, and was certainly taken as an expert on Venezuela by his very respectable publishers. Even if the website he edits can only be used with attribution, that qualification can not be taken to apply to work he has published elsewhere under the auspices of other editors. It may be that, as with every scholar, attribution is necessary for controversial statements, but ideological dislike is not a reason for the blanket removal of a source. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideology is not the only factor being cited here, but examples have been given on how he is directly related to the subject (is not an independent source), of unreliability and being potentially outdated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the source is outdated will depend on the claim it is being used to source, as answered above. The argument that spouses of government officials are not independent of ANY subject relating to the politics of an entire country or, in this case, cultural region is... novel. I do not find it to be based on any policy of wikipedia. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Devereux, Charlie (2 December 2009). "Gregory Wilpert: Chavez defender". Global Post. Archived from the original on 13 November 2010. Retrieved 13 May 2015.

Castro was galician not isleño[edit]

I don't find where he is allegedly isleño Pol revision (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Fidel Castro called/labeled in this content as a Prime minister but Miguel Diaz-canel is being toted as president?[edit]

As noted above and below. In my research I noticed your data/documentation inconsistency. Fidel Castro was called/labeled in this content as a Prime minister but Miguel Diaz-canel is being toted as president. They were both president. 2001:56B:3FE5:C5D9:0:40:6481:B001 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footprint measured in square yards?[edit]

It doesn't make too much sense to me. Sq. feet or Sq. meters would make more sense, no? Nilederg (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early education[edit]

Fidel Castro Rus attended the Jesuite High School in La Habana, along with Rosendo Canto, later ambassador for Batista in Taiwan, who dreamed of being sucessor of Castro in presidency of Cuban Governement. Castro sent Canto a note remaking his and Canto's road maps were different. Canto died in Madrid, widower of an Spanish University teacher, before Castro. Gesund + 81.44.122.61 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator[edit]

He was not a president he was dictator that took Cuba to misery. 185.124.28.146 (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't changing the wiki to say "dictator". The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The characterization of a "dictator" is appropriately documented at the end of the lead section (where it should be - first lay out his deeds, then evaluation by critics). –Vipz (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parties[edit]

Fidel Castro was a member and supporter of the Partido Auténtico before he came to power - this is important as he indicated why he had a wider base than Cuban Marxism-Leninism. Perhaps that should be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.58.13 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fidel_Castro/Archive_18&oldid=1187397490"