Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Silverback

It doesn't matter, as you say, that many Wikipedia editors believe that the concept of "totalitarianism" works well, given the policy of "no original research." What matters is the classification of Cuba's regime by professional political scientists, and this is contested. In fact, most political scientists do not use the concept of "totalitarianism" as a typology for explaining Cuba's regime characteristics. By stating that Cuba is totalitarianism as a matter of fact in the article means ignoring the view of the majority of scholars and accepting the view of a tiny minority. This is not allowed given the NPOV policy. Instead, what you should try to adopt a neutral point of view by describing Cuba in a way that experts of all types accept, for example as a single-party state. 18:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Rather than asserting this can you be more specific? If there is a tiny minority that classify him as totalitarian, how do they define it, and does Cuba have the defined characteristics? Do the majority agree with the characteristics, and just contest the label/definition, or do they contest that Castro's Cuba has those characteristics? As you know from the past, I am not wedded to a mere term, as long as the true character of Castro's regime is prominent in the article, and not shoved off to a nether corner while the summary/intro white washes the issues. --Silverback 19:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind the how different the social sciences are in practice from the natural sciences. There are many competing definitions/conceptualizations of the term in the literature. Even scholars who share the same definition will disagree on whether or not the a particular case has the expected characteristics... If you are not wedded to a mere term, as you say you are, please use language that is not particular to certain kinds of perspectives. Instead, describe Castro's regime as a single-party state or a Communist state, which one cannot deny that Cuba falls under. 172 | Talk 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, thanx for putting in the communist party led wikilink to communist state. I'm surprised that you are the first one here willing to compromise and not act as if the clique means you don't have to consider compromise.--Silverback 19:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not know if that was my intent. I always favor the more accurate and precise language, regardless of the personalities involved in the editing. 172 | Talk 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Health issues?

In 2005 Forbes magazine listed Castro among the world's richest people, with an estimated net worth of $550 million. As a result Castro is considering filing a lawsuit against the magazine, saying the accusations are false and the article was meant to defame him.

This is hardly a health issue, why is it in the wrong section? --Bky1701 05:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That is a rather strange location for the issue. Dictators are rich, but I don't know how they would arrive at that value, it seems far too low for someone with over 11 million slaves and that can take any part of the $30 billion in GDP that he wants. That is his annual income, so his net worth would be much higher, based on the net present value of his future income.--Silverback 05:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, it’s not an illness, though it may attract the same number of doctors. Anyway it seems moved now, so I'll shut up. ;) --Bky1701 06:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comandante

I admit that I have not verified your list of CIA operations for accuracy, but nevertheless it should be removed because it is off-topic in a biographical entry on Castro. Perhaps you should find another place for the content. Further, if you are stuck having to deal with reversions from other editors, please keep the reference to Communist Party rule, which is offers a more specific description of the structure of the regime that he has set up. Also, for a more complete picture of the history, it's essential to mention how he has alienated many Cubans, especially the exile community in South Florida, through the exclusion of those left unrepresented in or even brutally suppressed by the single-party state that he set up. 172 | Talk 16:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comandante, I see that you just reverted back to your version. It would be more productive, though, to take your text to an article on Cuban-U.S. relations where it would fit better. 172 | Talk 20:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You reverted back to your version again, which is counterproductive. [1] I'm quite willing to work you to find another article where your work on Cuban-U.S. relations will be more fitting. 172 | Talk 18:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This guy obviously has no intention of discussing his reverts, so we can only revert him. CJK 18:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

One-party in lead

A recent edit over-broadens the reasons for early departure of those dispossessed by nationalization in the couple years after the revolution. It's silly to claim people left because all of a sudden Cuba had single-party rule: Batista was a dictator just before that, and those people didn't flee. Overwhelmingly, those who left in the first three years did so specifically to transport financial assets that would have been nationalized. Clearly, later than that, wider opposition developed, but to conflate the later motivations with the initial movement to Miami is deceptive.

That said, I can accept "opposed to nationalization" rather than "dispossessed" specifically. I think it's a bit less precise, but not openly false. But the one-party thing is pure canard ("socialist" is uncecessarily abstract too, since it amounts to "nationalization" in regard to the initial emmigration). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, one party state can be removed but "nationalization" does not always have to go along with a socialist society. CJK 20:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean a general equation socialist=nationalization. I mean specifically Cuba in 1959, where nationalization of specific assets was the prompt for emmigration. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As was socialism in general, but I won't restore it. CJK 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say that most people who left in the first three years did take their assets. The logic for this is simple, real estate and industrial property cannot be moved in this way, and there is nobody to sell it to (El Jigüe, 10/1/2005)

Not all their assets, certainly, but many. Clearly that was the motivation, for rich folks to take what they could rather than have it re-distributed. And the one clause in the current lead doesn't attempt a breakdown of exact amounts frozen versus estranged from the country, or anything so detailed as that (this would be the wrong article in any case). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent POV revision of opening section

I reverted one key revision of a paragraph in the opening section that I felt was potentially inaccurate and not NPOV. I have restored some NPOV revisions such as those concerning Castro creating a Communist Party run goverment. The reasons for the 3rd paragraph revert was as follows: The revised statement "Castro's government initially won general support among Cubans but alienated many as the regime nationalized industries and suppressed all opposition." makes unverified statements with regards to how much support he had after he nationalized industries and suppressed all opposition. While the is correct to state that he lost much support amoung the middle and upper classes (based on the overall views of him amoung middle and upperclass who had left), how much support he has had over the years amoung the poor and other Cubans who remained has been hotly debated. --Cab88 11:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with the version of the lead recently reverted by Comandante.

1. The word "disillusioned" is just used wrongly. I know it is often used loosely in informal conversation, but more precisely, to be "disillusioned" you need to have believed in something beforehand. Clearly, the large majority of the Cuban bourgeoisie never believed in the revolution at any point. I tried "distrust" instead, but I'm happy to take a different word: dislike? oppose? disagree with? I dunno, something along those lines.
2. The "among the middle and upper classes" is pedantic at this point. With the sentence I added about the historical priviledge of the emmigrants, it gets at the point with better citational support and precision. Of course most early opponent of the Communist Party in Cuba were "middle and upper class", but the number of working class people who oppose the government still reaches the loose threshold of "many".

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if there was much of a middle class in Cuba. The standard notion is that there were just the Al Capones and servants, though that's obviously an oversimplification. But was there enough middle class to be worth mentioning?

Some of the upper classes (meaning the rich - maybe that would be a better word) may have believed in Castro (before they learned of his socialist reform plans), but that will probably have been a minority.

Most of the lower classes (the poor - ie most of the population) will have 'believed in' Castro, so most of the disillusion may have taken place there. But I really doubt it, since the reforms were mostly to their advantage. In how far they were struck by oppression (then - not now) I haven't a clue. And that's the big problem here; does anyone really know? This is not supposed to be a guessing game, so a reliable (...) source is needed, but, as with everything relating to Cuba, that's a tough one. DirkvdM 08:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If the reforms were to the advantage of the poor, then Castro would not have had to so vigorously suppressed emigration. The poor just became a captive labor force, not allowed to seek the true market value of their labor.--Silverback 10:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Now there's a pov. What is the true market value of someone's labour? Communists would reason that's the same for everyone. Which is not to say they're right. It's a pov. You're used to a different way to distribute wealth. Not to say that that is right or wrong, but claiming that it is (either) is a pov. About how, how much and, if so, why emigration was surpressed (and of whom) I really don't know. It's pretty much a guessing game, but one reason might be the idea that people don't know what's good for them (which is actually often true). Are there any official statements about that? Castro will have been criticised about it, so he'll probably have replied to it. DirkvdM 07:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Historically privileged

Just to note: the changes by Tanya Ravine are definitely ingenuous. Essentially her entire edit history has been to rollback changes I make to all kinds of different articles. I haven't the foggiest idea who she is though, or how I acquired a "secret nemesis". However, other editor's concern with the phrasing is certainly legit. The 85% white migrants figure is taken from p.317 of the referenced document "CUBA'S REFUGEES: MANIFOLD MIGRATIONS" (the actual PDF is an extract from a book, so it doesn't have all 317 pages).

In terms of historical privilege and minority, I basically just rely on the Cuba article. Mentioned there is:

According to the CIA's World Factbook, Cuba is 51% mulatto (mixed white and black), 37% white, 11% black, and 1% Chinese.

And also:

It highlights the shock that Castro's rise to power had on the white upper class, a large portion of whom moved to Florida in the 1960s and 1970s. Also, economic shock caused their birthrate to fall precipitously, even as the poorer black and mulatto populations soared.

So basically, I'm just trying to provide a one-clause condensation of the info in the main Cuba article, combined with the US census data (the census data also gives the exact migrant numbers, so is worth citing). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

More recent lead image

File:Fidel31marzo.jpg

Cuban President Fidel Castro.

File:Fidel-Uniform.jpg

Cuban President Fidel Castro

File:Fidel-Speech.jpg

Cuban President Fidel Castro.

My understanding is that WP convention is generally to use recent-ish images for living figures whose significance is ongoing. (i.e. someone living, but who is only notable for what they did 50 years ago would use an older image). I propose replacing the lead image with this. Thoughts?

Absolutely. Will do it now, SqueakBox 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been meaning to do so for a while myself. 172 | Talk 19:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved the photo back to a different position, but then it got removed again. Why? It's a good photo, isn't it? I'll just put it back for now. Also, I shuffled the photos a bit, which also got reverted. Did that render bad for someone? I'll leave that for now. DirkvdM 08:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be clearly to use the new pic but someone put the old pic back. Please don't do dso again but bring any concerns about the pic here, SqueakBox 14:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I can live with Comandante's new pic, definitely better quality photo, SqueakBox 16:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't really mind any of the new-ish pictures, but it's strange how several editors keep changing it for no reason. However, the full-body saluting picture seems less desirable than either the olive-drab or black suit pix: it's good to have an image that shows the face of its subject for a bio article. In the full body, the face is correspondingly a too small part of the image. The sitting olive pic sufficiently gives the idea of Castro wearing military clothes, we don't need to worry about exactly how many pockets and buttons his outfit has by showing full body. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (note: I since trimmed the standing pic a bit, so my concern is lessened)

Informal poll

It's not a big thing; but of the three recent photos shown here, which do editors prefer for the lead (please vote for one only) (see also vote #2 below):

I don't know if any more votes are going to come in [for the affirmative], but if we vote the other way around (which pic should not be placed) at least now we have one agreement. So far. But, awaiting more votes, I'll initiate this reverse vote as well. Maybe the combination of these two votes will settle this (I've always been in favour of this voting system and now I get to put it in practise :) ). DirkvdM 09:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Affirmative Vote (#1)

• Sitting in olive-drab

1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Standing, saluting

1. Comandante
2. SqueakBox 15:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. TheMadBaron 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• At lectern in black suit

1. DirkvdM 04:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
2. David Kernow 11:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
3. RicardoC 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Ojw 20:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC) but is rather small

Negative Vote (#2): Which of these three photos should not be used?

• Sitting in olive-drab

1. Comandante
2. TheMadBaron 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Standing, saluting

1. DirkvdM 09:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. David Kernow 11:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
4. RicardoC 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• At lectern in black suit

1. SqueakBox 15:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The saluting photo is just lousy. Castro looks just miserable. This photo seems to have been chosen to put him in a bad light. The sitting photo is better in that respect, but he looks very tired. Both these photos show him in military attire, which is typical. But not as much as the original black suit pic. Castro during a speech. What is more typical? Add to that the red background with the star.And the finger. The lecturing communist rebel. And its more aesthetically pleasing. There's rarely a better more typical photo of someone on Wikipedia and now this one is to be deleted? DirkvdM 04:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Castro looks unhappy in the saluting pic, which is unappealing. I'm not sure where the sitting one is, but it looks like either the Cuban Assembly or some kind of diplomatic conference. So that's not so atypical either. But maybe since I'm an academic, that semi-academic context appeals to me more than the stump speech does (it looks like he's making some intellectual point in a debate there, from his hand gesture). Still, I definitely rank the suit/speech much higher than the unhappy salute. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well lets hope we can get some more votes, as this is about as deadlocked as one could imagine, SqueakBox 16:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you like the saluting image, SqueakBox? I think both DirkvdM and I have stated the reason we don't like it: Castro looks unhappy in it (maybe you don't read the facial expression that way, but we do). But if you have a specific reason to prefer it, I might be convinced. (FWIW, I like the sitting one slightly better than lectern because the outfit is more typical, and because it seems more "intellectual" to me). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My decision is based first on the fact that I don't like the lectern one and then the fact that the sitting pic is poore quality. But I also think his face is much more expressive in the standing pic, and that disconteneted look is pure Castro. His mission and the socialist ideas come oput of a basic sense of discontent with how the world is, and that is something Castro clearly carries, SqueakBox 17:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt he's all that unhappy "with the way the world is" now that he essentially owns Cuba and can throw anyone who opposes him in jail ;) I'm in favor of the lectern image, myself. Far more visually interesting, and it works perfectly in terms of POV: Supporters of Castro see an energetic revolutionary leader, while his detractors (myself included) see a senile, babbling demagogue. It works both ways, whereas the other two images are just visually dull and, in the case of the "salute" one, could be construed as biased against el barbudo.--RicardoC 05:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, cast your vote(s) above, then. DirkvdM 09:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd make sure voting was still open, that's all.--RicardoC 14:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

David Kernow has voted twice in the second section, which is disruptive to the process. Please can he withdraw one of his votes, 15:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

As I understand the intent of "Vote #2" is for editors to note which (single) image they "dislike most", or at least "like least". Based on RicardoC's comment, it would seem like he intends to vote "lectern" on Vote #1; and perhaps "salute" on Vote #2 (the second is less explicit in his comment). Anyway, it would indeed be more clear if editors would list their names just once under each of the "like" and "dislike" polls. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

My proposition caused a bit of confusion. I meant only one negative vote (just as there is usually only one positive vote). I've left a note at David's talk page to drop one vote. As for Ricardo C. It's quite obvious what he meant, so it would be silly to leave the vote as it is. The negative vote he might have given is however pure speculation. I mean, he cast only one vote and we can't change that into two votes. Anyway, I intended to drop him a note as well but then I saw Lulu had beaten me to it. Just imagine political elections would proceed like this :) . Well, I suppose in some countries they sort of do :( . :) (my smileys are geting confused...) DirkvdM 18:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You may be familiar with a certain recent parlimentary vote in Germany that seems to work about like this discussion :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Silly me, I was thinking about banana republics, but it's happening next door! :) DirkvdM 08:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done dropping Ricardo a note. I don't believe we can tamper with his vote, regardless of his comments, SqueakBox 18:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank for the heads-up, LLE! I've amended my votes. Sorry for the confusion, everyone--RicardoC 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you, Ricardo, should see the saluting pic as being potentially POV against Castro when Comandante is clearly one of his most fervent supporters of the editors here. Also "owning" Cuba won't make for happiness, and Castro, IMO, is clealry disconteneted with the state of the world, and of the US and its hatred of him, SqueakBox 19:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm an interesting guy ;) The saluting picture, to me, shows a frail, pathetic old man. I can't speak for Castro, but that's not the image of myself I would want the world to see. It's by no means the only possible interpretation, as this discussion has shown, but it's definitely not my first choice for a lead image in an encyclopedia entry about the man, regardless of how much I may want the world to see him that way.

As for his supposed unhappiness with the state of the world, that is a matter of opinion. I don't see Castro and his regime as the guardians of their professed revolutionary ideas, but as incognito fascists. Your mileage may vary.--RicardoC 22:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

All revolutionary groups become fascist if they attain power, forcing change on people for the alleged good of the world. I am not sure there are any fascist happy folk. We don't want to project what Castro would like his image to be, SqueakBox 22:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Power corrupts, absolutely, and Castro is no exception (nor is, say, Bush for that matter, but let's not compicate things). But fascism is something altogether different. It's not a synonym for evil, as I assume you intend to say. DirkvdM 08:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the saluting pic. Yeah, okay, in that pic, Castro looks old and miserable.... and we should care? You know, it might just be that Castro actually really does look old and miserable.... in any case, he looks older in the sitting pic, and in the suit pic, he looks really riled....

I'd choose the uniform pic over the suit because the uniform is typical for Castro (in public, at least) - he's been associated with that mode of dress for decades. Showing him in a suit seems a bit like showing Gandhi in a raincoat.... (sure, Gandhi probably wore a raincoat a few times, but it's not how we think of him).

Despite that, I'd prefer the suit pic to the sitting pic, which is poor quality, and which takes the 'old and frail' thing to a ridiculous extreme.... he looks like rigormortis is about to set in.

Despite all of the above, it's only a slight preference - we could always feature all three pics, or, if everybody really hates them that much, find a better one. TheMadBaron 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this is not a definite vote about the lead pic, just about these three. At a later time a better one may surface. Something like the lectern pic but in military clothes would be more suitable (no pun intended :) ). But now I get to think of something different. A recent pic is prefereable. But suppose someone falls permanently ill and looks horrible for the last few years of their lives. It would probably not be a very good idea to use a photo of someone in such a state as a lead pic. And what if they die? I suppose that one could then use any photo. Actually, one of the most important period of that person's public life would then be best. In the case of Castro that would be a late 50's pic. But I'm getting ahead of things now. DirkvdM 08:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Two of those images seem to have unknown copyright status... Do we need to send them to Wikipedia:Image sleuthing? Ojw 13:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Fidel-recent-bw.jpg

---

The file [[:]] has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

Well, that would greatly simplify the choice :) . But another pic shouldn't be too hard to find. I assume that any pics on a Cuban site will be free of rights. Unless they themselves violated rights, which they probably won't care about. But why would they do that when they've got ample opportunity to make their own photos. Which makes me think. Are non-Cubans allowed to take a photo of Castro in Cuba and retain the rights to that photo? Sounds rather unlikely, in which case any post-revolution photo of Castro would be free of rights. This is pure speculation, but sounds plausible. How could I check that?

Anyway, I searched for some photos, but alas most are too small to be of use. The best one I found is in black and white. But apart from that it's a lot better than the other two in military attire. DirkvdM 12:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No reaction for some time. I'll just place the pic and see what y'all think. DirkvdM 07:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You got one now. it looks great. recent, reasonable quality, and less gnarled than looking (he does retain the good looks of his youth somewhere), SqueakBox 14:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the new picture looks good. Excellent work. Saravask 15:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Mexico / USA

The first paragraph in 'the road to power' suggests that Guevara joined M24-7 in the USA, but I'm pretty sure that was in Mexico. Probably an unfortunate edit, when the sentence about the USA trip was added. So I changed that. I had never heard of that trip. How long did it last and who went (I suppose not all of them)? I also deleted the 'clandestinely' bit. Does this refer to the fact that they had the Mexican authorities after them? DirkvdM 12:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent facelift to article's beginning

1. Does anyone else prefer the previous left-justified layout of the article? It seems so much more amorphous now.
2. I have tried to simplify the language a little without losing anything of the content. I hope I have been successful. Sentences seem to have become noticeably longer, with more clauses and connecting 'and's.
3. Is there a (Wikipedia) policy as regards using "US" rather than "U.S." (or vice versa) as the abbreviation for "United States"? Personally I prefer the former but will adopt the latter if that is where a consensus lies.
4. Anyone else feel the close of the first section, "...should assume his leadership posts.", reads a little clumsily? As well as being President I imagine Castro is still Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, but are there other named positions he (still) has? (Apologies in advance if my knowledge of Cuban politics too thin here.)

Thanks,
David Kernow 04:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

About the US vs U.S. thing. I don't believe there is a policy on this. Nor a consensus. It just seems that those who prefer the dots are more persistent and those who prefer 'US' can't be bothered or have thrown in the towel. I'd say consistency should prevail. Would you write U.S.S.R and U.K.? I'll change that and see what happens. Incredible, by the way, how often the US figure in an article about a Cuban president :) . I counted 33 occurrences of 'US', versus only 3 of 'USSR', the big ally. (And about 100 times 'Cuba'). This suggests a rather strong bias (as if we didn't already know that :) ). DirkvdM 09:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S.-centrism is a problem in many articles; but I'm not sure if it's a major one here. The Soviet Union was eager to integrate its first American ally into the Eastern bloc, and offered Cuba favorable conditions for markets and loans until it collapsed in 1991. The U.S. struggle against Castro, in contrast, featured far more twists and turn, with tensions reaching the surface in one confrontation after another for nearly 50 years. So it's little surprise that the U.S. is mentioned more often... By the way, the differences in the numbers of occurrences probably won't appear so large if you counted both "USSR" and "Soviet Union." 172 | Talk 09:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Narrative flow

172 recently reverted the version written by Saravask and edited by several editors, to something fairly ancient (at least by the standards of this article's change). Unfortunately, the best that might possibly be said of 172's version is that "no sentence in it is specifically false or NPOV". The rewrite by Saravask actually makes the lead have a narrative flow, and it makes you feel that this is an article you might want to read. That version might have a bit too much of the favorable-to-Castro element, but little that is outright POV (unlike many recent edits that have blatantly anti-Castro propoganda). And the version is a bit too long for the lead as well. But those flaws can be fixed without rolling back to something so much worse literarily.

But I think it is highly desirable to have WP articles that readers would actually want to read, rather than ones that merely "avoid misinforming" (if only because they are so dry no one would actually read them). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 14:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but from past experience on Wikipedia's controversial articles, I know that if an intro does not contain a sentence that is specifically false or highly biased, it's already better than average. I just don't see an intro that is not very matter-of-fact and general contributing to much stability in the page history. 172 | Talk 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My edit summary and the intro

I apologize for the baseless suggestion in one of my edit summaries that David Kernow and Saravask are sockpuppets. From past experience I've found that when two new editors (with hyperlinks to their user pages appearing in red) are making the same major changes to controversial articles at once, it's usually a sockpuppet. Nevertheless, looking at the editing histories, this generalization doesn't seem to hold up in this case... Nevertheless, I think that reverting back to an order version of the intro was the right move. The Saravask and David Kernow version, though less POV than other recent versions, adopts the perspective of Western human rights advocacy groups. Instead, we should strive more a more positive and less normative framing of the information, adopting a neutral omniscient voice to the best of our abilities. In practice this means not evaluating him according to our own values, but assess how he has gone about consolidating power and how effective he has been in securing his political interests. 172 | Talk 14:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many cooks

I feel there are now too many editors working on this article at the same time, so, for the time being at least, I will withdraw. Thanks to those who have responded positively to my efforts.
David Kernow 14:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize once again for whatever role my bumbling return to the article played in your decision to withdraw. I encourage you to return and look forward to your feedback. 172 | Talk 15:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Worry not, it played none; I'd decided to step back before your return. I'm keeping the article on my watchlist and will watch the current round of revisions with interest. Thanks for your message.
David Kernow 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Popular Image?

It's really all about whether Castro is or is not a cult of personality. I was expecting to read that in the U.S. the popular image is w and x and in Cuba the popular image is y and z. Instead I got a debate about personality cultism. Change the title or move the discussion to its own page where Castro could be one example. (IMHO) Wegerje 13:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason for this is that the text was originally written by TJive for the Cult of personality article. However, there, it took up about one third of the article and it seemed more in place here, so I moved it, sort of expecting that it would be modified to fit better (I didn't have the time for that at the moment). Sort of like you're suggesting now. That's the way Wikipedia works, so go ahead. DirkvdM 07:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)