On 10/10/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong, it hasn't gotten worse, at least Batista is no longer called a dictator, as he once was. That is how much the clique, did not want Castro labeled a dictator. Note that Batista still has a regime, which has been regarded as POV on other pages. Batista did not shoot people trying to escape Cuba, Castro does.
Well, do you not see that all you're talking about is a tit-for-tat affair? What does the issue of killing people trying to escape Cuba have to do with the question of whether we call Batista or Castro dictators? Both of them instituted a government by force of arms, so they would both fit the traditional standard. Shah Pahlavi, for that matter, when dismissed by Massadeq, was reinstalled by military force, so I guess we could call him a dictator too. But the editors of the Pahlavi article, for whatever reason, are not squabbling.
One could simply cite an authority (or authorities) who believes that Castro fits within the definition of "dictator", and cite an authority (or authorities) who believes the opposite. Then it's up to the reader who they believe.
NPOV will save the world.*
* Presuming people actually read it.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com