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(a)gmail.com