Jump to content

Talk:Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro

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

Article

[edit]

In the future, I would be more understanding when it comes to creating an article, but is this not a bit premature? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of hours...just getting a template up. Reactins will come in.Lihaas (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to your user space as a draft. It is fuckin useless as an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain decorum if you want to be heard! That is unacceptable language for building a community project.
At any rate, instead of whingeing you can populate the article as I am doing.Lihaas (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WTF! You create an article with nothing in it and you expect e to be an expert on the death of Castro. No wonder WP is fucked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because its already being populated with news of his funeral rreangements. --Lihaas (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you an have that in the main article. Awwwww Hell Naw what's up Dawg! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.119.209.82 (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because it documents a significant event. --McArthur Parkette (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yeah sure it is a siignificant event and that is a good reason not to have a shitty half baked article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move merge 26 November 2016

[edit]
There is no appetite for a merge and there is precedent for such articles for former world leaders. WP:SNOW close, withdrawing endorsement of merge. Fences&Windows 16:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro → Fidel Castro – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a move request but a WP:MERGE request. I will add a rationale: the death of Castro is long-expected, as he was an old man. The events of his death are not unusual and a state funeral and international reactions are routine. His death does not have major repercussions. Per the guidance at WP:EVENT, this should be selectively merged to Fidel Castro. Fences&Windows 10:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move Quality of content does not determine notability per WP:CONTN. Though the article is developing, it is notable, as he was one of the most important leaders of the 20th century and his death will soon bring many responses internationally in the coming hours that will fill this article; in addition to that, information on his funeral will need to be put into this article. There is no point in deleting this article only to recreate it in several hours when more comprehensive information is published. The {{under construction}} template is enough to warn readers that information is developing and may not be accurate. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move: If the article is still underdeveloped in 24-48 hours, we can revisit this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WHY NOT EXPAND THE SECTION N THE MAIN ARTICLE. WHEN IT IS TOO BIG IT CAN BE SPLIT OUT. 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 203.173.179.241: This article is developing, and there is no doubt that there is going to be enough information in the coming hours to populate this article. There is no need to merge, only to split again in a few hours. There are sufficient warnings for readers at the top of the page to tell readers that information in the article is building and may not be completely accurate, as is the case for all sudden current events. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
year sure but what a crap way to develop an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
203.173.179.241: No need for harsh language. Articles relating to current events immediately after they happen always look rough; check back tomorrow and I'm sure it will be developed into a decent article. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Truth hurts aye! My point is that is a the wrong precess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point.
  • Oppose. For world leaders who receive significant international attention, as it's clear Fidel will, there will be a lot of international and domestic reactions to his death. This article will clearly deserve its own article, and by the time we get around to merging, it'll be time to split it again.--Slon02 (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Per above/s and the article is growing with the funeral hours away.Lihaas (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, per Slon02's point above. Aridd (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As rude as the IP editor was, I do agree to the extent that the article was in very poor shape when it was first created; early revisions such as this one are hardly Wikipedia's best, and would have been better confined to the Fidel Castro article while there were only five or fewer sentences. It doesn't do us any good to prematurely create articles with almost no unique information. At the time, temporarily redirecting the article until some amount of unique information was compiled might have worked (whether it would have been the best solution is up for debate); the main issue was that the article was created with little unique information as compared to the main Fidel Castro article. It was clear beforehand that this was a topic of significance, so there isn't much lost, but it might have been better to write a little bit more first. I won't get critical beyond that because I have certainly been guilty of similar acts. All that said, at this point, content has been added to the extent that I wouldn't be so supportive of a merge, so considering this issue really only matters so much as it pertains to future similar instances. Dustin (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 10:19 am, Today (UTC+0)
continue oppose merge The only additions here are NOTABLE ones by people notable enough to be on WP. Further, this exists for Nestor Kirchner, Hugo Chavez and others. This is far more notable a legacy then the ones mentioned. Further it is not "routine". If you feel that then get a wider WP consensus for all such pages. WP is an encyclopaedia and that is for researchers. Not a propaganda machine to cherry pick what is liked. All sources and persons make it neutral.
The main article is way too long anyways A(As per comments at ITNC too).
urther this has twice been unanimously rejected (except the IP who has no control).Lihaas (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ive closed it twice. Can someone sent to the grave (no pun intended)? and remove the tag too.Lihaas (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
still unanimous.Lihaas (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See also

[edit]

In line with WP:SEEALSO "related Wikipedia articles", as I explained the in the summary, these links are too similar heads of state with an ideology that almost the same.Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. you aRE CLUTCHING AT STRAWS TO SAVE YR PATHETIC AREICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looks like someone else aggreed with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.179.241 (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam

[edit]

They made a comment but not by a institution proper but through state-run media (which in itself is a pseudo-/quasi-government institution). not sure if we should add it?Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cremation?

[edit]

I don't know how his body can be cremated "in the early hours of November 26th" and lie in state until the 29th so I think there may have been a change in the timeline of events. Also, I'm wondering if mention should be made that Castro will be cremated in contrast to several other Communist leaders around the world who were entombed and permanently put on display (or at least put on display until there was a change in policy) ie Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il and several other leaders who had been put on display but removed due to changes in political winds or technological failures? McArthur Parkette (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His urn will be there to pay homage. I jut heard that on tv.
I don't think the relation is relevant here. But maybe in see also?Lihaas (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

{{adminhelp}} Can someone URGENTLY block the evader per the talk page User talk: 24.251.87.219 and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. He is being HIGHLY disruptive to many editors.Lihaas (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be days before an admin replies to a help request. This should be reported in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 15:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No point if he's on a dynamic IP and hopping all over the place. Page semi protected for 3 months. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch mconnel reaction quote

[edit]

The source has these words in quotes: "the oppression that was the hallmark of his era is not . It is my hope that the Cuban regime will use this opportunity to turn the page for the good of the Cuban people and for all those living in the Americas. Freedom and democracy are long overdue in Cuba."

The edit has this "While Fidel Castro is gone, sadly..." Regardless of the grammar you would like to see you can put words in someone else's mouth. That's why we have the [sic] tag.Lihaas (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lihaas: I added a new citation after the quotation: [1]: "While Fidel Castro is gone, sadly the oppression that was the hallmark of his era is not," Please learn correct English grammar before continuing to edit. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Seriously what are you even reading, since you insist I read the source?!Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lihaas: Do you know how to click the link I provided above? Do you know how to read what you see after you click. That link provides the entire quotation by McConnell. Please click it and read. Sundayclose (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)
Wel then you just did. Better to add a source than accuse me.
Do you know how to read? Where was the link added when you were accusing me?! People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!
Resolved
Lihaas (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lihaas: Better to find a proper source than to add crap grammar to an article. Sundayclose (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support @Sundayclose's argument that the quote without its overture is ungrammatical and unclear. The full sentence should be included. General Ization Talk 17:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose: Then FIND the proper source. You did not have a source as proven in the edit given above even after the first revert telling you it wasn't in the source cited. You added a new source in the third edit (and when that source was there, I accepted it as cited). You should have the decency to apologise for your cock up!
Alternatively you could have re-worded it out of quotes.Lihaas (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lihaas: I did find a source, so move on. And consider this your final warning for making personal attacks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what figment of your imagination sees a personal attack. I PROVE you did NOT have a source when YOU first attacked and warned me for YOUR ERROR! So you drop it and stay away from interaction since you cannot edit constructively.
There was a resolved tag above and you continued the attacks after that. The evidence is right here on the page and I was the one to put a resolved tag before you went on the attack. So you stop the personal attacks and stay away from interacting with me till you can be moe civil and conducive to editing togethed as a community. I was also the one to bring this to talk page!Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the stick. Now. General Ization Talk 17:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Lihaas (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

[edit]

I don't see how this section is directly related to Castro's death. He is merely saying that he is old and will eventually die.

If this is included, can we also include Assassination attempts on Fidel Castro? epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well its in reference to his fina l appearance in saying he's near. I don't think any of the assassination came close and they were decades ago long before he was near to dying. But anyways, if there is consensus to remove this then fair enugh. I won't argue.Lihaas (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubio quoted notable?

[edit]

Just wondering if Rubios comments here are notable, similar to Trumps?--NetworkOP (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's in office (and senate is higher than house) and also Cuban.
But willing to hear why you think otherwise?Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

[edit]

Remove outdated Northern Ireland flag, since it doesn't have one. Add closing quotation marks to Mogherini's quote. 109.76.158.195 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its on the reaction to trump's election victory page. Im not aware but Scotland and Wales also have one as devolved govts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done General Ization Talk 18:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: Why? It still exists with the tag {{flag|Northern Ireland}}. If its doesn't exist it shouldn't be here. It was also used just 3 weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: The flag you mention, the Ulster Banner, was the flag of the pre-1973 government of Northern Ireland. It is not currently being used to represent either the government or the people of Northern Ireland. See Northern Ireland flags issue. It is appropriate that it exists because it is used in articles that refer to the Stormont government that was dissolved under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The fact that something exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is appropriate to use it in every context. General Ization Talk 20:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

‎@General Ization: Thanks for following Wikipedia policy. Sundayclose (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: Then what is currently flying over Stormont? Even if its the uk flag, theres nsurely something for NI?Lihaas (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's my opinion that WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG does leave open the possibility of using sub-national flags. The main concern against using them is difficulty in verifying sub-national identity - in this case, that isn't applicable because Martin McGuiness is specifically a Northern Irish elected official. The very nature that he holds a sub-national, not a national, office makes the use of a sub-national flag relevant. I support restoring the flag.--Slon02 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Slon02: Agreed wholly.Lihaas (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From our article Ulster Banner: "Since 1972, the Ulster Banner has had no official status and is not used by the current Northern Ireland government or by the British government. However, the Ulster Banner is still in common use by loyalists/unionists, and to represent Northern Ireland internationally in some sporting competitions. It has become a symbol of Ulster loyalism and is a contentious symbol. In recent years there have been calls for a new, neutral flag for Northern Ireland to replace the Ulster Banner." If someone suggested we use the Confederate flag to accompany the reaction from any representative of the United States, would you think it was a good idea? This is not the right place to make some point about Northern Irish nationalism, and unless you are doing so there is no reason to use this flag. Leave it alone. General Ization Talk 01:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the Confederate flag was used then yes it would be, but it isn't. To quote the above, "to represent Northern Ireland internationally". That is the purpose here. Who is intending to make nationalistic statements? Heck, all flags are statements of nationalism, technically. Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase reads and to represent Northern Ireland internationally in some sporting competitions. This is not a sporting competition. Once again, drop it. (And did you actually just say you thought it would be a good idea under any circumstances to use the Confederate flag to represent the US?) General Ization Talk 15:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Ulster Banner isn't in use by the actual government of Northern Ireland, I'm striking my previous comment. I do support the use of sub-national flags where they exist and are actively used, as we're now using for Scotland and Puerto Rico in this article, but given the context of NI I won't support using a separate flag there.--Slon02 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: Stop getting feisty. Im having a debate and have NOT added it to the page. And secondly I said we can use the Confederate flag IFF it represents an entity (which it does not).Lihaas (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing international reactions

[edit]

The official Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma lists a number of condolences from different world leaders that are still missing in this article, including for instance Syria's Al Assad or King Felipe VI of Spain. I would prefer to add them from external sources, but I'm mentioning this so that other editors more versed on English news media can work on it. There also seems to be an official statement from Belarusian president Lukashenko available here in Russian. Galio (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Galio: Thanks for the very important find. If you can add them here or on the page, I can copy edit.Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Galio: Done first link. Belarus is not getting translated.Lihaas (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: Great work! I found a Spanish translation of (part of) Lukashenko's words in Russia's Sputnik Spanish service. I'm not quite sure if it's acceptable (i.e. honest) to use a two-step translation, but here it goes:

The leader of a small country in the Caribbean, he turned into a politician of planetary scale who has exerted a substantial influence in the evolution of world events in the 20th century and in the long term. [...] The reflections and advice he has shared with me have a great value, [and] I am sure it is a priceless treasure that will continue being of help for me in public management and in private life.

— A. Lukashenko, in a letter to Raúl Castro
He also defines Fidel Castro as "a thinker that has no replacement nowadays". Galio (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better than nothing. I added it.Lihaas (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: during one of your last edits you removed the mention of Chinese premier Li Keqiang. Not quite sure it was intentional! Galio (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Galio: The quote is the exact same that is cited in the sentene before. It was also added by some user who didn't explain it and added the partisan party affiliation for communist parties across the page. Also I added the part before from the source and it wasn't there.Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: Found an official source for Li's statement. I re-added it since it had some quotes different from Xi's. Galio (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Galio: Saw it, thaNks. I wikilinked his name too.Lihaas (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

[edit]

Should we sot it by continent? 'cause obviously most are coming from America?Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone already did the change, and I think it makes the article a lot easier to both edit and read.--Slon02 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good move , it came after
Resolved
Lihaas (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the reactions to a separate article

[edit]

Hello,

since several personalities have articles devoted to the reactions which occured to their death (list here) and given the personality, I thought it would be a good idea to store the reactions to the passing of Castro in a separate article.

--Jean Po (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general id agree but this is the whole death itself (like other such articles) and this not yet too long per wp:ARTICLESIZELihaas (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finding some workaround for the introduction

[edit]

The introduction currently reads "Most reactions were of praise, with the exception of government officials in France, the United Kingdom and the legislature in the United States. Cuban-Americans in Miami, Florida celebrated the occasion." Someone added Canada to that list, which I undid, since Trudeau's comments are pretty favourable towards Castro. Nevertheless, the list is not exhaustive: government officials in the Netherlands or Australia, for instance, issued similar statements to those from the UK or the US. Furthermore, the current wording obscures the fact that praise and criticism follow rather regular lines. I'd propose an alternative wording highlighting that praise came mostly from Latin American, African, Asian and former Socialist countries [for his struggle for independence, regional integration and achievements in health, education and literacy], while some Western developed countries raised concerns [about his economic policies and human rights record]. I know the expressions in italics can be suboptimal, and in any case I'm not quite sure whether we should use developing countries, Third World, Global South or some other alternative, or which term should we use to encompass the places where criticism seems more concentrated (it's worth noting that Japan or Canada, for instance, reacted in a very different tone than the UK or Australia). It would also be good to include that almost every reaction stressed, in one way or another, Castro's impact in 20th century history. Galio (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good, indeed, to have some sort of coherent overview. Don't hesitate to write up a suggested paragraph in the article itself. Aridd (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Maybe we wikilonk to the western world and add spain (most notable as colonial power) and Canada as different?Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What if we said that criticism came mostly from the United States and some Western European leaders? The problem with using the West alone is that it may include Japan and, depending on the definition, Latin America (apart from the fact that not all European countries issued critical statements: Spain, Italy, Greece or Ireland are exceptions, for instance). Galio (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe go with criticism "from the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and some Western Europe countries." That should cover all of the critical statements made. I'd be very hesitant to use the word "Western" in a broad sense because it would likely include not only Canada and Southern Europe (including Turkey) as mentioned earlier, but also countries like Japan, the Philippines, and Singapore, which all had pretty positive reactions. Also interesting that there's a North-South divide in Europe with the reactions, with the reactions from northern countries (Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, UK, Sweden) being more critical compared to reactions from southern leaders (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Greece).--Slon02 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Slon02. There are a few more unambiguous;y negative reactions I just added to the lead. Better to leave it specific as they are in the minority (frankly this clash of civilizations is dangerouos and scary).Lihaas (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

What's with all the anodyne quotes? --John (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article represents a lot of hard work. Well done. Is the Irish President insane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.102.144 (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not targeted for editors but researchers as an encyclcopaedia.
btw- see the history of [anti-colonialist] Ireland!Lihaas (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Too many quotations"

[edit]

John included the {{quotefarm}} tag in the Reactions section. The template seems to be meant for articles where direct quotes systematically replace pieces of text that should be original prose –more so considering that the main article about oversusing quotations is Non free content. This is not the case, and hardly could we replace quotes when we are actually quoting world leaders' reactions. I understand that as days go by we might be able to shorten some of them, or to transform others into more abstract summaries, but right now I don't think that quotes are being longer than they should, or that we are in the situation debscribed by the WP:QUOTEFARM essay. I'd appreciate others' opinion before taking it out. Galio (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you understand the problem, and how it should be solved. The purpose of article improvement tags is to point out the problem so that it can be solved. Removing the tag without fixing the problem wouldn't be a good idea. --John (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ Galio. We could trim the quotes over the next few days/weeks but no need to remove. In fact another pair of concerned eyes (John) is good to help trim it. Ive said the same in some summaries.Lihaas (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family subarticle

[edit]

We seem to be missing a subarticle, Family of Fidel Castro, such as like other political families, ie. Bush family, Roosevelt family, etc. That would complement this one with surviving members, and their relationships -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create/suggest on e on the main page.Lihaas (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of embassies and other places where Fidel is being honored

[edit]
Cuban embassy in Argentine.

It would be interesting having more pictures of embassies worldwide where Fidel is being honored. Like these ones from Buenos Aires embassy. Add them to commons:Category:Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro. emijrp (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got a new section for all this, but the twitter sources arenot best unless from a notable persom.Lihaas (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly a surprise and tbh barely noteworthy that Cuban embassies abroad are flying the flag at half mast. What I find more noteworthy is that most foreign embassies in Cuba are flying their flags half mast - though at least one (the US) is not doing do 213.205.193.27 (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other reactions

[edit]

This is a list of reactions from artists and other personalities worlwide:

I don't say all them should be added, just leave here references to improve the article when desired. emijrp (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emijrp: Feel free to add it at the bottm. Perhaps after Maradona? Theyre clearly notable enough for WP.Lihaas (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban people reaction

[edit]

There isn't in the lead any info about how Cuban people in Cuba reacted to his death. Only about Miami inhabitants. His funeral is being attended by hundreds of thousands or millions. Just give a look to this video filmed in La Habana University. emijrp (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This remains me Stalin's funeral. Who is Beria and who Nikita Khrushchev? Xx236 (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point , ,, better add that.Lihaas (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jeremy Corbyn going?

[edit]

While there were initial reports that UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was going to the funeral other reports say he is not and is sending his Shadow Foreign Secretary instead. Do we know conclusively yet if he's going or not? McArthur Parkette (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We ought to know, since it was reported that the funeral service was yesterday. But maybe some people are going to the event on 3-4 Dec instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.193.27 (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday was a memorial rally at which some international dignitaries were present and spoke. The internment is on 4 December and it is that which is being referred to as a state funeral and that is being attended by foreign dignitaries. As for Corbyn, while there were initial reports he would be attending, subsequent reports that he would not and I can find nothing online saying he is in or has been in Cuba this week. Most recent reference: "Senior members of the British government will snub the funeral of Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro. Prime Minister Theresa May failed even to issue a statement on Castro’s death over the weekend. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, too, has chosen not to attend, after initially suggesting he would. His Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry will take his place on the December 4 ceremony." (November 29). Unless there is an article more recent than that which says Corbyn is attending let's stop adding him to the list.[34] McArthur Parkette (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Why is this article not part of the main article? What is going on here? 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.76.128 (talk)

Too long to be part of the main article. McArthur Parkette (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016

[edit]

Please remove the C1 control characters in "Rajoy: “Spain is especially united in grief with Cuba over the loss of a great historical figure”"(just before the word "Spain" and just after the word "figure"), since they cause an error and do not show up on the reference's link(as well as this edit request).

Also, because the refname "cnn" was defined twice with different urls, please change the first reference with the refname "cnn" to "cnn1" (in case someone uses "cnn" as a refname for a new citation so corrections like these are made easier) for the following phrases/quotes:

  • "I'm here because Fidel was a good friend to Ireland."
  • Fidel wasn't just your leader, Fidel was the leader of all revolutionaries
  • The embassy lowered it's flag to half-mast in a show of respect.

Note, the last phrase in incorrect because the article actually states that: "The US Embassy in Havana is one of the few diplomatic missions in the Cuban capital that has not lowered its flag to half-staff to mark Castro's death."

Also, please change the second reference with the refname "cnn" to "cnn2" for the following quote:

  • "A tyrant is dead."

47.148.79.80 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death and state funeral of 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Death and state funeral of 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Fidel_Castro&oldid=1206909255"