This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cuba B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Cuba task list: Task list New article announcements: Requests: Ambrosio Cave, Calero Cave, Centella Cave, Cuba and the United Nations, Cuevas de Punta del Este, Cura Cave, Patana Cave, Pluma Cave Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba) Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista Update: Nochebuena NPOV: Armando Valladares, Delfín Fernández, History of Cuba Copyedit: Armando Peraza, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Fabio Grobart, Julio Antonio Mella Cleanup: Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, Antonio Maceo Grajales, Bay of Pigs Invasion, History of Cuba, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, War against the Bandits Style: Fidel Castro Expand: Cuba–Soviet Union relations, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba–Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven Military history: Biography / North America / South America / United States B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force South American military history task force United States military history task force

Batista died in Guadalmina a place in the city of Marbella in Spain. In the article it says 'Guadalamina' instead of 'Guadalmina' which is the correct way to write it. I'm 100% sure because I live in Guadalmina in the city of Marbella and it is well known that the correct way of writing it is 'Guadalmina' and not 'Guadalamina'.

FYI, the link to Carlos Manuel de Céspedes points to an article about the father of the person that this article refers to.

The paragraph about the 1946 Mob Summit seems out of place: according to the rest of the article, Batista wasn't in power and wasn't even in the country when it happened. Any objections to axing it (or moving it to a more germane article)? Francis Lima (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the following text from the article:

"Under Batista's rule a new constitution was drafted. It called for government intervention in the economy and provided a social safety net."

The statement was under the section concerning his first term as president. Batista became president on Oct 10, 1940. The 1940 Constitution was drafted before that and was adopted in July of 1940. He was elected under that constitution. It was drafted and adopted before his election. Franklin Moore (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments argue for rephrasing the statement, and possibly relocating it a bit earlier. They don't really justify complete removal. The statement itself is lifted pretty closely (almost to the point of plagiarism) from the PBS piece used to reference much of this article. The sentence says "[u]nder Batista's rule", not "during Batista's presidency" (though the 1940 Constitution of Cuba article does use the latter formulation and should probably be corrected; the Constitution of Cuba article uses the phrase "de facto presidency", which is probably as accurate as anything). Arguably, the 1940 Constitution was implemented under his rule - certainly under his auspices - since not much happened in Cuba from 1933–34 'til 1944 without Batista's approval. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that at the very least any statement to this effect should be moved up in the article. But I think it needs to be reworded, if included at all. At the time the Constitution was drafted Batista held no official title. He had resigned as Army Chief of Staff in 12/39 and he was not even a signatory to the Constitution. I have spent much of the last two hours reading telexes from the US embassy in Habana to the State Dept at the time of the Constitution's drafting (all available online) and am attempting to draft some appropriate language to replace this section. My problem with the lnaguage as it stood prior to deletion is not only the timing (although that was a part of my problem) but also that it implied that Batista was interested in the provisions that included the social safety net. My reading of the record discloses no such interest. (Indeed I see no evidence that he supported any language in the Constitution and seems only concerned that it would not render him inelligible to seek the Presidency. Indeed the record seems to indicate that the Constitution reflects the ideas of Grau and the opposition not those of Batista and it is the implication that Batista supported those ideas which I think are most in need of clarification.) If you will give me a bit of time, I think that I can draft language which will be based upon the public record. Franklin Moore (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lede refers to Batista as a General. Everything I have read always states that the highest rank he ever held was that of a Colonel. He was chief of staff of the Cuban Army from 1933 until 1939, so one might argue that he was a de facto general, but considering the issue, I would propose replacing "General" with the phrase "military leader." Is there any objection? Franklin Moore (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. As soon as I saw the one-word edit summary, I knew what the issue would be, and was mentally closing in on "military leader" as I started to read the actual comment, so I say that sounds fine to me. I know colonel is documented; he may have forced through a promotion to general somewhere along the way, but "military leader" works until we find a source that supports "general". Fat&Happy (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; if someone has a source showing a promotion then General can be added back; until then I have changed it to military leader. Franklin Moore (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted a shorter expansion of the intro in an attempt to make it a concise summary of the entire article. Comments please! Kaisershatner (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few adjustments, some for content and others for clarity and tighter wording. Let me know what you think? I am pretty content with how it stands now and appreciate your efforts.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redthoreau, thanks, and I think it is much better now too. I have two questions for you: is "US-backed" necessary as the primary adjective for Batista, especially when the rest of the intro and article emphasizes in multiple places that the US backed him? I would say he was a "Cuban dictator, military leader, President, etc., backed by the United States. And second, why remove the cited sentence about Castro's plan to assassinate him? I thought that was very interesting. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kaiser, as for "U.S.-backed" I opened a new thread below for that to be discussed in more detail. As for the assassination plan, although the PBS source is reliable, I think we should track down at least 2 more corroborating the story (which seems just a little too convenient) - otherwise, yeah it is very "interesting" and could be included.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per - WP:VERIFY - I figured I would utilize the talk page to first list several sources which corroborate the phrase "U.S.-backed Dictator" in reference to Fulgencio Batista.

The following below are all book titles (accessible by Google books) followed by the page number and verbatim phrase contained within the source:

Cuba: idea of a nation displaced - page 77 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Born in blood and fire: a concise history of Latin America‎ - Page 262 .... "US -backed military dictatorship"

The Columbia history of Latinos in the United States since 1960‎ - Page 149 .... "US -backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Breaking the real axis of evil: how to oust the world's last dictators by 2025‎ - Page 231 .... "overthrow of the US -backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista"

America's other war: terrorizing Colombia‎ - Page 27 .... "overthrowing the US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

The Puerto Rican movement: voices from the diaspora‎ - Page 39 .... "the fall of US -backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Rockets and Missiles: The Life Story of a Technology‎ - Page 74 .... "overthrown US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia‎ - Page 157 .... "against US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Encyclopedia of Latino popular culture‎ - Page 75.... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Greenwood Dictionary of World History‎ - Page 41 .... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Che Guevara: In Search of Revolution‎ - Page 46 .... "US -backed Cuban government led by Fulgencio Batista"

Perils of Empire: The Roman Republic and the American Republic‎ - Page 127 .... "the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Cold War, 1945-1991: Leaders and other important figures in the Soviet Union - Page 134 .... "Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista … against the US-backed Batista regime"

Facts about the 20th century‎ - Page 285 .... "overthrew US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Latino/a Thought: Culture, Politics, and Society‎ - Page 542 .... "oust the US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Cuba and the coming American Revolution‎ - Page 65 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press‎ - Page 122 .... "with Fulgencio Batista, the US-backed dictator"

Children of Cain: violence and the violent in Latin America‎ - Page 111 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Iraq war: causes and consequences‎ - Page 36 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Robert F. Kennedy and the death of American idealism‎ - Page 54 .... "The US -backed dictator, General Fulgencio Batista"

Changing the history of Africa: Angola and Namibia‎ - Page 105 .... "US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Endless enemies: the making of an unfriendly world‎ - Page 256 .... "Fulgencio Batista, the US -backed dictator"

If you don't prefer books, a quick web search also lists some web articles from the

Telegraph ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Reuters ... "overthrow U.S.-backed dictator"

Washington Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Capitalism Magazine = (now there's a bastion of Communism) ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Boston Globe ... "US-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

CNN ... "toppled a longstanding U.S.-backed dictator."

Irish Times ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

BBC ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

National Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator"

Miami Herald ... "U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Now obviously listing all of the above ref's in the lead might "be a bit much". However I believe a few key points point to why the phrase "U.S.-backed" is important in the lead ... [1] Batista was in power in Cuba for 18 years (33-44, 52-59). He was indisputably backed by the U.S. for 17-17.5 years of that time, thus he was "U.S.-backed", the phrase the majority of sources utilize. [2] All of the refs I provide above are speaking of Batista ON JAN 1 1959. [3] Batista received military aid from the U.S. for the first 2 years of the Guerrilla conflict against J26M (1956-58). The U.S. ambassador was only "pulled" when it became obvious that Batista was about to be toppled, at the very end of the conflict. [4] Sure, you can find a few minor sympathetic or partisan sources which paint Batista as someone 'betrayed' by the U.S. who wanted him to be overthrown for Fidel Castro (a view common among some of the CIA in late 1958, but not the U.S. State Dept or Govt), but the majority of Wp:Reliable sources do not state such a thing. [5] Lastly, the fact that Batista was (and was viewed) as being backed by the U.S. (i.e. a puppet, lackey etc) by the Cuban people, was a key "selling point" for those rebelling against his rule during the Cuban revolution (both communists and non-communists alike). Keeping in mind that many of the rebels took up arms out of "nationalist" ("Get the Yanquis out of Cuba once and for all") tendencies.

Now with all that said, what are other editors views on the issue? Should "U.S.-backed" be in the intro paragraph?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great list of refs. But Redthoreau, to be clear, I am not suggesting we remove "U.S-backed" from the intro paragraph. Just that we call Batista a Cuban military leader, President, and dictator backed by the United States. It is more of a point of language usage than some kind of disagreement about who kept him in power. All I would like is to change the word order. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great list of references. I say keep, "U.S. Backed" in the lede. As to the main point (not the language usage point), I am actually amazed that we are having this discussion. I have never seen any reputable source that does not call him "a U.S. backed" leader (or words to that effect). While it is true that the exact nature of Batista's relationship with the US was complex and varied over time, all major sources inside the US, inside Cuba and as far as I know through out the world, describe him as being "US Backed - from shortly after the coup in 1933 until shortly before his fall from power. The body of the article can, and does, detail the nuances of this relationship, but the lead is meant to give a broad summary of the topic. Using "US Backed" is the best way to do this. As to Kaisershatner's linguistic point, to me "U.S. Backed military leader etc" is shorter and more to the point that is "military leader backed by the Untied States." Franklin Moore (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisershatner, just to clarify - my main reasoning for laying out the sources on this thread was to address User:Callelinea's ---> removal altogether of "U.S.-backed" from the lead with the stated reasoning of: "He was not always backed by the US government. Intro should just state the bare facks (sic). US backed stated other places)".   As for your wording suggestion, I don't particularly see anything wrong with it, but believe that having the U.S.-backed precede the order mirrors the sources (above) more accurately. Your concern is valid however, and I am open to persuasion.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau, I have to say I really appreciate the clarification. Since I hadn't seen the other edit I was a bit surprised by the length of your reply, so thanks for setting me straight. After seeing the list of your sources that use US backed as the main descriptor for Batista, I am thinking that perhaps this is the standard historical view. You are gracious to be open-minded. On the other hand, my point is basically that Batista was a native Cuban, both before and after being US backed, and that his being Cuban was an immutable part of his identity (the US backing came and went as we see in the article, although it was for the vast majority of his political career). If you don't think that his Cuban-ness outweighs his having been a dependent of US support, then I can live with it. Honestly, I am not trying to score some kind of political point here, it just doesn't make sense to me from a language standpoint. (Imagine Castro described as a Soviet-backed Cuban dictator, revolutionary, etc.) Without Russian support Castro might not have been dictator for life, but it would be ridiculous IMO to describe him in those terms. See where I am coming from? Kaisershatner (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kaisershatner makes a valid point as to the word order (one that had not occurred to me earlier). I would be fine with either word order (i.e. "US Backed ..." or "... backed by the U.S.") As to the larger point, I still believe that US backing belongs in the lead. Franklin Moore (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser, I see your point and agree. Originally the wording was "Cuban general, president, and U.S.-backed dictator" which would be my first choice and I believe closest to the above sources. However, I also see the value in wording per your suggestion. Franklin what do you think?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your version Redthoreau. Although I think President might be capitalized in this instance, I am never sure of this rule. Either way I like your wording and it is pretty concise. Thanks for considering my argument. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Cuban general, president, and U.S.-backed dictator" is POV. He was U.S.-backed as leader and President, arguably before becoming a dictator. The backing needs to be at either the beginning or the end, but not placed in front of only one of the nouns used to describe him. "U.S.-backed" as it is now may de-emphasize his Cuban-ness, as has been stated, so the end is probably better. If at the end, it might be possible to expand the phrasing, indicating that backing came from not only the government but also U.S. corporate interests and organized crime, though those are currently covered in a separate paragraph.

I still think that the way it reads now "US Backed Cuban military leader , President and dictator" is straight forward and in keeping with most of the sources; However, I have no problem with "military leader , President and dictator backed by the United States". Although to me this reads a bit clumsily. I would agree with the unsigned comment that he was backed by the US in all of his capacities (military leader, President and dictator). Perhaps we could say he "was a Cuban military leader, President and dictator whose power primarily resulted from US backing." I know it is longer but I think it emphasizes his Cuba-ness, but also recognizes the source of his power. Franklin Moore (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]