Jump to content

Talk:Cuba/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Desperately misreading "opposing views"

There's a line that some editors seem to be pushing and approach that completely misunderstands the concept of "opposing views". Yes, differing views should be presented. But not every fact has an opposing view, except in the most contorted and ideological sophistry. If we say rhumba came from Cuba, we really don't need to present the "opposing view". And likewise for the fact it's south of Florida. Many facts that are social or political also have no sensible "opposing view"... and just presenting some fact that someone might take as a good thing about Cuba doesn't mean that we need some digression into a tirade as an "opposing view".

So Cuba has a 96% literacy nowadays (or whatever the referencable number is). There's no "opposing view" to that (unless some serious non-fringe position existed that it had a 50% literacy or a 150% literacy like the SD seems to expect). Sure, if estimates actually vary, we can say "95-98%" and footnote the various sources, or whatever. It's not an "opposing view" to argue tediously about what might have happened in regard to literacy under some other regime, or whatever counterfactual. It's not an "opposing view" to argue that the literacy rate "doesn't count" for whatever reason, it's just an editorial that doesn't belong here. Symmetrically, it would be POV nonsense to write that "The 96% literacy rate proves the revolution is really great". Our job is just to state the facts, readers can decide for themselves what "might have been" or "what it proves". Similarly for health indices, or abortion rates, or whatever.

Even most of the stuff around form-of-government has no sensible "opposing view". We don't follow the fact that Castro has been president, or that X% of legislators were PCC members, or whatever with some rant about how bad those facts are under the misleading guise that it's an "opposing view". It's fine to say that such-and-such are the constitutional procedures. And it's even mostly fine, if properly cited, to write that the de jure procedures are not fully followed de facto. But adding at the end "and that's bad" isn't an "opposing view", it's just an editorial (and it's just as much an editorial even if it's a direct quotation). LotLE×talk 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at the United States article, which itself contains a number of POV edits seemingly designed to paint the US in an unneccesarily bad light. Unless editors get serious on encylopedic content then Wikipedia will fail. There's not a chance that a mainstream encylopedia would carry some of the sentences on the US page or others that are being trialled on this page. It makes you wonder what motivations people have for contributing at all. I just read "The United States is poorly educated in comparison to most developed countries"?!?--Zleitzen 02:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights section

Bruce,

Cuba has just posted the “Registro General de Disposiciones Jurídicas” (Register of the Judicial Dispositions), in other words the laws of Cuba. I just reviewed the information for Code 62 (Penal Code). I could not find any mention of a public law against homosexuality. Unfortunately, it is only in Spanish.

You may want to add it to the link section. The Website contains other information.

Respectfully,

Daniel (http://www.unjc.cu/indice_referativo.htm)


"Although many Cubans depended on money sent home by exile relatives in the U.S., Cubans in Cuba appeared to have little liking for the anti-Castro exiles, even if they also opposed Castro."
The highlighted text is POV and should be removed. So let me be clear here: you pretend that it’s impossible to asses if Cuba is a democracy or not (something very general), but you can asses what is in the mind of the People (details)? May I ask how did you measure the level of hate towards anti-Castro exile?--Anticom 19:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The last remaining POV dispute box was in the Human Rights section. I reverted that section to a roughly stable version that existed prior to the last edit war. Obviously this is subject to collaboration and consensus, but I hope that it is a helpful baseline from which to start. BruceHallman 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Below is a scratchy guide I came up with for how I believed it should be presented
The Cuban Constitution and the Penal Code allow for severe sanctions against exercising freedom of expression if the activities of individuals are deemed to be "counter-revolutionary" or a "threat to national security". Restrictions on travel outside Cuba can be applied to dissidents etc
Cuba has consistently been condemned by Oxfam International and Amnesty International for opposing U.N. Human Rights measures demanding internal reform etc In 2005 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that 71 journalists and trade union activists were being held in “alarming conditions” having been sentenced to terms ranging from 6 to 28 years, following summary trials. Many Human Rights groups are denied permission to enter the country Cuba etc
Since the revolution Cuba has also been resistant to the increased social liberalism developed elsewhere in the region. As recently as 1997, the Cuban Penal Code sanctioned "Publicly Manifested Homosexuality" with up to one year in prison etc
This was retrieved from a previous posting by me, the response was concluded by an Adam Carr diatribe about my relationship with the Nazis in the second world war!?! I hope a review won't bring forth similar charges.--Zleitzen 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the terms 'counter-revolutionary' 'threat' 'national security' in the Cuban Constutition, or are you refering to the Penal Code? Also, is there a online source to see the Cuban Penal Code? (hopefully in English)? I guess, my question is, where can I confirm citations for your paragraph above? BruceHallman 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It was a loose draft drawn up based on EU and Amnesty international reports, Bruce. I'd be prepared to check every detail though, and I imagine some facts may be well off. It was mainly designed to demonstrate to other editors how I believe the section should read. I'd prefer the section to be proportionate, concise, accurate and with none of Adam's pontifications about subordination etc.
I can't find the penal code Bruce, although this [1] would be a good starting point.--Zleitzen 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars and the 3RR rule

I think that's about the 3rd time I've restored the link to "socialist republic" (which redirects to our Socialist state article). So I must now retire from the field. If other contributors insist on reverting that link I won't undo the revert any more for a couple of days.

But I wish you all would discuss changes here on the talk page, where they are easy to follow. I don't think the Edit Summary field is a place for a discussion. It's just to provide a quick note of what you were trying to do. Anything complicated, or non-obvious, or that needs further discussion really should go on the "discussion page". --Uncle Ed 19:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you prefer for the phrase "socialist republic" to link to socialist state rather than socialism? I don't really care about that either way; but I glanced at both articles, and felt the latter was more descriptive of what we wanted. Ideally, someone will decide to write an article that is directly about socialist republic (not just a redirect), but it's not on WP right now. Feel free to change the link if you wish. LotLE×talk 19:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO Socialist state (which is what Socialist republic redirs to) - appears to form a good basic explanation, plus is a better starting for exploring the concept (links to examples, short simple backgounder etc) Bridesmill 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK... Drogo Underburrow took the phrase out of the lead paragraph most recently. And given the apparently correct admonishments that some other editors gave me about the "slippery slope" of putting something in the lead, I'm not going to worry about that. The link is still in the infobox though, so if you'd like to change what "socialist republic" links to there, I wholly endorse that. LotLE×talk 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba and democracy

Sorry for starting a new section, but it's not really about Sandy Berger. The thing that embarassed us with news reports is the edit war about whether Cuba is a "democracy" or not.

I daresay it may have something to do with various definitions of "democracy" being applied. Given that Sandy Berger was working for a non-Republican president, he's probably not a right-wing conservative but more likely expressing the general sense of what Americans mean when they say "democratic". The question is whether the American definition is applicable (or is the only relevant definition).

But it's not unclear. Berger is saying that Cuba doesn't qualify as being an American democracy. (And he's also scolding them for being the only one's in the neighborhood who don't qualify.) Perhaps we should elaborate on this.

On the other hand, many people feel that Communism is (or can be) "democratic". In university, I learned about something called "democratic centralism". And lots of Communist dictatorships take pains to call themselves the "democratic" republic of this or that. The most anti-democratic one of all is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. If Marxists want to apply the label of "democracy" to their totalitarian experiments, who's to say they are wrong?

However, it might help our readers (more than an edit war "helps" them) if we distinguished clearly between these competing definitions of democracy. How about a sidebar article just about that? --Uncle Ed 19:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

But be very wary of US exceptionalism here. I don't know if you're in/from the USA, but not all editors or readers of WP are. Belaboring what US officials in particular have to say leads to that WP:NPOV#undue weight thing. Sandy Berger isn't a right-winger, but he's not a left-winger either. What he is, very much, is an USAian politician. Brazilian politicians, or Venezualan politicians, or Canadian politicians, or South African politicians, of Finnish politicians, or Japanese politicians, etc. all have a different take on the questions, and those are no less relevant to this article (though the US talks about its neighbor more). And likewise, the opinions of political scientists, the UN, human rights agencies, etc. (again, from all the different places and political slants). That's the problem with the Berger quote: it's not mainly even that it might be out of context, it's just that there's nothing really to make that quote more important than the thousands of others that might come from sources with different perspectives (I agree that pretty much anyone in the US state department, across administrations, will say about the same thing; but that's not neutral opinion). The danger is seeing a description of Cuba through the lens of US policy, rather than its own terms, which the Berger quote does. LotLE×talk 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense, there's no such danger. It's simply a matter of America talking about liberal democracy (free press, freedom of speech, frequent national elections, right to criticize the government, right to emigrate, etc.) vs. Cuba calling itself "democratic" with an entirely different definition.
It's meaningless to say that Cuba is (or is not) "democratic" unless we use a particular definition. Everyone in the English-speaking world knows how the US federal government defines "democracy" (and for those who don't I mentioned a few points in my previous paragraph).
The question is not
  • Does Cuba deserve the label of "democratic"?
but rather
  • What sort of government does Cuba have?
Berger's answer, however incomplete, is an easily understood starting point.
That's why I recommend that we solve the "Adam" problem (while he's gone) by clarifying the fact that the free world and the Communist world both use the same words ("democracy" and "democratic") to refer to enormously different kinds of governments.
When Americans say Cuba isn't "democratic", they mean it lacks freedoms and rights which Americans take for granted. When boosters of Cuba say that it *is* democratic, are they saying it has the same freedoms and provides the same rights that Americans get? If so, then it's no longer a matter of definitions (or word games) but a dispute over facts.
We can't choose the winner of a word game; words mean whatever the speaker or writer wants them to mean. But we can often get to the bottom of a factual dispute - or at least describe the various claims fairly.
We can describe Cuba in terms of how free or controlled its newspapers (and other periodicals) are; radio and TV are; book publishing and ownership; what sort of criticism of the government is permitted or suppressed; how easy or hard it is to travel abroad or emigrate; how easy or hard it is for tourists or journalists to visit Cuba (are they followed, ordered not to take pictures, etc.); and many other factors. This, of course, all relates to the common US concept of democracy.
There are other aspects of democracy, such as economic freedoms: the right to quit a job, to start a business, to organize (independently of the government) and negotiate wages; the right to own farm land large enough to support one's family, or to sell extra food to other people (not just to the government); etc. --Uncle Ed 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is my original research, but in short, the difference is that Cuban democracy is structured in an attempt to allow a socialist society, and USA democracy is has evolved to presently allow a capitalist society. I.E.: Compare and contrast the campaign finance policy between the two countries: Mass media is conrolled in Cuba to prevent mass organized campaigning, beyond individual people speaking in nomination meetings, and in the USA 'corporate money' is given the same right of free speech as humans, to buy bullhorns on Federally 'regulated' mass media. BruceHallman 21:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Socialist Republic describes their form of government adaquately. BruceHallman 21:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the Sandy Berger quote in context, a political spokesman for a political administration explaining a political policy that was being questioned as appearing politically duplicitous. In that context, the "Cuba is not a democracy" statement is obviously a shorthand political slogan, not a serious neutral encylopedic description. BruceHallman 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up the word democracy in several dictionaries, and I see that the defintions fall into two major catagories, that of 'a form of government', and that of a quality of 'politica/social equality'. I just had the revelation, that our dispute about the truth of whether Cuba is a democracy actually probably also depends on our perceptions of the relative 'political/social equality' defintion of democracy in Cuba. Indeed, the 'political/social equality' defintion is the definition used by Sandy Berger. BruceHallman 16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Not that we are likely to agree as to the status or value of the 'political/social equality' in Cuba versus other countries, but it might be helpful if we were to at least acknowledge that our disagreement is probably more about the 'political/social equality' definition of the word democracy and not about the 'form of government' definition of the word. BruceHallman 16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Good insight, Bruce. Anyone else here feel the same way? --Uncle Ed 16:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There are vast numbers verifiable sources to measure the large variety of 'form of government' defintions of the the word 'democracy'; I know because I have been researching them. There are far fewer verifiable sources to measure the 'political/social equality' definition of the word 'democracy'. It is as if measuring the degree of 'political/social equality' is akin to measuring goodness or evil. A very fuzzy scale. A square peg in a round WP:V hole. BruceHallman 17:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a well-defined and well-researched concept called the Gini coefficient that measures economic (in)equality. This has a lot of data around it. Admittedly, whether and to what degree economic equality is the same as political/social equality is a matter of your social philosophy. Well, social equality has certain relatively well-accepted meanings: equal treatment by gender, race, religion, etc. And these are fairly objectively researchable (and Cuba is pretty egalitarian in these regards). Political equality is all over the map though: hardly any two people would agree on whether some given society has "political equality" (For example, if A has more money to contribute to a campaign than B does, can there be political equality? Can a representative/legislator be "politically equal" to her constituent?)
I am still scratching my head about these distinctions, but here is a provocative Essay on Democracy that explores just what we mean when we think about 'democracy' and I think I agree that the origin of this concept springs from the Age of Enlightenment. BruceHallman 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. But I think "socialist republic" works. Also, I think there should be mention in the "government and politics" section that castro is listed as leader of the communist party right in the constitution. Am I mistaken or wasn't that already included somehwere...? --Mcmachete 17:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You have a wild fantasy life, it appears. Unfortunately, the Cuban constitution (which lacks this invention of yours), is linked to right in the article. In brief, Castro is not "listed as leader of the CP in the constitution". There is a bit in the preamble, which I do slightly cringe at, about Castro having been a leader of the revolution (there's also a similar personalistic mention of Marti; and of Marx, Engels, Lenin). I tend to agree it's a bit dreadful to write a an abstract legal framework that names specific people, even if by way of background mention. But dreadful or not, it don't say what you claim it does. LotLE×talk 18:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Potential Images

I have uploaded four images which could be used in this article. I don't have a scanner to upload my own, but these have all been released for use. Please give your opinion on these, or perhaps add one of your own! For reference, please see the finely tuned United States article. Myciconia 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I favor spreading them into the article. BruceHallman 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, a nice sprinkling of "scenes from the country" is friendly for readers, and no atypical of other nation articles. LotLE×talk 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Have taken Che down again, Myciconia. It doesn't bother me but then I'm not Cuban. It does seem a bit like putting a depiction of Margaret Thatcher (another very divisive figure from the past) in the UK page. I guarantee that wouldn't last more than a minute!--Zleitzen 08:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
That is the responsibe action, Zleitzen. --Mcmachete 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your logic. Lulu added a new caption that goes to great lengths to avoid any politics. But if we were to do comparisons, I'd have to go with [2]. Che has grown to represent more than a political actor (like Ghandi, or better example, Sandino or Bolivar). But again, politics aside, just look at how prevelent Che references and images are in post-revolutionary Cuba. If all the images of Che in Cuba were discovered to be ads for laundry detergent, it would still merit an image on Cuba's article. Myciconia 08:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really get this either. The iconization of Ghandi or Sandino or Bolivar seem like the analogies of interest here. It's not endorsing any particular opinion to observe that Che is frequently subject to muralization in Cuba (far, far more than Castro is); even Cuban's who dislike or disagree with Che see his image daily. It's sort of like in the US context, where someone noted Lincoln as a "controversial" figure... would we refuse to discuss his image on US money to avoid being "partisan"? Or in the British context, the analogy isn't Thatcher but the Queen—lots of Brits are anti-monarchy politically, but it's daft to deny that images of QE2 are prevalent. LotLE×talk 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
All good points Myciconia, but I sympathise with Mcmachete's position. We should be sensitive to the fact that iconic images mean very different things to different people. But I won't contest this any further either way.--Zleitzen 09:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Something that would be nice to have some more images of would be groups of "ordinary" people, which a lot of nation articles seem to have. There's a hint of that in the Chinatown picture, but something more would be nice. Maybe a street festival, or a group of schoolchildren, or a market. Ideally something that is in some way culturally specific (e.g. musicians playing characteristic instruments, or people preparing or eating characteristic foods). Anyone have or know of images along these lines? LotLE×talk 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - less have some carnaval dancers, where's the salsa and the rum ? -- Beardo 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Type of government

I think we'll never agree if Cuba is a democracy, communist state or socialist republic. As a solution of compromise I propose the word Oligarchy. --Anticom 04:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This gave Castro all the excuse he needed to establish a full-blown Communist state, which he did in May 1961. (see Cuba#Castro_and_Communism)

If it hasn't changed in 45 years, then it's still a Communist state. If it has changed, then I apologize for not reading the entire article. --Uncle Ed 21:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick recap for any editors who haven't been following that particular debate as it was settled some weeks ago 1)Cuba has changed significantly (2) Cuba is a Communist state is a subjective description, unlikely to be found in any UN reports, EU reports etc or other mainstream international encylopedias. (3)Technically a Communist State cannot exist for obvious reasons '(4)We can't go by other Wikipedia articles as they may be wrong themselves (and it may appear that they are). There were a handful of other agreed reasons put forward by Adam, myself, Bruce etc but the above are the ones that first come to mind.--Zleitzen 21:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The description 'Communist State' has a history of use as a pejorative slur in the USA dating from political propaganda during the Cold War. BruceHallman 22:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that USA use "Communist State" as a pejorative slur Cuba is not the point here. Communists, Nazis and so called liberals from West use "Capitalism" as a pejorative slur every single day but this doesn’t mean we should avoid labeling USA or Germany as anything but “Capitalist States”. Using “Socialist Republic” is misleading for two reasons: 1) no communist state is/was ever a republic, they are rather monarchies with leaders appointed for life, and never elected by people 2) Using “Socialist” in this context makes a great disservice to the real socialist, those inside capitalist countries. More ammunition for pro-Bush supporters I guess. --Anticom 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
"1) no communist state is/was ever a republic, they are rather monarchies with leaders appointed for life, and never elected by people"
  • Actually monarchies are republics as well. Cuba is a republic because it is soverign. They have no executive power held outside of the country. E.g. no King of Spain etc... The United States is a republic because their President and Vice President are within that country. Canada is not a republic because Queen Elizabeth is intrusted as the Executive/Head of State, Australia is not for the same reason. The United Kingdom on the other hand *is*, because the Queen is their own leader which they have the power to nominate/revoke. Canada or Australia are unable to revoke the United Kingdoms' king/queen no matter what they do- so they aren't republics. Fidel Castro is Cuba's Head of State and therefore Cuba is in point and in fact actually a republic. CaribDigita 21:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
"Actually monarchies are republics as well"
You’re not even insulting my intelligence, you’re insulting my sanity. I know from previous experiences that at this point my only solution is to go to get drunk. Maybe when I’ll come back we’ll be on the same wavelength. Okay? --Anticom 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting, perhaps, that I managed to earn a Ph.D. in political philosophy without having ever heard of this particular definition of "republic" that CaribDigita proposes. It's a definition with a certain elegance to it; I genuinely don't want to disparage it, but it's certainly not "the" single established meaning of the term. I know of maybe a dozen slightly different proposed meanings (but the boundaries between them are far from clear), none of which is any more definitive. Likewise for definitions of "democracy".
The fuzziness of these terms is why I find it foolish to hear people argue that Cuba (or any other particular place) self-evidently is or is not a "democracy" or a "republic". There's simply no simple binary answer to be found... but there 'is a lot of rhetoric around the use of the terms insofar as they are both roughly terms of praise in any particular speaker's mind. LotLE×talk 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I need to correct myself because I stated something which came out incorrectly.

(I've really got to stop trying to 'Wiki' contribute on the job, the thoughts of getting caught by my boss jummble my ideas and I usually hit send too fast.) ,-) The correction is- monarchies are generally not considered as republics, since a "monarchy" is considered more descriptive. But the UK could in someways be considered a republic as well based on the forementioned power they have over their Queen and her heirs these days. I have to also re-view some of my old-notes but I believe there are also several republics in Africa and Oceana with internal monarchies as well. CaribDigita 04:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a communist state - no such animal. The most 'neutral' authorities on this issue list Cuba as (variant phrasings of) Socialist State. The Socialist state article also explains well exactly what this label is on about. In terms of disservice to 'true' socialists - I assume you are talking 'socialist' as understood in places like Sweden, perhaps the NDP in Canada - those 'socialists' understand the difference (just as the Big L 'Liberals' in canada understand the difference between themselves and small l 'liberals' in the US).Bridesmill 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC) And no, not weven the USSR - lots of communists there, some of whom worked very hard to make communism a reality (note I did not say 'to make communist state a reality'). But they never acheieved it - Socialist Republic.Bridesmill 20:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know I may be wrong but have the feeling that you Western leftists know more about communism/socialism than myself who I experienced communism. Anyway, use socialism instead of communism if you like but please don’t use either “democracy” or “republic” when describing Cuba. These two concepts were well developed before communists come to power. You cannot redefine them in such a way that they end up having exactly the opposite meaning. “Republic” means people elect a president for 2-3 mandates, each mandate 4-5 years. It has nothing to do with communist republics were people have no say in electing the “president” who rule the country until he dies (or in the case of N. Korea passes the power to his son). “Democracy” means “rule of the people”, communist republics means “rule of a minority against the will and the interest of the people”. Are we living on the same Planet?--Anticom 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Before I forget, how do you know that a certain country became a “communist state” or is still a “socialist republic”. How do you define “the communist state”? --Anticom 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't call me a leftist - you haven't a clue what my politics are; I also spent 3 years + living in the worker's paradise (Moscow, 91-95) including lots of travels throughout the former republics. And no, I didn't live in a cushy western compound. Curious as to which worker's paradise you experienced and how - seeing as communism was never achieved even by the Sov's own admission. (I am using that worker's paradise term sarcastically, btw). I personally wouldn't use Democratic for Cuba - but some would, & this needs to be explained (which is why it came out of the Intro). OTOH, they are a republic - not all republics are like the good ole US of A - check out some of the other wonderful republics out there....(some of which by your definition are democratic...). Your definition happens to be the US interpretation - that's all. Democracy (varieties) and Republic aren't a bad starting point; not sure what your background is so I won't insult your intelligence. Bridesmill 21:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Bridsmille for calling you a “leftist”, I had no intention to offend you. How do you describe yourself then? Socialist, communist, liberal, anarchist, ecologist (please don’t tell me that you’re a right wing supporter!!!!). I lived for 22 years (not as tourist) in a “socialist republic” called [Romania]. I “enjoyed” the “free” health system with doctors who were letting you die unless you were bribing them, with the lowest infant mortality in the World, yet two days after Ceausescu died we found out that we have the highest number of HIV-positive children in Europe just because the “free” health system was not even able to provide single-use needles. I remember the “pleasure” of staying in line for 10-15 hours (during the Winter) just to get a Kg of meat, a liter of milk or two toilet papers. I remember eating one orange per year, every time on New Year Eve, when the Communist Party was giving away for free (how generous!!) an orange and a tasteless chocolate for each Romanian kid. Wonderful times! I remember having only one TV channel with only two hours transmission per day, two hours full with directives from comrade Ceausescu, of course. But hey, we are discussing here “ the socialist republic” of Cuba where things are not that bad. And you are right! Fidel Castro is a much better looking guy than Ceausescu, the lines for toilet paper are probably 200 m shorter, Cubans have 5-6 TV channels (all talking about Fidel Castro, of course), and (God forbid) maybe Cuban kids are eating two oranges per year! Completely different circumstances, indeed! --Anticom 04:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
“Your definition happens to be the US interpretation - that's all”
Are you kidding me? Does any of the true republics in the world (Italy, Austria, France, Germany etc) have anything but a president with no more than 2-3 mandates, no more than 5 years each? My question again: are we living on the same Planet? --Anticom 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No - Drogo Underburrow 05:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

1)Cuba has changed significantly (prove this!) --Anticom 19:41, 10 May ( a) not true! the following sentence is a copy/paste from EU website: "The form of government: Centralised political system, with identification between the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) and the state ( 1) such as? 2) not even USSR?) --Anticom 19:41, 10 May

Economy

Will there be any complaints if I add a sentance or two on the Godfrey-Milliken Bill Helms-Burton Act? Does anyone know of any neutral sources outlining the effects of the embargo on the people? Myciconia 01:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The embargo is a tactical mistake from US perspective. It gives Fidel Castro a justification for the Cuban economical disaster (GPD $3,200)--Anticom 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
A very brief mention seems fine, but the Helms-Burton is more about US/Cuba relations than about Cuba per se. I'm sure a lot of editors of this article (as on WP as a whole) are from the USA (I am myself, for better or worse). I'd recommend a little mental exercise when thinking of other types of material to add: If a curious Bangladeshi student who simply does not know much about Cuba reads this article, is Fact X something they will care about? (just as an example, but I think it illustrates the point). LotLE×talk 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree that the world view is very important. (I'm Canadian by the way). Helms-Burton has international repercussions outside the US and Cuba as it makes foreign companies choose between doing business in the US or doing business in Cuba. Canada and Mexico have been defying US over Cuba for ages and responded to Helms-Burtan with the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act and the Law of Protection of Commerce and Investments from Foreign Policies that Contravene International Law. Myciconia 03:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You're on the same wavelength as me Lulu. As a European, I'm struggling to accommodate not only the regular POV issues depicting Cuba, but the cultural mores, terminology and POV issues of an unrelated country (U.S). My mind is as much on the rapidly increasing computer literate, English speaking population of India as anywhere else. Sometime ago a user explained confidently that "the one notable thing about Cuba: it's a Communist dictatorship on the US's doorstep". I disagreed for obvious reasons. Helms-Burton is very important, butit may only need a well crafted line, more detail can be linked in other pages. --Zleitzen 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What in the world is happening here?

There is clearly such a pro-castro, pro-cuban-government agenda being pushed here that it is sickening. From the Che mural and the "Cuba following Communism" section that was renamed solely for keeping THE UNNECESSARY AND CONTROVERSIAL OBSCURE GRAFITTI OF CHE, to the tone and overt phrasing of several sections including:

"While the Eisenhower administration had initially welcomed Batista’s fall, the nationalization of U.S. owned companies (to an estimated value of US$1 billion) and the expulsion of many political conservatives with influential friends in the U.S., aroused immediate hostility and the Cuban exiles soon became the powerful lobby group in the U.S. that they have been ever since."
What? An encyclopedic article is basically saying that money was the driving, primary force behind the hostility toward fidel and his government.

and:

"Thus the U.S. became increasingly hostile to Castro during 1959. This in turn served to drive Castro away from the liberal elements of his revolutionary movement and into the arms of the Communists."

So the United States caused castro to turn to communism... WHAT!? IS THE POV POLICE TAKING A NAP?!? --Mcmachete 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all been there for a long time Mcmachete, it was written by Adam.--Zleitzen 08:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was so focused on other sections i missed it. That it's been there for a while and that Adam wrote it, though surprising, certainly do not excuse it. However, that's not all that's wrong, nor all I mentioned. Did the fact that a section was changed to accomodate a controversial and unnecessary image not sound any alarms to anyone? If not, my concern regarding the integrity of Wikipedia deepens. --Mcmachete 08:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"...into the arms of the Communists" --I agree that that is a pov style of writing (Adams), but everything is textbook history. Myciconia 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the second comment. No I think there was a general agreement that the Che image was of encyclopedic value to the section, regardless of the section title. I changed the title to be more accurate to the material under it. Myciconia 08:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Figure mislabeled

The photograph of the van is from the attack on the presidencial palace by non-Castro (mostly Autentico and Directorio: forces see a similar photo apparently of the same van at [3]). Look at the side of the van it says Havana not Santiago..... The Moncada attack was done in cars, and Castro's car got stuck at the entrance guard post and he never really entered. However, that little matter never enters into official histories. El Jigue 5-10-06

Z: The attack was by two non-Castro group's the Accion Autentica and the Directorio Estudiantil. One should never presume malice if there is another explantation, however, the corrections you are making always seem to favor Castro, it is not NPOV to let an innocent reader assume that the Palace was attacked by Castro forces. More than that some of the escaped attackers were betrayed to the Batista Secret police by a communist party member and killed soon afterwards. It does get worse, some of the attackers who were unable to reach the scene, tried to land in Cuba later, but again they were betrayed and all killed except one or two who ran off before hand and joined the Che Guevara's forces. Oh BTW I think you have a devious contributor (s) who is (are) inserting these erroneous little bits of information to make the whole article absurd. In case this is really so I will refrain from further comment for a while. EL Jigue 5-10-06

Thanks for your comments EJ. Please point out all errors that you see. -- Beardo 01:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WWII entry

It might be wise to direct attention to the increasing number errors of fact in the article (e.g. date of declaration belligerency in WW II) than to adorn it with hagiography of the Che. El Jigüe 5-10-06

El Jique does appear to be correct about this date issue. From what I can find, it looks like Cuba declared war on Japan on Dec 9, 1941, then on Germany/Italy on Dec 11, 1941. The 1944 date in the article does not seem to correspond to anything. As it reads, it might insinuate that there was a more active Cuban military involvement at that 1944 date; but a web search suggests that Cuba, in fact, never actually had military forces participating in WWII (merely a pro forma declaration on the side of the USA). Is there some fact about 1944 that the article is trying to get at, that is perhaps expressed unclearly? LotLE×talk 17:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've change the dates accordingly, Adam may have been mistaken here. --Zleitzen 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the Cuban Navy did sink one U-boat (much to the surprise of everybody including the U-Boat crew), and actively hunt others. Any map of vessels sunk will show that the Caribbean Sea was a major marine battle front in the undersea war. At least one German spy monitoring or trying to monitor sea traffic was caught and executed, other such under Admiral Canaris direction were more discrete and perhaps successful for a time. However, you are correct in that Cuba was more of a supply source because at that time prepared foods were often as high or higher than 12% sucrose. This was also important although quite distant to Soviet sea supply. Cubans did fight in US forces during the war and US bases such as San Antonio de Los Ba~nos were operating. However, it one compares this circumstance with that of most Latin American countries, possible with the exception of Venezuela, where there may have been actual U-boats in Maracaibo Bay, Cuba did participate far more than most. If my memory of reading is correct, some countries as Argentina were essentially on the side of the Axis. Remember the sinking of the Graf Spree (really a desperate scuttling) in Rio de la Plata. El Jigüe 5-10-06

Now perhaps we should look at the parties in 1940s 1944, and line up for the 1948 Cuban elections the least one could do is get the names straight. El Jigüe 5-10-06

Emigration numbers

The article reads "In the five years after 1959, around one million (about 10% of the population) Cubans immmigrated to the U.S. and there was a further surge of emigration in 1980 when Castro temporarily lifted restrictions on emigration (see Mariel Boatlift). Altogether about 2 million Cubans have emigrated since 1959."

I think immmigrated (sic) should be emigrated here. But the numbers look too high to me. Does anyone have sources ?

In the demographics section it says "over a million" - we should be consistent - one million, two million ?

This site - http://www.sela.org/public_html/AA2K2/eng/docs/coop/migra/spsmirdi12-02/spsmirdi12-2.htm - says "According to some sources between 1959 and 1999, 1,079,000 Cubans migrated to different countries. Today, the total Cuban population residing abroad is estimated to be above 1,400,000 people. The U.S. 1990 census registered 1,043,932 people of Cuban origin, while in the 2000 census that number totalled 1,241,685" - though that may not be definitive.

And this - http://www.genealogy.com/00000365.html - "During the 1950s, however, growing political unrest and economic uncertainty caused thousands of Cubans to flee the island for Miami and other Northern points. This exodus grew even larger after Fidel Castro seized control of the island on January 1, 1959, and began nationalizing large companies and confiscating the property of the upper middle class and wealthy. Between this date and the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, more than 150,000 Cubans came to the United States." 150,000 up to October 1962 - did another 850,000 emigrate to the US in the following 15 months ? --Beardo 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also Operation Peter Pan to consider, I don't think that is mentioned in the article. --Zleitzen 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Health Care

Cut from article:

Cuba's life expectancy rates and other such indications are equal to those in developed countries: Life expectancy among men is 75 years, among women 79 years.

Is there a source for this? Even a Cuban gov't source?

And what shall we do about the independent reports that say Cuba has a two-tier system which favor cash-paying tourists (and government officials) while providing substandard care to local citizens? (This is easily googled, please help me on this. Where's Adam when I need him?) --Uncle Ed 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Those figures reflect CIA factbook - given bias, if there is an error with these I would expect it to be on the 'low' side, rather than a higher exageration.Bridesmill 01:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed the life expectancy rates are sourced on the page. I'm now confused, we now have two life expectancy rates, one from WHO and one new source from the CIA Handbook. I don't understand why the clearly sourced life expectancy rate was removed for lacking a source, yet "local citizens get roach-infested rooms in the city and much worse in the countryside" was inserted. Is this a wind up, Uncle Ed?--Zleitzen 02:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at the two sets of figures, WHO and CIA. The life expectancy looks pretty consistent, with WHO simply breaking out by gender (the average of 75 and 79 is 77; different estimates might vary slightly even after averaging). Infant mortality looks slightly inconsistent, but I wonder if WHO's "child mortality" might include deaths at an older age than "infant". LotLE×talk 03:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That looks fine to me now, I think Ed must have missed the accompanying table containing the full WHO details with link.--Zleitzen 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This information needs to be added to this section (translated from Spanish):

"According to the Basic Health Indicators of a 2005 report by the [WHO's Pan American Health Organization], Cuba had an 18.1 rate of suicides in each 100,000 inhabitants during the 2000-2005 period, far from the second place occupied by Uruguay with 15.9 and very far from countries like Peru with 2.3 and Guatemala with 1.9.
"The suicide phenomenon as social problem does not have a historical precedence in Cuba; the suicides in the island has varied clearly from the first years of the Republic, but with very inferior indexes from the present ones that go from 2.2 in 1907, to a 13.1 in 1957." [4]

Analysis and speculation as to why is perhaps not necessary, as it may lean to POV, but these numbers absolutely should be included. --Mcmachete 07:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This information doesn't seem particularly notable in a summary article. Notice that suicides are per 100k, compared to mortality numbers given per 1k. We're talking about a much smaller phenomena (though clearly, in whatever country, suicides are a bad thing).
I'm pretty sure Mcmachete is trying to draw some anti-communist moral from the suicide rate. Such a tortured attempt at bias doesn't do much to explain why Cuba's suicide rate is 1/3 lower than Finland's 26.4/100k, or also lower than Denmark, Austria, France, or Switzerland. I haven't checked, but I doubt any of those other nation articles think the suicide rate is "essential information" for the WP entry. I'm not sure even Japan's 27/100k is encyclopedia material for a main article. LotLE×talk 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
...double checked. The word "suicide" does not occur in the article Japan (nor should it). LotLE×talk 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The suicide rate in Cuba is much higher than any other Pan American country. This is a verifiable fact. I have my feelings as to why, but as i have already said, such reasons need not be included. This is a statistical population anomaly that is unique to Cuba and therefore should not be censored. Jut because it is not in those other articles doesn't mean it shouldn't be, especially if it deviates from the regional norm and/or has had a greater increase through the years than other countries in the region. --Mcmachete 16:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not much higher than US, or Canada, or Bolivia, just slightly higher. It's higher than most of Latin America (highest national aggregate, certainly not higher than any region). Without a lot of original research, there's no reason to think that your implied comparison is at all relevant. We could easily write: Cuba's suicide rate is near the median of other countries with similar life expectancies. That happens to be exactly accurate: I don't have a good sociological explanation, but suicide rate and life expectancy are, in fact, closely correlated worldwide. I don't want to put my lay sociology in the article, but neither should we put yours in. Please read about "undue weight", as I frequently mentioned... any relatively uninteresting fact that happens to be verifiable isn't thereby "essential" to include in an article, not even if it has a slight sliver of connection to the article topic. LotLE×talk 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not higher than "most" of Latin America, it's higher than ALL of Latin America.
I have made NO "implied" connections. I've simply presented research by the WHO. If WHO research is good enough for all other health statistics in Cuba, it's good enough for this.
"Slight sliver of connection"? It's directly related to a section that discusses life expectancy and abortion.
When did i suggest to put "my lay sociology" in? I have repeatedly said that the analysis behind the facts need not be mentioned. Let's try to maintain NPOV, please. --Mcmachete 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Your information can go in the Public Health in Cuba page, Mcmachete. Which was quite sparse the last time I looked. --Zleitzen 17:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked to other pages (countries) and I didn't see any reference to the life expentacy and infant mortality. Why Cuba makes an exception? just to please pro-Castro group?--Anticom 19:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Nigeria, Japan, South Africa, etc. for some examples of other nation articles that discuss life expectency. However, I looked quickly at maybe 10 others that omit this. So the mention is slightly unusual, but not rare, in WP articles. I'm pretty sure a similar survey of mentions of e.g. abortion (which is presented, I think, as an attempt to condemn Cuba) will find it much less common (let alone the somewhat pedantic human rights section of this article). LotLE×talk 19:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I had a look at your links and you are not telling the whole truth. Japan has the highest life expectancy, fact barely mentioned in one sentence. Nigeria and South Africa pages don’t even mention life expectancy, except into the legend of the table and anyway no data is provided. Not to mention that I pressed “find” to find “life expectancy” on those pages compared to Cuba’s page where is highlighted. This page will never be finished if you guys continue with these tricks--Anticom 15:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba has a higher suicide rate and a lower homicide rate that other similar countries, showing both is a potential neutralizing POV path, see my recent edit. Still, we are doomed if we must always fight about needing to condemn Cuba (or not) in the article. Steering away from controversy seems a better choice for a neutral path in this encyclopedia. BruceHallman 15:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your wording is pretty good, Bruce. I'm just concerned about the fact that Mcmachete "cherry picks" a comparison to disfavor Cuba. Why is the comparison with the particular group of countries that have a lower rate, rather than with some other group of countries that have a higher rate? Yes, Cuba shares a spoken language with Peru, but that's not obviously connected to suicide.
I actually do believe that sociologically, life expectancy and health indicators have more of a causal connection with suicide than does national language (or directional relation to the prime meridian) It's an odd universal that people in the most desperate situations (famine victims, war refugees, etc) have extremely low suicide rates. For example, hardly any Jewish holocaust prisoners committed suicide in the death camps; but once they were liberated and obtained a degree of material comfort, suicide rates skyrocketed among the survivors. This is an extreme case, of course; there's no easy analogy with minor changes in standard-of-living. But it points out how these things aren't so simple as "people commit suicide because their external situations are bad" (as Macmachete hopes so desperately to "demonstrate" about Cuba). LotLE×talk 15:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What is your problem? I didn't "cherry pick" a thing. I quoted an article I came across that had interesting information AND I provided unbiased verifiable facts from WHO. If perhaps you had taken a moment to actually read the words I had written instead of attempting to infer a POV I was not expressing, you would see that I stated very clearly in my very first post about this subject:
"Analysis and speculation as to why is perhaps not necessary, as it may lean to POV, but these numbers absolutely should be included."
My stance then as it is now is that the suicide rate should be included, as it is a global statistical anomaly.
This is where your political agenda is so clearly blinding you. Cuba's reported suicide rate is slightly higher that that of the next few highest rates in the Americas. But looking worldwide, the rate is less than that in about 20 other countries, in several cases a lot less. The rate is definitely above average worldwide, but it's hardly a "global statistical anomaly", nor anything vaguely close to that. LotLE×talk 18:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This' is your argument? Is it not higher than most in the world? Is it not the highest (or at least top 3) than most Latin American countries or countries in the hemisphere? If I have a "political agenda" for wanting to include the data, then what's your "political agenda" in wanting to censor it? Instead of constantly being booring and argumentative, you might like to try a novel approach: being respectful to others' suggestions. Remember: just because someone (in your mind) seems to think differently than you, doesn't mean they're wrong or have a political agenda. For some fun, you might like to check out WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPOV. --Mcmachete 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the number is included (I put it there, after all, which isn't exactly "censorship"). I guess the part that's mostly clearly POV is the hysterical tone you describe it in on this talk page. I mean, c'mon "global statistical anomaly!?" The rate is 10% higher than Urugay, and about 20% higher than the US or Canada. It is certainly not a good thing, but it's not such an outlier as to be nearly as notable as you keep claiming. Moreover, the fact that the rate is less than half that of the nations with the highest suicide rates gives a better global perspective.
I admit I'm a bit crotchety, lacking the level head of some editors like Bruce and Zleitzen. But nonetheless, you'd "catch more flies with honey than vinegar". If your first suggestion of the fact was a NPOV, "here's a notable fact", I'd have been a lot more ready to include it. When it was instead accompanied by hyperbole, I got put off. Admittedly, that's a fault of mine, since the same underlying fact is equally notable no matter what is commented on this talk page. And actually, I apologize in being much too fast in attributing motives to your suggestion; that was wrong on my part.
Fair enough. But, c'mon, I think you may have read too much into my wording. "Global statistical anomaly" just happened to be the way I phrased it later in the conversation to try to impress the relevance of the data. No overstatement intended. --Mcmachete 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, while I see a lot more POV problems coming up from an anti-Cuban-government perspective than the reverse, I also recognize there are some pro-Cuban POV issues in the article too. Anticom (in the middle of too much tirading) pointed out some rather speculative language about Cuban attitudes towards "Los Gusanos" in the article. I think that is way too WP:OR and and POV, specifically in a pro-Castro way. I'll try to clean that up next. LotLE×talk 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
"FWIW, while I see a lot more POV problems coming up from an anti-Cuban-government perspective than the reverse, I also recognize there are some pro-Cuban POV issues in the article too."1) Funny I noticed more POV from the pro-Castro group, but it doesn't matter since we're probably both subjective. 2) The trouble is (at least) my POVs are here, on the talk page, so it doesn’t matter anyway, the pro-Castro POVs are in the article (not that I care too much). 3) I am not anti-Cuban (nice try), I am anti-Castro/communists and for very good reasons. As a leftist I chose to side with the poor and powerless majority rather with the rich and powerful Fidel Castro.--Anticom 04:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
YOU are the one dissecting the data and trying to come up with conclusions, going off on your sociological examinations and theories. I have not speculated or called for speculation. YOU are the one researching my Wikipedia contributions trying to determine my "hidden agenda," trying to come up with reasons to shrug off my suggestions as biased... yet you later "champion" the rights of everyone to edit.
Your condescending attitude and contempt for those who you believe may not share your POV is best served elsewhere. Perhaps you can start your own blog? There you can complain about anyone or anything you wish. I've very surprised that someone so dedicated to Wikipedia chooses to act this way.
By the way, I have no problem with including the homicide rate. Far from it: such data belongs in this article and serves as interesting juxtaposition to the suicide rate. I'm glad it's in there. --Mcmachete 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Consistent and balanced nation articles

As much as it seems to pain you to present a complete and balanced picture of Cuba, Cuba's government has been internationally recognized many times over as routinely violating human rights, and thus Cuba's record on human rights merits a section. Simple as that. --Mcmachete 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference between an editor devoted to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and an editor devoted to pushing a particular political agenda is in whether they seek a neutral point of view. From your edit history and user page, it appears you have a special concern with the (negative) presentation of Cuba, and little concern with any other article topic. In contrast, I recognize that this article is just one of 150 or so articles on nations. I believe a relatively consistent standard and format should be applied across these articles. If a particular topic is never adressed for other nation articles, it probably doesn't belong in just one nation article. Obviously, the specific detail differs: Polka might be discussed in Poland, and Kabuki in Japan; but at a general level "music" or "theatre" are topics you might find in many nation articles.
There are a number of articles on "Human rights in X", it appears. So there certainly should be (and is) a Human rights in Cuba. However, only some of the corresponding nation articles have a separate "Human rights" seciton. Most of them seem not to. I found Uzbekistan has such a section. Kazakhstan does not, but it has a link at bottom to the specialized article. Others like Algeria that have a Human rights in Algeria don't have any link at all in the main nation article. Still others like Nigeria that have significant human rights problems have neither a section nor separate article. So the coverage of Cuba on this issue is an outlier, but it's not unique by WP standards. Still, the wording is probably more pedantic than it need be, even as an outlier.
Notice that this isn't a "pro-" or "anti-" question. Your push for suicide rates is essentially a demand to include something in the Cuba article that is never included in other nation articles, on the grounds that it seems to suggest something negative about Cuba (but nontheless, I added it as a concession to you). In contrast, the life expectancy, which suggests something fairly positive, is relatively common in other nation articles—not in the majority of other nation articles, but I found several others in a quick examination. However, if I had not been able to find other nation articles that discussed life expectancy, I would have questioned the inclusion of the information in this article. And likewise, I don't want the special pleading tone to "excuse" bad things about Cuba, such as blaming the US for problems; not because such claims are necessarily false (or true), but because they aren't fitting with a consistent presentation of articles on nations. LotLE×talk 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
My "concern" about Cuba is that, as a relatively new member of the community, I recently noticed bias of the "pro-castro" variety. I have no interest in pushing a political agenda one way or another, I'm simply actively attempting to curb bias where I can. Yes, I'm Cuban and I have a special interest in Cuba, its culture, politics, people, food, music, etc. - but I'm not lending my expertise and experience to Wikipedia to push my opinions - no one should. Since you took the time to view my edit history, did you notice that none of my additions are pushing POV?
A short summary of Human Rights is useful as a section in the Cuba article, and a link to the Human Rights in Cuba page will allow a user to read more if they wish. --Mcmachete 22:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to gather as much as I can about Cuban Human Rights privately, with citations etc. As I say at the top of the article, I want cited information. The present version is patchy and contains all sorts of erroneous sentences, Adam's earlier rewrite lacked specifics, had no sources and carried too much speculation. On this issue everything has to be gone through with a toothcomb I'm afraid. --Zleitzen 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There are so many people 'hot' about Cuba, on both sides, I think it is wise to stay away from divisive content, pro and con, in this Cuba article. There are plenty of other forums on the Internet for documenting and discussing what is right and what is wrong with Cuba. What is wrong omitting as much heat as possible, for the sake of peace? BruceHallman 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from book

I read a exerpt of a book today. I have to write a paper for my international affairs conflict resolution class about America's history of exporting democracy, if it has succeeded, and what policy recommedations would I consider. I would like fellow wikipedians opinions, on this author's thesis about Cuba:

During the Clinton administration, the sentiment has been proclaimed on so many occasions by the president and other political leaders, and dutifully reiterated by the media, that the thesis: "Cuba is the only non-democracy in the Western Hemisphere" is now nothing short of received wisdom in the United States. Let us examine this thesis carefully for it has a highly interesting implication.

Throughout the period of the Cuban revolution, 1959 to the present, Latin American has witness a terrible parade of human rights violation--systematic, routine torture; legions of "disappeared" people; government-supported death squads picking off selected individuals; massacres en masse of peasants, students and other groups, shot down in cold blood. The worst perpetrators of these acts during all or part of this period have been the military associated paramilitary squads of El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, Haiti and Honduras.

Not even Cuba's worst enemies have charged the Castro government with any of these violations, and if one further considers education and health care--each guaranteed by the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"---"both of which," said President Clinton, "work better [in Cuba] than most other countries," then it would appear that during the more-than-40 years of its revolution, Cuba has enjoyed one of the best human-rights records in all of Latin America.

If, despite this record, the United States can insist that Cuba is the only "non-democracy" in the Western Hemisphere, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that this thing called "democracy", as seen from the White House, may have little or nothing to do with many of our most cherished human rights. Indeed, numerous pronouncements emanating from Washington officialdom over the years make plain that "democracy", at best, or at most, is equated solely with elections and civil liberties. Not even jobs, food and shelter are part of the equation. Thus, a nation with hordes of hungry, homeless, untended sick, barely literate, unemployed and/or tortured people, whose loved ones are being disappeared and/or murdered with state connivance, can be said to be living in a "democracy"-its literal Greek meaning of "rule of the people" implying that this is the kind of life the people actually want-provided that every two years or four years they have the right to go to a designated place and put an X next to the name of one or another individual who promise to relieve their miserable condition, but who will, typically, do virtually nothing of the kind; and provided further that in this society there is at least a certain minimum of freedom--how much being in large measure a function of one's wealth--for one to express one's view about the powers-that-be and the workings of the society, without undue fear of punishment, regardless of whether expressing these views has any influence whatsoever over the way things are.

It is not by chance that the United States has defined democracy in this narrow manner. Throughout the Cold War, the absence of "free and fair" multiparty election and adequate civil liberties were what marked the Soviet foe and its satellites. There nations, however, provided their citizens with a relatively decent standard of living insofar as employment, food, health care, education, etc., without omnipresent Brazilian torture or Guatemalan death squads. At the same time, many of America's Third World allies in the Cold War--members of what Washington liked to refer to as "The Free World"--were human-rights disaster areas, who could boast of little other than the 60 second democracy of the polling booth and a tolerance for dissenting opinion so long as it didn't cut to close to the bone or threaten to turn into a movement.

...

Thus it is, that Americans are raised to fervently believe that no progress can be made in any society in the absence of elections. They are taught to equate elections with democracy, and democracy with elections. And no matter how cynical they've grown about electoral politics at home, few of them harbor any doubt that the promotion of free and fair elections has long been a basic and sincere tenant of American foreign policy.

In light of this, let us examine the actual historical record...

SignedTravb 16:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Parrots Patriots

"There nations, however, provided their citizens with a relatively decent standard of living insofar as employment, food, health care, education, etc., without omnipresent Brazilian torture or Guatemalan death squads."
This is pure propaganda. The fact that you didn't (want to) hear about tortures and death squads it doesn't mean they didn't exist ( see Communist Romania). Ever heard of Gulag?--Anticom 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I guess since it is propoganda, (i.e. it is outside of your worldview) it can be dismissed, without a second thought. This rationalization really makes your life easy and uncomplicated, doesn't it?
I lived for two and a half years in Ukraine, that doesn't make any smarter than anyone here, but it gives me a unique perspective on Communism, which the majority of Americans lack. The Gulag was a horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible human tradgedy. I met someone in Ukraine who was in a psychitrist ward because of her political beliefs. I saw first hand the monuments to Stalin's victims. By posting this author, and stating There nations, however, provided their citizens with a relatively decent standard of living insofar as employment, food, health care, education, etc. I am in no way covering up nor justifying the horrifying attrocities of the USSR. I suggest you read: Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history. The reverse of number four is the actually the same. Whenever someone mentions anything good about Communism, your knee jerk reaction, which you have been conditioned react to, is point out something bad about communism.  :::*When I say Sickle and Hammer, what is the first thing that comes into your mind?
  • When I say Soviet Union, what is the first thing to come into your mind?
  • When I saw Marx, what is the first thing to come into your mind?
I am willing to bet, the first thing that comes into your mind is something negative, which just proves my point. Travb 03:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Two points for Travb:

  1. This is at least the second time I've read the above argument in the last week or two; if memory serves, it's nearly word for word. What's the matter, didn't you think we heard you the first time?
  2. Your argument is completely one-sided and ignores comparable human rights violations by left-wing governments.

So if you want to write a Wikipedia article on Human rights in Latin America or Human rights in the Americas (including US & Canada), I assume you'll be focusing only on right-wing violations or problems in the democratic countries. I do hope, though, that you'll allow other contributors to write about the left-wing violations, such as:

Wikipedia is not the place for progaganda, but for writing accurate articles. Would you please be accurate? --Uncle Ed 22:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well spoked. please give this man some round applause--Burg Hambler 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Ah, Uncle Ed, your arguement is sadly first (a) predictable and second (b) fallacious.
Is it possible that a Colombian peasant killed by American trained death squads, out of the torture manual in the SOA can be grieved at the same time as the victims of Che Guevara the Miskito Indians and the Shining Path?
Edward, what a pleasure to see you after so long, if I recall correctly, we last cross paths at WSI. Good to see you again.
(a) Edward, your argument is predictable because of this article I wrote, entitled Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history. I had to write it because I got the same boring, predictable response over and over, from a million American clones, just like yourself. In a country that prides itself in being individualistic, you are the exemplification and embodiment of why this myth is patently absurd.
(b) Edward your argument is fallacious because you automatically assume, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that since I bring up the war crimes of America I somehow lessen the war crimes of Che Guevara the Miskito Indians Shining Path. That can not be further than the truth. I condemn both equally. My simple question is: Do you? In otherwords, do you condemn war crimes committed by Americans as equally as you condemn the war crimes of the Communists?
With the rational parameters that I have created, there can only be one or no hypocrite in this consversation, and it is not myself.
Please answer my question if you choose to respond, because I will continue to ask until you answer.
Signed:Travb 03:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Travb, you have succeeded in convincing everyone of your disdain for Americans and your clear bias. That phrase that being discussed is pure POV. I'm not quite sure why there is even an argument. "relatively decent" is a qualitative statement, and by its nature is POV. Lack of "torture" and "death squads" - as a Cuban, I know there is no lack of such oppression - hence why that statement feels like propaganda. --Mcmachete 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Mcmachete there is truly nothing of substance to respond to in your first two sentences, and last comment. You throw out some ad hominem attacks, in abundance.
I must say Mcmachete, it is truly an honor to meet someone who has absolutly no bias--I didn't think it was possible for a human being not to be biased, but I was clearly wrong.
"relatively decent" is a qualitative statement, and by its nature is POV. I agree.
But comparing Cubas standard of living to US client states is not "qualitative". What is the standard of health care in Cuba, as compared to say--Haiti--which is the country which the US has intervened in the most? This can be quantified. In otherwords, since historically America is so keen to overthrow Castro, if America was to succeed, what kind of country could Cubans look forward to? Is American client states a viable alternative to what Castro has built? Which countries have a better standard of living, across the board? Cuba or American client states such as Haiti? I think that is a very good question. It is very important to quantify this statment about comparing standards of living, because you maybe assume, wrongly, that I support Castro. I do not. As I mention below, Castro's treatment of dissedents should be condemned, and he should be tried in the World Court for torture and human rights violations.
Lack of "torture" and "death squads" - as a Cuban, I know there is no lack of such oppression I have no doubt that their is torture in Cuba. Death squads--I don't know about, please tell me about the death squads in Cuba, since I know little about Cuba.
I think this author is simply pointing out, and I know that I am pointing out, that Americans are complete hypocrites. Americans correctly condem Cuba for its horrible human rights violations, yet America turns around and commits human rights violations on a scale as bad, and arguably worse, than Cuba.
Does American human rights violations make Castro any less of a tyrant? Absolutly not. Castro is a tyrant. By pointing out America's own hypocricy in no way lessens Castro's guilt and repulsiveness.
I think that you automatatically and incorrect assume that I am defending Castro. I am not. My intention is simply to point out the blatant hypocricy of American foreign policy, and also the blatant hypocricy of some of the Americans on this wiki talk page.
Let me pose the same question to you that I did Edward, you have the same fallacious argument Edward made because you assume that I am denying that there are war crimes in Cuba, which I am not. Here is my question to Edward:
Your argument is fallacious because you automatically assume, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that since I bring up the war crimes of America I somehow lessen the war crimes of Che Guevara the Miskito Indians Shining Path and Castro. That can not be further than the truth. I condemn both equally. My simple question is: Do you? In otherwords, do you condemn war crimes committed by Americans as equally as you condemn the war crimes of the Communists?
I look forward to Edward's and your response.
Signed:Travb 00:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, Travb, it's truly an honor to meet someone who can extract so much juice from such a small lemon. Do you deny your contempt for American policies and politics? You'd be hard pressed to, in which case my "attack" was hardly "ad hominem" and quite far from "abundant" (if my two sentences were "abundant," what does that make your dozen-paragraph reply?).
My contempt for American policies and politics or non-contempt for American policies and politics is irrelevant, because I am focusing on the history of the US war crimes versus Cuban war crimes. Lets not delve into my personal beliefs.Travb 11:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested in explaining my family's experiences with torture and death squads. I'm also not interested in a discussion of American war crimes in a talk page about Cuba. My sole concern is a clean, unbiased account of Cuba. The Good, the bad, the ugly - as long as it's factual and relevant.
Point is: the above statement that we are discussing is POV and, from my experience and the experience of every Cuban I've known (PS - a LOT!), incorrect. As such, it has no place in the article. --Mcmachete 03:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
i.e. Let me paraphrase what I got from what you just said: "I will make these statments, but I will not verify these statments. I know a lot of Cubans who have had these experiences, and for you too question my personal life experiences, with no supporting evidence, is POV."
The "Point is" you make unsubstantiated claims, and when pressed to verify these unsubtatiated claims, you cannot. Further, you ignore my question:
My simple question is: Do you? In otherwords, do you condemn war crimes committed by Americans as equally as you condemn the war crimes of the Communists?

Signed:Travb 11:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What "war crimes" are you talking about, Travb? Be specific. CJK 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Unlike Mcmachete, I would love to be specific, and then I would love to be hear your justifications for these war crimes. Because, it is clear from our discussions, that you are a hypocrite, and that you do not condemn war crimes committed by Americans as equally as you condemn the war crimes of the Communists.Travb 11:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

War crimes of US

  • The most damning case, out of several is Nicaragua vs. United States where the international court found that the US was guilty of "unlawful use of force"
The defintion of terrorism, according to:
  • The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
  • Legal Defintion, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996 Merriam-Webster:
The unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
  • The firebombing of civilian targets in Japan and Germany. I hesitate to include this one because people will focus on this one exclusively, and ignore all others. The US built Japanese homes (not factories) in the deseret and tested incinerary bombs on them, to see how US bombs destroyed Japanese civilian homes.[6]
Well, I feel like a prophet today (like usual)
See Top Ten Dodge List, entry below...
"Play the definition game. This one is also very popular... "war crime" doesn't really mean war crime", it really means something else, didn't you know that? "War crime" doesn't mean War crime, it really means "War crime against communists", as any fool knows."
*Yawn* Travb 05:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Signed:Travb 11:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

10 or 100 examples: it doesn't matter

The War crimes of US are the first to come to my mind, but it truly doesn't matter one way or another whether I list 10 or 100 examples, does it?

Having learned from his wartime propaganda how the facts could be distorted and suppressed, he realized that distortion was also embedded in the very workings of the human mind. The image most people have of the world is reflected through the prism of their emotions, habits and prejudices. One man can look in a Venetian canal and see rainbows, another only garbage. People see what they are looking for and what their education and experience have trained them to see. "We do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see," Lippmann wrote.[7]

Signed:Travb 11:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Top Ten Dodge List

For those who respond, please don't waste my time and fall into this common top 10 dodge list:

"Play the definition game. This one is also very popular... "death" doesn't really mean death, it really means "separation from God's grace", didn't you know that? "Kill" doesn't mean kill, it really means "murder", as any fool knows." (From Top Ten Dodge List Tactics to employ if you're in a logical debate and logic has not sided with you (for any number of reasons), and you are nevertheless unwilling to change your argument or opinion.)[8]

Let me repeat myself, because inevitably, as the Cuban wikipedian aboved showed, despite pointing out a falacy of logic above, people will continue to argue the same fallacy of logic right below the falacy of logic. And I repeat:

Please don't waste my time and fall into this common top 10 dodge list:

"Play the definition game. This one is also very popular... "death" doesn't really mean death, it really means "separation from God's grace", didn't you know that? "Kill" doesn't mean kill, it really means "murder", as any fool knows."

How long before some patriotic American states that this discussion has become off topic and suggests that the topic cease here?

Signed:Travb 11:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a patriotic American (though I am not a great fan of socialism either) But I would like to point out that this as diddly-squat to do with Cuba, there are plenty of other articles where these discussions might be appropriate - please take them there. Becuase here it is waaaaayyyy off topic.Bridesmill 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I feel like a (partial) prophet today, like usual: How long before some patriotic American states that this discussion has become off topic and suggests that the topic cease here? Bridesmill this conversation is obviously quickly winding down, so it will be dead soon. Travb 05:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I hear so many of you chatter away at the various biases present in the article which are pro-communist and pro-castro. Well personally I think the article reeks and smacks of anti-communist mcarthyism advocating many moderate left wing governments while convieniently failing to mention the sucess and popularity of Bolivia and Venezuela's governmental leaders (enemies of America can't be possibly included). On top of that the article is becoming increasively difficult to change. It seems that cuba is "an axis of evil" in the article's eyes and there's little we can do to change that. I ask all of you can we not even maintain a remotely neutral stance on this nation's political history? 09:45, 11 May 2006 82.198.250.69

I have a problem with a description of a pro-Castro versus anti-Castro dichotomy. Certainly it is possible to favor Cuba and be agnostic about Castro. Hopefully, we can write the article from simply a real-Cuba perspective without the political baggage? BruceHallman 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

new summary paragraph

I tweaked the one sentence "In modern times, the dominance of Cuba’s Communist Party has lead to periods of political isolation and large-scale emigration from the island. ". About 'political isolation', which is odd to say considering the UN votes opposing the US embargo. The 'political isolation' has not been with the world, but rather isolation from the US. Also, the issue of why there has been 'emigration' is not simply fleeing the Communist Party, but I think that objectively, much, if not more of the emigration has been for economic reasons. Also, the description of 'large-scale' needs to be verified and quantified. For instance, is it 'large-scale' relative to Mexico<=>USA? BruceHallman 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it for a while Bruce, Cuba has been politically isolated on a number of international levels for periods. Cuba is politically isolated itself by not signing up to key UN treaties on many issues(of course this could apply to other nations as well). Cuba is also very reticent to allow UN bodies access, I wouldn't underestimate Cuba's difficult relationship with the UN here. And given various EU (even the Soviets were highly critical during the late 60's early 70's) critical statements over the years, I believe that constitutes isolation, or put it another way "independance". But I don't object to your changes and keep my fingers crossed.--Zleitzen 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I like Zleitzen's second summary paragraph quite a lot. It felt a little bare with just one, mostly geographic paragraph. Another one that adds a bit of history, with just a tasteful gesture at politics, seems to fill out the lead in a good way (without putting in the long and POV political diatribes that some editors put in the lead). I do think Bruce's wording tweak is an improvement (the "isolated" is too complex for the lead), but soemthing generally along those lines seems good. LotLE×talk 16:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Drogo U. just took the paragraphy out, I am curious why? BruceHallman
Because it was promoting one POV. Drogo Underburrow 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The hurricane sentence was POV?--Zleitzen 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba is the most populated island in the Caribbean and has a distinct mixture of culture and customs. Much of this draws directly from the period of Spanish colonialism, the introduction of African slaves and the island’s close proximity to the United States. The island has a tropical climate moderated by the surrounding waters, which makes Cuba highly susceptible to devastating Hurricanes. In modern times, the Cuba’s Communist Party has controlled the government of the country. Cuba’s relationship with the neighbouring United States has been a continued source of political discord. -- moved from article, going to explain why it was deleted - Drogo Underburrow 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of it was kept. "Cuba is the most populated island in the Caribbean"; this is appropriate. The next part of the sentence was not, as "has a distinct mixture of culture and customs" doesn't really say anything. More explanation n its way... - Drogo Underburrow 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ALL countries have "a distinct mixture of culture and customs"; so this phrase is meaningless. -Drogo Underburrow 16:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Much of this draws directly from the period of Spanish colonialism, the introduction of African slaves and the island’s close proximity to the United States. Yes, but this is trying to say too much in too little, and raises more questions than it answers. Best to leave this out entirely, as it is so incomplete, especially as the next sentence bounces back to geography again, talking about Cuba's position in an area subject to hurricanes. Then suddenly politics is brought up. Does the Communist Party control Cuba, or does Castro control the Communist Party, which is simply the group of people who do what he says? The statement implies that the Party runs things, not Castro. This is a POV. Drogo Underburrow 17:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba’s relationship with the neighbouring United States has been a continued source of political discord - The relationship itself is the source of the friction? Does this mean that if Cuba and the U.S. had no relationships, there would be no political discord between the two? Of course not. what the sentence is trying to say, I believe, is that Cuba and the United States have in recent years had a relationship marked by political discord. -- Drogo Underburrow 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "political discord" sentence is a bit awkward. I understand the concept it's trying to get at, but a better phrase is desirable. But we need to state that there is a conflict while neither insinuating that it's "because Castro is so terrible" nor that it's "because the US is imperialist" (nor whatever partisan spin you might put on it). LotLE×talk 17:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the "mix of cultures" sentence could be improved, but something along those lines is helpful. Moreover, WP guidelines on lead length are pretty clear, see: Wikipedia:Lead section. If anything, just two paragraphs of lead (as opposed to three or four) is on the short side for an article of this length; one paragraph, however, is really too short. Please try to leave aside the politicization for one moment, and glance through a few other nation articles (not ones you hate or love, just other nations). I've been reading quite a few for this purpose over the last few days. A very typical pattern for a nation article is something like:
  1. Para: Geography/location
  2. Para: History in brief
  3. Para: Culture and religion (in very concise summary)
Zleitzen's attempt isn't the be-all and end-all of fleshing out the lead, but it's an excellent and good-faith attempt. LotLE×talk 17:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I was merely echoing / paraphrasing this encarta entry[[9]]. --Zleitzen 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if my criticisms of this paragraph sound harsh. I mean no personal offense, I am criticising the writing, but not the writer. I think the paragraph was a good attempt and written in good faith. I just thought that it wasn't up to Wiki standards and best was to delete it entirely and try to build a new paragraph from scratch. Drogo Underburrow 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, as per usual I copied the info from established mainstream sources, Including the discord line! So I'm not offended. "Wiki standards" must have risen above the standards of my encyclopedias and factbooks in recent times!--Zleitzen 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In copying the information, you re-worded it, and in re-wording it, introduced errors of phrasing and style which made it below Wiki and Encarta standards. But lets stop dwelling on this; please, I mean no offense.

Cuba’s Communist Party has controlled the government of the country - this is a misleading statement, as it implies that Castro is not the real source of power in the country, and that is a matter of opinion, not fact. This is POV pushing and not allowed. - Drogo Underburrow 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing sometimes is in the eye of the beholder, only the other POV is seen to push. I think there is some wisdom in keeping all the hot button POV topics from all sides out of the introduction. BruceHallman 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Continuously since 1959, the Cuba’s Communist Party, led by totalitarian ruler Fidel Castro, has been the ruling party."

emigration

I have relocated this sentence here for verification: In the five years after 1959, around one million (about 10% of the population) Cubans immmigrated to the U.S. and there was a further surge of emigration in 1980 when Castro temporarily lifted restrictions on emigration (see Mariel Boatlift). Altogether about 2 million Cubans have emigrated since 1959[citation needed].

These seem unverified and incorrect, consider that in 1959 the population of Cuba was about 6 million so a 1 million exodus is not "10% of the population". Also, the emigration issue has POV political undertones. For neutrality, emigration data in the article should be factual and WP:V'ed, and perhaps should be cited in context of emigration statistics in Latin America. For instance, according to data from the UN, net emigration from 1995-2000 was -1.7/1000 per year for Latin America, and was -1.8/1000 for Cuba. BruceHallman 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

During the early years of the Castro regime, I am sure emigration was higher - partly because the US welcomed fleeing Cubans. Later, Castro has used emigration as an "escape valve" for tension and a means of letting go many of those who could cause problems internally. -- Beardo 05:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You’re main concern, Bruce, is not the truth but the image of Fidel Castro that should remain beautiful at all costs. You’re statistic may be real, but again you miss a very important point. That 1.7/1000 from Latin America is real, the 1.8/1000 emigration from Cuba does not reflect the number of Cubans disappointed with Castro/communism simply because Cubans do not have the right to leave the country. 1.8/1000 reflect the number or those who escape the “workers paradise” risking their own lives. I can guarantee you if Castro would say today “everybody is free to leave” by tomorrow the only person left in Cuba would be Fidel. --Anticom 18:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, probably Fidel Castro will emigrate too. --Anticom 18:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The ease or difficulty of leaving the country is only one factor. Possibly more important is the ease or difficulty of entering the destination country. Most Western Europe and North America restrict immigration from "poorer" countries - which would include most of the countries in the Caribbean basin, including Cuba. Whilst Cuba does restrict departures, my impression is that most Cubans who get a visa to go to another country are permitted to leave Cuba. However, I don't have a verifiable source. Anyone have a reliable verifiable source that gives more information ? -- Beardo 05:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
"1) Possibly more important is the ease or difficulty of entering the destination country". Not necessarily true. You are talking here only about legal emigration. 2) "most Cubans who get a visa to go to another country are permitted to leave Cuba."Possible true, the catch is who is allowed to get a visa? --Anticom 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It's anecdotal, but I have a good American friend, Mike, who lives in Cuba with his Cuban wife, Adriana, and their son (and emails me ocassionally from the privately owned computer that they own, using a regular ISP...albeit dialup, not broadband... the horrors :-)). When they come to visit the States, it's a bit of a paperwork hassle: but it's the US entry visa for Adriana that gets regularly held up, not the exit visa that is pretty straightforward to get. Adriana's had to skip visits several times because of the US bureaucracy, but Cuba doesn't care much. Needless to say, if they had wanted to, Mike and Adriana (and son) could easily have remained during one of their USA visits, but they prefer living in Havana. I know none of that is citable for the article, but it gives the lie to the false universalization of many of the anti-Cuba comments. LotLE×talk 06:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It depends what you friend is doing in Cuba! Life for certain people is indeed very good in Cuba but not for ordinary citizens. I talked to many Cubans and they told me a completely different story. Their life is a hell under Castro. So who should I believe you or them? I can't accuse you of ignorance since you said you a PhD in social politics so must be something else. But let’s have a look at your own (btw, shameless pro-Castro propaganda most of it) Cuba page. The last paragraph from “Communist Cuba” say: “On Sunday, April 6, 1980, 7,000 Cubans stormed the Peruvian embassy in Havana seeking political asylum. On Monday, April 7, Fidel Castro granted permission for the emigration of Cubans seeking refuge in the Peruvian embassy.[6] On April 16 10,000 Cuban citizens left the Peruvian Embassy for Costa Rica. On April 21 many of those Cubans started arriving in Miami via private boats and were halted by the State Department on April 23 The boat lift continued, however, since Castro allowed anyone who desired to leave the country to do so through the port of Mariel and this emigration became known as the Mariel boatlift. In all, over 125,000 Cubans immigrated to the United States before the flow of vessels ended on June 15 (who ended the flow?).” So in two months 125,000 Cubans immigrated. Does this tell you anything? Who is so crazy to storm an embassy knowing that you can get killed by guards or imprisoned? Who is so crazy to leave a country like Cuba for Costa Rica? Who is so crazy today to risk their life trying to escape to Miami? Can’t you sense the desperation of these people? Come on guys, use your brains?--Anticom 14:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

useless to add corrections

It seems so useless to add factual corrections. Let me give an example : That truck illustrated is from the March 13, 1957 attack on the Presidencial Palace in Havana by Directorio Estudiantil and Organizacion Autentica. Castro had no known part in it, matter of fact he condemned it. However, the communists did they betrayed the attack to Batista, and then they betrayed the few escapees. As it is presented now it seems, by default, to credit Castro Forces. El Jigue 5-11-06.


Z thank you even if you forgot to remember, Accion Autentica your additon gave me a little hope E; Jigue 5-11-06

Yes, but is that picture actually relevant ? -- Beardo 05:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Post-war Cuba

"The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 dealt Cuba a giant economic blow. It led to another unregulated exodus of asylum seekers to the United States in 1994, but was eventually slowed to a trickle of a few thousand a year by the U.S.-Cuban accords. It has again increased in 2004-06 although at a far slower rate than before. [8] Castro’s popularity was severely tested by the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, which led to a cutoff in aid, the loss of a guaranteed export market for Cuban sugar and the loss of a source of cheap imported oil. It also caused, as in all Communist countries, a crisis in confidence for those who believed that the Soviet Union was successfully “building socialism” and providing a model that other countries should follow. In Cuba, however, these events were not sufficient to persuade Cuban Communists that they should voluntarily give up power, nor was the economic crisis grave enough to bring about the fall of the government."

The pro-Castro group on this Forum is absolutely ridiculous. Don’t you see you contradict yourself in the same paragraph? --Anticom 20:04, 11 May
The fact that Castro resisted after 1989 it not an indication that Cubans love him. People can't bring down Castro, the're powerless. The only one that can take him down are the army or his own secret police. Are you that naive to believe the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was done without the complicity of the army and the Secret Police? --Anticom 20:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. a. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. b. that commie protester chant about 'the people - united - etc." is very true. c. prague springs succeed more than 50% of the time. d. the military was the last place to give up on the workers paradise story (they didn't need to, because for them it worked reasonably well (except for dedovshchina etc, but thats small potatoes). (the kgb etc were pretty fast, but that was because so many saw there was a buck to be made once it all came tumbling down). Bridesmill 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"that commie protester chant about 'the people - united - etc." is very true". Are you telling me this nonsense (remember, I lived in a communist country for 22 years)?-- Anticom 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
When logic fails, argue experience, the argument goes something like this: "I was there", so therefore you are wrong. Although I do mention living in Ukraine above, I do not hinge my entire logical debate on my living in former Communist USSR. Anticom, please refrain from arguing illogical "I was there" arguments. What country? Travb 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
plus you didn't answer my question. How are you going to solve the contradiction between the first sentence with the last one? This is a question for everybody since this is in the main page, not gossip on forum.--Anticom 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Abortion rate

The current article claims that Cuba has the 3rd highest abortion rate "according to the UN" (a rather underspecified citation). I can't find a UN comparison just yet, but I came across this: http://www.euro.who.int/document/ENS/en59.pdf. Looking at the rate-by-country map of Europe, there seem to be about a half-dozen European nations with a higher rate than Cuba has (generally in Eastern Europe). That's just Europe too; I've heard anecdotally, for example, that Brazil has a particularly high rate (plus some more continents have countries in them) I flagged the "3rd highest" as needing a citation; but given this prima facie evidence that it's untrue, I'll take out the claim pretty soon if there is no citation. LotLE×talk 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

From the UN: Cuban abortion rate is 77.7% [10]. Also, some corresponding data: "Romania, Cuba and Vietnam have the highest reported abortion rates in the world (78-83 abortions per 1,000 women)." [11] --Mcmachete 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The first link Macmachete lists has 35 countries in the Americas, and a few types of data. Of the 35 countries, Cuba is the only one reporting an abortion rate (at least on that chart). This gives us no basis to judge whether "unreported" means a higher or lower rate. The second link contains no data on abortion rates, only some discussion of legal frameworks. Unless/until we can find some actual source for comparative data, I will remove the claim to national comparisons (the specific Cuban rate is cited fine, so we can keep that). LotLE×talk 02:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Same UN report lists Uzbekistan, Romania, and Vietnam as higher than Cuba, but of note is the very low number of countries reporting, and some of those likely have high numbers (e.g. North Korea), and some the under-reporting is due to legality of the practice. So all that could be said is 'Of reporting nations, Cuba has the 4th highest rate in the world' But even that would be spurious. My suggestion would be Cuba has a significantly above average abortion rate. (Certainly in Russia it was considered more of a method of birth control than an after the fact poor alternative, with little thought for side-effects - I would suppose the same philosophy was taught/encouraged in Cuba - but that would be POV - will look to see if anything academic was dome in this area (by neutral agency). Bridesmill 00:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
But see the WHO report on Europe I found above. On that, about a half-dozen European countries have higher rates. That certainly suggests the particular UN report has rather inadequate data coverage. LotLE×talk 02:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Once I looked more closely at this, I almost couldn't believe how sloppy the prior editor had been. The figures reported were using non-comparable measurements! In these studies, two measurements include (1) abortions per 1000 women (per year); and (2) abortions per known pregnancies (including those aborted). These two numbers cannot be directly correlated, since they depend on the unknown value "pregnancies per woman, per year" that can, of course, vary between countries. The 77.7 figure given before was for the first thing, not the figure that is not directly reported at all of "abortions per live birth" (which is computable from (2), however). Moreover, apparently 60% of the D&E's in Cuba are not performed because of known pregnancies (I've known women who had regular D&E's for treatment of endometriosis; but the Cuban medical protocol does strike me as odd... still, I'm not an M.D.). LotLE×talk 03:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind my previous comment - was being a sloppy reader (reading health vice demographics). OTOH, the health para looke a bit too 'sweetness and light' to be realistic for a soc republic, and does not match anecdotal evidence remotely - currently an ideal example of POVishness.Bridesmill 13:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think including the abortion rate is such an important issue. My POV.--Anticom 13:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

please check their IP names?

it looks like a lot of people writing this article are either members of the cuban communist government, or members of the former USSR trying to slander america, please check for any users who may be editing from any former soviet satalites, or from cuban government offices, thank you--Burg Hambler 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how inappropriate the above comment is. Neither members of the Cuban CP nor members of the former USSR are barred from editing WP. As a question of fact, it does not appear any such editors exist on this article; but even if they did, it's none of our business to demand verification of the credentials (or "non-credentials", I guess). For that matter, member of the US Republican Party are also not barred from editing, nor members of the Heritage Foundation, or John Birch Society, or Brothers to the Rescue. LotLE×talk 22:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Though I am in fact editing from inside the Soviet INTERSPUTNIK satellite. Does that count me out?--Zleitzen 22:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem almost all people with computers in Cuba work for the Cuban government. If staffers of US Congress members are not allowed to access to the Wikipedia pages that discuss their employers, how come Castro's employees are allowed to do this? El Jigue 5-11-06

A real cynic would say 'because Cubans have more freedom'. Reality would be; because wasting your bosses time is typical in socialist states.Bridesmill 00:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

El Jique is trying to allude to an isolated incident in which a couple staffers for US congress made destructive/POV changes to a couple WP articles, a few months back. WP very briefly blocked an IP address range that belonged to the US Congress. As a general principle, employees of Congress are perfectly welcome to edit Wikpedia; there's nothing in either WP policy or US law that prohibits that as any general principle. LotLE×talk 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
In any event, the claim that "almost all people with computers in Cuba work for the Cuban government" is misleading anyway. Since all Cuban companies are owned by the Cuban government, it can justifiably be said that most Cubans work for the Cuban government, but that does not make them active propagandists for the government. Further there are many owners of casas particulares with internet connections, plus those working for foreign businesses (like me). -- Beardo 05:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I would wager that several editors who police this page are just Cuban government employees doing their jobs. It would make no sense for the Cuban government not to do this, Wikipedia has a high enough profile on the web now. Frankly, I think it would be silly of them not to take advantage of the situation. You don't need to check IP addresses. Just take a look at edits, if they all conform to what is favorable to Cuba, and never say anything bad about Castro, its a cinch who they are. We should be extra nice to these people. Drogo Underburrow 06:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has deleted the message they originally placed here. See talk history. - Drogo Underburrow 07:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

About good faith: This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring. To me, this means that if a person continually editwars in such a fashion where they always revert any criticism of Castro or of Cuba, it exempts others from assuming good faith. But, as I said before, we should be extra nice to those people, after all, they are only doing their jobs. They are probably very nice people. - Drogo Underburrow 06:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has deleted the message they originally placed here. See talk history. - Drogo Underburrow 07:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one should mention that individual access to the internet is strictly monitored in Cuba. As to private access while the per capita income of the Cuba is perhaps $3,000 (US), almost universally the income of Cubans is less than $240. Thus the only computers available to the average Cuban are in Cuban goverment offices. Remember Cuba is a communist (or choke gasp a "socialist") country, and with the recent crackdown on small business all such computers belong to the state, or heavily monitored foreign interests such as Sherritt. El Jigue 5-12-06

I still cannot believe that Wikipedia had the hubris to block access to vast numbers of US Congress computer. But however now I read here that Cuban government computers, or the offices heavily controlled shared Cuban Goverment/Foreign investment entities are to be considered as pure as the driven snow (that of course is Cuban snow, as in "I walked three miles even through the snow to school in Cuba every day". Truly this is Ley del Embudo (the "law" of the funnel, wide side entry for some, narrow spout admission for others) El Jigue. 5-12-06

That is just "silly" (a euphism for far stronger words). Different network. Can anyone, even here, imagine US Armed forces sharing network with Cuban government El Jigue 5-12-06

Number of Deaths in la Concentraccion 1895-1898

it would seem that there are three zeros, missing in "The Spanish retaliated with a campaign of ruthless suppression, herding the rural population into concentration camps where hundreds died. In Europe and the U.S., there were fierce protests against Spain’s behavior." The most reliable data in 2-4 hundreds of thousands was verified by first hand observation, by Red Cross and by US Senator Proctor, and by calculations on population decline done after that war. The term concentration camp is not really accurate, what happened was that the civilian population was concentrated in the cities. The numbers shown at present are not even as large as the data for the Boer War.....

However, this number causes embarassing contrast with the apparently less reliable information on the 1952-1958 Batista years, which according to Cuban goverment sources (citing Bohemia from Ramon Grau San Martin) was 20,000. Of this 1952-1958 data so far only about 2,000 have been verified by independent sources. Personally I think the real number is somewhat larger but certainly not much greater than 3,000. Not that this excuses the killings of Ventura, Caratala etc... El Jigue 5-12-06

It might be worth being patient and addressing Adam when he returns next week on some of these matters, El Jigue. I imagine he used his own sources, which were perhaps outdated or too general to examine some of your more detailed factual queries. I have no reason to doubt your above statements, however Adam is a different kettle of fish and will likely have some rebuttal in store. If you could point me in the direction of a verifiable source then I would be willing to change the info before Adam's return though. --Zleitzen 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: One reference on the web is Redfield Proctor [12]. Even that far left "Agent of Influence" Richard Gott in his "Cuba. A new History" (p. 105) citing Hugh Thomas mentions the calculations from population decline. However, Gott is prone not only to bias but to outright errors (such as the place of meeting of Lieutenant Rowan with General Garcia (p. 101), an event that importantly took place in Bayamo on the plains, rather than in the mountains). General Garcia did meet with General Shafter near the coast in the Sierra Maestra mountains but that was later (no bad jokes about the poor over burdened mule that carried the enormously fat Shafter up the mountains). El Jigue 5-12-06

Good work, El Jigue.--Zleitzen 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: Thank you El Jigue

How does this read, El Jigue
The Spanish retaliated with a campaign of suppression, herding the rural population into what were described by international observers as "fortified towns". Estimates that between 200,000 and 400,000 Cubans died from emaciation and disease during this period were verified by both the Red Cross and the US Senator Proctor.--Zleitzen 18:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: that is closer to a the real and undescribable horror of those times. El Jigue 5-12-06

Adoption of constitution and Castro as president

Cut from politics section:

There is no limit to the number of terms the President can serve and Castro has been President since the adoption of the current Constitution in 1976.

Nice sounding words like "serve" and "adoption" make it sound like Castro is leading the people with their consent. Did the people vote on the constitution, or was it imposed from above? Is the body which "elects" Castro appointed by him (see democratic centralism), or is it some sort of parliament answerable to the people? --Uncle Ed 15:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to cut through the rhetoric in Ed Poor's complaint. But I suppose the word "hold" is OK instead of "serve" to describe a presidential term. I can't think of any other word for the "adoption" of a constitution—that's just the word that is used, it says nothing about whether the constitution is good or bad, nor about the particular history or mechanisms by which it was adopted. I'm really in awe of some good editors like Zleitzen and BruceHallman who manage to maintain such an even keel against these trollish insistences that every single sentence contain some kind of pejorative.... they are far better (wo)men than I am (or maybe they just pop handfuls of valium to calm down :-)). LotLE×talk 16:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really object to anyone questioning the terminology or bias of a sentence. I've done it enough times on here myself and that's what encyclopaedic writing should be about. I don't know about Bruce, but my years of coping with students and my own unruly brood puts this process in perspective. At present I find this page offers a welcome respite!
Our esteemed collegue Dr Carr would be better to answer that as he introduced the wording, Uncle Ed. But there is further info on the elections in Cuba page.--Zleitzen 15:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Human rights chapter

Reference 17 is in Spanish, is very short and very old (1967). I think you should include an updated version in English. Here is the 2006 version in English.

I've grabbed that site already which is good. But I'm looking for a complete, up to date Cuban Penal Code to check edits against. I can't find it anywhere, although I have been able to grab certain key articles (article 72, article 91 etc) from reliable sources. I'd prefer to have the whole lot, and it may well be neccessary.--Zleitzen 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Two corrections: One image in the Cuba article shows a truck or van with bullet holes in it. In one place, the label underneath the photo says that the truck was involved in the 1957 attack on the Presidential Palace in Havana. If you click on the image, the label underneath the photo changes to read that the truck was used in the 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks in Santiago. Which is correct?

That truck was apparently one used by the Directorio and the Autentico rebels to attack the Presidential Palace in Havana on March 13, 1957. The attack on the Moncada barracks was July 26, 1953 used automobiles, Castro according to most accounts was unable to complete entry. If you read the signs on the side of the truck they say Havana. El Jigue 5-12-06

The article on Cuban history says, "The 1952 election was contested between Roberto Agramonte of the liberals and Batista, who was seeking a return to office." This is not correct. The two main candidates were the Ortodoxos' Roberto Agramonte and the Auténticos' Carlos Hevia, with Batista running on a small, third party ticket and running a distant third.

The Agramonte vs Hevia is how I remember it El Jigue 5-12-06

This article is still full of errors, e.g. as to the Bay of Pigs, urban the resistance inside Cuba had no warning of impending invasion at least 200,000 were rounded up just at the start of the invasion. The rural resistance "The War Against the Bandits" was ongoing and lasted until at least 1967 or so. This with further details and citations was in the version posted prior to the recent massive, erroneous, and usually uncited "corrections" El Jigue 5-12-06

Thank you Jiggy; instead of just stating 'this that & the other thing' is wrong, please provide the correction, along with cites, & help make this place the article if could be. Bridesmill 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. However, I already did this once some time ago. Perhaps the responsibility for this might be more readily attributed to those who removed the previous versions and thus eliminated these cites. El Jigue 5-13-06

Here is an example of removed text:

"The expected urban revolt collapsed when it became clear Brigade 2506 had been abandoned to its fate; and because the Soviet Union warned Castro, who ordered numerous executions and preemptive mass arrests of those thought likely to support a counter-revolution. [13],(Priestland, 2003). Church schools were confiscated, clergy were arrested, [14] and expelled en masse. In the rural central provinces the War Against the Bandits (circa 1959-1965) was suppressed by massed Castro militia, many executions and internal deportations of rebel supporters."

El Jigue 5-13-06

Who's in charge

That Castro and/or his image plays a huge role is not doubted. But being an old man, it is getting to the stage where it is difficult to tell exactly how much & how he runs things. Technically, it is the PCC. de facto, Castro is a huge figure in that. But it remains to be seen if he is the only or dominant figure. To assume that this is all Castro (nowadays) is just that - an assumption, and from the perspective of how to handle & understand the place once Castro goes, dangerous hubris to assume we know exactly what is going on in the halls of power. Therefore, recommend the de jure wording that PCC runs the place, with associated de facto that Castro is a helmsman there. In other words, the wording that's there now. Just because we think it is so, does not mean it is - let's stick with what we know for sure. Bridesmill 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Bridesmille, we cannot know for sure how much he’s in charge (and not because he’s old). I pretend I don’t understand your motives (the subtle message being “he’s not guilty for the whole mess Cuba is facing right now”). But again there is a major catch. If he’s not fully in charge he also cannot claim every good thing ever happened under his rule (infant mortality, education etc).--Anticom 04:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets see....you won't accept a statement followed by a footnote giving a source. Ok lets see if you accept attribution to the source. Drogo Underburrow 02:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies - didn't note the ref. If that's what US State dept is saying, that explains plenty; not exactly a wise thing to say unless they are convinced by their own propaganda, but we can't really argue that, can we. Go ahead & put it back if you want, but did you follow my logic? Re 'self-proclaimed', that may be true, but vast majority of the world agrees with it, & technically it's quite correct (although why anyone would want to brag about being a socialist republic is also beyond me...).Bridesmill 03:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I avoid reverting whenever possible. How about you doing a self-revert, they don't count towards the limit. Drogo Underburrow 03:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems for those in the second level of the Cuban government who seek power, is that since apparently Castro's life is somehow linked to the resolution of the Missile Crisis, thus he (Raul although only four years younger and even sicker) must be kept alive at all cost so that the regime may survive. Thus one can forecast that Castro will be kept alive even if all this remaining mental functions decay, and he becomes a kind of living Lenin's tomb. El Jigue 5-13-06

Yes, and no matter what shape he is in he will not ever be removed from his position of 'running Cuba'; he will remain the tittular head till he is well & truly dead. That does not mean, however, that he is of necessity the one (or the only one) actually making the day-to-day decisions. May I ask, BTW, why you don't have an account? Bridesmill 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There appears to me to have been several schisms within Cuban leadership over the years, and we'd struggle to get to the bottom of it due to typical suppression. A lot of outside theorising is fumbling in the dark. Castro is to me in many ways a traditional nationalist, with the Communist Party "in his pocket" rather than a socialist ideologue. There is also the long period of the swing towards Asian policies, which put Cuba in confrontation with the Soviets, and possibly Castro with his own Communist Party. Eventually this will all come out in the wash, no doubt. But it'll be very interesting to see what happens when both Castro's "pop their clogs". I imagine a grim struggle as the Communist party attempt to keep control.--Zleitzen 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Internet Control in Cuba

It was suggested in a section above that computer access to the internet is allowed, or is available to all in Cuba. This runs contrary to the Guillermo Fariñas circumstance [15]. Guillermo Fariñas according this Reporters without Borders article and many other is/was carrying out a hunger strike to obtain this access. El Jigue 5-13-06

Following WP:RS

A number of facts were recently introduced that rely on the US State Department as a sole source, chiefly questions of health and literacy indices. Unfortunately, in this specific regard, the US SD must be treated with a high degree of skepticism. The facts published at that site in most cases contradict (by percentage, but just enough to make comparisons to other nations seem less favorable) the plurality of other sources such as WHO, UNESCO, PAHO, Red Cross, and even the CIA World Fact Book. The source isn't totally outside WP:RS, but it's not particularly reliable either. LotLE×talk 17:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The state department cite numerous independent sources for their statements.Ultramarine 17:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
But, for example, they contradict the specific abortion figures that have been discussed in detail on this talk page. I happen to have spent some time in the last couple days tracking this stuff down, because it seemed odd. The report alluded to in which "Cuba has 3rd highest (reported) abortion rate" had the vast majority of nations listed as "not reported". By analogy, even though I have almost a buzz-cut (maybe 1/2" of hair), I have the "longest reported hair length of editors on this page"... well, that's a little bit too much, I confess: even more detailed reports certainly list Cuba's rate as significantly above worldwide averages. But we had a long discussion of the source of this "3rd highest" claim, which is being used purely rhetorically by deliberately finding incomplete data. In any case, the abortion stuff is discussed much more factually and specifically in the demographics section (an argument could be made for it going in health instead, I recognize... it relates both to medical care and to population trends, in different respects; but there's no need for a pure duplication).
Likewise, the State Department infant mortality figures directly contradict the WHO and the CIA World Factbook number on this. Not anything like claiming a rate of 60 instead of 6, which would be self-evidently propoganda. But by nudging the number to 9, which would be enough to push Cuba out of the "best 20" or so national rates. Clearly, reporting on health indices varies between organizations (and between methodologies), but the State Department is clearly "cherry picking" numbers to make a political case... much more so than WHO or PAHO do. LotLE×talk 17:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

WHO and UN in general accept, without critique, Cuban Government Data, even when it includes such oddities as zero (0) infant mortality in remote areas. I had all this referenced but this too has been removed El Jigue 5-13-06

Neutrality and factual accuracy

Views from one side selectively deleted:

"The US State Department, citing many independent sources, states that Cuba's infant mortality rate in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades. Cuba’s comparative world ranking has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. In terms of physicians and dentists per capita, Cuba in 1957 ranked third in Latin America, behind only Uruguay and Argentina -- both of which were more advanced than the United States in this measure. Cuba's physicians and dentists in 1957 was the same as the Netherlands, and ahead of the United Kingdom and Finland.[16]

Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption but ranked last out of the 11 countries analyzed in terms of percent of increase since 1957. Overall, Cuban per capita food consumption from 1954-1997 has decreased by 11.47 percent. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels.[17]" Ultramarine 17:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Have entered your information into the seperate Cuban health page, Ultramine. On this page we need to be relatively conscise. --Zleitzen 17:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Then the pro-Cuba figures should also be removed. Why is almost exclusively only positive information mentioned but not the negative? Ultramarine 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand, what pro Cuban figures? --Zleitzen 17:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
For instance, the totally unreferenced claims regarding how Cuba provides a vital medical role in many parts of the world. Now removed.Ultramarine 17:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Have taken vital out. And removed some figures.--Zleitzen 18:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I tend to agree that the paragraph on Cuban medical aid is a bit overdone. I'll take a look at trimming that down and NPOV'ing it. But Zleitzen gets the point about conciseness here. I have nothing against mentioning that Cuban health indices have been good since 1957 (or earlier, if we can find a citation); that's exactly what my edit does. But belaboring some pedantic: "Oh yeah, the revolution ain't any good because health indices were already positive in 1957" is just POV-mongering. As I've said before, think of a reader like my hypothetical (but there actually are such) Nepalese student. She frankly doesn't give a damn about some tirade pro- or anti-Castro in a health section. She might wish to read some country articles to get a general sense of which countries have better and worse indices; but phrasing everything as pre- and post-1959 would be utterly uninteresting to someone without an ideological schtick (of course descriptions of forms-of-government need to make that distinction; but it's not like we need to describe pre- and post-revolution rhumba or pre- and post-revolution styles of cooking plantains). LotLE×talk 18:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but Lulu - there has been no change to Rumba or plantains (except that they're hard to get now)! --Mcmachete 18:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Your link is dead and there are no source at all for some the claimed help. More evidence of bias, including this and excluding the sourced opposing views above, for example the declining nutrition. The article in other place compares pre- and post-revolution cuba. Biased to only do so when the comparison is favorable.Ultramarine 18:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
So the problem with all this information is that the US State Department is the source? I don't have a problem with the State Dept. as a reliable source. It mentions that the State Dept. cites "many independent sources." Also it mentions "UN data." --Mcmachete 17:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The State Department specifically "cherry picked" the least reliable "UN Data". See the abortion example above. I actually don't care about these details one whit in any "ethical" sense, since unlike many readers, I simply do not believe abortion has any ethical issues associated with it. But I'm aware that many readers think of abortion as "bad", and therefore, a high abortion rate reflects something bad about the country in which it occurs.
I do wonder about the Cuban medical regime that used D&E so much for menstrual regulation... that really strikes me as odd (it's done in the USA too, but not within an order-of-magnitude of the same frequency). Still, that's a purely medical question in my mind: and any Cuban with an M.D. knows more about medicine than I do as a layperson (as does any US, Norwegian, Mexican, or Saudi M.D., who might disagree on best protocols).
The point is that the numbers are manipulated by the State Department to create a certain political impression. Given the obvious history of government relations between the USA and Cuba, US State is by no means a neutral source on many issues for this article. LotLE×talk 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Please provide sources for you claims. Original research is not allowed. Are you arguing that the government of Cuba, cited many times in the article, is a neutral source? Ultramarine 17:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Ultramarine. --Mcmachete 18:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read this talk page and the citations given in the article for the example of the abortion question (or the infant mortality one). This is extremely well documented here. I do not think the government of Cuba is cited at all on this article; but if it is, that clearly can't be treated as a neutral source of disputed claims. I mean, that's probably OK for the text of the constitution or something like that, but not for e.g. health indices (where we definitely don't use that source). LotLE×talk 18:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
But why did you delete, for example, the figures regarding the declining nutrition? Ultramarine 18:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Because it was not clear what relation it had to health indicators. It generally gave caloric data, but not absolute number, nor in terms of nutritional adequacy. For example, in the USA, obesity is rampant... about the most healthy thing us Americans could do is reduce caloric intake. There's probably more of a story here, and the general topic of nutritional adequacy is worth discussing, but the State Department thing was very rhetorical, and looked like a probable straw man. Clearly, refugees in Darfur desperately need an increase in caloric intake right now: but increase in caloric intake isn't a generically good thing. LotLE×talk 18:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
More evidence of bias. The article in other place compares pre- and post-revolution Cuba. Biased to only do so when the comparison is favorable. Obviously nutrition is very important. Again, if you disagree with figures, cite sources, not just that personally disagree. Ultramarine 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Medical aid paragraph

This was recently mostly removed. I'm just stashing it here to try to rewrite a more NPOV version:

Cuba has entered into agreements with United Nations agencies specializing in health: PAHO/WHO, UNICEF, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nation’s Population Fund (UNFPA), and the United Nations Development Fund (UNDP). Since 1989, this collaboration has played a very important role in that Cuba, in addition to obtaining the benefits of being a member country, has strengthened its relations with institutions of excellence and has been able to disseminate some of its own advances and technologies. Cuban doctors have played a vital role in many regions of the world, it is estimated that they offer medical services to 85 million people; 35 million in Latin America and the Caribbean and 50 million in Africa and Asia. Cuban doctors have contributed to the health-care systems of war torn Sri Lanka in the 1980s, and currently export considerable health services and personnel to Venezuela. Since the Chernobyl nuclear plant exploded in 1986, more than 20,000 children from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia have traveled to Cuba for treatment of radiation sickness and psychologically based problems associated with the radiation disaster[18].
Your link is dead and there are no source at all for some the claimed help. More evidence of bias, including this and excluding the sourced opposing views above, for example the declining nutrition. The article in other place compares pre- and post-revolution cuba. Biased to only do so when the comparison is favorable.Ultramarine 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean above. What dead link? What bias? Feel free to check any detail in that paragraph. Hang on, the above is not the paragraph on the page. --Zleitzen 18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
"Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world. Cuban doctors have contributed to the health-care systems of war torn Sri Lanka in the 1980s, and currently export considerable health services and personnel to Venezuela." No source. Your reference works in IE, but not Opera which I tried first, so the prior part is referenced. Ultramarine 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea what Ultramarine is talking about either. I've never touched the paragraph myself, so it's not really "mine". I do think there's an interesting point to cover about Cuba's wide export of medical aid and technologies, but the tone needs to be right, and it needs citations. The Chernobyl stuff that was left in there actually seems like the least interesting part, if only because it's now a couple decades old (though continuing radiation effects linger, of course). LotLE×talk 18:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Extremely biased to include these unsourced claims and remove information on nutritional status.Ultramarine 18:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand where your edits and points are heading, Ultramarine. "Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world" can be easily sourced if necessary, that they are not at present is merely because the statement is incontestable. As for "US government say...." well we could be adding clauses from many governments, for a start the UK - where Cuban Health officials act in an advisory role to the National Health system.--Zleitzen 19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Then add the sources.Ultramarine 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be easier for all if editors did research before contesting / removing content. If editors are unaware that "Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world", then there should be serious concerns. [19],[20],[21],[22],[23], [24], [25]--Zleitzen 20:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Numerous Google search pages? Not acceptable. Proved specifc sources. As the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to provide a reliable source, otherwise it can be deleted. Ultramarine 20:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I think not, Ultramarine. Feel free to pursue dispute process if you wish to contest or delete the statement "Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world". --Zleitzen 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Cite sources: "This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." I am challenging it. You, as the person claiming this, must provide a specific source. Otherwise I will remove it according to Wikipedia policy. Ultramarine 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to challenge the statement "Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world". [26],[27],[28],[29],[30], [31], [32] As such a challenge would only raise examination of the challenger, rather than the statement itself.[33]. --Zleitzen 01:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nutrition paragraph

I see this paragraph as having numerous problems, but let me copy it here to work on a usable version:

Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption but ranked last out of the 11 countries analyzed in terms of percent of increase since 1957. Overall, Cuban per capita food consumption from 1954-1997 has decreased by 11.47 percent. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels.[34]

Specifically, if Cuba had high indices and adequate nutrution in 1957 while other Latin American countries had inadequate nutrition, I would certainly hope for a caloric increase elsewhere, but would presumably not expect one where it was already adequate. Also, the decrease in a particular food stuff doesn't necessarily say anything about overall nutrition if diets shift. Let me start digging around for citable data. If there's been a real change in nutritional adequacy that's worth mentioning; or also if there was a shortfall already in 1954). LotLE×talk 19:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... just loking at the source, it's interesting the cherry picking and bias. For one thing, all other countries report 1954-57 as the baseline, while inexplicably, they choose 1948-49 as the Cuba baseline. But then looking at some other data: 

Mexico:    2,420 → 3,108  (+28.4%)
Argentina  3,100 → 3,113  (+0.4%)
...
Cuba       2,730 → 2,417  (-11.5%)

The first thing that strikes me here is that Mexicans and Argentines are eating too much! That's not a healthy intake for an average sized person, and indicates obesity. Worse than the USA, apparently (though activity matters too):

The study finds U.S. women increased their daily calorie consumption 22 percent between 1971 and 2000, from 1542 calories per day to 1877 calories. During the same period the calorie intake for men increased 7 percent from 2450 calories per day to 2618 calories.[35]

Hmmm... this actually puts the Cuban caloric intake in either 1948 or 1997 than US in either 1971 or 2000. That strikes me as a bit anomalous; let me look further. A 1500 calorie diet is a long-term survival level (for an average sized person), but is likely to lead to overall malnutrition. LotLE×talk 19:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the time of the comparison "This was in spite of the fact that the latest available food consumption data for Cuba at the time was from 1948-49, almost a decade before the other Latin American countries' data being used in the comparison." Regarding the nutrition value: "A closer look at the latest available data on some basic food groups reveals that Cubans now have less access to cereals, tubers, and meats than they had in the late 1940's. According to 1995 UN FAO data, Cuba's per capita supply of cereals has fallen from 106 kg per year in the late 1940's to 100 kg half a century later. Per capita supply of tubers and roots shows an even steeper decline, from 91 kg per year to 56 kg. Meat supplies have fallen from 33 kg per year to 23 kg per year, measured on a per capita basis." This may not be enough for malnutrition, but it certainly indicates a declining standard of living. Maybe a better place would be under economy? Ultramarine 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of POV sources?

I am curious if the editors around here can agree on a policy for using POV sources for WP:V?

Eariler, 172 deleted[[36]] a reference from People's Weekly World, an obvious pro-Cuba reference. Also, earlier, Ultramarine added[37] a reference to Freedom House, an obvious anti-Castro reference. I don't see the logic that it is good to delete one and not the other for POV reasons? We really have two choices, to use POV sourcing, pro and con, or to not. It just isn't right to use only POV sourcing for one POV and not the other. BruceHallman 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

All significant views should certainly be included. In a contested article like this, it should alse be clearly marked what the source is, so the readers can decide for themselves the reliability.Ultramarine 23:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Information from Freedom House is reliable and consumed by academics all the time. Information from the Communist Party USA is not. Wikipedia is supposed to be seeking to become a serious enyclopedia, not a soapbox for crackpots and fringe groups. 172 | Talk 23:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see is that "Freedom House," like the Heritage Institute and other US thinktanks are not a worldwide organisations, and may be seen as bit too US-centric for the article. The United Nations, or groups such as Amnesty International would be more appropriate, especially when taking in the wikipedia goal of avoiding geographic bias into account. Myciconia 23:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
As noted by 172, Freedom House is a respected source often used by academics. Human Rights Watch states essentially the same thing, as noted in the article. Unfortunately, Amnesty usually carefully avoids making any general statements about the political system, like the degree of democracy. Ultramarine 00:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I call bullshit on this one. I'm an academic. I have a doctorate in political philosophy. I read professional journals. Freedom House ain't by the wildest stretch of the imagination a "reliable source used by academics". CPUSA is a lot less biased as a source that Freedom House is. I'm not saying FH is totally non-citable, but don't make believe that it's Amnesty International of WHO. LotLE×talk 01:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Google scholar finds 6500 hits for "Freedom House".[38]Ultramarine 01:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As per Bruce. Yes, 172, academics use Freedom House all the time: but they treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism - it does have it's share of biases. Bridesmill 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be NPOV, not sources. Sources can be extremely biased and be perfectly suitable for use in articles. The idea that sources should be unbiased is incorrect and reflects a misunderstanding of the NPOV rule. NPOV is a rule for articles, stating that articles should present all points of view without judging them. The points of view must be sourced, so naturally the sources will be POV themselves. Drogo Underburrow 00:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Freedom Houses's Frank Calzon is biased, after all getting hit over the head from behind in a unprovoked attack by Cuban goverment security "delegate" "diplomat" at Geneva a year or two back will do it to you. The perpetrators were arrested by the Swiss police [39] [40]. Frank is a little fat guy about 50. El Jigue 5-13-06

The easiest solution for most contentious issues here is to use international sources when possible. There are plenty of international sources UN, WHO, Amnesty, EU, BBC, Pan-American organisations, Canadian etc. There are also many interesting and notable criticisms of the Cuban Government from other international sources, one such major critic is Vaclav Havel for instance. If it were down to me I'd obviously caution against using Cuban media or government sources such as Granma (with the obvious exception of Cuban legal documents), and also against US Government or US Government funded sources such as "Freedom House" (certainly without attribution clauses). Bruce is correct that the only way is to present both or neither. I favour the latter course, and would prefer to steer the boat towards international waters.--Zleitzen 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The Cuban government is certainly allowed to present its view and defend itself. Again, Freedom House and Human Rights Watch are respected organizations, so they are also allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 03:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
All such sources are allowed in Wikipedia, however the construction and length of the page would be unmanageable if one was to rigourously apply that standard here. There is a Cuba/US relations page that can take the weight of much of this. Freedom House present only one view amongst many ie Canadian, British, Latin American, Asian, EU etc. I wouldn't advocate the Iranian view of the United States retold at length repeatedly on the United States page. Neither would I support the consistent representation of Chinese Government positions on the Tibet page. A few notes here and there are fine, but bi-polarising the representation is wasteful and unencyclopedic.--Zleitzen 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The Chinese Government's view should certainly be on the Tibet page. Of course we cannot list all views regarding Cuba due to space limitations, only the most notable. But human rights and social development in Cuba are often discussed far more than for other nations, since it often claimed to be a successful Communist state. It is only natural that Wikipedia reflects this discussion, giving the referenced arguments of both sides. Note also that the UN and WHO receives a large part of its funding from the US.Ultramarine 04:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
"since it often claimed to be a successful Communist state" - by whom?
"human rights and social development in Cuba are often discussed far more than for other nations" see Amnesty international.
"The Chinese Government's view should certainly be on the Tibet page" but not retold at length repeatedly giving it undue weight and opening up tedious paragraphs of rebuttals etc.
"giving the referenced arguments of both sides" this is not an issue of "both sides". This is not a pro/con page where pro Castro or minority US views battle it out in a wasteful ideological war of sources. That maybe the case on a Cuba/US relations page, but here I repeatedly advise internationalism. I urge all serious editors and the ideologues on this page to read mainstream encyclopedia entries for Cuba such as encarta, to help understand the tone and weight that should be adopted here. Until this is undestood, this page will fail. --Zleitzen 14:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I am being too subtle for many. When "diplomats" of government like Cuba (as it has done a number of times), believe it is OK to go out and beat on people in other countries there is ssoemthing very wrong with that government. If in Cuba it is "legal" to organize mobs beat up on sixty year old women who protest peacefully (such as Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello [41]) in a way that even Aljazeera objects [42]), that alone may be taken to suggest that the Cuban government rules by force, and thus, the nonsense here about Cuba being a democracy is patently absurd. El Jigue 5-14-06

An unpleasant episode indeed. And one for my Cuban human rights scrapbook, which I'm working on in reference to this article. Please inform me of any individual cases you believe should be highlighted, El Jigue. And I'll store them until an appropriate time to re-write the human rights section.--Zleitzen 14:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
(It is a shame that all discussions around here quickly degenerate into heated arguments), but I get from the above that POV sources, like the People's Weekly World is an acceptable source per WP:V, (in other words we can trust the reader to make their own judgement about POV references). The next group editorial question is: Do we approve or disapprove of 172's deletion[43] of a POV citation link? BruceHallman 18:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle that the People's Weekly World is an acceptable source, but in practice I replaced the source with a BBC news story saying approximately the same thing.--Zleitzen 18:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm completely with Zleitzen here. I don't think the PWW is totally unusable (nor Freedom House, which is kind of a mirror image); but if we can find the BBC supporting the same basic fact, the latter is much preferable. BBC isn't totally disinterested and free of POV, but generally they have a pretty good commitment to journalistic neutrality. However, contrary to 172 below, the PWW is a news source, not only an editorial source (and likewise for Freedom House). LotLE×talk 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Bruce, the comment above cites Wikipedia's content rules out of context in a way that has an effect of undermining the encyclopedic standards that the rules are supposed to promote. Frankly, the comment above is a case study in malicious compliance. Wikipedia editors are supposed to strive to apply the same standards as professional reporters do in their own work, and as editors of any paper encyclopedia or sourcebook. If a newspaper reporter came up to his/her editor insisting that a Communist propaganda outlet like the People's Weekly World is just as acceptable of a source as the BBC, the editor would be wondering how someone so clueless could possibly have been hired in the first place. If this were a paper by a college student or even a high school student, the professor/teacher would circle the citation, asking the student if he/she even knows exactly what kind of source he/she is citing. The PWW can be cited on Wikipedia as an example of the "party line" on a particular subject. Using the PWW as any other news source, however, serves only to embarass Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the article 172 deleted, and it cannot fairly be described as 'propaganda'. 172 seems to be arguing that everything from People's Weekly World is disqualified, because sometimes they issue propaganda. While, nothing from the US State Dept., or CIA can be disqualified, though they sometimes issue propaganda. Explain why this is not a technique for POV pushing? BruceHallman 21:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue here is the degree to which we can trust a publication for the accuracy of its factual claims. The CIA Factbook and Freedom House reports, for example, are well-known among-- and frequently used by-- reporters, academics, students, and policy-makers, and policy-analysts because of their high standards of factual accuracy. The PWW is not. The issue is not POV. One can trust a publication's standards of accuracy without necessarily buying into all its prescriptive and normative commentaries. (On that note, by the way, I would not object to an attempt to support a factual claim in a Wikipedia article with a citation from a scholarly Marxist publication like the Monthly Review, which does happen to be taken seriously in some academic circles.) Please stop making insinuations that I am engaging in POV-pushing for my attempts to encourage the usage of a higher quality of sources in this article. 172 | Talk 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion having seen more examples of your work elsewhere on wikipedia, 172. Some of which I've read has been excellant, and on contentious issues as well. Which makes me more curious as to why you're taking such an inflexible line on this page. --Zleitzen 23:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. I'm just saying that we should avoid using sketchy sources, especially in this particular case, where the PWW citation was easily replaced by one from the BBC. My motivation is not political. On the same token, in past cases I've tried to keep articles from being loaded up with links to right-wing sites like WorldNetDaily. 172 | Talk 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: beatings of dissidents are becoming quite common now in Cuba. Will try to document a few. El Jigue 05-14-06

I've got info on some of the more high profile incidents, such as the 2003 round up etc. But drop a note on my talk page if you dig any more sources up. I'd like to have as full a record as possible from which to analyse and draw from, my personal belief is that for sensitive issues like this there should be no ambiguities or open doors with which POV can sneak in.--Zleitzen 23:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

POV disputes

Referenced opposing view removed without explanation "The US State Department notes that many other Latin American nations which all ranked just behind Cuba on literacy during the 1950's have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms.[44]"Ultramarine 16:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to follow dispute process on the inclusion of that sentence. But it should be noted that the above isn't an opposing view. It's only notable as an amusing example of mindboggling spin on the part of the US State Department and thus has scant relevance on this page. I support these pieces being examined on individual education/health pages and the US/Cuban relations page. But I removed it here to spare the reputation of the US State Department and editors who may insist on its inclusion.--Zleitzen 16:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It is almost mind-bogglingly pure spin. The State Dept. page has broken links so I can't find all it's alleged rates. But what is there bears repeating. According to the SD, Cuba increased literacy from 76% to 96% (I'm not sure which exact years, but basically pre- and post-Castro). So that's roughly a 26% increase (of the baseline). In contrast, Haiti might have started out with a 25% literacy rate, and increased it to 50% (I'm making up those figures since the link is broken; but those are the kinds of numbers at question). So Haiti had (as stipulated), a 100% increase, dwarfing, according to the SD, Cuba's 26%.
Now looking at that, does anyone outside an asylum or the US State Dept think this means that Haiti is "doing better" than Cuba on this index? Is it really a "failure of the revolution" that they haven't increased literacy to 152%?! Of course 96% is still short of 100%; and there are probably nations with a bit higher than 96% literacy (though the SD figure is probably slightly on the low side anyway). And of course we can speculate that Cuba would have also increased literacy under a capitalist regime (that's probably true, as much as couterfactuals can be). But for the SD or Ultramarine to somehow get some sort of condemnation out of this (as they try) is nothing but rampant POV-mongering. LotLE×talk 16:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly one of the more creative and entertaining pieces of spin I've seen, and demands inclusion on wikipedia. However it's inclusion here will not serve any purpose. Again one may use many sources concerning Cuban education, such as the British council [45], [46] etc and many, many other mainstream articles such as these [47]. Ultramarine is unnecessarily opening a can of worms which only serves the interests of Cuban supporters.--Zleitzen 17:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The US State Department, and CIA are well known anti-Castro advocates. That is not to say that they do not publish useful information, but what they write must be viewed with scepticism and must be downplayed or qualified when deemed POV. BruceHallman 18:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Lots of personal opinions here. But original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Cite reliable sources for why these figures are not correct. Remember, NPOV states that all sides should be included, not just the views of one side.Ultramarine 18:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Referenced opposing view removed: "Cuba remains a Latin American anomaly: an undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. President Fidel Castro, now in his forty-seventh year in power, shows no willingness to consider even minor reforms. Instead, his government continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment. The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law."[48]Ultramarine 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sentence on exile reaction

This sentence had been in the article, and has gone back-and-forth a bit in the last day. I think that with a good citation it's nicely informative, but not essential certainly. What do folks think?

The continuation of the existing regime was a disappointment to the anti-Castro exiles, who in the early 1990s believed that their return to their homeland, and to power, was imminent.[citation needed]

LotLE×talk 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The opinions and the effect of the Cuban exiles is the Elephant in the room around here. And, this issue deserves at least a sentence and really more. BruceHallman 21:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that it was disappointment to many inside Cuba too. El Jigue 5-14-06

Effect of US on Cuban culture and customs

The article states, [Cuba's] culture and customs draw from several sources including ... the island’s close proximity to the United States.

Just what Cuban customs have the United States as its source? What aspect of Cuban culture "draws" from the United States? Drogo Underburrow 02:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Protestantism for starters (see religion section).--Zleitzen 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Baseball Myciconia 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Automobiles.--Zleitzen 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Certain architectural styles[49]--Zleitzen 02:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Cigars Myciconia 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Cuban literature and painting seem to have some notable influence from US movements. LotLE×talk 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
None of these seem central to the culture, on the same level as the Spanish or African influence. Drogo Underburrow 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that the Spanish and African cultural influences are greater, but it's hard to really quantify "amount of influence". The USA seems at least notable as an influence, even if not primary. LotLE×talk 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article puts the Spanish, African, and U.S. influences on the same level. So, its misleading. Drogo Underburrow 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

3RRs

this line of ciritism needs to be addressed.

The Cuban American National Foundation and Lawrence Solomon of the Urban Renaissance Institute claim that Cuba masks the truth behind the Cuban health care system. They argue that real Cuban healthcare is abysmal and that what is shown to non-Cuban foreigners is a healthcare system unavailable to the average Cuban.[50][51][52] The National Review has made similar criticisms.

This has been deleted multiple times by left wing censors who don't want the information out there. I call bullshit on this censorship. Just because you actually think universal health care can work doesnt mean you have to delete information that suggests it will not. Cut it out.

btw, Milton Friedman gave the economic arguement on why left wing socialists tend to censor information and why capitalists typically will not. Read his book Capitalism and Freedom to figure out why. (Gibby 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

If this vandal repeats the POV addition, please add it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:KDRGibby. LotLE×talk 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I received this email just now, to my Wikipedia email account:
Return-Path: <wiki@wikimedia.org>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 03:52:57 GMT
Message-Id: <200605150352.k4F3qvq1023822@localhost.localdomain>
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to wiki@wikimedia.org using -f
To: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <wikipedia@gnosis.cx>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: KDRGibby <kdrgibby81@yahoo.com>

you are fucking stupid.  That is not POV material. My god. You are an idiot and wiki is 
full of people like you.  Stop censoring information and making up bullshit excuses.
It sounds like a personal attack to me. LotLE×talk 04:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Another case?

It looks like Drogo Underburrow is intent on repeating KDRGibby's 3RR violation. Not there quite yet, but I'll be sure to report it if or when he violates. KDRGibby, appropriately, was blocked for a month—but that's mostly because of prior probation. I assume Drogo's block would be for less time. LotLE×talk 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Refs

The refs in this article is a complete mess, fix them to footnotes. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Jaranda overstates the issue, mixed citation style is not per se wrong. But I agree it's a good idea to move to m:Cite.php for the simple inline URLs. However, as we do so, let's provide complete citation details and verify links. Please use the {{cite web}} for the expanded details. LotLE×talk 04:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but this article is in content revert war, should be protected, or at least every stop editing for like a hour for formatting of refs. Remember we are trying to make this article better and all this revert war won't help. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

1) Somebody please make a new archive. 2) start a new page 3) write down the title of each chapter as they appear on the article. Comment only those sentences found in a particular chapter chapter. 4) don’t assume readers are stupid. Every single fact presented in the main text is followed by “explanations” meant to influence the readers. Since we have different POVs let’s present the facts as they are, and let the readers to make their own conclusions (e.g. suicide rates, life expectancy etc). Keep comparisons with other countries at minimum. It’s better to put things into context but this could be extremely misleading, keeping in mind you can chose your examples as you wish. If not possible at least keep comparing the same countries.--Anticom 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuba/Archive_11&oldid=1136644046"