Jump to content

Talk:Cuba/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Human rights section

I think this section may need some NPOV changing. It only mentions the complaints of opponents to the Castro regime. Other sources, for example, document unusually good prison environments (better than the US). I'll be researching this, but if anyone has mroe information regarding the suppression of dissidents and other topics that would be helpful. Brazzbatch 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a few edits today. The degree of unsourced info / opinion pieces on there was shocking. Cuba is praised as a defender of human rights by many Latin American nations. I'll be keeping an eye on this article to ensure things come up to par. There's no reason that folks in Miami should use Wikipedia as their personal propaganda tool. Frank Pais 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed "gerbilism" listed in the first paragraph.. is this vandalism, or does that actually happem? 12.43.88.120 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

news of expelled correspondents deleted

One notes that information on expulsion of media correspondents from Cuba: "- A BBC reporter is among at least three international correspondents asked to leave.[1] At least three foreign correspondents based in Havana have been told they must leave the country because of their 'negative' reporting. " This deletion was performed by "Ejercito Rojo" hardly a NPOV pseudonym. El Jigue (a mythological and ancient pseudonym)208.65.188.149 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The name is Stephen Gibbs of BBC. The page isn't available any more.Xx236 12:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

2005 expulsions

4 Polish and 1 Swiss journalists were expelled in 2005:

  • Seweryn Blumsztajn, Gazeta Wyborcza
  • Wojciech Rogacin, Newsweek (Poland)
  • Jerzy Jurecki, Tygodnik Podhalański
  • Anna Bikont, Gazeta Wyborcza

Gazeta Wyborcza is a liberal newspaper, close to the NYT.

Wikinews (Polish) Xx236 12:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

not socialist

The economy is communist (or real socialist), not socialist.Xx236 09:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a communist economy. Communism deals with politics, such as the rights of the working men, political representation, while socialism with economics and distribution of resources. They are two very different terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.133.226 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

You are misinformed. Communism deals with

  • exterminations
  • slavery
  • centralized economy
  • centralized distribution of goods - .

Xx236 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Miseducation is nice. Do not attempt to associate corruption with communism, as the ideology promotes the exact opposite. corruption is bad, but miseducation is terrible. 83.252.22.54 09:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not an attempt at miseducation. Communism is very economic, and if you don't remember that you need to re-read Marx. Of the ten planks of the Manifesto, eight are economic in nature, such as confiscation of private property, creation of a central bank, centralization of credit, etc. Marx advocated the abolition of private enterprise and the creation of a political economy in which the state dictates all economic policies.

The notion of separating Socialism, which is a worker-ruled society (thus economically based), from Communism, a society in which class no longer exists (thus a non-economic society) has its origins in theories promulgated by economists in the early Soviet Union, a negation that Marx's Communism did indeed include economic prototypes. Marcoamedrano 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Do not attempt to associate corruption with communism" - I haven't literally, one can read my text above. If you mean "everything for party activists, stinking food for workers" it was reality in many countries. In post-revolutionary SU the activists obtained nationalised goods, later the same after WWII - goods from Germany. In any Communist country a distribution network for activists existed, not mentioning shopping visits in degenerated capitalistic countries. Now in North Korea people are starving and the activists obtain imported food of high quality. Xx236 10:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GDP

Why 3900 (not ranked)? 3900 is a CIA quote, ranked there.Xx236 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Military activity in Cuba on increase

Recently not only has there been two reported violent incidents of desperate Cuban military recruits trying to escape [1] [2]. Cuban-Americans consider both reporter Will Weissert (who recently praised the present Cuban health system citing Fidel Castro's "health" as an example "Fidel Castro may be ailing, but he's a living example of something Cubans take pride in — an average life expectancy roughly similar to that of the United States." [3]) and the US army source, Frank Mora, a National War College professor who made a 2006 presentation lauding Raul Castro as a "moderate") to be less than reliable evaluators of the Cuban circumstance. In addition, there was another incident (two dead) reported today in which "drug smugglers" (this is what the Cuban government is saying and this is not confirmed by drug seizure, but perhaps now that "evidence" will turn up (:>)) [4]. El Jigüe208.65.188.149 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt many cubans have access to specialists from Spain, unlike Mr. Castro. The multiple botched operations he had before Dr. José Luis García Sabrido began treating him are 100% cuban. Something to be proud of, I'm sure. --74.99.4.147 19:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

several sections to edit

{{Editprotected}}

Request 1

Hello,

I would like to edit the following sections: - "Economy": to give comment about the fact that USA forbids its Cuban population to transfer more than $1,200/year to Cuba, which is the reason why not more than ~1.0 billion dollars are not imported to Cuba annually.

- "Independence": to mention that the "formal independence" wasn't really an independence since USA only won this territory after the war with Spain, when USA and Spain signed the peace treaty in Paris, by which USA got the rights to freely intervene in Cuba whenever its interests are jeopardized, by which USA gets a part of Cuban territory, and after which all of the Cuban presidents were under direct influence of USA government. Therefore, in Cuba, independence is celebrated on January 1, after the January 1, 1959. entrance of Castro's army into Havana.

- "From Batista to Castro": to mention that Ernesto Che Guevara was fighting in Sierra Maestra side by side with Fidel, which should be an interest fact, due to Che's popularity in the world.

- "Marxist-Leninist Cuba": to mention that the reason that USSR placed nuclear missiles on Cuba was that the USA had previously placed nuclear missiles in Turkey and some other countries of middle east, which was a direct threat to USSR. Thus, after Khrushchev and Kennedy made an agreement, both Soviet and USA missiles were drawn back, and USA agreed not to impose direct threat to Cuba in the (near) future.

This request among other oversights, omits the interesting point that the Platt Amendment (which allowed the US to interfere in Cuba when violence broke out) was repealed in 1933. El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Though most of the Platt Amendment was repealed, the section involving the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station was not, thus, the Platt Amendment is still significant.

"Except for U.S. rights to Guantánamo Bay, the Platt Amendment provisions, which many Cubans considered to be an imperialist infringement of their sovereignty,[1] were repealed in 1934, when a new treaty with the United States was negotiated as a part of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Good Neighbor policy" toward Latin America. The long-term lease of Guantánamo Bay still continues, and according to the treaty that right can only be revoked by the consent of both parties. The Cuban government strongly denounces the treaty on grounds that article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties declares a treaty void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force. They are afraid that the US can whipe out Cuba's puny military at any time." - Wikipedia, Platt amendment.

Request 2

I would like to propose the following modification: from At the same time, the administration authorized plans for an invasion of Cuba by Florida-based exiles to At the same time, the U.S. administration authorized plans for an invasion of Cuba by Florida-based exiles

Otherwise, it is not clear from the paragraph which "administration" is being discussed. --74.14.18.57 01:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I unprotected the page. -- Samir 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Friction between Communist Party and Raul Castro

Transitions of command in communist governments tends to be conspirational in nature. In a series of reports "La Nueva Cuba" (a significant Cuban-exile news source) documents at least two other attempts of Cuban army recruits to flee and suggests that that there is conflict between Raul and the Cuban Communist Party [5]. El Jigue208.65.188.149 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How am I expected to review that source exactly? The onus is on you to translate pertinent excerpts and establish the source's notability. El_C 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New "revisions" have "bolixed" up page

New "revisions" have "bolixed" up page, whole sections have been deleted. This mess has delayed necessary real revisions. e.g economic conditions in first years of Batista's second regime are made to seem far worse than reality, especially present reality. The role of the "mafioso" at this time is exaggerated and not documented. Attempts to shoehorn complex and significant Cuban history into limited space results in gross simplifications and distortion. The retrogression of the living conditions and political freedom of the Cuban society during the Castros' rule is ignored. Acceptance of present government statistics is horrendous El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to be more specific; cite diffs so we know what you're talking about. El_C 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No documentation on "Mafia" in Cuba and poverty in Cuba in 1952-1958 period

While there is no doubt that there were organized crime figures in Cuba during the second Batista dictatorship 1952-1958; the level of these circumstances and comparison to present day situation is not given and is not documented. El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


A pertinent oversight of such a view of history is found in a review by Larry Daley, segment reprinted with permission):

  • Garcia-Perez, Gladys Marel (Author), Gladys E. Garcia Perez (Author), Louis A. Perez (Editor), Juan Ortega (Translator) 1998 Insurrection & Revolution: armed struggle in Cuba, 1952-1959 Lynn Rienner Boulder Colordo ISBN-10 1555876110

ISBN-13: 978-1555876111 certainly says such. However, many believe this argument to flawed and badly contaminated by Cuban government propaganda. One should note that “Gladys Marel García-Pérez is on the research staff of the Institute of History and the Center for Marti Studies, both in Havana. Previously she was with the Institute of Social Sciences at the Cuban Academy of Science. Her previous books include Cuando las edades llegaron a estar de pie, Historia del movimiento obrero cardenense, and (as coauthor) Atlas historico-biografico Jose Marti.” [6]

The matter of balance is addressed by Argote-Freyere, Frank 2001 In search of Fulgencio Batista: A re-examination of pre-revolutionary Cuban scholarship. Revista Mexicana del Caribe 6(11) 193-227. [7]

Argote-Fryere author, in this work's first paragraph, cites Louis A. Perez Jr. (who is considered far too liberal by many scholars from the Cuban-American community). Perez writes: “The rendering of the Cuban past in the last twenty years may be in part dishonest, in part mythical, perhaps contrived. It has often functioned as a deliberate device for garnering loyalty and sacrifice. Indeed, Cubans have used history to affirm define, and defend the beliefs basic to the enterprise of the Revolution [Perez, 1980].


A more balanced view is found in

  • Horowitz, Irving (Editor) and, Jaime Suchlicki (Editor) 2003 Cuban Communism. Transaction Publishers; 11 edition ISBN-10. Edison N.K. 0765805200, ISBN-13 978-0765805201 This book gives a quite different and more balanced perspective

El Jigue208.65.188.149 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How does any this relate to the article, specifically, concretely? El_C 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

C: Well for one thing it documents as falsehoods the pervasive Castro propaganda that still mars this page. El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A question about phrasing: "American mobsters" Should this be something along the lines "American organized crime?" It seems to me that mobsters lacks the formal tone expected on an encyclopedia. It also could be used informally to express dislike. A more formal tone would address this.

Need to document extent of Mafia influence in Cuba

It is a staple of Castro propaganda that "the mafia" were all powerful in Cuba. It is obvious that members of US organized crime families were present in Cuba. However, their numbers and influence has been vastly overrated. For instance I know of no encounter between these elements and rebel forces, before Batista fell from power. El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This might be supplemented with a seperate article or expanded on considerably. The current version makes it appear that Italian-American mafia figures were in some way involved in Cuban politics, which was not the case. (RookZERO 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Rookzero apparently there are some who dislike pointing this out and perhaps this is the reason that this page has again been protected. Lack of political influence of the "Mafia" in Cuba is easily demonstrated. For instance: Schwartz, Rosalie 1997 Pleasure Island: Tourism and Temptation in Cuba. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln NA; New Ed edition (February 1, 1999) ISBN-10 0803292651 ISBN-13 978-0803292659 P. 145 “One month after the March 1953 Saturday Evening Post hit the newsstands. Cuba’s military intelligence forces (Servicio de Inteligencia Militar, or SIM) arrested a dozen North Americans suspected of running crooked games at the Tropicana, Sans Souci, and Jockey Club. The government deported eleven of the offenders and announced the problem solved.” p. 137 “Casino owners did not strew North American Garbage across a pristine Cuban landscape. Foreign gamblers introduced neither gangsterism nor vice to the island, nor did they necessarily corrupt righteous islanders. Cubans themselves scoffed at the idea that the mob could “march into Cuba and start giving orders like little Cesar, a reference to actor Edward G. Robinson’s celluloid character. “You just go ahead and send your toughest characters down here,” one Cuban challenged an American journalist. “I guarantee you that even a second-rate Cuban politician will run rings around him.” The mob was playing ball with seasoned veterans, not second stringers.” El Jigue208.65.188.149 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Organic foods

I was wondering if there is any concrete evidence on the organic food emergence in the Cuban society, The decrease in heart disease associated with an increase in vegetable intake. and such like that. Thank you ++N

++N One can be quite sure there are published statistics fromthe Cuban government pointing this out; and one can be equally sure that these statistics are finagled. El Jigue208.65.188.149 22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say (even though this is in response to an old comment) that from reading this and other comments on this page, one would think that every other government in the world was upstanding, honest and never fudged facts. Do people really believe the Bush administration is a culture of honor and transparency? Heck, I'm sure even the Canadians and Norwegians and Falkland Islanders are hiding something! ha! Saudade7 18:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dissidents complain of harassment and torture

So they complain and no such case has been documented yet, no international organization visited the prisons?

What is the meaning of "The neutrality of this article or section is disputed" there? Xx236 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag in Human Rights

Anyone know why there is a neutrality tag in the human rights section? Seems as though it may have been vandalism or a mistake of some sort and should be removed, no?

Simply listing claims of human rights abuses by human rights organisations is not evidence of human rights abuses. Also this section in parts fails to cite sources for quite substantial claims for example "Since 2003, human rights supporters have sent thousands of appeals to the Cuban authorities calling for the release of the prisoners. Sixteen have so far been released on medical parole. Several of those still in jail suffer from poor health and their conditions have been exacerbated by an unhygienic environment, substandard care and inadequate medical treatment."- no source The section also only looks at claims of abuses and fails to look at the debates from outside the Cuban government such at the UN declarations (US intimidation), role in the fights against apartheid in South Africa, human rights abuses against cuba (the "blocade"), humanitarian aid to places such as Venezuela and East Timor etc --Chatswood court 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of voting: Anyone want to write about US being brought before International Court?

The US is being brought before International Court over the banning of democracy to the citizens of Puerto Rico. Basically because they are banned from being able to vote for the US president.

CaribDigita 23:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans living off the Island can vote in US Federal elections. Periodic votes in Puerto Rico itself show that a majority of Puerto Ricans there prefer by a narrow margin the present Federal tax-free status to statehood which would allow federal taxation. Independence gets little voter support. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful neutrality in History Section

The following statement represents a one-sided view of Spanish colonial history. The words "oppressed", "enslaved", and "genocide" reflect a personal opinion, rather than an objective historical account:

"The Spanish, as they did throughout the Americas, oppressed and enslaved the approximately 100,000 indigenous people that resisted conversion to Christianity on the island. Within a century they had all but disappeared as a distinct nation as a result of the combined effects of European introduced disease, forced labor and genocide..."

May I suggest that this paragraph is revised thoroughly.

"Well the Spanish needed the gold" is not a good excuse. One can make certain distinctions in some Terra Firme areas such as Mexico where the Aztecs ruled a tyranny. however, given the peaceful nature of the inhabitants of Cuba, this argument does not apply here El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure, as long as you've got the 'reliable sources', to back it. GoodDay 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Good Day, for some in Spain talk of cruelty and oppression is merely "La Leyenda Negra;" however, it seems clear that vast cruelties and killings happened during and following the Spanish conquest of the Americas. One can argue a bit more logically that the Aztec levies on subjugated nations for mass sacrifices offer strong justification for Spanish actions in that region. However, such an argument cannot be applied to Cuban circumstance. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Help! Help! Help! Gremlin attack

Tried to insert a new reference in health section:

Hirschfeld, Katherine 2007 Re-examining the Cuban Health Care System: Towards a Qualitative Critique/ Cuban Affairs Vol. 2, Issue 3- July 2007 http://www.cubanaffairsjournal.org/Content.asp

and as much as a tried the following demographic section ended being messed up. Having done such successfully many times before, don't know what is happening now cannot even reverse my corrections please HELP!!!! El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tried again now looks better but references still bolixed up losing my mind El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Thank all you for your help El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Raul said negotiating with US Military

Reliable sources are reporting top level talks between US and Cuba military. It is said that Perez Roque and Alarcon are out since they are not considered loyal to Raul. El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC) This is being followed by some unreasonably flattering reports on Raul's new reign [8] El Jigue208.65.188.149 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What reliable sources are talking about "top level talks between the U.S. and Cuban military, ditto the Roque/Alarcon comment? Goatboy95 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

Throughout this article, there are a number of misspelled words and grammatical errors. Someone who cares about editing encyclopedias should really go over it with a fine-toothed comb.

Get out your comb. Don't complain about errors, if you spot them, fix them. That's part of being an editor. Don't be shy. GoodDay 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quality of medical care

Since Fidel Castro's sickness and bungled operation the quality of health care in Cuba has been subject to question. Here is a widely disseminated report on Castro's health (no reference as yet that is why it has not been inserted into the article); however, since such is considered officially to be a state secret in Cuba it merits attention:

  • 1. Fidel Castro is still on IV daily. He can take solid foods, but his

intestines are so deteriorated that he can not absorb the nutrients.

  • 2. His knees, which were a problem before his intestinal problems, are much

worse now. His bed stay hurt his musculature and he can only walk a few steps.

  • 3. There is some loss of mental capacity, worse by the day, although,

possibly his weekly reflections are written by him

  • 4. Nobody of importance thinks Fidel Castro will return to power
  • 5. Raul Castro is now fully in charge

El Jigue208.65.188.149 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And no source whatsoever... jesus, whats wrong with this page?

Whitewash continues

As expected mention of the standard expropriation of property of those who leave Cuba was deleted by a somewhat less than impartial commentator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C). The deleted material was: "The emigration process could be traumatic." ([www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/2001_3_SpecialArticles.pdf]) pp. 23-24) And Kaplan continues with a quote from Marek Schindelman: *It is disastrous—the rich have left, some having foreseen the situation, but these are few. all assets [have been] taken over by the government, the militia, or other bandits who have simply taken over everything which our brothers have left behind after having worked for many years, sacrificing themselves to make their way. . . . Those who remain can do nothing; business is dying for lack of merchandise, and the large industries, as well as the..."

One wonders how the supporters of the Cuban government can rationalize the deletion of mention of a standard measure of the Cuban government.

El Jigue[[[User:208.65.188.149|208.65.188.149]] 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

reports on Castro's health

According to some exile sources Castro's condition is worsening rapidly [9] El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

... which immidiatelly makes it a dubious source.

Maine explosion additions somewhat overwrought

The new additions to the Maine explosion section seem somewhat overwrought and one sided. They may well need some correction. El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A more up to date reference is:

  • Samuels, Peggy and Harold Samuels 1995 Remembering the Maine. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC and London ISBN 15609847430

El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why *is* there an independent Maine explosion section? Shouldn't this be under the 'History' section? I think this shows an incredible Ameri-centric bias.

Anonymous, Nov 1 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.138.117 (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Houses of the rich and famous in Cuba

There is a web site:

[10]

which shows photos and satellite imagery said to be of the houses of the rich and famous in Cuba. El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

From an anti-castrist site?... am i the only one seeing that many of the sources are downright POV??, the page you are listing isnt even a source, its a friggin forum!.

Agreed only sources approved by Cuban government should be used. No nonsense published by escaped dissidents should be cited, for that would detract from the glory of the Cuban Revolution (:>)El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a site called "cuban secrets"... how legitimate you think the information in that page is?. And yes, theres a major issue if you use those sites, as there is no way what so ever to know if they are legitimate or not, its like using a far right wing site as a source for an article about Islam; its bound to have a POV issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.161.198.169 (talk) 01:54, August 20, 2007 (UTC)


And we are going to find that on the official Cuban news, or from the limited access foreign reporters on the Island ? (:>). When a government such as that of Cuba imposes censures the press, such tends to validate whatever news sources are not under their control. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious sources used

Usually when writting an article people use verifiable sources, yet most of this article uses anti-castrist propaganda sites that seem to have little of verifiable dataa. These are:

Hacienda Publishing[11]

SecretosCuba[12]

La NuevaCuba[13]


From now on only Cuban government approved sources can be used

Apparently some believe that only Cuban government sources can be used, such as recent insertion of Granma article by El C.; and approve the continual deletion of mention of the confiscation of all property of Cubans who leave the Island. Thus, it is suggested that all material posted on the Cuba page be first sent through the new portal that Ramirito Valdez has very recently established for Cuban journalists [14]. El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Following this criteria (:>) one notes that recent requests for mass donations of copper ornaments [15] can be taken to suggest support for persistent rumors that massive memorial statues are being prepared. El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ufff, dont be stupid, im talking about credited news asociations. So far most of the article use dubious forum-like sites that have a clear anti-castro stance. While we are at it, id suggest you learn how to read since i dont recall writting that we should only use Castro's propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.161.198.169 (talk)

Miami Rumor Castro is dead

Miami Rumor: Castro is dead, Raul and Ricardo Alarcon feuding. Arrests in the department of the Interior ("secret" police), and regular police gathering to prevnt riots. El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Miami is alive with rumors, TV trucks wandering around to pick up reactions. El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Ernesto Guevara as a trotskyite?

There is a weird but apparently officially sanctioned in Venezuela (and seemingly in Cuba), TV interview characterizing Ernesto Guevara as a trotskyite. It has so much marxist jargon that I could not follow it and got quite bored; however it does feature the not only Celia Hart (Cuban government official?) but also Trotsky's grandson Esteban Volkov. See http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/celia-hart-interview/

El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Official denial a sign of affirmation

It is said that when something is denied officially it is at least part true. Thus, Hugo Chavez's denial of Castro's death[16] might well be an indication that such has occurred. El Jigue208.65.188.149 23:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

...no, its not. How does that logic work to begin with?. You see, although this all very cute, wikipedia is not either a forum or a place for conspiracy theories and unless CNN, AP, Reuters or the cuban goverment confirms that Castro is dead, he is not at the time. How can i explain this further?, its been 50 years since unofficial sources have states that Castro is dead, remeber a year ago?, everyone was killing Castro because of the operation, did he died then?... why should the rumours be true now?... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.161.198.169 (talk) 02:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous 190.161.198.169: on the Island Castro's health is an official secret. Thus news organizations cannot report on it from Cuba...thus to state as you do:

  • " unless CNN, AP, Reuters or the cuban goverment confirms that Castro is dead, he is not at the time." seems rather oddly impractical.

Oh by the way nationality (e.g. Cuban) is capitalized in English, although not in Spanish (e.g. cubano); and also "goverment" should read "Government." Thus, it would appear you are a less well trained native Spanish speaker. Do I have the honor of "speaking" with a Cuban Government official? El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

...you have issues.190.161.198.169 23:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That last statement is definitely a personal attack and could well be interpreted as a threat from the Cuban government. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually mean it, you have issues, i have no idea if they are psichological or if you are underaged, but it seems you dont accept any type of criticism and dismiss it as a whole with rather childish argumetal falacies; in my first suggestion to stop using dubious sources you replied in a sarcastic tone that we should then use Castro's propaganda (even though i never suggested that; you attacked my modest proposal right away), now that i give a rational answer that perhaps Castro is not death (which btw, time has proved me right), you think im part of the Cuban goverment for no reasson whatsoever (you seriously believe that anyone who doesnt talk crap about the cuban goverment MUST be part of the cuban goverment?, whatever happend to unpolarized?). Am i part of the Cuban goverment?, well only one way to find out! [17], search me and weep my friendless friend, why friendless?, well i took the liberty of searching you, turns out you do nothing else BUT meddling in Cuban related topics, with a clear partisan agenda[18]. I wonder, why, so suddenly you seem so scary...190.161.198.169 08:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It might help if (a) you would either write in more intelligible English or write in Spanish, (b) you would support your allegations with details and data in a proper and scholarly manner. El Jigue208.65.188.149 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on Cuba page

Nuttycoconut Thanks was fixing it when your change came through. El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FreedomWarrior's changes

Let's get one thing straight: Providing a source for a POV statement does not make that statement NPOV or indeed true. The quote about the Cuban health system is obviously inherently POV - it not only says that the health system is "in shambles", it also contains an attack on people who support it. While this may be an appropriate quote in an article which discusses the health system and details the views of its supporters and detractors, it is completely out of place in this article. Zocky | picture popups 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not make those additions to the article; however, I object to their being completely removed. I do so on the grounds that these statements are sourced and appropriate for an article of this general nature. If you object to the describing the Cuban health care system as being "in shambles," which is indeed true, then the thing to do is not delete the statement but modify the wording such that it conforms to NPOV. If there is a section on the health care system, which discusses all of the "virtues" of the Cuban health care system, then it is wholly appropriate to include criticisms. I had not modified the wording because I did not believe that it was incumbent upon me; nonetheless, I will go ahead and do so. Similarly, I will modify the wording on the living standards in Cuba. There has been a noticeable decline in living standards. Socialists will attribute the cause to "el bloqueo" while liberals will attribute it to an inherent flaw in Cuba's socialist system. In either case though, both agree that the people of Cuba are not living in affluence. I honestly don't care whether Hugo Chavez is called a democratic socialist or a socialist (I don't really see a difference between the two since they both have the same goal in mind), so I leave that question to someone who does. Finally, there are government conferred privileges in Cuba , as the source points out. That "peculiar institution" is one that does merit mentioning since there are few other governments that engage in such discrimination. Freedomwarrior 17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost every country in the world provides housing and medical benefits to government employees and certain other people, like recipients of certain awards, war veterans, etc. Those benefits differ by the position in the government or public services or the type of award. How on earth is that specific to Cuba and what makes it a "class privilege"? Zocky | picture popups 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuba, unlike most countries in the world, has a litmus test for whether one can serve as a bureaucrat. For a person to serve as a bureaucrat or work in the tourism sector, they must be members of the Communist Party. Essentially, Cuba's socialist system has created a class of bureaucrats, the nomenkaltura, who, because of their unique ties to the Communist Party, have access to a whole host of privileges that are not available to other Cubans. While opposing capitalism because it supposedly led to the creation of an "oligarquía" that enjoyed a lifestyle that was not available to the working man, Cuba's socialist government has created is own version of an "oligarquia" with men such as Julio Casas Regueiro, head of GAESA, at the top. That is how it is a "class privilege." It is not a criticism that can be directed exclusively at Cuba (since all socialist governments have manifested such a system); however, it is worth noting how Cuba differs from the norm internationally. Freedomwarrior 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister?

I was concerned about referring to Castro as a "prime minister". According to the American Heritage Language Dictionary 4th edition, a prime minister is " the head of the cabinet and often also the chief executive of a parliamentary democracy" I don't believe that the island of Cuba can be called a "parliamentary democracy". Who was the last person to run in an election against Castro? Or better yet when was the last election? One could then argue that Batista was a "president" or "prime minister" and not a dictator, as referred to here in the text. Since he came to power through a military coup and has not held elections in decades I think the term Dictator is more appropriate. The definition for a dictator is "an absolute ruler". Also I would argue that there really isn't a Cabinet at all, but instead a military junta of ex-military rebels who hold military ranks and serve at the appointment of the dictator. Therefore I have edited the text as appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.19.42.74 (talk) 21:03, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

What did you do? Inserting huge bulk of info without any single reference? Please read our core policies of neutral point of view and verifiability plus related guidelines before you add the same material. Thank you. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
PM or dictator → To help you a bit i suggest you read Let the facts speak for themselves if the NPOV policy is too much fro a reading. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No i think you are wrong. I take it you live in a country that doesn't have elections either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.112.189 (talk) 06:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Update your knowledge and don't be tempted by ignorance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad citation

There are a few citations to "American Policy Failures in Cuba--Dagger in the Heart!" This book is of questionable accuracy and is almost forty years out of date. I recommend the citations be replaced with modern citations that can actually be checked or the statements of the citations be removed.66.41.163.240 14:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


To be evaluated the above criticism needs to be supported by precise details, not blank statements. El Jigue208.65.188.149 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Even Castro's videos are getting old

One of the most recent reports on Castro's health states:

"Cuban FM dispels rumours about Castro getting worse Posted: 24 August 2007 1027 hrs

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/295744/1/.html

BRASILIA : Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque Thursday said President Fidel Castro was still recovering from his operation last year and was keeping busy, having personally instructed him on his visit here.

While attending the Forum for East Asia Latin American Cooperation (Fealac), Roque, in an interview with AFP, dispelled rumours about the Castro's health taking a turn for the worse since his 81st birthday on August 13.

Castro, who after stomach surgery a year ago handed over power to his brother Raul, "is steady, on track with his recovery, showing discipline, a lot of dedication and a lot of activity, writing, reading and working," Roque said.

Although the communist leader has not appeared in public for more than a year, he has appeared in photographs and eight videos.

The last video was shown June 5.

He continues "in process of recovery," Roque said. "

Such is very far from proving Castro is still alive...El Jigue208.65.188.149 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He's probably already dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.112.189 (talk) 06:30, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

He appeared alive and well in a video where he stated the recent stock change in the US to prove it's authenticy. 81.236.229.130 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

class privilege and other erasure

Repeatedly insertions of level of class privilege and the stripping of property from those who leave have been deleted repeatedly, without discussion and/or rebuttal. These are important official policies of the Cuban Government... El Jigue208.65.188.149 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

While the form of government of Cuba is theoretically opposed to class privilege, they nonetheless exist. Access to transportation, work, university education and better health care are a function of status within the government. Quality of housing also varies with status [http://secretoscuba.cultureforum.net/Informacion-General-c3/Casas-y-propiedades-de-Fidel-Castro-f3/Punto- WCero-t12.htm].

The latest deletion was done by El C for his POV

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C

El Jigue208.65.188.149 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Whereas the insertion was done by El Jigue for his pov. You see, it is a double-edge sword,. And of course that section is unlike one that exists in any other country article How about class privilege in the United States article, do you think that would go well? Having billionaires alongside people who eat out of the garbage? But that dosen't fir with your point of view , I suppose El_C 03:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

While the question of whether class privileges exist in the United States exist or not is not at all relevant, I will briefly address it. There is a fundamental difference between what goes on in the United States and Cuba. There are some millionaires in the United States that enjoy their wealth because of privileges that have been afforded them to the government (in the form of subsidies, etc.) However, the vast majority of those with wealth in the United States have obtained it fairly, because they have contributed something to the betterment of the common man. All millionaires in Cuba have obtained their wealth because of connections to the Cuban government (through GAESA). Casa Regueiro obtained his wealth through drug trafficking and corruption that was tolerated by the Cuban government. What has he done to deserve his wealth? What goes on in Cuba can be said of China, N. Korea and any other communist country that exists or has existed historically. Regardless, go ahead and attack the government privileges that exist in the United States. Nonetheless, this is an article about Cuba, not the United States.

This is not a question of POV insertion. This is a question of objective fact. The Cuban government grants class privileges to members of the Communist Party (in the form of access to jobs that are not available to members of the opposition). You are addressing something that is besides the point. Freedomwarrior 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing the political philosophy end of it; just that if it's a topic in this country article, surely it qualifies in others. El_C 03:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it qualifies for other articles. I have not inserted such critiques in other articles, because I have not felt like doing the necessary research for it. If you would like to insert it elsewhere, then by all means. The fact that it has not been added elsewhere yet, does not mean that it should be deleted in this article though. Freedomwarrior 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not appropriate in other country articles either, because their function is not to "attack" (as you put it) wrongs in those countries and, crucially, because the whole thing is a matter of POV. In one view, what Cuban government does is very different from what US or other governments do. In the other view, all governments don't give jobs to people who oppose the existing political system (in Cuba socialism, in USA democracy) and they prefer to give jobs to members of their own parties (GOP in the US federal government, CP in Cuba). There are articles which are appropriate places for detailed discussion of these subjects, but general articles about countries are not it. Zocky | picture popups 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Zocky: the comparisons you present between the US and Cuba in regard to government provided residences are flawed,for a large number of reasons. These reasons include: (i) the US has alternating political parties, Cuba has a single authorized political party. (2)In the US posession of homes and goods is private, in Cuba all homes and most goods are under the stringent control of the Cuban government. (3) Official residences in the US are only provided to elected officials, and these residences are vacated when the resident's term ends; however, since 1952 there has not been a free election in Cuba. (4) No study has ever come to my attention in which US government residences are allocated on the basis of party membership,in the US even cabinet positions do not entail allocated residences... etc. El Jigue 208.65.188.149 12:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As to the allocation of private residences in Cuba, this is an integral part of the rewards and punishments that control the life circumstances of all Cubans on the Island; and thus this topic is as appropriate for discussion here, as health, political expression, civil liberties and education. El Jigue208.65.188.149 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides the criticisms of El Jigue, I would like to add my own. If you have ever worked in the U.S. government, you would know that the party rule is not as firm as you claim in the distribution of jobs. Indeed, you can find independents and even members of the opposition working for a congressman or a senator (for example, a Democrat working as a staffer for a Republican congressman). Similarly, from a very basic study of U.S. history, you would know that there are political appointees (as in Cuba) and another class of professional bureaucrats, which are there on a meritocratic basis (for instance, see the Pendleton Civil Service Reform). I do believe that it is appropriate to "attack" (or point out, in this case) wrongs in other countries, when there is objective proof to demonstrate that such wrongs exist. It is not POV pushing to observe that Cuba has a system that very few other countries have (by virtue of its being a socialist state). Likewise, it is not POV pushing to observe that an elite, which supports a socialist system that is aimed at eliminating inequality, has failed at its national, collective goal, and is simply enjoying its position of power. You cannot say that the truth is POV. It is there. Freedomwarrior 15:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You da Maine?

I deleted

"His spy in Havana was Carlos Carbonell a Cuban Freemason."

as unclear,

"It could not have been a magazine explosion caused by a coal fire because the coal in the area of the damage had been used and fire-walls did not allow this to happen. The keel was bent indicating it had been a mine, there were dead fish on the bay and a hole on the sand below

the ship. " and

"The Freemason-s used an 100 kilogram mine."

as unproven. Numerous studies, including one by no less than Hyman Rickover, could not agree on the cause. On another note, I question Maine being called a battleship, regardless what she's commonly called; she was rated an armored cruiser. Montgomery Scott 03:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Montgomery, thank you I tried to point that out in my little insertion at end. As to the presence of dead fish, which at the time of the event was considered an indicator of a dynamite rather than a gunpowder explosion it is my understanding that they were not observed. El Jigue208.65.188.149 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What's in a name?

I don't see it, when Puerto Rico (for instance) mentions it prominently. What did natives call it? Or, if it's from a native name, what does it mean? Trekphiler 04:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The pre-Colombian indigenous name for Puerto Rico is commonly transliterated into Spanish as Boriquen. See discussion in neo-Taino nations. Cuba is also a pre-Colombian indigenous name perhaps derived from Cubanancan. El Jigue208.65.188.149 12:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Gracias. José Martí 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rumors of Castro's death on increase

Rumors of Castro's death are increasing [19], and the US Coast Guard is said to be on alert. Thus the pressure on the Cuban government either to produce a living Castro no matter what condition he may be in, or admit he is dead is becoming overwhelming. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC) See also [20] El Jigue208.65.188.149 04:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The rumors are not stopping [21]. Some think it is a trick by Raul Castro to ferret out the opposition and "eliminate" them(see "Comments: What a night!" at [22]). However, Gerardo Machado tried something similar in 1933, and then murdered those who emerged; however, soon after, despite support of the Cuban communist party directed by stalinist agent Fabio Grobart, Machado had to flee and died soon after. El Jigue208.65.188.149 13:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

These come out of the United States every few months. When he was out of sight last time the American news was saying he was dead and the masses in Miami started partying for nothing. There's been nothing in the Caribbean news so it probably lacks any credibility. I think its just another hoax. CaribDigita 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

CaribDigital: On the other hand he has not made a personal appearance for well over a year now. El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of official communications and the declaration that Castro's health is a "state secret" one must rely on other information. One such source, viewed as reliable, declares:

  • ".. el día 12 de Agosto Fidel Castro sufrió una seria recaída en su salud. Una peritonitis fecal secundaria a una perforación libre lo llevó al salón de operaciones por sexta o séptima vez desde el traspaso de poderes. Se le practicó una reanimación cardiovascular inmediata, se le administraron gran cantidad de fluidos y desde el punto de vista quirúrgico se le realizó un exhaustivo lavado de la cavidad abdominal y se le colocaron drenajes." [23]

Free translation: On August 12 Fidel Castro suffered a serious health setback. Due to a perforation of his intestine secondary peritonitis set in. When taken to the operating table for the sixth or seventh time since transfer of powers, he was given a large amount of fluids (this could be taken to infer that this was supplied by intravenous means), his abdominal cavity was washed thoroughly and drains were placed.

Placed here by El Jigue208.65.188.149 22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a rumours section in the Fidel article, we dont need one here. When its announced by CNN and the BBC, then we publishh he has died and not before, SqueakBox 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing with SqueakBox. GoodDay 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to report the existence of rumors in the absence of anything else is nonsense, because it abdicates all responsibility to the Cuban government, which not only has declared the matter a state secret but has a very poor record of veracity. If some had troubled to read the article I posted you would find it has as good credentials as one can expect under the circumstance. To deny that something is going on, until the Cuban government says it so is as idiotic as proclaiming that Mao was alive based on that spurious and badly done, photomontage of Mao swimming the Yangse River. As to CNN after Saddam fell CNN admitted they had covered up his crimes. As to the BBC... (:>) El Jigue208.65.188.149 04:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I should've kept my mouth shut. GoodDay 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay this is a free debate there was no reason for you not to contribute any information you may find. The Miami Herald apparently sent a reporter under cover to Cuba, but she/he only talked to people in the street, and these people apparently either supported the Cuban Government or were afraid to talk (a most reasonable fear in Cuba where disrespect for the government is a "crime.")[24] El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Eduardo Rene Chibas

As "proof" that Castro is living an article said to be by Fidel Castro on Eduardo Chibas has been published. One should note that Eduardo Chibas was not quite the knight in shining armor some make him out to be, matter of fact in demagoguery he had few equals. For instance he started a fist fight in the Cuban senate, accusing his opponent of corruption, he provoked and then engaged in numerous duels to "first blood" in which he usually fared badly. His suicide that he staged as public spectacle can be readily attributed to the embarrassment caused by the failure of his charges against an honest public official. All this is readily verifiable by a perusal of the US papers of the time. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But the article is apparantly more about Fidel than Eduardo, I hear ! -- Beardo 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Beardo: Recently I went over Eduardo Chibas history on newsarchives.com, and found my opinion of him turned for the worse. BTW Do you have a URL for that "letter"? El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vote

Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bahamian Americans. Badagnani 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuban Song

When I was in Cuba I heard a really good song. It was a guy and a girl duet. This song is very popular in Cuba. (I think its something about cheating). Anyone know the name of such a song. Greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.54.15 (talk) 16:16, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Raul Castro visits Italy

Raul Castro recently returned from a visit to Italy to see relatives there, this is believed related to an official visit [25]. Since Raul Castro apparently visits Italy with some frequency (see cited article), it is conceivable that he may be seeking to retire there. Reasons for this could include the strength of the recently renamed Italian Communist Party would provide political protection against deportation, and that such a retirement might promote lifting of US sanctions against Cuba, if it were accompanied by free elections in Cuba. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Howabout adding it to the article, since you've got a source for it? That's the proper place for it. GoodDay 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

GD Did that in the Raul Castro article, but still looking for supportive information. El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the Italian golf course executive confirms the sighting of Raul in Italy, and again in very clear example of "official denial often being confirmation" an un-named Cuba official denies it, as does Max Lesnik (often considered a representative of the Cuban Government in Miami)[26]. While this is an odd piece of news it clearly illustrates how little information is coming out of Cuba and the press restrictions on the Island. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you telling 'us' this? if you're not gonna apply it to the article. GoodDay 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuban Crisis of Credibility

The real story is where is Fidel Castro. for it is clear that the Cuban Government has to either produce him, or report on his death, for that government is rapidly losing any remaining credibility they may ever have had. This in turn completely undermines any and all statements and "data" produced by the Cuban government. No ranting or raving by Castro supporters can cover this up andy longer. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you telling us this? if you're not gonna apply it to the article. GoodDay 19:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Venezuelan Paper calls Castro "Walking Corpse"

Venezuelan paper showing a file foto of Fidel Castro with Chavez calls Castro a "walking corpse of history." [27]. El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Again (with clarity)- Why are you 'gossiping' about Fidel Castro's possible demise and Raul Castro's 'future retirement plans'? Why not add these 'events' to the article itself - This isn't a 'gossip page'. GoodDay 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Buendia It seems you have not noticed that the present Cuban government maintains a control of information inside of Cuba [28], and partisans of that government attempt to do the same in Wikipedia. The fact that little information is coming out of Cuba does not mean things are not happening down there. On certain, if not all, topics "gossip" as you call it is very often the only thing that comes out of Cuba El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's your 'gossip page'. You rule, pal. GoodDay 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Again neo-Taino genealogical data deleted

Apparently mention of the neo-Taino roots of a proportion of the Cuban population have been removed...However, despite this analyses Cuban mitochondrial DNA will continue to show these "roots." This appears to be part of a major problem in Wikipedia in which the written word takes precedence over reality as are remarks to the effect that 'Castro is not dead until the media says he is' or 'Castro cannot be referred to as a dictator'... El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about bugging you; afterall this is your 'gossip corner'. Again, forgive my actions. GoodDay 01:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Limits of information on Cuba

One notes with a smile that the section:

"Limits of information on Cuba In addition to scholarly concerns and disputes among experts on Cuba, a major factor limiting accuracy of information about the Island is the all pervasive censorship by the Cuban Government. [29]"

was deleted after mere hours by "Ejercito Rojo." This "critic" did not leave reason nor comment.

Apparently "Ejercito Rojo" did not realize that by doing such, and removing a well documented source merely she/he/they (after all Ejercito is a collective noun) merely proved the point El Jigue208.65.188.149 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would just restore it. Ejercito Rojo, aka LuisMatosRibeiro, comes on here occasionally to try and turn this into a Granma article. I was warned for "edit warring" with him (despite repeated invitations to explain and defend his changes on the talk page). He just seems to be interested in pushing his POV. I wish that an administrator would keep tabs on him. Freedomwarrior 07:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

FW. Agreed. Ejercito Rojo rarely takes the trouble to substantiate his claims or his deletions. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Censorship on reporting of Cuban issues is not confined to Cuba.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Lapsed Pacifist, If you insist on citing Noam Chomsky's rather unsubstantiated claim of equivalent censorship in the US would you be so kind as to replace the citations to Noam Chomsky's access to US and United Kingdom media in the following statement (from Limits of information on Cuba):

  • "In addition to scholarly concerns and disputes among experts on Cuba, major factors limiting accuracy of information about the island is the censorship by the Cuban Government [13]. Noam Chomsky claims that the US media has equivalent censorship [14] on Cuban matters. However, this claim of Chomsky's is undermined by his abundant presentations in defense of the Cuban Government not only in Cuba [] but also in the United Kingdom [] and the US []."

El Jigue208.65.188.149 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist you are merely proving the point by removing qualification of that Chomsky reference, when you repeatedly erase the extremely pertinent fact that Chomsky has access to media in the US and in the United Kingdom to discuss Cuba. Therefore for the nth time I have let your point stand and merely added qualifying material thus:

  • However Chomsky is a strong partisan of the Cuban government e.g. [30] [31] where he has access to Cuba government media [32]. In the United Kingdom and in the US Chomsky also has free access to the media [33] [34] [35], a reality that tends undermine his arguments about lack of access to media outside of Cuba.

El Jigue208.65.188.149 13:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Our very own censor

One realizes with an even wider smile that Lapsed Pacifist has undertaken the task of censoring anything that makes the Cuban government look bad. Thus he demonstrates that media out of Cuba is subject to censorship on Cuban matters. However, such censorship is strongly pro-Cuban government. El Jigue208.65.188.149 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should burn him, witch!witch!. Anyways, you see, we need to keep the article neutral, that means we cant either place information that is too pro-cuban or too pro-miami (couldnt came up with a better term there), so that means that what he is doing is right, wikipedia is not indended to be with any political alligiance, i suggest you use Conservapedia for that matter. Anyways, it would be great if you would stop making acusations of every user out there that tries to make this article NPOV, you cant really bully users into not editing pages.Kessingler 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kessingler Although such a role is flattering, it highly exaggerates my influence here. As to POV one might find it interesting that you equate pro-cuban (not pro-Cuban one notes with a smile) with pro-Castro, despite the fact that a free election has not been held in Cuba for over 50 years. BTW Your spelling suggests you are in far too a hurry to use the speller found here. El Jigue208.65.188.149 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To the Warrior

"You cannot assert, as a matter of fact, that the embargo is responsible for Cuba's economic situation.

It is partly responsible.

"Chomsky's criticisms of supposed censorship in the U.S. are not relevant. This is an article about Cuba, not the U.S."

I'm talking specifically about censorship of reporting on Cuban issues, which exists in both Cuba and the US.

Lapsed Pacifist 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the Chomsky criticism, clarify that it is specifically "censorship of reporting on Cuban issues, which exists in both Cuba and the US."

Freedomwarrior 23:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For you to sustain the claim that the embargo exacerbated Cuba's food shortages or economic woes for that matter you have to prove that Cuba: (1) had the requisite foreign exchange to buy food from the U.S. and (2) that it was willing to purchase goods from the U.S. to that end. The former can be ascertained through objective means. The latter, however, is debatable since we do not have objective means to ascertain the intentions of Cuba's leaders (which is why you cannot make a categorical claim about the impact of the embargo on Cuba's food rationing situation or economy for that matter).

With regard to the first point: given the state of their economy in the early 1990s, it is not clear that they would've had the means to purchase agricultural goods from the U.S.

With regards to the second point: it is not clear that Cuba would've chosen to do so. Cuba was given the opportunity to purchase agricultural goods from the US in 1999 and chose not to do so until 2001 or 2002 (don't remember off the top of my head right now). As such, you may claim that it could've affect the food rationing situation; however, you cannot affirm that as a fact. Freedomwarrior 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm not talking about unilateral trade. Had US markets been open to Cuban produce, there would have been plenty of dollars. If they open tomorrow, the same would apply. It's not rocket science.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

LP this is nonsense and you know it. Cuba no longer has the means to produce enough sugar for its domestic needs let alone export it to the US. As to the production of ethanol, Cuba before Castro used to produce enough alcohol to replace about 10-15% of its gasoline. Now, with its confiscated sugar mills in a advanced state of disrepair, it even cannot do that. Nothing that Cuba can produce is as inexpensive or as available as found in open world markets. BTW when is the Cuban government going to return the tourist hotels to the Gastronomic Workers Union that once owned them. El Jigue208.65.188.149 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the quote! You are saying that food shortages are a direct result of the embargo. Cuba is a net food importer, so it involves unilateral trade. You are making a whole host of assumptions, which I and most rational people are not willing to make, about Cuba's leaders and whether or not they would've purchased. We are operating in the realm of opinion (please realize this). Stop trying to have us treat your OPINION as FACT. It is not. It is far from it.

In terms of a general decline in Cuba's trade, you are also assuming that the Cuban government (1) would've sold goods to the US; (2) had goods to sell that US consumers wanted and (3) allowed to sell them in the absence of an FTA. Whether or not they would've is an assumption on your part, which I am again not willing to make, not a statement of fact.

El Jigue, I'm not even sure that it's necessary to address the question of whether Cuba has the ability to export sugar or not (which seems to be non-existent given the dismal harvest over the past two years--the worst harvest in 70 years if I'm not mistaken) because the US, to this day, continues to have a semi-protectionist sugar policy, even with its allies. LP, what makes you think that the US would/would've allowed Cuba to export its sugar in the absence of an "embargo" and an FTA?

If you cannot prove that there was sabotage, then do not write such dribble.

With regard to the other question, you are also writing nonsense. The quality of the food has improved? How do you know? What study can you point to that affirms this? Have you read anything about Cuba lately (other than a government website)? Cubans have resorted to using condoms to make the cheese that goes on pizzas, and this is somehow better? Give me a break. Freedomwarrior 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FW: I agree with what you say. Although because cane is a more efficient producer of alcohol under Cuban conditions, than corn under US conditions and alcohol production is a primary concern nowadays, the matter may well be significant. One wonders if those gigantic cane crushing machines, that crushed cane dropping directly from railroad wagons, are still extant in Cuba. Now tell me the technique for cheese making using condoms that sounds most interesting, are you sure there is no human genetic material involved (:>) El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I never mentioned ethanol, hotels or unions. Food shortages are one direct result of the embargo. I'm not sure I would lump you in the rational bracket just yet. Some assumptions are pretty straightforward. For sabotage, see Operation Mongoose and Luis Posada Carriles. Hardly "dribble". I find it strange that the accuracy of modern WHO statistics are questioned, but not of those collated during the Batista regime. Can you explain it? Ask any old Cuban person about whether their food and accommodation has improved in the last half-century. I have read a lot about Cuba lately, very little from government websites. I know next to nothing about pizza-making, but condoms are very hygienic. I gather Cuba is one of the world leaders in organic produce, are the two related?

Lapsed Pacifist 16:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not a direct result of the embargo. During the 1980s, the Cuban government relaxed its controls over the agricultural sector, which led to a drastic increase in the output. However, because those changes also meant a loss of control, it decided to reverse itself and reinstitute centralized control over agriculture (which led to a decrease in output).

Look, for you to prove that the embargo had a direct effect on the food shortages you have to prove that the Cuban government cares enough for its citizens to purchase agriculture. You CANNOT prove it, you can only affirm it (as I can affirm that the Cuban government does not care about anyone on the island). These are not straightforward assumptions. These require us to believe in the good faith of the Cuba's leaders (which I am not willing to do)

Those "sabotage" efforts were not aimed at the sugar industry, they were aimed at Castro or government allies. For you to make the claim that sugar production declined because of sabotage, you need to prove that the sabotage was directed at

The reason that WHO statistics can be questioned is because they use the statistics that are collated by the Castro regime.

There has been a drastic decline in caloric intake (from 2100 calories prior to the Revolution to 1200 during the Special Period). Meat is scarce (killing a cow gets you a harsher sentence than killing a person) as are several other commodities that are at the heart of the average Cuban's diet. Cubans have resorted to using condoms to make their pizzas because there is no cheese, not because they like it. Organic does not mean better (you should read up on that). Housing has not improved. About 5000 buildings collapse every year as a result of structural decay.

I have asked many old Cuban people who were around prior to the revolution. I have many relatives presently on the island, and they tell me that it has become a hellhole. Can you say the same? Freedomwarrior 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

LP: The reasons that even Batista statistics are more reliable than Castro era Cuban government statistics is that even in Batista's and certainly in the Autentico administrations, these statistics were subject to criticism and verification. Now Cuban statistics are not verifiable in any useful way. El Jigue208.65.188.149 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

El Jigue

I would like to discuss about the user ElJigue, which seems to have hijacked this page for his own personal political inclinations. Currently the page is a mixture of credible sources mixed with sites that have dubious information or credibility, whenever a user tries to revert these changes into an article that is less POV, the user has repeatedly and fervently revert these changes and acused such users of even being a cuban official or downright censors of "the truth", in this case being his political beliefs. The User aparently does nothing else in wikipedia but to discuss and edit articles about Cuba, theres hardly a message in the discussion page that doesnt have a comment of his and yet he does not have either an account or belong to WikiProyect Cuba, while in other articles theres little tolerance for vandals such as he, it amazes me how no one seems to be aware of his little dictatorship here in this article or in the discussion page, which is used by him as a forum to discuss every little gossip he can find.Kessingler 16:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear K: Thank you for your kind input, and your generous recognition of all the effort I have put into this and other Cuba related pages. However it would be useful if you could document your worries about me in a little more carefully providing detail (it does little good to make generalized criticism without specific examples), and please, since your own page presents few details and nothing I notice on Cuba, could you also document your own contributions to this and other Cuba related pages. P.S. In English, although not in Spanish, Cuban is commonly capitalized, El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget it Kessingler, you haven't got a chance. GoodDay 21:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Chomsky quote

There is an interesting Chomsky quote at [36] which reads:

  • "C. RELEASE DEMANDED by the Campaign for Peace and Democracy

“We, the undersigned, strongly protest the current wave of repression in Cuba. We condemn the arrests of scores of opponents of the Cuban government for their nonviolent political activities, and the shockingly long prison sentences — some as high as 28 years — imposed after unfair trials. . . We call on the Castro government to release all political prisoners and let the Cuban people speak, write and organize freely.”

Signed by Michael Albert, Stanley Aronowitz, Eileen Boris, Robert Brenner, Noam Chomsky, Joshua Cohen, Mike Davis, Richard Deats, Haroldo Dilla, Manuela Dobos, Ariel Dorfman, Barbara Ehrenreich, Samuel Farber, Janeane Garofalo, Barbara Garson, Susan Griffin, Thomas Harrison, Adam Hochschild, Doug Ireland, Naomi Klein, Joanne Landy, Jesse Lemisch, John Leonard, Sue Leonard, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Nelson Lichtenstein, Michael Lowy, Grace Paley, Katha Pollitt, Matthew Rothschild, Edward Said, Jennifer Scarlott, Carl Schorske, Juliet Schor, Ellen Schrecker, Stephen Shalom, Adam Shatz, Alan Sokal, Chris Toensing, Immanuel Wallerstein, James Weinstein, Naomi Weisstein, Cora Weiss, Peter Weiss, Cornel West, Reginald Wilson, Howard Zinn and others. Published in The Progressive, 2003."

Do not have the complete quote so did not insert it. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Cuba's copper exports in colonial times

Cuba's mineral exports in colonial times seems deserve a line or two, e.g.

  • Dana, William B.1844 The Copper Mines Of Cuba in Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review. 11 July to December 1844) New York, 142 Fulton Street XL Digitized version available at http://books.google.com/books?id=DYUEAAAAQAAJ&dq=copper+wales+cuba See pp. 13-14, and 86-91 for regulations in Cuba, pp. 143-146, other pages 79, 550, also refer to Cuba.


EL Jigue208.65.188.149 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

News of Power struggle

It would seem that a power struggle between Raul and younger pretenders is underway see:

http://www.cubanalisis.com/ART%C3%8DCULOS/EL%20REY%20Y%20LOS%20DELFINES.htm

El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You should add this observation & source to the article. GoodDay 19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This should also be added at Raul Castro article. GoodDay 20:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

ProCastro "editors"

Chomsky yes, Spanish sources no

Apparently El C feels it his prerogative to delete from any source that he feels is not appropriate and somehow (:>) such deletion of information only helps the present Cuban government maintain its news blackout on its politics. El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with El C. This is the English Wikipedia - specifically aimed at English speakers. Why should readers with less than good Spanish be excluded from the information flow? Tantamount to c!#*!?"&ip, if you ask me! Uh sorry, wrong thread. Anyway it's you in your indolence who aids the Cuban government. If you really want to spread the word, then first translate it! MichaelW 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


! Los probrecitos no sabe leer en Castellano. Could they be, maybe it is another group of pro-Castro activist who cannot read Spanish; and yet believe they they are experts on Cuban matters...Y por si acaso !Ai Ai Ai la Chambelona, los procastristas de Wikipedia tiene las t..tas de goma! Van a robar la vaca, pero no pueden cojer ni una sola viajaca! (modified 1917 slogan) El Jigue (anti-Castro activist)208.65.188.149 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

anti Castro elitist you mean. MichaelW 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuban Censorship

Censorship is a legal concept. It occurs when the state limits the opinions that can be expressed on the television. This is not happening in the U.S. The unwillingness of U.S. news reporters to waste their time airing all the inane leftist opinions out there that exist on Cuba is not censorship. Freedomwarrior 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Control of the flow of information is practised in every society in the world. Censorship, as you define it, is the most overt and defineable form of control. Just the sort of thing which happened in the early days of capitalism, before it developed a cultural superstructure which was capable of suppressing the dissemination, and belittling the intentions, of oppositional ideas. U.S. news reporters don't air leftist opinions because it is not in their interests to do so, the sponsors don't like it, therefore station managers don't like it etc etc. May not be censorship as you know it Jim, but the effect is the same, and the effect is the purpose of the exercise, whatever form it takes. MichaelW 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael and you wrote that here (;>) El Jigue (known anti-Castroite)208.65.188.149 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Control of information," as you describe it is practice in every society--particularly in socialistic societies, which are intolerant of any form of dissent. Control of information though is not the same thing as Censorship Despite your efforts to fudge the differences between the two concepts, there is still a clear distinction. Censorship involves government action Capitalism in its purest form--laissez-faire capitalism--is opposed to such government controls of the airwaves. That is why the spread of freedom of speech and thought--both liberal ideas-- was/is concomitant with the spread of capitalism. Freedom of speech, in the liberal sense, does not guarantee every loon out there a right to use the public airwaves to spout his/her views to an unwilling public. U.S. news reporters, which are fairly leftist in themselves, don't air the opinions of the extreme left because no one wants to listen to them since they are wholly irrational and without a basis in reality. Furthermore, the effects of "censorship" and "control of information" are not the same, despite your efforts to trivialize the differences between them. "Censorshp" can cost you your life because your views run contrary to the state line. "Control of information" means that you are not allowed to spread your views or to drive a livelihood from them (in which case, you can get another job). Freedomwarrior 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear distinction except between the methods of control at work in particular countries. Think of the capitalist countries where official censorship is minimal but journalists are murdered for advocating the 'wrong' POV.
"Capitalism in its purest form--laissez-faire capitalism--is opposed to such government controls of the airwaves. That is why the spread of freedom of speech and thought--both liberal ideas-- was/is concomitant with the spread of capitalism."
That's nonsense. There is no pure form of capitalism, that's just as utopian as any anarcho/communist dreaming. There's just capitalism as it is developing today, and all the history that got it here. As I understand UK history, there was, from the mid 1700s on, a struggle to assert the common right to various civil liberties. That struggle was between the poltical lefts of the times and the controllers and developers of youthful capitalism. As the captains of industry became practised at running their craft, so they were able to concede liberties to the masses without fear of losing their dominance, or dangerously inhibiting their development of the system. Capitalism cannot take any credit for the spread of civil liberties, they have been wrested from the system's masters at great human cost. MichaelW 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FW You might notice that this insertion that keeps getting deleted. Stuart Hamilton writes in the Progressive Librarian issue 19-10 2002 [37]

  • "The members of the underground opposition parties face constant scrutiny from the authorities for their anti-government views. However, at the same time as enforcing a crackdown on dissidents the government is also accused of preventing ordinary Cubans accessing information. Independent news agencies are banned, and journalists who report stories contrary to the official line reported in the state newspaper, Granma, are likely to be victimised. As a result of this anti-government stories are normally found in newspapers and journals published abroad, as journalists go underground to send stories out to foreign sympathizers via telephone. Miami in Florida is the centre of anti-Castro publishing activity, with papers such as Nueva Prensa containing articles critical of the regime."

El Jigue(coletilla anti-Castro activist)208.65.188.149 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When deleted? How many times? Can't be sure of the accuracy of info round here, we need detail... MichaelW 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, I will go so far so concede that there are journalists who are murdered by private citizens in "capitalist countries" for advocating the wrong "POV." The same is true of journalists in socialist countries though and in all countries for that matter. That might, somehow, have a chilling effect on the actions of journalists (albeit I don't think its really on the back of their mind) and it might even serve to limit the information that gets out to the public. However, that is not censorship which has a total chill on what information is available to the public. Censorship involves state and legal prohibitions on speech (on top of potential, far-off private threats). Those additional "prohibitions" on speech do not exist in capitalist countries.

Until the late nineteenth century, the "controllers and developers of youthful capitalism" were usually one and the same with the "poltical lefts of the times" (and tended to be whigs). The supporters of the toleration acts and other measures tended to be firm advocates of laissez-faire capitalism. It was the Tories, who supported a considerable degree of state intervention in the economy and opposed laissez-faire capitalism, that were opposed those changes. What British history book have you been reading btw? You should stop reading Foucault, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Freedomwarrior 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Foulcaut? Never read him.
The "political lefts of the time" were not the whigs or fellow capitalists, they were the publishers of Thomas Paine, the Corresponding Societies, the Owenites, Chartists and trade unionists who were unrepresented in Parliament, since they had no votes, and were often imprisoned for their actions. Every component of your argument here rests on artificially dividing political activity into bits and ignoring the ones that don't fit your argument - here taking the ideological divisions in the ruling circles to be the only divisions you will recognise. The capitalist world includes several countries which use official overtly political censorship - presumably you don't recognise their existence either. MichaelW 07:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

While those groups were under-represented in parliament (I don't dispute that and indeed condemn it), most of them though, rightly, did not blame the "capitalists" for their problems. Indeed, most of those groups allied themselves with the capitalists, whom they viewed as their natural allies, in the struggle against the remnants of feudalism. For instance, many of the Chartists were also members of the Anti-Corn Law league, whose leadership, John Bright and Richard Cobden, called for an expansion of the suffrage to bring about the repeal of the Corn Law. Likewise, while Thomas Paine comes out for a form of guaranteed minimum income in Agrarian Justice and The Rights of Man, he was fairly opposed to most forms of government interventionism (primarily because he viewed excessive government to be the cause of the common man's woes-- See Part II, Chapter I of the Rights of Man). It is true that some Whigs, such as Locke, were not supportive of Catholic emancipation and an expansion of the suffrage; however, most of the radicals of the time (who Burke condemns) were prominent Whigs (towards the end of the eighteenth century, the Whigs were sharply divided between a more conservative faction--see Burke--and a more radical faction which supported the cause of the French Revolution). Regardless, the successors of the Whigs, the Liberal Party, were fairly supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and clearly in favor of an expansion of the suffrage. If you want any further evidence for my claims regarding the link between the capitalists and the radicals of the 1800s, check out the governments that supported the electoral reforms, and the other policies that they supported.

Btw, which countries? Freedomwarrior 08:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to [38] and look at the Censorship Around the World section. When I wrote it I was thinking of Malaya, Thailand, Burma, Saudi Arabia. The point I was making is that your distinction of 'official censorship' from other forms of ideological suppression is false, and your assumption that "Those additional "prohibitions" on speech do not exist in capitalist countries" can be seen to be very wrong, which rather undercuts your reasoning.
Every struggle by the ruled against the limits to their liberties has been supported by 'progressive' elements of the ruling class, who saw that their control of the system could only be maintained by concession, not by continued oppression. But the drive and direction of the struggles was provided by the grass roots 'left' of the time, none of whom had much time for your hallowed laissez-faire capitalism. Like I said, in the capitalist domain you are allowed only those liberties which each national ruling elite considers are no threat to their dominance and control. The amount of overt censorship measures little more than the vulnerability of a ruling elite, as it sees things. MichaelW 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, some of those countries are not capitalist countries. Indeed, if you look at Burma's and Saudi Arabia's economic freedom indices, you will find that their economies are not all that open--i.e. not capitalistic. Thailand and Malaysia are somewhat more open (although not as open as the countries of the Commonwealth or the US); nonetheless, censorship in those countries might be attributable to other factors. For instance, Thailand has been in the midst of a great deal of political upheaval (there was a coup within the past year).

When discussing "additional prohibitions on speech," I was speaking more in the theoretical sense. In practice, I will concede that there are some legal restrictions on speech in some of the more advance states (for instance, the FCC in the US); however, the existence of such regulatory institutions (i.e. the same kind of thing that I presume you'd want established over other fields of action) are attributable to the pressures of religious elements and other anti-capitalistic groups, not to the capitalists themselves. Restrictions on speech--such as laws regulating what kind of music lyrics are appropriate, pornography, etc.--tend to hamper the profit making abilities of capitalist elites. Why on earth would they support them?

The drive and direction of the struggle was provided by the leading intellectuals of an era (such as Paine, Marx, etc.) who shaped the opinions of the masses. In the absence of firm leadership from the intellectuals, there are too many desperate voices and petty disagreements to bring about any kind of collective action.

I do not know what the opinions of the "grass roots" were, as much as you do not know what their opinions were. In the absence of scientific polling data, we are in the realm of speculation (however, the fact that they frequently voted for such staunch advocates of laissez-faire such as Galdstone tends to disprove your contention).

As to your last point, that is not laissez-faire, as the state has not taken its hands off the megaphoneFreedomwarrior 03:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"With all due respect, some of those countries are not capitalist countries."
I had a feeling you'd say that! You are starting from an idealised and false idea of what capitalism is. It isn't laissez faire capitalism for a start - that's just the vanishing point of a direction in which some, you included, feel the system should develop.
Capitalism is the way the flow of wealth is channelled, based on private ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. Governments are empowered as regulators and arbitrators of the disputes and frictions of the system, and form an interdependency with the corporate controllers of the world's wealth. Every country in the world is now to some degree part of the capitalist system. China, Vietnam and Cuba are all developing systems of state capitalism, North Korea will follow. Every other country in the world is already entangled in the neo liberal corporate system - how much Saudi wealth do you think is invested in capitalist businesses?
"censorship in those countries might be attributable to other factors"
It doesn't matter the reasons censorship comes about, your claim was that it doesn't happen in capitalist countries.
"The drive and direction of the struggle was provided by the leading intellectuals of an era (such as Paine, Marx, etc.) who shaped the opinions of the masses".
It's about actions not opinions. The struggle for independence in the 13 states existed before Paine coined the name the United States of America, and wrote Common Sense. Very few leading intellectuals do more than explore and elucidate ideas and desires already in existence. Marx analysed the workings of the developing capitalist system and, with many others all round the world, developed a critical response to its workings. Neither of them shaped the opinions of the masses, they focused them on coherent ways of collectively challenging their rulers.
"they frequently voted for ... Gladstone"
The voting population who so loved Gladstone excluded the poorest 40% of adult males. They only got the vote, along with women over 30, in 1918. I.e. Only 30% of the adult population were allowed to vote - and that was after the Representation of the People Act of 1884. The percentage was lower before then. Not exactly the opinion of the masses was it? MichaelW 17:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There has never been a purely capitalist state because there have always been substantial collectivists elements in all countries; however, some countries are more capitalist (i.e. closer to the ideal) than others.
  • Fundamentally, where there the state is in control, the market is not in charge. Mixed economies are semi-capitalist economies. They have some elements of capitalism mixed with substantial degrees of state (collective) control of the means of production.
  • The states you put forth in your last posting have a significant degree of centralized control over the means of production. How is that capitalist?
  • Moreover, the fact that Cuba's leaders have used the money that they've stolen from the Cuban people to make significant investments abroad does not make Cuba a capitalist country. The fact that capitalist countries trade with socialist countries does not at all affect the dominant economic system of the capitalist countries or the socialist countries. A capitalist country is one in which the means of production and distribution are in private hands. A socialist country can trade with a capitalist country without having to loosen its control over the means of production or the distribution of goods.
  • "Governments are empowered as regulators and arbitrators of the disputes and frictions of the system, and form an interdependency with the corporate controllers of the world's wealth." That is corporatism not capitalism. There is a substantial difference. Nazi Germany was not a capitalist country (indeed, Germany hadn't been a fully capitalist country since Germany adopted the nationalist system espoused by Friedrich List).
  • I stand by that assertion. It doesn't happen in the more capitalistic countries (or at least as much, since all countries continue to be the victims of collectivism). It only happens were there is a substantial degree of state control over the means of production, such as in mixed economies. It borders on the realm of the absurd to blame laissez-faire capitalism (which is an inherently individualist philosophy) for what collectivist ideologies bring about.
  • We must think before we can act. The American Revolution has an intellectual origin (in the ideas of Locke and other republicans). The oppression of church and state had been thought acceptable and even moral in the Middle Ages. What made Americans different? Americans believed that they had inalienable rights, which no government was entitled to violate. Likewise, Marxism, nowhere, has been a mass movement. It has been a movement that has spread through the academies and on down to the masses.
  • I stand corrected on that assertion; however, there is no proof that the "masses" were out there opposed to laissez-faire capitalism and supportive of socialism. Freedomwarrior 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, like I said earlier, you are basing all your arguments on utopian idea of what capitalism is, rather than any understanding of its actual historical development. The upshot of your current line of argument is that there is no capitalist country in the world. When does a capitalist company (good) become a corporation (bad)? When does a community (good) become a collective (bad)? When does a government cease to be a civil arrangement (good )and become the main tool of state control (bad)? MichaelW 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am making an argument based on the philosophical premises that underlie capitalism. I reject that historicist contention that you can understand a thing solely by tracing its historical development (or derive what it is from a loose assortment of historical events, which is what you're doing). For instance, how do you know what your looking for if you do not have an abstract notion of what capitalism is? From there, my argument is this: you are attributing some negative things (i.e. censorship) to capitalism when it is a product of something else (religion, corporatism, etc.).
  • There is no capitalist country in the world (although there are countries that are more capitalistic than others). A company is the beneficiary of corporatism when the government grants it protection from its adversaries (the company has a right to seek protection because it has a right to exercise its free speech, but it is the responsibility of public officials to deny it). A community because a collective when it restricts a persons right to life in favor of some collective purpose. A government becomes an agent of state control when it facilitates the abrogation of the right to life. Freedomwarrior 17:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Capitalism is an economic stage of human development which has, over the last 250 years, evolved and spread to every country in the world. Different people operate according to various philosophical premises when engaging with that process, but the process itself has an evolutionary, not a philosophical basis.
I'm not looking *for* anything. I'm looking at it. The definition 'capitalism' was creatd to describe the processes that can be observed by studying the historical evidence, it wasn't derived from some idealised abstraction - you've got the whole thing back to front.
Actually your argument was that "Censorship... [did] not exist in capitalist countries" Look back up there. I pointed out this was nonsense so now you are saying there are no capitalist countries and anyway the reason for the censorship isn't capitalism, the first point daft and the second irrelevant. MichaelW 02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The process, as you say, began as an evolutionary one,yet it has transcended its historical origins and moved into the realm of abstract philosophy (Hayek has an essay on this point).
Our particular philosophies may become factor in the process of economic evolution - neoconservatism a current example - but they dwell in the capitalist realm, not the other way round.MichaelW
  • You are looking at what you think is capitalism without an ability to distinguish between capitalism and the vestiges of feudalism or the clutter of other ideologies- socialism, etc.
We all have vestiges of our apelike ancestry. Doesn't mean we're only part human. MichaelW
  • I have did not say that capitalism was derived abstractly. I said I reject the notion that one can understand it solely by looking to history.
You said that you needed an "abstract notion of what capitalism is" before you could understand it. Whence the notion, if not from historical observation? MichaelW
  • Since the turn of the twentieth century, there has been a resurgence of statism (socialism, progressivism, etc). Most countries have a significant degree of state intervention in all spheres of life, which they did not have in the nineteenth century (this is very obvious from looking at the larger historical trends). The more capitalistic countries have less censorship than the ones who aren't (compare, for example, the US and Belarus...)

Freedomwarrior 20:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for which brings us back to the original point of this - censorship is just one form of information control, which is practised in every nation in the world. Nations with a deeply established status quo need less formal censorship, as the controls operate in a culturally internalised fashion. The desired outcome is the same, a compliant population. MichaelW 02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Exposing the POVs

Some right polarised editor has deemed it necessary to describe Chomsky as "...a committed anarcho-marxist theoretician and thus not an unbiased observer...". Taking this as a precedent I'd like to suggest that all those quotes, references and citations from known anti-Castroites, that some editors use to support their edits, are similarly labelled, eg "wrote/said [Joe Bloggs] a dues paying member of [insert appropriate organisation] and thus not an unbiased observer". MichaelW 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ban "known anti-Castroites," wait wait that has been tried before. (:>) El Jigue (known anti-Castro activist)208.65.188.149 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No not banned, just given ASBOs and confined to their place of residence.MichaelW 00:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"ban 'known anti-Castroites,'"? Wouldn't that eliminate about everybody who's contributed to this page? =] Trekphiler 13:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Angel Castro's naturalization certificate becomes "a state secret"

Once again this very important topic was deleted from discussion, thus it would seem that Fidel Castro's origins are to remain a "state secret' in Wikipedia

According to Castañeda Katiuska, Blanco 2003 (accessed 9-10-07). Todo el tiempo de los Cedros. Paisaje familiar de Fidel Castro Ruz. paginas 497-501. Casa Editora Abril. La Habana. 2003. ISBN 959-210-300-3 http://www.xenealoxia.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa

By 1941 Ángel Castro y Argiz (Fidel Castro's father) had fathered five children with his first wife Maria Luisa Argota. These were: Pedro, María Lilia, Antonia María Dolores, Georgina de la Caridad and Manuel, only first two survived to date of this naturalization document (January 2nd 1941). Fidel is not mentioned, this demonstrates that Fidel Castro was born out of wedlock and was still unrecognized at age 13. Raul (although commonly believed not to be a son of Angel) is also not mentioned although he would be about eight at this time.

Of additional interest Angel Castro is said to have arrived in Cuba the third or fourth of March 1899. There is no mention of military service in the Spanish Armed forces in Cuba prior to this date. However, this book was printed in Cuba and thus such things could have been covered up. El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. When are you going to add this to the article? Having it herer will only cause others to doubt its validity. GoodDay 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I see you've been trying to add it. PS- Still though, having it here, won't help. GoodDay 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Housing conditions in Cuba censored

A certain chemical engineering student [39], with no apparent previous interest in Cuban matters, has taken on to himself to removed citation [40] to a photoessay on poor housing conditions in Cuba. El Jigue208.65.188.149 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Antonio Blanco Rico said a communist party member

The role of the communist party during the war against Batista is best said to have been ambiguous.


Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografia De Fidel Castro Editorial Planeta, Mexico D.F ISBN: 8423336042, ISBN: 9707490012 p. 692 states that Batista’s military intelligence “SIM” colonel Antonio Blanco Rico killed by urban rebels of the non-Castro “Directorio” was a secret communist party member and when this was made known to Castro he regretted the killing. p. 692 Joaquin Ordorqui is quoted as saying “Si, Fidel. El coronel Antonio Blanco Rico, jefe del Servicio de Inteligencia Militar. Era un hombre del Partido (comunista) “ Description of this assassination is on pages 689-693

Now as yet I have not been able to place Joaquin Ordorqui in the Sierra Maestra at that time, I think this was either a message from Ordorqui relayed from Mexico to the Sierra, or a communist party messenger, the most likely candidate for this is one of the survivors of the Corynthia expedition, who almost immediately incorporated in the Che Guevara's forces, his last name was In~iguez (will provide citation at earliest possible opportunity)


Joaquin Ordorqui was involved with the Humbolt 7 betrayal. Apparently the direct contact with Esteban Ventura was Marcos Rodríguez, alias Marquitos a young communist who did the actual betrayal, however Joaquín Ordoqui, one of the most important members of the Partido Socialista Popular (PSP, the Cuban communist party) and his wife Edith García Buchaca, who then lived in Mexico and according to this reference received between $2,000 and $3,000 U.s a month via Teté Casuso y Teresa Proenza.


There is reason to believe that this source is reliable since the author is the son of one of the those killed at Humbolt 7, an apartment building near the Malecon and not too far from the Hotel Nacional. And because years later when the matter was no longer deniable, Castro had Marquitos executed and Joaquín Ordoqui imprisoned for life.

Thus it is reasonable to assume that Joaquín Ordoqui was a multiple agent, he certainly was a communist, and according to this source on the CIA payroll, and know well known as an informant for Batista.

Sources that are heavily politicized, "edited" and altered to protect the communist party are found in:

  • Departamento de versiones taquigráficas del Gobierno Revolucionaria 1964 (last accessed 9-20-07) Segunda vista del juicio contra el delator Marcos Rodríguez. Bohemia April 3rd 1964. www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/Bohemia-4-3-1964.pdf
  • Unknown transcriber 1964 (accessed 9-20-07) Vista del juicio que se sigue contra el procesado Marcos Rodríguez Alfonso, en la causa numero 72 de 1959, por los delitos de traición y confidente. Transmitido por Radio Rebelde El DIA 23 de marzo de 1964. Copia textual. www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/marcos-rodriguez-3-23-1964.pdf

El Jigue208.65.188.149

Anexionista movement

Recent changes to Cuban history section appear to ignore the considerable influence of the Anexionista movement (e.g. see José Antonio Saco (1797-1879)and its attempts to promote union with the U.S. One could start with CUBA: CLAVES PARA UNA CONCIENCIA EN CRISIS CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER 1982 - firmaspress.com http://www.firmaspress.com/Cuba_claves_para_una_conciencia_en_crisis.pdf. El Jigue208.65.188.149 16:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

--CubanoAmericano 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Relatively new to Wikipedia, thus I do not wish to remove any content.

The last link located at the bottom of the Cuba > External Links > Official "Cuban music old and new Cultural Videos" does not appear to be official yet its under the "Official" section. Consequently, a member may want to review same for the possibility of removal.

Thank you, CubanoAmericano

Cuban War of Independence

I think that the description of the Cuban independence war leans too much to an US perspective. There is no account of the different wars between the Cubans and the Spanish, etc., etc. --CheoMalanga 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheo Agreed will see if I can help with that El Jigue208.65.188.149 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ [41]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuba/Archive_17&oldid=1144150583"