Jump to content

Talk:Healthcare in Cuba/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

AIDS statistics

Should AIDS statistics be mentioned ? -- Beardo 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

A number of sentances have been removed recently on the basis that they are unreferenced. If that is the only reason to remove, they should have been tagged "citation needed" at first.

"They offer medical services to 85,154,748 people; 34,700,000 in Latin America and the Caribbean and 50,400,000 in Africa and Asia."

"During the UN's general assembly in 2000, Fidel Castro offered the United Nations 6,000 doctors for service in the third world."

"Cuban doctors played a vital role in the health-care system of Sri Lanka in the 1980s, particularly in the war-torn North-east province, when a crisis in that country's education system limited the number of doctors coming out of universities."

The second seems to be based on the offer included here - "Cuba is willing to supply up to 3,000 additional Cuban doctors and medical personnel for such endeavor in Sub-Saharan Africa - who would also contribute to training African health staff on the field. But it is essential for industrialized countries to do their share and supply the necessary medications and inputs for the programme. Africa is waiting for us. Cuba stands ready. Developed countries now have the floor." - http://www0.un.org/ga/webcast/statements/cubaE.htm

  • -*-*-*-*

We ought to be able to find better references that Cubanet. (see Peru/Nicaragua).

-- 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Going to try and sort this out over the next few days, Beardo. It's a real job unravelling all the propoganda from all sides and attempting to find balance. I agree about the aids information, and have found some details on that.--Zleitzen 22:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sections

I suggest we have separate sections for:

- healthcare in Cuba

- Operacion Milagro eye operations

- other overseas missions - Venezuela etc.

-- Beardo 20:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal

Some groups in the United States have been critical of the Cuban healthcare system. The American magazine NewsMax describes the exportation of Cuban doctors to Third World countries as a "propaganda" exercise, stating that "it is easy because Cuba has an overabundance of physicians and professionals of all types, a perpetual oversight of the communist central planners".[1].

This is not a criticism of healthcare, but of Cuban foreign policy. I have to say its pretty interesting how the Health care in the United States article isn't taken up by half a page stating essentially "it is notable that people die of easily curable diseases in the United States, a perpetual oversight of the free market ideologues that run the country". Not that I necessarily agree with the statement, but makes for an interesting comparison. - FrancisTyers · 16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Given the above comments by Francis. Should almost half this page be taken up by "criticisms" from the US state department?--Zleitzen 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved to talk. I'd like to see non-US citations for these, they should be reasonably easy to find non-US criticism right? Incidentally, is there any self-criticism of Cuban healthcare? I would have thought so too. - FrancisTyers · 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Cuban Healthcare

Some complaints have arisen that foreign "health tourists" receive a higher quality of care than Cuban citizens. The Cuban American National Foundation claims that the Cuban authorities mask the truth behind the Cuban health care system. They argue that real Cuban healthcare is "substandard" and that what is shown to non-Cubans is a healthcare system unavailable to the average Cuban.[2]

The US State Department, citing many independent sources, states that Cuba's infant mortality rate in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades. Cuba’s comparative world ranking has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its very high abortion rate, which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied. In terms of physicians and dentists per capita, Cuba in 1957 ranked third in Latin America, behind only Uruguay and Argentina -- both of which were more advanced than the United States in this measure. Cuba's physicians and dentists in 1957 was the same as the Netherlands, and ahead of the United Kingdom and Finland. The report states "Unfortunately, the UN statistical yearbook no longer publishes these statistics, so more recent comparisons are not possible, but it is completely erroneous to characterize pre-Revolutionary Cuba as backward in terms of healthcare."[3]

According to the same United States State department report, Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption but ranked last out of the 11 countries analyzed in terms of percent of increase since 1957. Overall, Cuban per capita food consumption from 1954-1997 has decreased by 11.47 percent. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels.[4]"

Internal criticism of Cuban healthcare centres around the medical apartheid issue (see tourism apartheid in Cuba - and if you care, see my comments on that page to another user about Cuba's economy post 1990 which have some impact here relating to a developing two-tier economy - one rule for the foreigners and the rich, another for the Cubans). This crit comes notably from former minister of health Dr. Hilda Molina [5] - this an area that should be followed up. Beyond that, criticism of the state system in Cuba is predictably restricted. I just don't understand the US state department reports - (a) they are lacking in substantial criticism (b) the article says "citing many independent sources" when the US report conveniently doesn't - the links are blocked. It is a propaganda piece and should be treated as such. However, the whole issue of Cuban healthcare is a highly charged propaganda area from all sides and must be treated with caution.--Zleitzen 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree, I think the redone Criticism section is muchly improved, Non-US sources should be favoured as the US government is extremely partisan in its criticism. Is there criticism from independent human rights groups, e.g. HRW or AI on this area? - FrancisTyers · 15:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
No crit from AI or HRW that I know of. Cuban healthcare is still of a very high standard by Latin American terms. Though there are complaints from the now cited sources. I have left out some of Molina's complaints which seem to be more whistle-blower in nature and not worthy of an encyclopedia. These crits could apply to any organisation or large governmental body. This doctor did that etc, these doctors lack qualifications and so on, certain hospitals were below par. Typical NHS stuff really. But I do believe the duality of service to be worthy of inclusion. --Zleitzen 12:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No valid reason has been given for deleting sourced arguments. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine 20:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly stated sources for the statements in the US Government report can be found at the bottom of the report.Ultramarine 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Valid reasons are provided above, we don't need to repeat ourselves. The US Government report is not a reliable source on Cuba. And I'll tell you why, Ultramarine. The US government lie about Cuba. --Zleitzen 21:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hm, personal unsourced theories are fortunately not allowed in Wikipedia. Again, The US Government cites numerous international organisations for the statistics given. They can be found at the bottom of the report.Ultramarine 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. The US government is not a reliable source on Cuba. If you think that is a personal theory set up an rfc for a consensus. I am confident of the result as I've been through this many times before with other users, admins, experienced editors and even an arbitrator who were in agreement.
  2. "Sorry, you have tried to access a page that is not available." is all you'll find from your US government links. They are not veriable. The US government is not a reliable source on disseminating unveriable information on Cuba.
  3. The information was deemed neither interesting, relevant or even valid criticism by consensus. You'll also have to justify to the editor who pulled the material why you believe your addition is relevant.
  4. A society article concerning one country should not contain over 20 lines of opinion from a completely different country. Let alone a nation that is a declared enemy. Such a poor precedent should not be set here.

These are the valid reasons for removal. --Zleitzen 00:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Removed Newsweek piece again - same reason as stated above by Francis Tyres.
  • Removed CANF piece about health tourism which is already covered below.

The rest of the criticism, including the pieces written by me and the additional material added by another user concerning Carlos Wotzkow, I believe to be serious and important criticisms of the Cuban healthcare system. I don't believe your additions are in that bracket, Ultramarine. I believe them to be propaganda pieces of little value that detract from the article.--Zleitzen 00:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The document gives a valid POV regarding Cuba and cites many international organisations. The sources for all the footnotes can be found at the end of the document. They are not links to other pages. Note also that 10% of the population of Cuba has fled to the US, so it certainly has an interest in the nations.Ultramarine 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If you argue that something is incorrect, give sources.Ultramarine 00:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The citations are links to a page that doesn't exist. They are non verifiable. Produce the orginal documents please, the onus is on you to provide sources. Unverifiable documents quoted by the US state department - A declared enemy of Cuba - are not reliable. You argue that your additions are simply a "valid" POV. Consensus said otherwise, that 20 lines of opinion of another nation on the Cuban healthcare system is not valid or neccessary, as 20 lines of Cuban opinion on US pages is not valid or neccesssary. 10% of the population of Cuba has fled to the US - would that not be the case? Still no. Hence it was removed by another user. --Zleitzen 01:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The citations are footnotes that can be found at the bottom of the document.

[1] UN Statistical Yearbook 2000, pg. 102-103.

[2] FAO Production Yearbook 1998, vol. 52

[3] UN Statistical Yearbook 2000

[4] Statistical Abstract of Latin America 2000 vol. 36

[5] UN Statistical Yearbook 2000, pg. 131-133.

[6] Statistical Abstract of Latin America 2000, vol. 36, pg. 523-562

[7] http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/infant_mortality-0.html

[8] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

[9] UN Statistical Yearbook 2000, pg. 76-82.

[10] UN Statistical Yearbook 2000. pg. 76-82.

[11] UN Statistical Yearbook 2000, pg. 102-103.

[12] Statistical Abstract of Latin America 2000, vol. 36, pg. 64.

[13] Statistical Abstract of Latin America 2000, vol. 36, pg. 66.

[14] UN Statistical Yearbook 2000, pg. 132-133.

[15] Statistical Abstract of Latin America 2000, pg.523

[16] Based on a Producer Price Index (1980=100)Ultramarine 01:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Produce the documents, so they can be verified. The US is not a neutral or reliable source to suggest that these documents have been correctly analysed. Even then, their analysis is of little relevance, interest and detracts from the article as agreed above.--Zleitzen 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no requirement that documents or books cited must be available online. Again, the document gives a valid, verifable view. Even if you dislike this view, Wikipedia:NPOV requires its inclusion.Ultramarine 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand WP:V and WP:RS. The documents are cited by the US state department in order to create their report. There is no evidence that the cited documents correspond with the report. The US is a declared enemy of Cuba, there is evidence that the US is prepared to lie about Cuba. Therefore they are not a reliable secondary source for the dissemination of information on Cuba. Primary documents are required. Even so, their analysis is of little relevance, interest and detracts from the article as agreed above.--Zleitzen 01:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It is your personal opinion that the US may lie when citing the sources. Fortunately personal opinions are not allowed in Wikipedia. If you can cite an error, I will check it out, and we should certainly add it to the article. You misunderstand NPOV. This does not mean that Wikipedia should only publish the view of the Cuban government or its newspaper or one single "neutral" view. Instead, all significant views should be mentioned, both those supportive and critical.Ultramarine 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not my personal view that the US may lie when citing the sources. The US has engaged in a propaganda war against Cuba for many years. And that is continuing. For instance see this: [6]
George Bush, who owed his first term to his narrow win in Florida, has stepped up the propaganda war against the Cuban government
Feel free to remove any material published in the Granma. Primary Cuban government sources should not be used in this article.--Zleitzen 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, you misunderstand NPOV. Granma is a valid supportive view, and so is the US Government document as a critical one. NPOV states that both are valid.Ultramarine 01:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You have made this argument many times before, Ultramarine. On other articles. Where you were told the same thing by many other users. I concur with Fred Bauder who offered "The propaganda of neither nation is a reliable source."--Zleitzen 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Remove anything sourced to Granma. They are not a reliable source and are therefore of no help to those reading this article.
  2. Remove anything sourced to the US state department. They are not a reliable source and are therefore of no help to those reading this article.
  3. Either you have all sources on this issue, including the multitude of international citations and statements about the Cuban health system, all valid, which would dwarf your unreliable US state department piece, or we keep to reliable, relevant, sources that expand the topic yet keep this article to a manageble length. ie. a good article. Your sources are none of the latter things, and are unhelpful to this article which is why they were removed by consensus. Serious and genuine criticism is helpful and has been added appropriately by users.--Zleitzen 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, read Wikipedia:NPOV. I will quote:

all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.Ultramarine 01:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
All significant published points of view cannot be presented. Because all significant published points of view amount to thousands of international sources on what is a much covered topic. Therefore consensus deemed that your additions were not a significant enough point of view. They were deemed to be an unreliable point of view that detracted from the article, and set such a low bar of inclusion that it would mean the justifiable inclusion of thousands of different international sources. You believe it is valid enough. Other users do not. That is that. Take this to an rfc or mediation if you disagree. --Zleitzen 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You have filled the article with mostly pro-Cuba statements. I could equally well argue that the pro-Cuba statemetns are not significant. Both sides should be presented fairly. The article now certainly state the pro-Cuban arguments; it should also state the critical views fairly.Ultramarine 02:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
WHO, UN statistics and neutral articles from international sources are not "pro-Cuba statements", they are statements from reliable international and neutral sources. I have also not filled the article with mostly "pro-Cuba statements", I have written the criticism section containing important critical material. I refer you to a passage another user wrote, Lulu of the Lotus eaters, I believe about your contibutions to the Cuba page on this issue. Entitled "Desperately misreading "opposing views". It is relevant again.--Zleitzen 02:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a line that some editors seem to be pushing and approach that completely misunderstands the concept of "opposing views". Yes, differing views should be presented. But not every fact has an opposing view, except in the most contorted and ideological sophistry. If we say rhumba came from Cuba, we really don't need to present the "opposing view". And likewise for the fact it's south of Florida. Many facts that are social or political also have no sensible "opposing view"... and just presenting some fact that someone might take as a good thing about Cuba doesn't mean that we need some digression into a tirade as an "opposing view"..--Zleitzen
The US government also uses UN statistics. If you want, I can cite them directly instead. Again, the views of both sides should be presentd fairly. Now the pro-Cuban arguments are presented unfairly with undue weight.Ultramarine 10:11, 15 September 2006{UTC)
There are no "pro-Cuban" statements on this page. There are neutrally agreed statistics and statements from neutral reliable sources. One cannot counter-balance neutrally agreed statistical data. If the page carried Cuban government propoganda and "pro-Cuban statements" you would be correct to counter balance, but it doesn't. It carries neutral data and neutral statements. All your additions succeed in doing is pushing meaningless US government propoganda to the detriment of the article and the reader. That is not the purpose of wikipedia.--Zleitzen 10:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The statistics I have given also come from the UN and similar neutral organisations.Ultramarine 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You haven't provided UN or neutral statistics. You have produced a US State department report which purports to refer to UN statistics. The US state department is not a reliable or neutral source. Please produce the statistics as requested.--Zleitzen 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that secondary sources are generally better than primary sources. It is your personal opinion that the US lies in the report, but you presented no evidence for this claim. If you can present evidence for this, I will check it, and then we can certainly consider the document unreliable. Ultramarine 12:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You are making a circular argument and I have already replied to your points above. You have not satisfied me that your additions are reliable (you haven't provided the UN or neutral statistics, instead you have provided a US propaganda piece), that the US is a reliable source on Cuba (It is agreed by consensus over many pages that it isn't and will be agreed again if necessary), and that your additions improve the article (other users removed your additions because they believe they do not improve the article for the reasons stated above)
I concur with Lulu when he said that you are misunderstanding "opposing views". I concur with Fred Bauder when he said that the US is not a reliable source on Cuba and should not be used. I concur with FrancisTyers who removed your additions to this page also stating that the new criticisms were a vast improvement. Set up an rfc or mediation for this if you are not satisfied. --Zleitzen 12:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You are quoting remarks made a long time ago and in different contexts. No reason have been given for violating Wikipedia:NPOV. As a sidenote, I have examined some primary sources, and they agree. For example:
  • Chile, Guadeloupe, Marinique, and Costa Rica all had lower life expectancy than Cuba before Castro, but now they have higher. More generally, the average life expectancy in Cuba has increased 14.9 years, in South America as whole it has increased 16.4 years, and in the Caribbean and Central America it has increased 18.1 years.Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, 2005. World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision.,
  • In Latin America Infant Mortality per 1,000 live births decreased by 76 between 1960 and 2004. In Cuba, it only decreased by 33. Lets compare to Chile, where it decreased by 110. United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). 2005. The State of the World's Children 2006: Excluded and Invisible.Ultramarine 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are two tables: [7][8]Ultramarine 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ultramarine for finally providing some neutral statistics. Here is what they show

Infant mortality rate
1960 Central America & Caribbean = 102
1960 Cuba = 39
2004 Central America & Caribbean = 26
2004 Cuba = 6
Life expectancy
1960 Central America & Caribbean = 54
1960 Cuba = 62
2005 Central America & Caribbean = 72.5
2005 Cuba = 77.2

These statistics are very interesting and conform more or less to our statement on the page which says:

Life expectancy and infant mortality rates in Cuba have been comparable to Western industrialized countries since the 1950s

The US interpretation of these kinds of figures is not interesting. I think Lulu had it right when he described the US report as "contorted and ideological sophistry". They do not represent "criticisms" - they use the methods of propaganda to contort the figures and thus represent a particular view of another nation's healthcare system. We should not engage in the propaganda war. Would you like me to add more of the thousands of neutral pieces on Cuban healthcare. How about this. [9]

The chart (right) also highlights the sharp contrast between the US and Cuba. With a life expectancy of 76.9 years, Cuba ranks 28th in the world, just behind the US. However, its spending per person on health care is one of the lowest in the world, at $186, or about 1/25 the spending of the United States.

Or add propaganda statements "Fidel recalled that half a century ago, life expectancy in Cuba was under 59 years, while in developed nations people lived an average of 66 years." [10]. Or this statement "The successes of Cuba in the area of health care are, in fact, amazing. Physicians from leading clinics in the United States come here in secret (officially it is forbidden for U.S. citizens to visit Cuba) to acquaint themselves with Cuban experience and practices, say officials at the Russian Embassy in Havana." [11]

I don't think we should. We should use our discretion for the sake of the article and not add to the propaganda war between the two nations on this issue. I remember stating somewhere that one of the key problems with editing on Cuba, was when users insist on inserting oppressive "views" of the US into articles that previously had a balance of neutral international sources. This only creates a one-potato-two-potato game of sources. Until the article collapses under the weight. I described this as negative and counterproductive editing. And totally unneccessary. You therefore have yet to convinve me that your propaganda piece of mathematical contortion is of any worth to this article. It would have to be countered by a propaganda piece by the Cuban government which would be of no value either.--Zleitzen 14:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So you only want to include statistics that are favorable for Cuba. Not acceptable, the critical views should also be included.Ultramarine 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Good grief.--Zleitzen 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The article now includus many statistics that are favorable, like mentioning high life expectancy. Those you want to keep. But at the same time exclude all unfavorable, like that others nations have had a higher increase in life expectancy. Not acceptable.Ultramarine 15:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
How about detailing the health apartheid issue. How about detailing Hilda Molina. How about detailing the critical doctors that gave statements to the CANF. These are real criticisms that I carefully wrote for this page. And were agreed to be an improvement. That other countries have had "a higher increase in life expectancy from shit to not shit" is not a criticism of the Cuban healthcare system. It is a contorted irrelevance using unveriable sources. Providing neutrally agreed statistics is not providing favorable material. It is not engaging in the propaganda war between two countries. Please do not return to this circular argument again. For the third time, please take it to an rfc, mediation or third opinion if you are confident of your position.--Zleitzen 15:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, there is a double standard. You are arguing that the article should include statistics showing Cuba in a good light, stating high life expectancy and low infant mortality compared to other nations. At the same time, the article should not mention the views of the crtitics that the other nations in the area have improved this more since the revolution. I have provided numerous sources from UN and other organisations showing this.Ultramarine 15:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ee by gum gentlemen. The opinion of the US state department is verifiable, but on Cuba, it is simply not reliable. It would be like using Cuban information on the page on US healthcare. Drivel. We have plenty of criticism, and you are welcome to add more from sources that aren't written by propagandists. There must be plenty of criticism of Cuban healthcare by non-US types. - FrancisTyers · 18:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, [12] is a good source. - FrancisTyers · 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain what in Wikipedia policies prohibit US Government sources? Note that 10% of the population of Cuba has fled to the US, so the US Government certainly represent a large part of Cuban population. Note also that I have quoted other sources. Again:
  • Chile, Guadeloupe, Marinique, and Costa Rica all had lower life expectancy than Cuba before Castro, but now they have higher. More generally, the average life expectancy in Cuba has increased 14.9 years, in South America as whole it has increased 16.4 years, and in the Caribbean and Central America it has increased 18.1 years.Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, 2005. World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision.,
  • In Latin America Infant Mortality per 1,000 live births decreased by 76 between 1960 and 2004. In Cuba, it only decreased by 33. Lets compare to Chile, where it decreased by 110. United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). 2005. The State of the World's Children 2006: Excluded and Invisible.Ultramarine 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are two tables: [13][14]Ultramarine 18:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here we have two of the nicest editors on Wiki taking a position I don't understand (noting that Francis took the time to look up a replacement source). I must be missing something, so I hope you'll all fill in the blanks: it seems that the Ultramarine edit just reverted was not from the US State Dept, but from ... and here's where I'm confused:
The American magazine Newsweek describes the exportation of Cuban doctors to Third World countries as a "propaganda" exercise, stating that "it is easy because Cuba has an overabundance of physicians and professionals of all types, a perpetual oversight of the communist central planners". http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/6/145131.shtml#3a
First, is it Newsweek or Newsmax? Second, the article cites its source, which doesn't seem to be the US State Dept, but that source wasn't clearly attributed in the Wiki text. What did I miss? Third, it's a valid sourced claim, indicative of similar criticisms about Cuba's healthcare exportation seen from countries besides the US (witness the issues in Venezuela), so I'm really confused about the reasoning for reverting this content. It doesn't seem to be US-specific criticism, and doesn't seem to be from the US State Dept., and is certainly a valid criticism based on similar criticisms from other countries. It's also natural that a preponderance of Cuba criticism would originate in the US, considering the proximity and that the US deals with the fallout more so than any other country (this reminds me of the claims that some of the criticism of Chavez is too US-centric, which makes no sense at all, since he takes frequent, vocal, confrontational, outspoken and dramatic foreign policy stances specifically against the US, so it's natural that much of the controversy would be US-centric - that's how Chavez defines it.) Sandy 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the intent was to revert this edit: [15]. I agree with all the your points.Ultramarine 19:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that would be more understandable, considering the amount of text referenced to one source. But ... "The US State Department, citing many independent sources," .... if the State Dept report is based on various independent sources, why not directly discuss what those sources have to say? I'm concerned at some of the reasoning employed here, so there must be more I'm missing. Sandy 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, one claim raised above is that the US Government may lie, so the whole document and the arguments should be dismissed. As no evidence has been presented for this theory, I do not see it as very interesting. It would be difficult to cite anything in Wikipedia if a source can be excluded just because one editor speculates, with no supporting evidence, that it may represent falsified material.Ultramarine 19:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The section The American magazine Newsweek(newsmax) describes the exportation of Cuban doctors to Third World countries as a "propaganda" exercise..." is something that I originally wrote and added to the article in the first place, before the criticism rewrite, which I also wrote. Francis questioned the relevance of the edit, (I'd also inadvertantly miscredited it to Newsweek) and I agreed that it was ultimately a weak criticism and it was removed to be replaced with more pertinent and serious criticism from Cuban doctors. The US state department piece which is added word for word and runs to over 20 lines now dominates the article - at the expense of the serious criticism. It's just a contortion of figures which are never even revealed. I'm sorry but it is neither interesting nor appropriate criticism and polarises the article, and as noted above by another user, it is "drivel". It also lowers the bar to mean that our article could now potentially carry endless sections of pro-Cuban material (which are easily found) sourced directly to the Cuban government which would equally devalue the article and make it unreliable. Rather, it would be a wise precedent to avoid government sources on this issue and use material from third party international sources. As noted many times above, the unchecked statements of both governments are unreliable and should be avoided at all cost, to keep this article in good shape and stop it turning into a propaganda piece. Ultramarine will have to accept that figures offered by the WHO are not "pro-Cuban", they are simply figures offered by the WHO which appear on all nation's healthcare pages. --Zleitzen 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The figures cited are from the UN and other international organisations.Ultramarine 11:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Which say what?--Zleitzen 14:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
See above.Ultramarine 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the 'Criticism of Cuban Heathcare section should be done away with altogether, it's a real hodge podge of stuff that should be dealt with in respective sections (medical pay, for example) There is much work to do on this article.Felix-felix 13:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Some other sources

  • Mission Barrio Adentro: The Venezuelan Medical Federation, the largest association of medical doctors in Venezuela, has lobbied vigorously against Mission Barrio Adentro, and is in a legal dispute with the Chávez administration over the legitimacy of the Cuban doctors' licensure and practice. Critic and ex-minister of health Rafael Orihuela claims that the number of cases of infant mortality, mothers dying during birth, yellow fever and malaria have risen, even though the program receives a third of the budget of the Ministry, providing statistical proof that the Cuban doctors seem unqualified to practice medicine. http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2005/06/29/ccs_art_29401A.shtml

Sandy 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Wilson, Scott. Doctors Rouse Suspicion in Venezuela; Chavez Opponents Say Cubans Are Sent to Slums to Bolster President, Not Provide Care. The Washington Post Aug 24, 2003. pg. A.20
  • World Briefing Americas: Venezuela: Protest Against Cuban Doctors. Juan Forero (NYT). New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 16, 2005. pg. A.2 "Hundreds of doctors protested in Caracas, saying their jobs were in danger because of a government program that has brought in 20,000 Cuban doctors and dentists. The Cuban doctors are popular in poor neighborhoods, where health care had been rare, but Venezuelan medical workers say that the Cubans are unqualified and that the program that brought them to Venezuela siphons off money for medical equipment. President Hugo Chavez has close ties with the Cuban government, which receives cut-rate oil shipments in return for sending medical teams to Venezuela. Juan Forero (NYT)"
  • Americas: Oil Revenues Hide Chavez's Economic Ineptitude. Vladimir Chelminski. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 25, 2005. pg. A.19 "Another 'mission' program provides Cuban doctors, to live and work full-time inside poor communities, ready to help with minor health problems at any time, free of any cost to patients. But as in education, the quality of this care is an unknown. If a medical doctor with a Harvard degree arrives in Venezuela, he cannot work until he revalidates it. But a Cuban doctor's credentials are taken for granted. Moreover, no one knows the cost of these doctors to the nation since they seem to be provided in exchange for Venezuelan oil to Cuba."
  • Americas: Castro's Medical Missionaries Blanket Honduras. Mary Anastasia O'Grady. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 18, 2005. pg. A.11
  • Cubans in Venezuela sow seeds of controversy ; Cuban doctors, teachers, and farmers are helping the poor, but some decry the 'Cubanization' of Venezuela; Mike Ceaser Special to The Christian Science Monitor. Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Jul 17, 2003. pg. 07

This should give you some starting points for research. Sandy 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting.Ultramarine 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally, I find it easy to verify State Dept information, and that they are usually accurate in these cases. You just have to invest the time in your library :-) I do understand the concern over having such a large section of criticism dominated by one source. I used to travel to Venezuela for all of my specialty health care, no matter where I was living, as I preferred my specialists there to what I had in the USA, Europe, or other South American countries where I lived: my Venezuelan doctors were utterly topnotch specialists, the best I had in the world in some areas of specialty, my family and I have much to thank them for, and my employees in Venezuela years ago had far better health care in Venezuela than they could get in the USA today. This is no longer true: the situation with the Cuban doctors is an abomination. Because I have so many personal doctor friends who volunteered, trained, and spent a great deal of time in the Barrios, and because I knew my employees' health care situation and could contrast it to other countries where I had lived, I'm not buying the Chavez/Castro propoganda for a second. You can write the necessary information here by spending more time in a library, and diversifying your sources: the information is out there. I have also found Zleitzen to be reasonable when presented with the multitude of information that backs a particular point, and Francis has always been a fair editor. Good luck! There are far too few editors on Wiki presenting necessary balance to these topics. Sandy 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
PS, I have to smile at the rejection of State Dept info in the same discussion endorsing UN data. No corruption or leadership issues at the UN, now, are there? Now there's a "reliable" (cough, cough) source :-)) Sandy 17:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I find all the material on the Venz-Cuba health connection relevant and interesting and certainly worth expansion as we have discussed before on other pages Sandy. This would also play a part in the Cuba-Venz relations article I meant to get round to starting. The newsmax piece "it is easy because Cuba has an overabundance of physicians and professionals of all types, a perpetual oversight of the communist central planners" is just not very interesting I'm afraid (and I wrote it). Likewise the US state department material, as I've tried to explain many times above, is just tedious and unworthy. It is not criticism, just a play on figures which is explained anyway earlier in the article. And certainly not worth over 20 lines quoted in whole on this page. It totally overshadows the most important critic of Cuban healthcare, which is former minister and Castro doyen Hilda Molina. I certainly support a section detailing the problems at the Mission Barrios, notably the level of training of Cuban doctors abroad which is never clear. In essence, are they who they say they are? I suggest that this should replace the present chunk of clumsy US state department fuzzy maths.--Zleitzen 09:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You still not given any explanation for why a significant view should be excluded, other than that you as a person finds it "tedious and unworthy". The cited statistics are not any more a "play on figures" than it it to state that Cuba compares favorably to other nations when comparing statistics regarding life expectancy and so on. It is a double standard to only quote favorable international statistics and not unfavorable.Ultramarine 10:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't read Zleitzen as saying to exclude the view, rather to write it from crisper, more diverse sources. Sandy 14:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

New edits

I'll be as polite as I possibly can and merely refer to the abject lack of communication on display before moving around vast amounts of other editors work on a page. If I were any less polite I would begin to refer to the quality of the edits and referencing. But I'll stick to the basic courtesy gestures (or lack of) for now. --Zleitzen 09:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help myself. This page is now riddled with terms such as how the Lancet medical journal and the British medical journal "accused" the US effecting Cuban health via the embargo, meanwhile the CANF - an extreme anti-Cuban group that lobby the government to increase the embargo - with well documented links to terrorism and no connection to healthcare in Cuba "state" that the US embargo does not include medicines and medical supplies to the Cuban people".

Also, where do we go with this... bearing in mind I have about 150-200 more sources from international groups - UN, WHO, Lancet, BMF etc etc, and that is even before I start to use sources as biased as the one's provided by Ultramarine - the mirror equivalents the CANF and US State department. This page could yet become the longest in wikipedia's history. That is if this one-potato two-potato game of sources continues which, judging from Ultramarine's comments above and latest inputs is what seems to be the case. Meanwhile, rather sadly in my view, the actual facts and criticisms are being lost in this rather pointless charade. Where is the common sense in that? But as there was no agreement by one editor to reduce unneccessary material, all I can do is add material. --Zleitzen 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed accused. Please explain why you deleted the sourced text stating that WHO statistics is based on official government figures.Ultramarine 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel I can't commuicate with you as I can with other editors, Ultramarine, so we'll have to communicate through the dispute process in the oncoming period. You should know what this involves as I see you have been involved in other similar disputes, and have had to address rfc's and arbitrations based on similar behaviour. I'm not going to answer some insignificant question, when you've been playing a completely one sided game based on some ideology you seem to want to espouse, removing key sourced material, shifting whole sections of edits, adding 15 lines from one disputed source etc.. etc.. This will be the third time I've seen you swoop in on a page and carry on in this manner - leaving each page virtually incoherent with a POV tag on and so slanted as to be worthless. The dispute process awaits.--Zleitzen 01:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added another weighty paragraph to the embargo section. Which is now 3 paragraphs long, there are many more sourced documents and pieces that could be added if need be. This, largely unneccessary section, could be removed if Ultramarine accepts the simple sourced line "Cuban medical care has suffered from severe material shortages following the end of Soviet subsidies and the ongoing United States embargo against Cuba". However, the constant attempts to raise the stakes and demand that huge swathes of material should stay, and insert more can only lead to more and more information like this. And I know, probably more than anyone, how much information there is out there. 95% of the 10,000 or so pieces support the view that Cuba has a strong healthcare system, which has suffered material shortages following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the embargo. --Zleitzen 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has also added a POV tag without any explanaiton. But such behaviour has become routine.--Zleitzen 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well-sourced material now in article, so removed tag. The embargo is discussed in a separate section where all views are represented, not just those of one side.Ultramarine 05:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added another huge sourced paragraph for good measure. This will continue and I'll keep adding until we get some reason here. By the way, there is no "side" to the fact that healthcare has suffered as a result of the embargo. There is the Lancet, American health association, the BMJ, WHO, the UN etc etc who say it has, and some guys in Miami who lobby to uphold the embargo - with links to terrorism against Cuba - who say it hasn't, based on no studies or evidence. And please don't remove sourced material again until you have the decency to consider the relevance your own sourced additions - which were deemed to be of questionable value the last time I did a heads up. None these additions, including my own would be necessary if users were prepared to take this article seriously, instead of using it as a forum for upholding some ideology which they like to promote throughout wikipedia. (I've just reviewed this) --Zleitzen 09:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your deletions of sourced material, like the the sources WHO uses, and insertion of very dubious material, like this strange site www.cubavsbloqueo.cu. If claiming UN reports, please link to one.[16]Ultramarine 10:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have a beef with the World Health Organisation you can discuss it (and include detailed criticism) on their page. When presenting statistics from an organisation we don't say how they compiled them, it isn't relevant. - Francis Tyers · 10:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact I've done it for you [17]! - Francis Tyers · 10:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Obivously it is relevant how statistics are compiled, that is usually discussed by advocates and critics. Why did you restore the strange section claiming to cite an UN report and linking to the strange site www.cubavsbloqueo.cu? Ultramarine 10:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You doubt it exists? One moment. And no it isn't relevant, it is relevant to the WHO, where I added it to their article. Yay! - Francis Tyers · 10:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The WHO stats are compiled by detailed studies, they don't just grab a load of figures straight from government stats. Ultramarine's addition was an attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of the stats. --Zleitzen 11:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect, read the source. Again, it is always discussed how statistics are compiled by advocates and supporters. That is based on government statististics is obviously interesing for a regime like Castro's that, as you yourself note, is dependent on giving a good impression regarding healthcare to retain support.Ultramarine 11:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It violates NPOV to only cite favorably WHO statistics and deleted unfavorable.[18] Also, to claim that they are original research is a double standard when at the same time including favorable figures.Ultramarine 11:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No. You read the source. And tell us what it says. Anyway, who gives a crap about "Castro's" regime? Nobody but you. People are trying to be careful and not allow what was an informative page to become a mess of propaganda by relying on neutral international sources, your naff US state department report and your refusal to accept it's redundancy blew that out of the water. Now you are coming up with all kinds of tendentious nonsense such as "However, the average life expectancy in Cuba has increased less than the average increase in Latin America since the Castro revolution". Don't blow another page to bits on your ideological crusade against "communism" Ultramarine because it won't wash. Your one-potato/two-potato game is a waste of time, if you want pro-Castro propaganda there's a whole load of material out there and could sweep over this page like a dark cloud. I suggest we all go back to the point when this page actually had value by removing these edits made in the last month. And don't come back with "Please explain your deletions of sourced material" again, when you yourself are shifting sourced material around like you're arranging deckchairs on the titanic.--Zleitzen 11:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You cannot fix NPOV by violating WP:OR. And, no it isn't always discussed, and yes it is discussed on the WHO page. If you want to make a Criticism of the WHO do it on their page. This has nothing to do with Cuban healthcare. - Francis Tyers · 11:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Find some impartial third-party published statistics instead of making up your own. Perhaps Amnesty International, the Red Cross, HRW, etc. have some statistics which shine doubt on Cuban healthcare, but you can't make up your own. See WP:OR. - Francis Tyers · 11:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is one set of statistics, favorably to Cuba, not original research, and another set, unfavorable, original research? I cited UN statistics, just like you. :) Ultramarine 11:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Because you are synthesising/analysing the statistics, and we are reporting them. If you want to say
"The average life expectancy in Cuba has increased by 14.9 years, and the infant mortality per 1,000 live births decreased by 33."
This would be fine. - Francis Tyers · 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you don't know what OR is, "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material (such as arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements) that serves to advance a position."

You are using "published material" (data from earthtrends) in order to create a new "analysis" (that life expectancy has decreased less than average and birth mortality has decreased by less) in order to "advance a position" (that Cuban healthcare is worse than published sources think it is). - Francis Tyers · 11:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I can cite the UN sources directly instead if you prefer. I am not stating "that Cuban healthcare is worse than published sources think it is", where did you see that? Again, Why is one set of statistics, favorably to Cuba, not original research, and another set, unfavorable, original research? It violates NPOV and is original research to only states have good statistics Cuba have.Ultramarine 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Please rephrase this: "It violates NPOV and is original research to only states have good statistics Cuba have." Did you even read what you wrote in the article? - Francis Tyers · 11:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Pleae answer the question above.Ultramarine 11:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research (from above)

However, the average life expectancy in Cuba has increased less than the average increase in Latin America. Ín Cuba is has increased 14.9 years, in South America as whole it has increased 16.4 years, and in the Caribbean and Central America it has increased 18.1 years. In Latin America infant mortality per 1,000 live births decreased by 76 between 1960 and 2004. In Cuba, it only decreased by 33.[19][http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1960-1960,2004-2004&variable_ID=383&theme=4&cID=37,46&ccID=6,7

  1. You make some of that Original Research "However, the average life expectancy in Cuba has increased less than the average increase in Latin America." — This is your conclusion from your analysis of the data.
  2. You state that in Cuba, infant mortality per 1,000 decreased by "only" 33, more Original Research by comparing this with the rest of Latin America. Also bad, POV research because you don't give the numbers which they started with.

- Francis Tyers · 11:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not more original research than stating the Cuba has very good numbers regarding life expectancy and so on compared to other nations. Also, this is not a "conclusion", it is a statistical fact. Regarding the actual numbers, they can be found easily in the source.Ultramarine 11:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Wrong again, we're reporting the WHO analysis, we aren't reporting our analysis of WHO statistics. - Francis Tyers · 11:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you are looking at WHO statistics and drawing a "conclusion" by comparing numbers between nations.Ultramarine 11:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

According to World Health Organization statistics, Cuba is in the top quintile in worldwide comparisons of major health indicators such as doctors per capita, life expectancy and infant mortality[1].

Someone should find a source that states "Cuba is in the top quintile in worldwide comparisons of major health indicators such as doctors per capita..." etc. We can't just look at the numbers and say this ourselves. - Francis Tyers · 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This page [20] has loads of graphs, Cuban life expectancy is 14th of 142 countries. Christopher Murray, M.D., Ph.D., Director of WHO's Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy, states that Cuba has the highest healthy life expectancy in Latin America, near U.S. levels.[21]--Zleitzen 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

UN Report

Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial
embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba
This question was included as a supplementary item in the agenda of the forty-sixth
session of the General Assembly, in 1991, at the request of Cuba (A/46/193).
The General Assembly considered the question at its forty-sixth to fifty-eighth
sessions (decision 46/407 and resolutions 47/19, 48/16, 49/9, 50/10, 51/17, 52/10,
53/4, 54/21, 55/20, 56/9, 57/11, 58/7 and 59/11).
At its sixtieth session, the General Assembly reiterated its call upon all States to
refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures of the kind referred to in
the preamble to the resolution in conformity with their obligations under the Charter
and international law, which, inter alia, reaffirmed the freedom of trade and
navigation; once again urged States that had and continued to apply such laws and
measures to take the necessary steps to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible
in accordance with their legal regime; and requested the Secretary-General, in
consultation with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations system,
to prepare a report on the implementation of the resolution in the light of the
purposes and principles of the Charter and international law and to submit it to the
Assembly at its sixty-first session (resolution 60/12).
Document: Report of the Secretary-General (resolution 60/12).
References for the sixtieth session (agenda item 18)
Report of the Secretary-General A/60/213
Draft resolution A/60/L.9
Plenary meeting A/60/PV.45
Resolution 60/12

It is difficult to find another copy of the report online. However I'm sure if you go to your local library they will be able to procure you one. Some of the information is repeated in other UN documents. [22] - Francis Tyers · 11:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Photographs

It would be nice to have some photographs of hospitals/healthcare providers/etc. on the page. AFAIK stuff published by the Cuban govt. before 1997 is public domain, so it might not be so hard to find. - Francis Tyers · 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone reads spanish... http://www.bvs.sld.cu/revistas/his/vol_2_98/his06298.htm - Francis Tyers · 11:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WHO statistics

I would like a clear explanation for why the article should not mention that these statistcs are based on official government sources. This is obviously relevant for totalitarian state like Cuba that can control them for propagand purposes.Ultramarine 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What does your source about the correlation of figures say.--Zleitzen 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh? There is no correletion used.Ultramarine 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What does your source say pal?--Zleitzen 08:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It says nothing about any correlation.Ultramarine 08:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
So you are now making no attempt to answer questions - yet are demanding answers from others. --Zleitzen 08:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh again? No correlation in mentioned in the sources I have given before. What is your point? Ultramarine 08:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

All states "control" their statistics. Labelling Cuba "totalitarian" betrays your pov. - Francis Tyers · 08:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cuba has many times been described so. Please answer the question above.Ultramarine 08:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
By partisan commentators. Academic sources (without an axe to grind) are more likely to describe it as "Authoritarian". As I have been repeating, the article on the WHO describes how they compile their statistics. It is better to have the information in one relevant place, rather than one hundred and ninety five irrelevant places. - Francis Tyers · 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Authoritarian is fine. Again, it is obviously relevant for authoriarian state like Cuba without freedom of speech or information that can easily control statistics for propagand purposes. This should be mentioned.Ultramarine 08:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, not relevant. The US alters its statistics for propaganda purposes. All states do it (except maybe Iceland). - Francis Tyers · 08:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but it is much more difficult in the US due to independent newspapers, freedom of speech, and right to information legislation.Ultramarine 09:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely that depends? - Francis Tyers · 09:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Depends on what? Ultramarine 09:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Depends on what you're talking about ! - Francis Tyers · 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, it is obviously relevant for authoriarian state like Cuba without freedom of speech or information that can easily control statistics for propagand purposes. This should be mentioned. If objecting, explain why.Ultramarine 11:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of cuban healthcare 2

Apologies for starting a new section, but the other one was too long and difficult to find my place in. have removed the 2nd and third paras from the criticisms section as the first (concerning the state dept comment on 1950s cuban healthcare being good, essentially repeats the third para in the history section and is thus redundant. If anyone feels that any points made in this para are not dealt with in the history section-they should be added there. The third para from this section which I've removed concerned food consumption, which is entirely irrelevant to healthcare provision.Felix-felix 16:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The removed material is certainly not repeated elsewhere. However, we could move it to the history section.Ultramarine 11:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is. I have reverted your changes, by which I mean, I have removed these two paras;

The US State Department, citing many independent sources, states that Cuba's infant mortality rate in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades. Cuba’s comparative world ranking has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its very high abortion rate, which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied. In terms of physicians and dentists per capita, Cuba in 1957 ranked third in Latin America, behind only Uruguay and Argentina -- both of which were more advanced than the United States in this measure. Cuba's physicians and dentists in 1957 was the same as the Netherlands, and ahead of the United Kingdom and Finland. The report states "Unfortunately, the UN statistical yearbook no longer publishes these statistics, so more recent comparisons are not possible, but it is completely erroneous to characterize pre-Revolutionary Cuba as backward in terms of healthcare."[23]

According to the same United States State department report, Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption but ranked last out of the 11 countries analyzed in terms of percent of increase since 1957. Overall, Cuban per capita food consumption from 1954-1997 has decreased by 11.47 percent. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels.[24]"

As the first repeats the third para in the history section;

By the 1950s, the island had some of the most positive health indices in the Americas, not far behind the United States and Canada. Cuba was one of the leaders in terms of life expectancy, and the number of doctors per thousand of the population ranked above Britain, France and Holland. In Latin America it ranked in third place after Uruguay and Argentina.[4] There remained marked inequalities however. Most of Cuba's doctors were based in the relatively prosperous cities and regional towns, and conditions in rural areas, notably Oriente, were significantly worse. [4] Only 8% of the rural population had access to healthcare. [5]

And the second has nothing to do with healthcare provision.

if you disagree, we should sek concensus.Felix-felix 12:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen above, your paragraph excludes most of the content of the sourced text. Also, this is a criticism of the claims of remarkable achievements compared to the rest of Latin America. As such, it should be in the criticism sections. Regarding nutrition, that is obviously part of health status.Ultramarine 14:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There is little difference between the facts of the two paragraphs, rendering your paragraph irrelevant. But a big difference between the background, the inference of the piece and source. One is acceptable and neutral from a reliable source. The other comes from an unreliable US state department report aimed to discredit the recent Cuban government. Surely neutrality is the key here, and a non-negotiable tenet of wikipedia.--Zleitzen 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The report is online and cites United Nations statistics. Again, much of the content is excluded. Also, this is a criticism of the claims of remarkable achievements compared to the rest of Latin America. As such, it should be in the criticism sections. Regarding nutrition, that is obviously part of health status.Ultramarine 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Nutrition has to do with nutrition, not health care provision, which is what this article is about, or why not include violent crime statistics, or education or socioeconomic status and mobility which can all be vaguely "part of health status". We should be atempting to create a good encyclopedia article, not grinding a personal political axe.Felix-felix 11:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it a criticism? I don't know what it is criticising. But then I have no respect for or dislike of the Cuban government, and follow no particular political system or ideology - I'm only interested in history, politics and the presentation of detail related to Cuba/Caribbean/Latin America. So that is perhaps where we differ. Listen, Cuba is obsessed with healthcare. Everyone in Cuba is a hypercondriac including Castro himself. That is what they do whether it's under a socialist model or a captialist model and have been doing for over a hundred years. That is what people want to read about. Not the US's bizarre view that "it is completely erroneous to characterize pre-Revolutionary Cuba as backward in terms of healthcare". Who is characterizing it as such? No one. It doesn't make any sense and is totally out of place. The worst crime in my view in all your additions is that it actually obscures the criticisms from serious and notable Cuban physicians. There's woman called Hilda Molina that has worked her back off making great sacrifices to speak about some of the problems in Cuban healthcare. And you relegated her comments below the work of an American graduate kid, the US government and obscured it with comments by the CANF - a famously dubious organisation. --Zleitzen 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, 10% of the population of Cuba has fled to the US, so the US view is certainly relevant. I repeat, since you refuse to answer: The US report is online and cites United Nations statistics. Again, much of the content is excluded in the current text. Also, this is a criticism of the claims of remarkable achievements compared to the rest of Latin America. As such, it should be in the criticism sections. Regarding nutrition, that is obviously part of health status.Ultramarine 17:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the substantive message missing from the text as it stands that is in the US 'report'? If you can name anything substantive, and the concensus is that it should be included, then let's include it. Otherwise, what's the issue?Felix-felix 11:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is no difference, then there should be no problem with keeping the sourced text using UN sources.Ultramarine 11:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So there's no difference?Felix-felix 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
As you keep repeating the nutrition line, I'll repeat, to make sure you don't miss the point-Nutrition has to do with nutrition, not health care provision, which is what this article is about, or why not include violent crime statistics, or education or socioeconomic status and mobility which can all be vaguely "part of health status".Felix-felix 12:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Nutrition directly causes many specific medical conditions, lacking education do not. I repeat, since you refuse to answer: The US report is online and cites United Nations statistics. Again, much of the content is excluded in the current text. Also, this is a criticism of the claims of remarkable achievements compared to the rest of Latin America. As such, it should be in the criticism sections.Ultramarine 12:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid you're mistaken, both education and socioeconomic status have a direct effect on health as do many other things, but this does not mean they are relevant to an encyclopedia article on Cuban healthcare provision.The criticism section, as i have said earlier is blunt and crass and individual criticisms should be in relevant sections. Once again you have failed to state how the removed text is substantively differnt to the third para of the history section-both essentially say that cuban healthcare was pretty good before the revolution.Felix-felix 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Lacking education has only a very indirect effect on health, but lacking vitamin A in childhood will cause blindness, lacking vitamin D ricketts, and so on.Ultramarine 13:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Being assaulted in a mugging may also cause both blindness and broken bones, however cuban crime has no place in this article about cuban healthcare provision either.Felix-felix 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Muggings do not cause widepsread health problems, nutritional deficiencies do.Ultramarine 13:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Your text states "By the 1950s, the island had some of the most positive health indices in the Americas, not far behind the United States and Canada. Cuba was one of the leaders in terms of life expectancy, and the number of doctors per thousand of the population ranked above Britain, France and Holland. In Latin America it ranked in third place after Uruguay and Argentina". Compares this to deleted text above. No mention of nutrition, infant mortality, abortion, and most importantly, no mention of greater improvement in other Latin American nations.Ultramarine 12:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
See aboveFelix-felix 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You have not made any attempt to answer why infant mortality and abortion were excluded or, most importantly, greater improvement in other Latin American nations. Ultramarine 13:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
See aboveFelix-felix 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have looked, and there is nothing explaining excluding infant mortality and abortion, most importantly, greater improvement in other Latin American nations..Ultramarine 13:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Unfortunately, this edit can only be described as vandalism..[25] Please explain.Ultramarine 14:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I explained above when I removed these irrelevant or redundant paras. This is not vandalism, we are attempting to create a good encyclopedia article-if you have a political axe to grind (and I assume you do not..) please take it somewhere else.Felix-felix 11:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to seek opinions to see if anyone agrees with that. So far no one has agreed with your editing or responses (and lack of) on the talk page, so I doubt they will start now. The removal of material heavily discussed and rejected by consensus as weak or just plain unnecessary is not vandalism. It is known as improving an article.--Zleitzen 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are objecting to something, use sources. Simply blanking large parts of the article, in particular critical views, is not acceptable. Using your arguments, I could delete everything in the article and only state your argument: "remove loads of useless or duplicated material - restored some credibility to the page". Please state exactly what was wrong with the deleted material.Ultramarine 16:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Listen. We have explained this numerous times above, thank you.--Zleitzen 17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you have not. Follow wikipedia policy and explain why you are massively blanking critical sourced material and why I cannot do the same, using your strange argument "remove loads of useless or duplicated material - restored some credibility to the page". .Ultramarine 17:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The material is weak, the material is duplicated, the material is wholly unhelpful and reads like an attack piece carrying almost no useful information, the material is 15 lines long copied straight from one source which also happens to be a nation that declares Cuba to be an enemy, the material was pulled by three editors, questioned by a fourth and heavily disputed when it appeared on another page by other editors. The response to the material by all bar yourself was the same as we can imagine the response would be if we added Cuban Goverment opinions to the main US society pages. I would have slightly more respect for your demands if you followed your precedent and added this to the Politics of the United States article.
According to Cuban president Fidel Castro, "Serious mistakes have been made and injustices committed in the framework of its political system --many of them still persist-- but the American people still have a number of institutions and traditions, as well as educational, cultural and ethical values that would hardly allow that to happen. The risk exists in the international arena. The power and prerogatives of that country's president are so extensive, and the economic, technological and military power network in that nation is so pervasive that due to circumstances that fully escape the will of the American people, the world is coming under the rule of Nazi concepts and methods." [[26]]
How long do you think that this equally useless and biased "opinion" will last on that page? We know it wouldn't last long. And we can ask ourselves why. Surely it is sourced is it not? Surely it is relevant because 10% of Cubans moved to the US as you say? Surely it is a valid opinion by a notable source that is not covered elsewhere on the page? The bottom line, as my example above shows, is that just because something is sourced, it doesn't mean it automatically goes on the page. Discussion, debate, compromise and consensus ultimately decides what stays on a page. It is the failure to abide by those core principles of wikipedia on your part that is not acceptable here, rather than the removal of material by three independant editors. --Zleitzen 06:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Seconded, these sources are really poor. We should stick to concensus.Felix-felix 11:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And, how about this para, which essentially says that one cuban hospital is dirty? (and then implies that they all are) Is this relevant, and if so perhaps ought to go in the embargo section-although that doesn't really seem appropriate.The linked article is not even english language. A proper section on health infrastructure spending and purchasing should include a comparson with other third world or caribbean countries, otherwise this is totally unhelpful for the interested reader. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep it, i vote this para should be ditched.Felix-felix 11:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"In 2005, an account written by Cuban exile and critic of Fidel Castro, Carlos Wotzkow, appeared showing apparent unsanitary and unsafe conditions in the "Clínico Quirúrgico" of Havana.[39] The Clínico Quirúrgico is reported to be one of the better hospitals available to Cubans [citation needed]; the article claims that health care for Cubans occurs in worse conditions in the rest of the country."

Again, NPOV states that all significant views should be presented. You dislike the critics and think that their claims are false. Fortunately, in Wikipedia this is not allowed as an excuse for deleting such views. You may criticze them with sourced material of your own but not simply delete them. I again note the the US state department cites UN sources as you do when you present arguments in favor of Cuba. Why should only the positivie views be allowed? Ultramarine 12:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that "only positive views be allowed". We are editing an encyclopedia article-in this case about healthcare in Cuba. Removal of spurious material, as well as poorly sourced material is much of the work of editing. This arises from concensus on this page-which is consistently against your 'criticisms' section-much of which has been incorporated into other sections.You should assume good faith on behalf of other editors and note WP:NPOV about 'equal validity' [2] [3]Felix-felix 13:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Your are deleting material using for example UN sources. Again, your personal opinion that crticial views are "spurious" is fortunately not enough for violating npov. Please give exact explanations, using sourced material, when explaining your blanking.Ultramarine 13:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope, if an inclusion is irrelevant to an article, no matter how well sourced, if concensus says so-out it goes.See aboveFelix-felix 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, you are wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy publishing the most common opinion of people. It is an encyclopedia using sourced, verifiable material, regardless of what the majority of people think. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Ultramarine, Wikipedia is not a repository of random quotes simply because they are sourced. Show me the encylopedia that would publish such an imposing unnecessary piece of sophistry from the US state department. Here is how britannica deals with the topic;

Cuba has one of the more successful health care programs in the developing world. Health care is state-operated through the Ministry of Public Health and is available free, or at nominal cost, to the entire population. The availability of hospital beds and physicians has greatly increased since the 1960s, when most physicians left the country, and infant mortality and mortality rates overall have declined. Social security (old age, disability, and survivor pensions, and other monetary benefits) covers the vast majority of the labour force

And Encarta;

The quality of Cuban medical services was highly esteemed before 1959, but health services for the majority of the population were limited. Since 1959 the government has extended health services throughout the island, using neighborhood polyclinics for minor ailments and hospitals for treatment of serious injuries and illnesses. Health education is communicated in school and through the media. Sophisticated medical procedures are not available to everyone, leaving those who know important officials in better positions to receive advanced care than those without such connections. In addition, the trade embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba since the early 1960s has made it difficult for the country to receive medicines. The social security system provides for retirement, work disabilities, unemployment compensation, maternity care, and child-care centers.

Do you agree with the above articles? And please answer the question on whether you would insert the Fidel Castro quote into the Politics of the United States article. If you will then why? If you won't then you have no case here.--Zleitzen 17:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That is two interesting views. Regarding the politics of the US article, if there is something wrong with that article, discuss that there. Possible problems with other articles are not an excuse for violating policy in this article.Ultramarine 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sourced critical material

For all readers, here is the sourced material, using for example UN sources, that is considered so dangerous that it is immediately deleted from the article so that the readers should not be allowed to form their own opinoin.

  • Critics argue that since it is heralded as the great achievement of the revolution, the healthcare system has been given the highest priority in governmental allotments. However, improvements in healthcare have come at the negligence of other facets of state aid, such as the quality of housing, sanitation, water purification, the food and nutritional intake of the population, and the general availability of goods. For example, giardiasis, a minor but debilitating stomach parasite characterized by gas, diarrhea, and loss of weight, is today prevalent in fifty percent of school children in Havana. Giardiasis is transferred via fecal matter, and experts credit contaminated water with its transmission.[27]
  • Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., describes the exportation of Cuban doctors to Third World countries as a "propaganda" exercise, stating that "it is easy because Cuba has an overabundance of physicians and professionals of all types, a perpetual oversight of the communist central planners".[28].
  • The US State Department, citing many independent sources, states that Cuba's infant mortality rate in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades. Cuba’s comparative world ranking has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its very high abortion rate, which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied. In terms of physicians and dentists per capita, Cuba in 1957 ranked third in Latin America, behind only Uruguay and Argentina -- both of which were more advanced than the United States in this measure. Cuba's physicians and dentists in 1957 was the same as the Netherlands, and ahead of the United Kingdom and Finland. The report states "Unfortunately, the UN statistical yearbook no longer publishes these statistics, so more recent comparisons are not possible, but it is completely erroneous to characterize pre-Revolutionary Cuba as backward in terms of healthcare."[29] According to the same United States State department report, Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption but ranked last out of the 11 countries analyzed in terms of percent of increase since 1957. Overall, Cuban per capita food consumption from 1954-1997 has decreased by 11.47 percent. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels.[30]"
  • Doctors, dentists, and nurses have very low salaries. The purchasing power of a doctor’s salary is about US$15-20 per month. Therefore, many prefer to work in different occupations, for example as taxi drivers, earning 50 to 60 times more.[31]
  • Not all is free in the basic system. Patients must pay for drugs prescribed on an outpatient basis, hearing, dental, and orthopedic processes, wheelchairs, crutches, and similar devices, as well as eyeglasses.[32] In 1997 A group of 18 Cuban doctors exiled in the United States released a statement denouncing the Cuban Government and specifically Fidel Castro. They claimed that in Cuba -"the medicines and equipment, even the bedsheets and blankets, (are) reserved for regime elites or dollar-bearing foreigners, to the detriment of our people, who must bring their own bedsheets, to say nothing of the availability of medicines."[4]
  • The average life expectancy in Cuba has increased less than the average increase in Latin America. Ín Cuba is has increased 14.9 years, in South America as whole it has increased 16.4 years, and in the Caribbean and Central America it has increased 18.1 years. In Latin America infant mortality per 1,000 live births decreased by 76 between 1960 and 2004. In Cuba, it only decreased by 33.[33][34]
  • The text seems to be deliberately misleading, stating "all U.S. subsidiary trade, including trade in food and medicines, being prohibited" and at the same time excluding and deleting Now up to thirty percent of the food Cuba imports comes from the United States.[5][6]"Ultramarine 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine's assessment that removals took place because they were "considered dangerous" is completely straw man and bogus, ofcourse. Statistics on Cuba's healthcare are freely available from all the main international health bodies. Analysis is extensive on the internet and elsewhere. Given the amount of information available, decisions must be made to edit an article for presentation purposes, seeking as neutral and reliable a source as possible. 95% of the informaton removed above is already relayed in the article using neutral sourcing and language. The main point of two of the extracts - which combined run to 17 lines long - is that health indices in Cuba have increased less than the average increase in Latin America. Meaning that Cuba's already high life expectancy as a regional leader in Healthcare in the 1950s (a point already covered in the article) has risen from 62 to 78 in 50 years. Whilst the average in the region has been 54 to 72 over the same period. Ultramarine is insisting that this is a criticism of the Cuban health system, and that 17 lines containing this point should be included. This view isn't dangerous, rather it is ridiculous, wholly unneccessary and inflammatory. In other words a really bad edit. I'm not interested in POV games, I'm interested in presenting solid information for readers. --Zleitzen 07:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, npov requres that all views should be presented. The view of the US, citing UN statstics, to which 10% of the population of Cuba has fled, should certainly be mentioned.Ultramarine 11:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
We could fill the article with propaganda from both sides (well sourced of course), but that makes for crap reading. Better to fill the article with reasonable, impartial sources representing both sides of the argument. N'est pas? - Francis Tyers · 08:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
We now mostly have pro-Castro views. Réspect NPOV.Ultramarine 11:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I see nowhere in wikipedia policy that says "It is sourced, therefore it cannot be removed." I've read a lot about consensus, discussion, agreement on talk pages, and due weight which are just some of the issues at hand here. There is still much work to be done writing up key criticisms involving the exportation of doctors, which myself and Sandy have discussed on other pages. This business is just holding up the process of the article reaching some kind of decent status, which should be everyone's goal. And I guarantee that the US state department block quotes, some of the other weak "criticisms" - accompanied by the shoddy referencing which keeps turning up - will be rejected out of hand by those who analyse such pages for "promotion".--Zleitzen 10:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, npov requres that all views should be presented. The view of the US, citing UN statstics, to which 10% of the population of Cuba has fled, should certainly be mentioned.Ultramarine 11:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

More deletions of sourced crtical material:

  • According to the 2000 World Health Organisation report, as for all nations largely based on official government figures [35],
  • The fourth leading cause of death in Cuba is "external causes." That is, homicide, suicide and violent events. Cuba has four times the average rate of suicides compared to other countries with similar cultural backgrounds in the Caribbean region. Cuba has a high rate of alcohol consumption. It is estimated that 80% of the adult population in Cuba consumed alcohol regularly on a daily basis or consumes alcohol in binges until the supply available runs out.[36]Ultramarine 11:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't have "mostly pro-Castro" POV. The material is largely unbiased. - Francis Tyers · 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen from the above, the sourced negative views are systematically blanked, often without any attempt of explaining why, like the last deletion of unfavorable alcoholism and suicide rates statistcs (while at the samt time keeping favorable life expectancy and infant mortality statistics). Also, all disputed tags are immediately removed, despite that there is ongoing discussion on the talk page. Thus, the readers are given no option to form their own opinion by being advised to go to the talk page to read about the dispute.Ultramarine 11:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
They have no opportunity to read US government propaganda. If they wanted that they could go to the State dept. site. - Francis Tyers · 11:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
So you openly state that that you are blanking sourced views of one side using UN statistics. Fortunately, that is not allowed. Read Wikipedia:NPOV. Let the readers form their own opinion. Also, please answer why you deleted the last sourced statements about unfavorable alcoholism and suicide rates statistcs (while at the samt time keeping favorable life expectancy and infant mortality statistics) and why you are deleting disputed tags when there is an onoing discussion? Ultramarine 11:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
So, you openly admit to putting words into my mouth! Please, have some decorum man. Finally, take care to avoid mischaracterising your colleagues edits. I am not blanking in the Wikipedia definition. We are both acting in good faith to try and improve the encyclopaedia. Less of the accusations please! This is obviously a contentious issues, perhaps you could present your sources, and your preferred wording (regarding the "alcoholism" and "suicide" and we could discuss politely including it in the article? :) - Francis Tyers · 12:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is contentious, so it is strange that you are immediately deleting all disputed tags so that the reader cannot see that there is an ongoing dispute. Please explain. I have given my sources and my preferred wording, you have simply blanked them without explanation.Ultramarine 12:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Aha, but I was restoring neutrality, thus no need for the tag! - Francis Tyers · 13:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute. Let the reader decide for themselves. Please answer the other questions.

Also removed from the page in an act commonly known as editing was the below.--Zleitzen 13:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In 2006, BBC flagship news programme Newsnight featured Cuba's Healthcare system as part of a series identifying "the world's best public services". The report noted that "Thanks chiefly to the American economic blockade, but partly also to the web of strange rules and regulations that constrict Cuban life, the economy is in a terrible mess: national income per head is miniscule, and resources are amazingly tight. Healthcare, however, is a top national priority" The report stated that life expectancy and infant mortality rates are pretty much the same as the USA's. Its doctor-to-patient ratios stand comparison to any country in Western Europe. Its annual total health spend per head, however, comes in at $251; just over a tenth of the UK's. The report concluded that the population's admirable health is one of the key reasons why Castro is still in power.[16]
In 2000, Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan stated that "Cuba should be the envy of many other nations" adding that achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. "Cuba demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities - health, education, and literacy." [17] The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-governmental organization that evaluated Cuba’s health caresystem in 2000-1 described Cuba as "a shining example of the power of public health to transform the health of an entire country by acommitment to prevention and by careful management of its medical resources" [18] President of the World Bank James Wolfensohn also praised Cuba's healthcare system in 2001, saying that "Cuba has done a great job on education and health," at the annual meeting of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Wayne Smith, former head of the US Interests Section in Havana identified "the incredible dedication" of Cubans to healthcare, adding that "Doctors in Cuba can make more driving cabs and working in hotels, but they don't. They're just very dedicated".[19]


Studies of the Cuban health system in the United Kingdom. In 2001, members of the UK House of Commons Health Select Committee travelled to Cuba and issued a report that paid tribute to "the success of the Cuban health care system", based on its "strong emphasis on disease prevention" and "commitment to the practice of medicine in a community".[16]
The Parliament of the United Kingdom also drew up an analysis of the key features of Cuba's healthcare system, drawing comparisons with the state funded National Health Service (NHS). The overall conclusion was that many of the features identified would not have occurred had there not been an obvious commitment to health provision demonstrated by the protection and proportion of the budget given the health care. The study concluded the following.
There appeared to be little evidence of a divide between the prevention/proactive response and the disease management/reactive response within Cuban healthcare.
By far the biggest difference was the ratio of doctors per person. In Cuba it was one doctor per 175 people, in the UK the figure was one doctor per 600 people.
There is a commitment in Cuba to the triple diagnosis (physical/psychological/social) at all levels. :Extensive involvement of "patient" and the public in decision making at all levels. Integration of hospital/community/primary care via polyclincs. Team-work that works is much more evident both in the community and the hospital sector and the mental-health and care of the elderly sites visited were very well staffed and supported. The study also pointed to problems within the system, these included; Low pay of doctors. Poor facilities—buildings in poor state of repair. Poor provision of equipment. Frequent absence of essential drugs. Concern regarding freedom of choice both for patient and doctor.[20]
I see no problem with keeping sourced statements. That you removed them is no excuse for deleting sourced criticisms.Ultramarine 13:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What Ultramarine would like included

The fourth leading cause of death in Cuba is "external causes." That is, homicide, suicide and violent events. Cuba has four times the average rate of suicides compared to other countries with similar cultural backgrounds in the Caribbean region. Cuba has a high rate of alcohol consumption. It is estimated that 80% of the adult population in Cuba consumed alcohol regularly on a daily basis or consumes alcohol in binges until the supply available runs out. [37]

Lets see how reliable the source is and what it actually says! - Francis Tyers · 13:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you parade your "NPOV", but then leave out stuff like, "although Cuba has been criticized for augmenting the number of medical schools to nearly 22, it has achieved a physician to population ratio unrivaled in Latin America.". It is almost as if you have an agenda :) - Francis Tyers · 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You say "For example, giardiasis, a minor but debilitating stomach parasite characterized by gas, diarrhea, and loss of weight, is today prevalent in fifty percent of school children in Havana."

The source says:

The usual infectious diseases of the Third World countries of Latin America, parasitism, enteric diarrheas, etc have been either eradicated or highly diminished in Cuba. There is still, however, an ongoing endemic of giardiasis. The incidence of instestinal infections in 2000 was 77.1 per 1000 population, a rate that is not negligible. However, the latter was 25.7% lower than the similar rate in 1994. Obviously, there seems to be a tendency towards improvement.

- Francis Tyers · 13:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is all sorts of information one could glean from that piece, which is still quite favourable to Cuban healthcare through the ages despite being part of the "Cuban transition" project which attempts to end Socialism on the island. Here's one that corresponds with Castro's version of Cuban healthcare I quoted some time ago. (I don't for a second think this should go in by the way).

Life expectancy in Cuba was of the order of 60 years in 1950. Note that at that time in history, life expectancy was 70 years of age in Western Europe and 67 years of age in Eastern Europe. The average life expectancy in countries of the so-called Third World was of the order of 40 years of age

--Zleitzen 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I am slightly confused though, it says "Finlay Institute", are they talking about the Finlay Institute? - Francis Tyers · 13:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not insisted on the giardiases statement in my recent revisions and I see no problem with keeping sourced supporting statements. I strongly object to your large scale deletions of numerous critical statements, see the section above.Ultramarine 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why haven't you insisted on it? - Francis Tyers · 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking for a direct English source. Now please answer why you have deleted that statements regarding high alcoholism and suicides in Cuba and why you are deleting disputed tags when there is an ongoing dipuste.Ultramarine 13:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There isn't really an ongoing dispute, so there don't need to be dispute tags. Can you find another source which gives details of these high alcoholism and suicide rates? - Francis Tyers · 13:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously there is an ongoing diputes, look at the history! Again, let the readers form their own opinion. Regarding the high alcoholism and suicide rates, I have given a verifiable source, you have given no explanation for your blanking. (No, there is no requirement to give five different sources for a statement).Ultramarine 13:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Again with the putting of words into my mouth, and please stop mischaracterising my edits. I never said you needed 5 sources. I was asking you to present another, corroborating source for this claim, as it is not footnoted, and is quite sensational, essentially, "80% of the adult population are alcoholics". This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. But I'll settle for 2 or 3 reliable sources. Generosity isn't my middle name, but it might as well be! - Francis Tyers · 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no such requirement. I could equally well state that the pro-Castro statements that do not have 3 sources should be removed. Please answer why you are deleting the disputed tags when there obviously, looking at the history, is an ongoing dispute. Let the reader see the discussion and form their own view.Ultramarine 13:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:RS (which appears to be in the middle of an edit war as to whether it is a "guideline or an essay"). Nevertheless, I quote:

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

  • Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  • Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  • Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

There. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. - Francis Tyers · 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is still no requirement to cite 3 different sources. Furthermore, I see nothing exceptional about stating high alcoholism and suicides. It is well known that people in Communist states are much more unhappy than in democracies, so this only confirms the pattern. What is excpetional is the claim of good healthcare, so maybe I should insist on 3 different sources for all pro-Castro statements (: Ultramarine 14:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That is not well known at all. I think you could have a case for saying that people in state X are happier than state Y, but I'm not sure that any kind of reasonable comparison could be done by "political system".
I'm sure that if you add a {{fact}} template to anything you want checking, multiple reliable sources could be found that corroborate it. Please go ahead, but be wary of WP:POINT! Is there anything in the article that you currently dispute or would like more sources for? Oh, and I said 1 - 2 extra, meaning 2 - 3 in total. Two sources! It isn't much! You can do it! Come on man! - Francis Tyers · 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The World Values Survey has published a study by Ronald Inglehart and Hans D. Klingemann, " Genes, Culture, Democracy, and Happiness: "Virtually all societies that experienced communist rule show relatively low levels of subjective well-being, even when compared with societies at a much lower economic level, such as India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Those societies that experienced communist rule for a relatively long time show lower levels than those that experienced it only since World War II."[38]
LOLLING PIN! It's a blog! - Francis Tyers · 14:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I re-iterate, HAHAHAHA. It's R. J. Rummel! LOL! That guy is hysterical :)) - Francis Tyers · 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but he is quoting word for word from a published study.Ultramarine 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And you trust him to cite it verbatim? HAH - Francis Tyers · 14:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I have checked the source. I can equally well quote it.Ultramarine 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I you insist on blanking sourced statements, I could equally well do the same. Again, there is no wikipedia policy requiring 2 or 3 different source.Ultramarine 14:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, please answer why you are deleting the disputed tags when there obviously, looking at the history, is an ongoing dispute. Let the reader see the discussion and form their own view.Ultramarine 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll let you answer that one yourself. If you are able to scroll in your web-browser, scroll up to find my answer. - Francis Tyers · 14:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There is none, probably because you cannot answer it.Ultramarine 14:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Or because you have trouble reading ? - Francis Tyers · 14:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If so, please give your answer again.Ultramarine 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Gladly! You had but to ask! I said something along the lines of: Just because you say it is disputed does not make it disputed. One person a dispute makes not. - Francis Tyers · 14:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No a dispute takes two, and obviously there is dispute between us, looking at the history.Ultramarine 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing you, I'm just working with consensus. You are the one doing all the disputing. - Francis Tyers · 14:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You are reverting my edits and we are having an intense discussion. Obviously there is a dispute.Ultramarine 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. PS. I'm glad you think its intense! - Francis Tyers · 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What you gives you the right to decide when there is a dispute, which statements should 1 source and which should have 3, and which sources are good or not? Ultramarine 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, a personal question. Why do you equate myself and Zleity with being "pro-Castro", I'm a Libertarian, and member of the Free State Project! About as far from "pro-Castro" as you can get! - Francis Tyers · 14:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Left or right? Ultramarine 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither. I fetishise neither public ownership nor private ownership. Both have their place. There are horrible examples of public ownership and horrible examples of private ownership. Any reasonable system will have instances of both. - Francis Tyers · 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, you are insisting on keeping pro-Castro statements and are deleting the opposing views, violating NPOV.Ultramarine 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, you mischaracterise my views.
Did you even try searching for further sources yet? I found this gem:
From Arthur G. Nikelly (1987) "Prevention in Sweden and Cuba: Implications for policy" in The Journal of Primary Prevention pp. 117-131
"One reason alcoholism is not. prevalent is because the price of alcohol in Cuba makes its abuse economically impossible for most Cubans."
- Francis Tyers · 15:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That is not interesting without a year and authors. You still not given a good explanation for deleting the disputed templates when there obviously is a dispute with numerous reverts.Ultramarine 15:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Perdix, J. et al. (1999) "Patterns of Alcohol Consumption in the Seychelles Islands (Indian Ocean)" in Alcohol & Alcoholism Vol. 34, No. 5. pp. 773-785.

"Using the same 25-64-year age group and similar methods, self-reported annual alcohol consumption was 20.4 litres per man and 1.3 litres per woman in the Seychelles compared to 9.4 litres per man and 3.3 litres per woman in Switzerland (Schmid and Gmel, 1996). Given that reported data underestimate sales data, possibly by a half, the reported annual consumption per capita extrapolated to the entire population (7.9 litres) seems high in the Seychelles, compared to sales per capita in other countries, e.g. 11.4 litres in France, 9.7 litres in Switzerland, 7.5 litres in the United Kingdom, 3.8 litres in Cuba, or 1.6 litres in Singapore (World Drink Trends, 1995)."

(Emphasis in bold mine) - Francis Tyers · 15:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you may find some interesting stuff in:

Gustavo C. Roman (1995) "On Politics and Health: An Epidemic of Neurologic Disease in Cuba" in Annals of Internal Medicine. [39]

- Francis Tyers · 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So two different views. We should report both. You still not given a good explanation for deleting the disputed templates when there obviously is a dispute with numerous reverts. Nor has anyone given an explanation for, among other things, the deletion of the high abortion rate.Ultramarine 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that Cuba hosted the 16th World Congress of Sexology? - Francis Tyers · 15:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. You still not given a good explanation for deleting the disputed templates when there obviously is a dispute with numerous reverts. Nor has anyone given an explanation for, among other things, the deletion of the high abortion rate.Ultramarine 15:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
How it is irrelevant, doesn't sexology have to do with sexual health? - Francis Tyers · 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Why are negative statics like the abortion rate deleted while pro-Castro statistics remain? Ultramarine 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So you want to present the two views. How do we do that? Want to try coming up with a formulation and posting it here for discussion? - Francis Tyers · 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And more and more and more. [40] Pan American Journal of Public Health 2005. "Alcohol consumption and burden of disease in the Americas: implications for alcohol policy" - Francis Tyers · 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Some highlights:

"Region A, which includes Cuba, the United States and Canada, had the highest overall volume of consumption, the lowest percentage of unrecorded consumption, and the average drinking pattern with potentially the least detrimental impact on public health."

~

Cuba should be compared to the Caribbean nations, as in my source.Ultramarine 15:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you write a strongly worded letter to the Pan American Journal of Public Health. - Francis Tyers · 15:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out this rockin' table. http://journal.paho.org/uploads/1137104701.gif - Francis Tyers · 15:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The figures are repeated in "Alcohol in Developing Societies: A Public Health Approach" (from the WHO) [41] - Francis Tyers · 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. We can exclude alcohol. Still does not explain other deltions, see below.Ultramarine 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted critical material

I have looked over the article and the talk page and can find no excuse for deleting this. The only explanation seems to be that some soruces, like the US state department, should be automatically excluded which of course violates NPOV (and they cite UN statistcs).. I would like detailed explanations for all deletions.

  • Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., describes the exportation of Cuban doctors to Third World countries as a "propaganda" exercise, stating that "it is easy because Cuba has an overabundance of physicians and professionals of all types, a perpetual oversight of the communist central planners".[42].
Crap source. Propaganda piece. We don't include stuff from "Socialist Victory" (or other fringe organisations), we don't need to include stuff from "Daily Reaction" (or whatever the guy writes for. Beware sources with an axe to grind! We don't need them, reliable sources are abound! - Francis Tyers ·
Actually, the doctor is quoting his published book, so I do not see what is the problem.Ultramarine 16:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Get the book, get the quote. - Francis Tyers · 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The exact title is mentioned in the article.Ultramarine 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
See above. - Francis Tyers · 12:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Why can we include leftists like Richard Gott but not those critical? Ultramarine 16:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The US State Department, citing many independent sources, states that Cuba's infant mortality rate in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades. Cuba’s comparative world ranking has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its very high abortion rate, which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied. In terms of physicians and dentists per capita, Cuba in 1957 ranked third in Latin America, behind only Uruguay and Argentina -- both of which were more advanced than the United States in this measure. Cuba's physicians and dentists in 1957 was the same as the Netherlands, and ahead of the United Kingdom and Finland. The report states "Unfortunately, the UN statistical yearbook no longer publishes these statistics, so more recent comparisons are not possible, but it is completely erroneous to characterize pre-Revolutionary Cuba as backward in terms of healthcare."[43] According to the same United States State department report, Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption but ranked last out of the 11 countries analyzed in terms of percent of increase since 1957. Overall, Cuban per capita food consumption from 1954-1997 has decreased by 11.47 percent. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels.[44]"
Is there any concrete argument against this, except that it is a US source which should be automatically be excluded? If this is the only arguments, then this violates NPOV.Ultramarine 17:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not all is free in the basic system. Patients must pay for drugs prescribed on an outpatient basis, hearing, dental, and orthopedic processes, wheelchairs, crutches, and similar devices, as well as eyeglasses.[45] In 1997 A group of 18 Cuban doctors exiled in the United States released a statement denouncing the Cuban Government and specifically Fidel Castro. They claimed that in Cuba -"the medicines and equipment, even the bedsheets and blankets, (are) reserved for regime elites or dollar-bearing foreigners, to the detriment of our people, who must bring their own bedsheets, to say nothing of the availability of medicines."[7]
We can look at the UTexas link, but the CANF link is as above, probably rabid propaganda. Find other reliable sources to back up the claim and it is welcome in. Francis Tyers ·
If we can quote Granma, then we can quote CANF, obviously mentioning the source.Ultramarine 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't be quoting Granma apart from for "According to the Cuban government" information [e.g. "official" government figures]. Stuff that is "According to the CANF" is not useful. - Francis Tyers · 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing more "rabid" about CANF than about official Cuban sources. Please, no double standard.Ultramarine 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
But they don't run a country. - Francis Tyers · 12:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Why should those that run a country be considered more trustworthy? Using this argument, we should automatically include the US views above that you have deleted.Ultramarine 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I wrote that piece "back in 1997 A group of 18 Cuban doctors..." and so on, I don't mind that staying in because it is an important point. Perhaps it could do with a better source. As a side note, the level of pressure on exiles to say these things is immense. Restrictions on freedom of speech and external pressures on Cuban exiles to say certain things to the Florida media, imposed by local leaders and politicians, has been investigated by human rights organisations. Cuba libre does not necessarily begin when people arrive in Miami, in some cases it gets worse, as Cuban Americans who have been beaten or had family members killed for not advocating the correct line will testify. 1997 was the high point of this pressure which has eased somewhat after the Elian Gonzales debacle.--Zleitzen 16:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind, go ahead. I've inserted the other part. - Francis Tyers · 10:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The average life expectancy in Cuba has increased less than the average increase in Latin America. Ín Cuba is has increased 14.9 years, in South America as whole it has increased 16.4 years, and in the Caribbean and Central America it has increased 18.1 years. In Latin America infant mortality per 1,000 live births decreased by 76 between 1960 and 2004. In Cuba, it only decreased by 33.[46][47]
Original research. Francis Tyers ·
No, it is not. There is no original conlusion, only reporting of what the statistcs state.Ultramarine 16:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The text seems to be deliberately misleading, stating "all U.S. subsidiary trade, including trade in food and medicines, being prohibited" and at the same time excluding and deleting Now up to thirty percent of the food Cuba imports comes from the United States.[8][9]"Ultramarine 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the 2000 World Health Organisation report, as for all nations largely based on official government figures [48],
We've been through this a million times. It is already covered in the WHO article. Francis Tyers ·
I have never recieved any good answer. Obiviously statistics can be easily manipulated in an authoritarian state. We should point out that WHO statistcs are not necessarily accurate.Ultramarine 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And like I said above, countless times, this is irrelevant for this article. Feel free to use the WHO article to discuss the reliability of WHO statistics. You could even mention something about statistics for authoritarian states in the article on the WHO! - Francis Tyers · 13:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You think that WHO statistics are not necessarily accurate. Take it up with the WHO (again, a strongly worded letter might be in order). It isn't relevant here. - Francis Tyers · 10:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, obiviously statistics can be easily manipulated in an authoritarian state. Do you admit that?Ultramarine 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The fourth leading cause of death in Cuba is "external causes." That is, homicide, suicide and violent events. Cuba has four times the average rate of suicides compared to other countries with similar cultural backgrounds in the Caribbean region.[49]Ultramarine 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Find more sources, like I did. It isn't hard. Francis Tyers ·
Again, there is no such requirement. Do you want me to demand that all the pro-Castro figures should have 3 sources? Ultramarine 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said above 2, feel free to add {{fact}} to any of the sourced material if you would like another reliable source backing it up. Hey wait, I said this before! - Francis Tyers · 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Why should you be allowed to delete material you do not like, but I must insert a tag? Again, a double standard. Please explain why I cannot simply delete like you do.Ultramarine 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Because I am acting in accordance with consensus. You aren't. You'll note that both myself and Zleity have added criticism to the article. You haven't added any non-criticism. A single-issue editor like yourself is always going to come accross resistance compared to more broad minded individuals. Again, I repeat, what do you dispute in the article, I will be happy to give more sources. - Francis Tyers · 12:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Spare me the incivility and discuss the issues. From now on I will demand numerous sources like you do.Ultramarine 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • An article in Canadian newspaper National post, based interviews of Cubans, finds that in reality even the most common pharmaceutical items, such as Aspirin and antibiotics are conspicuously absent or only available on the black market. Surgeons lack basic supplies and must re-use latex gloves. Patients must buy their own sutures on the black market and provide bedsheets and food for extended hospital stays.[50]Ultramarine 16:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Castro himself admitted that while there was poverty, there was no economic crisis and no hunger in Cuba before the Revolution. [10]Ultramarine 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Country Page on Cuba World Health Organization
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22
  3. ^ http://www.idrewthis.org/2004/bothsides.html
  4. ^ Defecting Cuban doctors blame Castro for Cuban Health Crisis Cubanet statement received and translated by the Cuban American National Foundation
  5. ^ http://globalization.about.com/od/bigstories/a/cubaembargo.htm
  6. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/eveningnews/main2036729.shtml
  7. ^ Defecting Cuban doctors blame Castro for Cuban Health Crisis Cubanet statement received and translated by the Cuban American National Foundation
  8. ^ http://globalization.about.com/od/bigstories/a/cubaembargo.htm
  9. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/eveningnews/main2036729.shtml
  10. ^ (See Maurice Halperin: The Rise and Fall of Fidel Castro, University of California, 1972, pgs. 24, 25, 37)

More stuff that Ultramarine wants included

Not all is free in the basic system. Patients must pay for drugs prescribed on an outpatient basis, hearing, dental, and orthopedic processes, wheelchairs, crutches, and similar devices, as well as eyeglasses.[51]

Right. Lets see. This is based on a 1999 PAHO study, so should be fairly reputable. But is the guy giving the full picture?

Oral Health. In 1996 there were more than 17 million visits to the dentist in Cuba, which makes the rate 1.6 visits per person. Of these visits, more than 85% were for general dentistry services provided in the framework of primary health care. During the year, 3,361,122 persons were examined; 51.7% of them were under the age of 15 years. Of all those examined, 28.4% were found to have good oral health. Of those under 15 years of age, 31.8% had good oral health. The preventive program continues to be carried out at the national level, and during the year 24,103,414 fluoride rinse treatments were administered to children aged 5–14 years and 1,324,971 topical fluoride treatments were given to children under the age of 4 years. Oral cancer was detected in 1,922 of the patients examined. [52]

Nothing there contradicts the criticism.Ultramarine 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"To its credit, the Cuban state has maintained basic social services—free and available medical and dental care, free education up to and including university level, and food rations for the population at low and affordable prices, although not the quantity or variety that Cubans need and desire." — "Cubans' survival in the face of the U.S. attempt to destroy the revolution is a great achievement, as is its continuing to provide for the basic needs of its population. For example, every single person in Cuba has free dental and eye care; every person in Cuba with AIDS gets free, high-quality retroviral drugs. " [53]

Although not necessarily what I would call a reliable source. - Francis Tyers · 08:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine is right, here is a Reliable source: http://www.jphp.umb.edu/documents/204-020_Health_25_1_spiegel.pdf

"The state offers free preventive medical care and diagnostic tests, and medications for hospitalized patients are free, although in short supply. Patients pay for drugs, hearing, dental, and orthopedic prostheses, wheelchairs, crutches, and similar items but prices are low and subsidized by the state; and in the case of low-income patients, these items are offered free of charge."

I suggest something along the lines of:

"While preventative medical care, diagnostic tests and medication for hospitalised patients are free, some aspects of healthcare are paid for by the patient. Items which are paid by patients who can afford it are: drugs prescribed on an outpatient basis, hearing, dental, and orthopedic processes, wheelchairs and crutches. Prices are low, and subsidised by the state. For patients on a low-income, these items are free of charge."

JERRY M. SPIEGEL and ANNALEE YASSI "Lessons from the margins of globalization: appreciating the Cuban health paradox" in Journal of Public Health Policy, Volume 25, Number 1, 2004, pp. 85-110(26) - Francis Tyers · 09:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above going in the "present" section of the article. --Zleitzen 09:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. - Francis Tyers · 10:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to add that I'm unawre of any healthcare system in the world where everything is provided free of charge, charges are levied off patients for prescriptions etc in the UK NHS and other state run healthcare systems.Felix-felix 13:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This is true. Except for under-25s in Wales maybe :) - Francis Tyers · 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The above source gives no supporting sources for this claim. Using you own standard, I require at least 2 or 3 sources for this claim.Ultramarine 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Medical Journal info

The Medical Journal was part of the introduction, which has already been hacked to bits by Ultramarine to half it's size. Where should it go?--Zleitzen 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest addition

The problems with this latest edition should be self evident...

An article in National post reports that in reality even the most common pharmaceutical items, such as Aspirin and antibiotics are conspicuously absent or only available on the black market. Surgeons lack basic supplies and must re-use latex gloves. Patients must buy their own sutures on the black market and provide bedsheets and food for extended hospital stays.[54]

  1. What is the "National Post"?
  2. Where is this report in the source?
  3. Where does this "in reality" expression come into play?
  4. Why is Ultramarine still using a different referencing format than the one on the page?

--Zleitzen 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, he really is going to have to make more of an effort to find reliable sources. - Francis Tyers · 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a newspaper in Canada. Please explain why Granma, Cuban official government statisitcs, http://www.cubasolidarity.net/, Che Guevara, and Richard Gott are considered reliable sources and not the National Post? Here is another link: [55] Ultramarine 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider them to be reliable sources with the exception of Granma, which is a reliable primary source for the beliefs and opinions and claims of the cuban government. - Francis Tyers · 07:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Granma should be used on this page. Richard Gott is a historian and among about 4 or 5 key texts for students Cuban history in the English language, see here, and here. Cuba solidarity is not used as a source here, nor is Che Guevara - there seems to be some confusion. Guevara is quoted, that'll have something to do with the fact he was a doctor and apparently quite an important figure in Cuba after the revolution, so it's rather like writing a piece about the American war of independence and quoting George Washington.
In Ultramarine's edits, much of the information is actually quite uncontroversial and contains elements of universal truth such as the US state deparment report. However, since he/she merely copies and pastes them unfettered and unscreened directly onto pages, using the direct language of these largely non-neutral and non-peer reviewed sources at length, it results in a horrific obviously unencyclopedic contortion.
So rather than reading "Jack fell down and broke his crown" we read "Jack foolishly fell down, and broke his crown due to his inherent failings". Notice the weasel words and propaganda techniques. Evident in this line : "In reality even the most common pharmaceutical items, such as Aspirin and antibiotics are conspicuously absent". An encyclopedia would write, "the most common pharmaceutical items, such as Aspirin and antibiotics are absent". A sentence verifiable by all sources and already inferred in the article via the "lack of material resources". --Zleitzen 09:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, this a view by an independent newspaper. Exactly what policy are quoting as an excuse for violating NPOV?Ultramarine 15:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
cubaverdad.net is not reliable. - Francis Tyers · 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It is citing a Canadian a newspaper. I will now start removing all dubious information, using the same arguments that you do.Ultramarine 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I am from this point demanding at least two or three supporting sources for all the pro-Castro statements, like you do for those critical.Ultramarine 16:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

All new readers should be aware of the massive deletion of critical statements and double standard regarding inclusion of pro-Castro statements, see the section Deleted critical material above.Ultramarine 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think any new readers should and will be aware that the above statement is a gross distortion. And that Ultramarine is assuming that information gleaned from multiple neutral international bodies, international medical journals, professional Health writers and leading historians on the subject are "pro-Castro" statements, that must be countered by overt misleading POV material poorly presented. A quick glance at his declared POV may give a clue why this bizarre shift in preception is occurring. I would urge any new readers to dismiss these calls as disruptive. Considering I wrote the most critical items on the page, one can presume that the charges are devised solely from a staw man misrepresentation. --Zleitzen 17:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a double standard to include the views of Granma, Cuban official government statisitcs, http://www.cubasolidarity.net/, Che Guevara, and pro-Castro and Chavez historians like Richard Gott while excluding the views of an US state department report based on UN statistics, independent newspaper like the Canadian National Post that has interviewed Cubans, the Finlay Medical Society, and the views of Cuban dissidents like former Cuban doctors.Ultramarine 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Even Castro himself is deleted when he is stating something not appropriate, like when he admitted that there were no hunger or economic crises before the revolution.Ultramarine 18:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Your line of argument is extraordinary, Ultramarine. We can continue in circles for as long as you want, I'm not going anywhere and will be working on this article for the foreseeable future. Please remove the views from Granma. References to Che Guevara are of course relevant as the section of the page is apparently dealing with Cuban history, and Richard Gott isn't a "pro-Castro" historian by any sense of the expression. The only person who is talking about Fidel Castro is yourself. Besides, which "pro-Castro" statement on the page attributed is Richard Gott, he is referenced (accompanied by two other references) in a section covering pre-revolution history? Also, I added the critical views of former Cuban doctors in the first place. This being a subject I know a fair deal about. For the 5th time, you are welcome to pursue the dispute processes if you disagree with any of the above. --Zleitzen 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the article about Richard Gott. Is that what you consider a reliable source will denying the sources I listed above? He used a reference for claims about inequality before Castro, so a pro-Castro view. Regarding critical Cuban doctors, there are several sourced views in the section Deleted critical material. No, that you once added one of these views is not an excuse for delelting these views. Ultramarine
I see the Richard Gott article, it is very bad by the way. It mentions nothing about being him being "pro Castro". Anyone who knows anything about Richard Gott's work would tell you that in a second. His book is clearly a reliable source and is used as a key text of any Latin American studies course. It is absurd to even suggest otherwise. Besides, his work is substantiated by numerous sources including Cuba oracle Hugh Thomas so you are wasting your time there. Do you really believe that discussing discrepancies in rural service in Cuba during the 1950s is a "pro-Castro" view?--Zleitzen 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It is absurd to state that person resigning due to KGB contacts is a reliable source and at the same time claiming that independent newspaper and UN statistics are not reliable sources.Ultramarine 00:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
KGB contacts! Deary deary me. Well you'll just have to take this non-issue up with the universities and institutions that utilise Gott as a key text in Cuban history! I gather Arthur Schlesinger Jr had contacts with CIA members. Perhaps we should purge him from the record as well. Remember that it is Gott that we are using as the source for high indices pre-revolution. Surely such a prominent Fidelista would keep that quiet? But as it happens the characterisation is false, the KGB rumours on the Gott page are a proven smear as revealed, and Gott is simply a highly respected historian, takes the subject seriously, doesn't exert a strong POV in his work, and a perfectly acceptable NPOV source for the material at hand. --Zleitzen 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Lots of unsourced claims. Again, the double standard is here for all to see.Ultramarine 01:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm, this is the talk page. Do I really need to source a personal comment on the talk page? I shouldn't need to. But if you insist, check Gott's credentials here. --Zleitzen 05:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
A google search page is not evidence for anything while the Richard Gott page has many specific citations.Ultramarine 10:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The new addition "According to Fidel Castro there was no hunger before the revolution". That is quite simply ridiculous, when are talking about 1898, 1926, the famines of the 1930s? There is no context nor support for this statement. --Zleitzen 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Castro is talking about the time immediately before the revolution in 1959, not a the situation 20-30 years before. Ultramarine 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Healthcare_in_Cuba/Archive_1&oldid=1153991170"