Talk:Cuba

Updating the territorial organization

According to a recently approved law by the National Assembly (August 2010) the division in provinces has changed: The Havana (La Habana) Province has been divided in 2 new provinces: Artemisa and Mayabeque. Thus the number of Provinces is now 15 plus the special municipality (not entering in any province) of Isle of Youth (Juventud). Addiotnaly Havana city has recovered its original name: Havana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.142.140 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did you learn of this? Can you give us a few sources to aid in the editing? Thanks. -- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ. ℂℌAT ✐ 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are the sources: http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2010/07/23/nacional/artic02.html http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2010/06/08/nacional/artic04.html http://www.periodico26.cu/noticias_cuba/julio2010/artemisa_mayabeque300710.html

Related Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisa_Province http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayabeque_Province —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.114.138 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The map is updated, but the list of provinces is not. Note that the number 8 province is missing, that's why the error isn't so evident. Many provinces in the map are not tagged with their actual names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.184.43 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology - Cuba named by Columbus

Another claim states that the name Cuba was given by Columbus after the ancient town of Cuba in the district of Beja in Portugal.

Source: da Silva, Manuel L. and Silvia Jorge da Silva. (2008). Christopher Columbus was Portuguese, Express Printing, 396pp. ISBN 9781607028246.

Please explain here why you feel that this is a bad source or why this information should be removed. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As explained when I removed it, the source is a fringe theory, and per Wikipedia:Fringe theories (and Wikipedia: Reliable Sources for that matter) should be removed from this page. The claim that the name of the island of Cuba comes from the town of Cuba, Beja, Portugal, derives from José Mascarenhas Barreto and his book The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II. It is based on his theory that Columbus was born Salvador Fernandes Zarco in 1448 in Cuba, Portugal. All books that claim this, such as Da Silva's cited above and in this article, merely parrot this claim. As such, they are not WP: Reliable Sources for the Cuba article, and such sources only belong on the Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus#Portuguese_hypothesis page. Here is a sampling of scholarly opinion on the Barreto book:

• Henige, David. “Review: The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II.” The Hispanic American Historical Review 73, no. 3 (August 1993): 505-506.
  • "In all this, some issues have shown themselves to be timeless—and deathless. One is his nationality; well over a dozen places have been suggested over the years, including Denmark, England, and America. No amount of Columbus' own testimony, contemporary opinion, or documentary evidence has managed to bring closure to this issue."
  • "The Portuguese Columbus is a discursive and organizational disaster."
  • "Few readers will be persuaded by either the substance or form of Barreto's arguments."

• West, Delno C. “Review: The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II.” The American Historical Review 98, no. 5 (December 1993): 1590.
  • "Generally speaking, scholars agree that Columbus was born in the important and cosmopolitan Republic of Genoa to Christian parents.... Such scholarship fails to impress nationalistic advocates and Columbus hobbyists who want to claim him for Greece, France, Spain, Majorca, Catalonia, and elsewhere. In this massive book, Mascarenhas Barreto, journalist, broadcaster, and teacher of the sociology of art and the history of discoveries, tries to make the case that Columbus was Portuguese." (Emphasis added.)
  • "With pages of genealogical charts, Barreto proposes that Columbus was in reality Salvador Fernandes Zarco.... He was born, Barreto claims, in the Portuguese town of Cuba (thus the real reason for the name of the Caribbean island) near Vila Ruiva in 1448.... According to Barreto, Salvador Fernandes Zarco, who took the code name Christobal Colón, was a secret agent of King John II." (Emphasis added.)
  • "This book is filled with unconventional speculation and circumstantial evidence. The author has a vivid imagination. Reading this book is somewhat like reading an espionage novel: if you do not take it seriously, it makes the book fun to read."

I hope I don't have to add more such sources, but I can. To have in this article a fringe theory on par with a standard theory, gives undue credence to the fringe theory of Barreto and his ilk that Columbus was Portuguese. No standard biographies of Columbus states he was Portuguese, from Cuba, Beja, Portugal, or that Cuba is anything but a native word heard by Columbus. In fact, Columbus first heard the word as "Colba," and wrote it thus in his log-book of the first voyage (see Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (New York: MJF Books, 1997), 250.) Seems to me he would have written "Cuba" first off if that was his birthplace; that or we must agree with Barreto that all such Columbus documents are forgeries or cover-ups.

To conclude, this bit exists already where it belongs: Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus#Portuguese_hypothesis, it does not belong on the Cuba page because it is a fringe theory, based only on the fringe idea that Columbus was Portuguese.

TuckerResearch (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you are getting so bent out of shape about this. The info was cited and notably placed in the proper section. I saw no fringe theories being pushed at all. Edit warring is not the way to get things done. Its great that you came to the talk page, but that is only the first part of the WP:DR. You can't continue to edit war after the removal has been challenged. I am not taking sides, only observing what I see. Please continue the discussion, but as your removal has been challenged, its poor form to continue to remove. I will re-add the cited sentence until consensus says otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Who says I'm "bent out of shape"? Your tone and your pretentious lecture to me fails to assume good faith, doesn't it?

If you look at the edits, I first tried to add a phrase to the sentence in question to show that it is unsupported by the consensus and majority of scholars. A user deleted that bit as "weasel words." Fine, my attempt at compromise language dashed at the get go, I removed the said language, as it is from an unreliable source and connected to a fringe theory. The same editor added it back then demanded I explain myself on the talkpage, as if he owned the etymology section. I explained myself convincingly. Why don't you sternly lecture him for adding and supporting bunk instead of me for offering proper scholarly material. It doesn't matter that it is "cited," the citation itself is unreliable and fringe. Just because Immanuel Velikovsky says the planet Venus shot out of the planet Jupiter and I can cite Worlds in Collision doesn't mean I can change the Venus page accordingly, it belongs on the Velikovsky page. Put the matter to a vote or take it to the reliable sources notice board, but don't try to bully me with your pronouncements. And since you still claim to see no fringe theory in the deal, I'll state it again: only one scholar and his followers, who hold to the fringe conspiracy theory that Columbus was Portuguese and born in Cuba, Beja, Portugal, believe he named the island of Cuba after his birthplace. I can't make that more plain. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming the thought that Columbus might have named the island after the the ancient town of Cuba in the district of Beja in Portugal is inaccurate because you found book reviews that criticizes the book The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II?

Those book reviewers criticize the fact that Columbus was born in Portugal, not that Cuba might have been named after a town in Portugal.

Also, this might be a good moment to point out the source for the claim in the article did not come from The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II, rather it came from Christopher Columbus was Portuguese! So if you want to argue your stance, please find material related to the book Christopher Columbus was Portuguese! Here's the book in Amazon: Link to Amazon.

The rest of your argument continues on the fact of where Christopher was born while the fact you are removing has noting to do where Christopher was born. You are assuming because Christopher was born in Italy, or where ever you believe it to be, that he could not have named it after a town in Portugal. Are you also claiming that Christopher didn't spend time in Portugal?

Let me point out that the origins of the name of the island is not clear. That means there are multiple theories as to where this name came from. If it came from the Taino people or Columbus, we can't say for sure. The section shows two theories and presents both claims. The reader will see that there are multiple theories as to where the name came from so even if one, or both, theory are wrong, the reader was not misinformed.

I move on now to the reply you made on 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC) in reply to Jojhutton.

You did add a phrase to the setence to show it is "unsupported by the consensus and majority of scholars", as you say, but you failed to show the consensus of majority of scholars. Since you failed at supporting your claim, I naturally removed it as being unverifiable.

When you saw your addition was retracted for being weasel words, you took it upon your self to remove the whole passage that you disagree with from Wikipedia with a simple explanation that it is a fringe theory in the edit summary without considering the 600+ editors that watch the article. [1]

You then go on to say, "[Joel] demanded I explain myself on the talkpage, as if he owned the etymology section." I did not demand that you do anything. I just placed a talk back to your talk page so we can discuss the issue instead engaging in an edit war. The exact phrasing was, "Let's discuss the problem you have with the etymology section of Cuba." User_talk:Tuckerresearch#Talkback I fail to see how I acted in anyway as to show I, "owned the etymology section."

You then go on to say that you, "explained [yourself] convincingly," but your claims are unverifiable and then you go on to cite the wrong book in your claim against the passage. I am not supporting bunk, I am supporting information that is verifiable and allowing the reader to make up their mind about the passage. The reader has the right to know that there are more than one theory. You don't only cite the wrong book, your scholarly material for supporting your point are book reviews.

Who is bulling you, Mr. TuckerResearch? You have offended me by making unfounded claims about my person and my intentions. Why did you attack me with claims that I, "demanded," anything from you and acted as if I owned the section? Why don't you focus your energy on defending the reason you feel so strongly about instead of devoting time to defacing my person?

Thank you. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, the book currently cited, Christopher Columbus was Portuguese!, merely follows Barreto, he was the first to use the Zarco and Cuba, Beja, Portugal, claim. I can't find book scholarly book reviews for Christopher Columbus was Portuguese! or articles about it because (1) it is not written by a reputable scholar, (2) and it is not published by a reputable outfit (in fact, it is printed by a on-demand publisher, very reputable). Also, take a look at Da Silva's website http://www.dightonrock.com/: it is dedicated to the proposition that the Portuguese discovered America and Columbus was Portuguese. These are fringe theories. You might believe them, I admit that the Portuguese may have reached America before Columbus, but we have no proof of this.

Yes, Columbus spent time in Portugal, but Columbus was not Salvador Fernandes Zarco, nor was he born in Cuba, Beja, Portugal. The claim that he named the Caribbean island for for his birthplace stems from this fringe conspiracy theory and this fringe conspiracy theory only. Only Barreto and Da Silva and "Columbus was Portuguese" authors make this claim. Nobody else does. No other Columbus biographers ever state that he named Cuba for the town in Portugal. Find me a source that does not buy the "Columbus was Portuguese" theory that states Columbus named Cuba for the Beja town. YOU CAN'T. I first figured that "weasel words" would do the trick, I figured proving that the "Zarco=Columbus=Cuba=Cuba, Portugal" theory was fringe and unreliable should have been enough. I guess I was wrong.

Let's look at Columbus's own journal (which the "Columbus was Portuguese" conspiracy theorists insist, like all good conspiracy theorists, was doctored) - from Robert H. Fuson, ed. and trans., The Log of Christopher Columbus (Camden, ME: International Marine Publishing, 1987):

• p. 90: October 21, 1492: "Then I shall sail for another great island which I strongly believe should be Japan, according to the signs made by the San Salvador Indians with me. They call that island Colba..." (Emphasis added.)
• p. 91: October 23, 1492: "I want to leave today for the island of Cuba, which I believe to be Japan..." The translator notes in a footnote: "This is the first correct spelling of the Indian name. It is one of the few native place-names that has survived." (Emphasis added.)

Where is the entry: "I named the island for my hometown in Portugal" or "I named it for that town Cuba in Portugal." IT IS NOWHERE. Columbus and later Spanish authors all stated that Cuba was an Indian name. No contemporary Portuguese authors say: "Hey, it's named for that Cuba town in the Beja District."

Here, I will note actual Columbus scholars:

• Fernández-Armesto, Felipe. Columbus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
  • p. viii: "For instance, the rationally unchallengeable evidence of Columbus's Genoese provenance has not prevented mystifyers from concocting a Portuguese, Castilian, Catalan, Majorcan, Galicia, or Ibizian Columbus...."
  • p. 85: Columbus arrives in Cuba. No mention on the Portuguese town.
  • Index: there is no mention of the Portuguese town of Cuba.
• Morison, Samuel Eliot. Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus. New York: MJF Books, 1997. (It won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography.)
  • p. 7: "There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus. He was born in the ancient city of Genoa...."
  • p. 250: "Now the Indians decided to take their inexplicable captors to 'Colba' (Cuba) by the regular canoe route...."
  • Index: there is no mention of the Portuguese town of Cuba.
• Thomas, Hugh. Rivers of Gold: The Rise of the Spanish Empire. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003.
  • p. 43: "Columbus was a citizen of Genoa...."
  • p. 85: "On 24 October Columbus left for what he thought would turn out to be Cipangu, Japan, or part of it: 'another very large island... they call it Colba....' 'Colba' turned out to be Cuba."
  • Index: there is no mention of the Portuguese town of Cuba.

Only unreliable sources that focus on fringe conspiracy theories concerning the supposed conspiratorial Portuguese nationality of Columbus claim that he was born in Cuba, Beja, Portugal, and named the Caribbean island for it. It is a primary piece of their supposed evidence! To present it in the Cuba article as a possible derivation on par with the Amerindian theory is misleading, and lends a conspiracy theory undue weight. To say that the island of Cuba was named for the Portuguese Cuba does a disservice to the original Indian inhabitants of the island and is only used to support the "Columbus was Portuguese" conspiracy theory.

I suggest adding a bit to the beginning of the sentence in question noting where the theory comes from, since you are so opposed to removing it. Might I suggest:

“ Scholars who believe that Christopher Columbus was Portuguese state that Cuba was named by Columbus for the ancient town of Cuba in the district of Beja in Portugal. ”

I think that this is an acceptable compromise.

CV - TuckerResearch (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. I do not believe that Columbus was born in Portugal and I do not subscribe to the idea that Columbus named Cuba after a town in Portugal.

I am all for removing the claim if it does not belong.

What I do not agree with were the actions you took by introducing loaded phrases into the article without citation OR discussing it with us. Then you removed the whole thing without stating anything more than "this is a fringe theory" in the edit comment line. That is in very poor taste and should not be done. I reverted your deletion, not because I agree with the statement or because I want to bully you, but due to:

1. The statement that you removed were cited.
2. The edits you made were not cited and/or discussed.

I am not a historian nor do I pretend to be; but all editors, regardless of their education or background, should document the reason behind major edits especially those that changes cited claims.

When I make edits that remove facts that are "cited" or not cited, I document it in the article's talk page. That's how it's supposed to be done. Here is one such discussion | here are more such edits I make the edits and then discussed it on the talk page. Everyone who comes across my edits know why the edits were done and have a chance to voice their opinion. No problems at all and everyone is happy.

If you would have just told us, "hey, I'm going to remove this because this guy is basing his argument on a far fetched fringe theory and isn't credible. Here's why it's a fringe theory: Fact A, Fact B, Fact C," we could have avoided this whole issue.

And stop taking this issue personal. No one is attacking you or what you are trying to do. You just made a decision on something and didn't tell anyone about it. Take a step back for a second and try to view it as someone else. There are over 600 people watching this page, you think you are the only one interested in making Cuba as accurate as possible? If we all work together, we can make the Cuba article a shining model of what an article could be, but we need good communication.

-- OK, enough of that. --

Yes, you have made your point with your above comment. The claim does seem to be a far fetched theory and my own personal research has turned up nothing to support the claim. Also, yes the book is published on demand which does not add to the creditability of the work.

I think now the question is:

• Should the reader know about this theory?
• What will the reader gain from knowing this theory is out there?

I lean towards the theory staying. My reasoning is:

• This is a theory that is out there, even if it's not popular
  • Showing the reader that a great number of scholars disagree with this theory and why will help the reader to be better informed and be better armed to discuss the topic.

That said, the edits you made to the statement seems well suited for the time being.

“ Scholars who believe that Christopher Columbus was Portuguese state that Cuba was named by Columbus for the ancient town of Cuba in the district of Beja in Portugal. ”

I think the quote above should be used in replacement of what is already there until we decide to keep or delete the theory. If we do keep the theory, then I think it should be rewritten to alert the reader that the theory is not popular or credible by citing sources that support that position. Both sides need to be cited of course, representation for each camp.

All the same, I do understand why someone would want to remove the statement completely from the article. I do not object to it being removed. I just want to talk about it to see if it can be made to stay for the reasons I mentioned above.

So, shall we give this issue a week before setting anything into stone? -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 05:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I'm an inclusionist, and I am all for keeping the bit as long as it is made apparent that this is not the generally accepted theory, I am against its inclusion if it is treated as equal in validity to the accepted derivations. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If we do keep it, how do you propose the section should be rewritten? -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine as it currently stands. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it has been more than one week and no one else entered the conversation. I suppose this discussion is now closed. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Scholars this, scholars that. Cuba was what the indigenous people of the land called it. Columbus during his second voyage to the new world actually named it Juana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.170.90 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction please

Just a minor correction but the hovertext on the main map says Cuba is highlighted in green where actually it is highlighted in RED.

I was unable to make this change myself

WhiskyGolf (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Date of Columbus landing

BIG ERROR: Columbus landed on October 28, 1492 in Bariay, Holguin province, Cuba. It was not on October 12, 1492 in Baracoa.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.74.36 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the article attempting to clarify this and citing supporting sources, but there is some disagreement between sources whether the landing date in Cuba was 27 or 28 October. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

ERROR: " an island than called Guanahani ". It is correct: an island called by natives Guanahani, which he named San Salvador, located in the Bahamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.74.36 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

100% Literacy Rate? Really?

"Cuba has a 100% literacy rate..."

Although I find most of these facts to be... questionable, this is beyond far fetched. You are telling me that, if I asked every single last person on the island, they could ALL read and write. Be serious, please. --24.29.50.195 (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the United Nations reports the literacy rate. Got any reliable evidence otherwise? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's customary to round literacy rates (and statistics generally) to the nearest integer, not truncate them; furthermore, literacy rates don't apply to people under 15. So a 100% literacy rate doesn't imply "every single last person on the island" is literate; it implies only that no less than 99.5% of those over age 15 are. Your failure to understand this basic statistic, and how a country with compulsory and egalitarian education could achieve it, makes your finding the facts on this or any other page questionable utterly irrelevant. Tomblikebomb (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Re the 100% figure, I've clarified that in the article using info taken from the alt data available by hovering the cursor over the "Country data" link in the cited source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I originally added that 100% literacy statement as it was also in the education in Cuba page. Anyways, for your complaint here is a link to the CIA saying that Cuba has a 99.8% literacy rate, and we all know the CIA has no pro-Cuba bias. (CIA)Like Tomblikebomb said the usual is to round to the closest whole percent, so 100%. Also here is a link to the same site as the first source was which has cuba at 100% in orange colour, and that no countries ever got a blue colour. (UNstats) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passionless (talk • contribs) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the CIA link... Passionless (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Human Development Index data is out of date

The link to the HDI page shows no data for Cuba since 2007. The sentence should to changed to past tense.

Cuba was the only nation in the world which met the WWF's definition of sustainable development in 2006; having a ecological footprint of less than 1.8 hectares per capita and a Human Development Index over 0.8.[16]

Kladon (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well for HDI apparently they decided not to rank Cuba in 2010 for some reason, but the [(2009 data) is 0.863 (Table H - page 171) , and these (projections) show Cuba to be increasing in HDI, so the chance of them being under 8 anytime soon is low. Ah crap, I just found that Cuba's ecological footprint is 1.85...0.05 too high...(pg 74)...I made the changePassionless (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

cuba is soo pretty there is a priness that lives ther and she rules the country and its all about live love rock and roll —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesse100 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's news to me. Last I checked, Fidel and Raul were both male. And I know next to nothing about their tastes in music. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am very dubious about that. There is definitely not a princess because it is not an official monarchy. --70.62.142.66 (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dictatorship still?

I was taught that Cuba is an absolute dictatorship. Is this true? People from Cuba try to escape to the United States because of the harsh conditions and use Florida as the gateway. Most of the Cubans either don't make it or get sent back. I just want to know if that is credible information or not. —Posted from a computer that is not mine 21:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

yea, it is. its been passed for fidel castro to his brother but not much changed really. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cuba/US comparisons

I think that the Cuba / US comparisons (I noticed it particularly in the sections pertaining to public health -- life expectancy, birth rates, etc. -- it is likely to be found elsewhere in the article, due to encyclopedic consistency and human "error") give a sense that the two countries are somehow "linked", "entangled", or "dueling". If you want to talk about how that notion comes into play geopolitically, go for it. But the constant parenthetical reminders that "Hey! These countries are competing!" serve little purpose. The United States being a particularly powerful nation at this juncture in history does not make it the "benchmark" nation. It seems like it would be more appropriate to compare it to the countries who are ranked highest in such health categories, you know, since we don't fill the US article with comparisons to Cuba. Maybe Wikipedia has some allegiance to western nations because they are the only cultures sedentary enough to produce a generation of fact-checking chimps building a Babel out of information. 98.247.228.141 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should have looked through the rest of the article and you would have found not a single other comparison to the US than the one that you found. I think the competition is in your head. Passionless (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Afro-Cuban Sahrawis

The source cited for the claim that Afro-Cubans are descended from Sahrawi refugees is misrepresented in the article. It does not claim that the Afro-Cuban population is partially comprised of Sahrawis, or that a significant number of Sahrawis immigrated to Cuba. Indeed, the article never even mentions the term "Afro-Cuban". Rather, it details someone's (dubious) claims about Sahrawi children from the Tindouf Camps being abducted to la Isla de Juventud for military training. Assuming that this is not all in his head, this explicitly means they are not Afro-Cuban according to that article; it states that Afro-Cubans are from sub-Saharan Africa. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor Spelling / Grammar Update

I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this. This is my first attempt to effect any changes to an article.

Under the "Spanish colonization" heading:

After first landing on an island than called Guanahani on October 12, 1492,[22] Christopher Columbus landed on Cuba's northeastern coast near what is now Baracoa on October 27[22] or 28.[23][24]

Should be "then," not "than."

Edict7 (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)