Talk:Special Period

This page is so biased. "The period radically transformed the Cuban society and economy, as it necessitated the successful introduction of sustainable agriculture, decreased use of automobiles, and overhauls of industry, health, and diet countrywide." Are you serious? this makes it sounds like if it was a good thing. you decrease the use of automobiles, overhaul food and other living items because you want to, not because the government that sworn to provide cant...

Dear Racerboy,

You also decrease the use of automobiles etc because you can't afford them.

Graeme Cook (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does appear that voluntary decrease of automobiles, etc. doesn't seem to work. Why's it so bad that a country had to adapt to an incredibly difficult situation and came out as an example to the rest of the world? -Lalabox --210.56.73.15 (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Change the photo caption, that street in Trinidad looks prosperous, not decrepit.

Merger

I agree. This page should be merged into the article on the Special Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomwarrior (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So far there's one vote for merging these two articles. I'll count me as a second vote. I'll give it a little longer to see if there's any opposition, and then start the merger. NJGW (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"We have not yet come out of the Special Period": Raul Castro, July 26 2007

Economy_of_cuba#Special_Period says "Raul Castro reminded Cubans, in his July 26 speech in 2007, that the Special Period is not yet over," citing "The Revolution’s most important weapon: the people" - Granma International English Edition (Digital Granma Internacional), edition of July 27, 2007, on a speech by Raul Castro on July 26: http://www.granma.cu/INGLES/2007/julio/vier27/raul26.html

"In this forging of effort and sacrifice, the morale and conscience of this people has reached new heights.... And so it has been during the more than 16 years of the Special Period, of sustained effort by the entire country to overcome the difficulties and press onwards –and so it must still be, since we have not yet come out of the Special Period."

-- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just restored some sections that were hidden by a missing forward-slash (/), and one of them is "After the special Period." It looks like the documentary most of this article comes from claims Fidel Castro declared the Special Period over in order to embolden the people of Cuba, and that Raul made his statement for other political reasons. This article says the worst of it was the late 80's-early 90's, and that Cuba never fully recovered. Maybe that could be made more explicit, but empircally there's not much more you can say about it. NJGW (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Voluntary population control?

I've heard it said that Castro asked women to stop having babies during at least some part of this period, and that they largely complied. But I saw no reference to that in this article. It seems an incredible thing -- can you imagine the uproar if the head of a G8 country asked this of its women?

Is that something worth researching and adding?

Bytesmiths (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bytesmiths, I am Cuban and I lived in Cuba until 2006. I do not recall Fidel Castro asking to stop having babies, but the economical situation of the 90s was so critical (no food, no money, no transportation, let alone clothes, shoes and baby articles) that people just stopped having babies, or only had one. Having a baby in those conditions was almost heroic.--Lcwikip (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bytesmiths,

Yes, if you can find a reliable source.

Graeme Cook (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

sloppy writing

This is a great article but uses blatant objective comments. one that stuck out to me was "Convenience for the individual is secondary to efficient use of energy." listed under the "transportation" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdx.bishop (talk • contribs) 06:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Decimated ???

"The collapse of the Soviet Union decimated the Cuban economy. The country lost approximately 80% of its imports, 80% of its exports and its Gross Domestic Product dropped by 34 percent."

If the cuban economy were 'decimated', it would have merely have been reduced by 10% of it's GDP, as "decimate" means to reduce by ten percent.

Perhaps the original author meant that the cuban economy had been DEVASTATED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

two sections

I am the one who originally created this article, and it's been great to see how much it has expanded and enriched itself since the early days. For a long, long, long time, I didn't keep track of it, and when I did poke my head in to check every now and again, it wasn't really to read the thing in detail but to have a look at its 'general structure' so to speak.

But I've got to raise issue with the current sections on "Famine" and the "1994 uprising" (the latter of which links to a 'full' article of about two lines, not even enough for a stub, much less an article, and presents a one-sided view of 'human rights marchers' being clubbed by a repressive state apparatus). Both sections are vastly, vastly POV. Also, its allegations that animals from zoos and cattle in people's own fields were slaughtered for meat scream POV and seem to offer only articles from The Economist (itself a decidedly right-wing publication) to "substantiate" those claims. If these claims are going to be made, why don't you find a left-wing or at least left-leaning source that says the same thing, so that it can't be accused of being ideologically driven?

Some people, even now, fifty years after the Revolution, still insist on bashing Cuba for its 'repressive' nature. Enough. What's done is done. Batista is not coming back. Cry about it all you want. And yes, that's POV, but I'm not putting it in the article like you put your views in. ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You should add this source to the section [1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm editing out of order... I know .. sue me ... --- Anyway, it's not just the zoo animals that got eaten during el periodo especial lots of other animals that were randomly around got eaten too. If you look up an interview of a woman that had a very famous Cuban-govt approved cooking show in Cuba (cocina al minuto) you'll have her testimony on how these periodo especial times called for desperate measures for suggesting things to eat. Its rather depressing. Katanada (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz-so agreeing with what Human Rights Organizations around the world and many many refugees from Cuba have said is "wanting the Batista to come back"? Wow. The current regime in Cuba IS repressive, just like the last one was-one dictatorship was replaced by another. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change the facts, and you don't seem to be in a position to accurately judge POV. You may not put your views in but I'm betting it's you who put the POV tags in b/c those sections didn't fit YOUR opinion-if it was really just about having better sources than tags asking for better sources would have been much better. I agree about finding more and better sources--which shouldn't be hard to do. You could even have found them yourself. I hope any editors that see will see that "not neutral tagging" is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.185.138 (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Though to be fair, the people putting the NPOV material in should really read the sources they use to check whether what they're putting in is complete gibberish, for instance from <a href="http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/cuba/2169.html">[6]</a>, which is used to support the claim that in cuba the punishment for illegally slaughtering a cow/eating illegal beef is greater than homicide is backed up by this wonderfully innumerate statement:

"Cattle are sacred in Cuba. A colorful etching spotted at an Old Havana crafts market underscored that point, depicting a cow saying, "I'm worth more than you."

That's because a person can get more jail time for killing a cow than killing a human, under Cuban law. Cow killers can get four to 10 years in prison under a toughened crime law adopted in January. Those who transport or sell the meat from an illegally slaughtered cow can get three to eight years. Providing beef at an unauthorized restaurant or workplace can fetch two to five years. And buying contraband beef is punishable by three months to one year in jail or a steep fine. Authorities also have the power to confiscate all or part of the property of anyone involved in black-market cattle dealings.

In contrast, the jail sentence for homicide is generally seven to 15 years, unless there are aggravating circumstances. Suspects involved in contract hits, kidnap-murders, sadistic or perverse killings, the murder of police officials and other acts can get from 15 years in jail to the death penalty. "

So "4 to 10 years in jail", "3 to 8 years in jail", "2 to 5 years in jail", "3 months to 1 year in jail" are all now greater punishments than 7 to 15 years in jail or the death penalty?

Smaller numbers represent smaller quantities than bigger numbers, 4 is less than 7, 10 is less than 15, a fine is less severe than the death penalty. And remember, when in doubt, if you can take what you think is a smaller number away from what you think is a larger number, and the result is a negative number, YOU HAVE GOTTEN IT THE WRONG WAY ROUND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.248.185 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

my latest edits on the Famine section.

The previously-inserted paragraphs in this section detailing zoo animals being eaten and Cuban administrative responses to illegal cow-eating come from a potentially ideologically-driven (right-wing) POV source; namely, an opinion article from The Economist titled "Cuba: Time For A Change". Pursuant to these POV allegations these paragraphs have been removed from the article until either a more balanced assessment, or more evidence of these same occurrences from a left-wing source, can be provided. Also, any attempt to reinstate them without either providing additional sources from both sides of the political divide, or a wide consensus on this Talk page by repeat editors of this article, will be reverted as an assumed POV action. Kikodawgzzz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

Biases

A lot of this page feels like it was writen in an opinionated manner. It feels like it needs a Wikifærie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.44.144 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)