Talk:Cuba/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Desperately misreading "opposing views"

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

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

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

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

Sentence on exile reaction

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

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

LotLE×talk 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

It is my understanding that it was disappointment to many inside Cuba too. El Jigue 5-14-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC).

Though how many of those in Cuba wanted the same sort of change as those in Florida is questionable. -- Beardo 06:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves me right, shortly before the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev informed Fidel Castro ("Fidel" from now on) that it would no longer purchase Cuban sugar at above world market prices. This was, in effect, a subsidy to the Fidelista govenment. Now, the Cuban economy began to fail, creating many hardships for the people. Some in Cuba (and in the United States) were hoping that the downward spiraling economy would precipitate Fidel's departure at the head of the government. A guy by the name of Oppenheimer wrote a book or, maybe, an article rearding this very same subject. I don't recall. In any case, the alternative to Fidel was his brother, Raul; and the people fear him. Meanwhile, Fidel changed the emphasis of the Cuban economy from agricultural to that of tourism, where it stands today. Thus, he has been able to remain in power to the disappointment of the exiles and the disidents. Robert Melbo 05/27/06

Apparently Seguridad del Estado had nothing to do with that Eh! what? El Jigue 5-27-06

Effect of US on Cuban culture and customs

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

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

Protestantism for starters (see religion section).--Zleitzen 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Baseball Myciconia 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Automobiles.--Zleitzen 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
(But are American cars listed as cultural influences on, say, Germany? I don't think so. --User:samwilson 2006-05-21)
Erm...see this [1] and does Germany look like this? [2] - or this?[3]--Zleitzen 13:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Certain architectural styles[4]--Zleitzen 02:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Cigars Myciconia 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Cuban literature and painting seem to have some notable influence from US movements. LotLE×talk 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
None of these seem central to the culture, on the same level as the Spanish or African influence. Drogo Underburrow 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that the Spanish and African cultural influences are greater, but it's hard to really quantify "amount of influence". The USA seems at least notable as an influence, even if not primary. LotLE×talk 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article puts the Spanish, African, and U.S. influences on the same level. So, its misleading. Drogo Underburrow 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder how much of a Spanish influence there is, too, apart from the language. Baseball is fundamental to Cuba. The US mother's day is kept, not the Spanish. Eldest sons are often called "junior" (or "yunior"). One of the most popular TV programmes is CSI. One of the most played songs on the radio is "Hotel California". -- Beardo 06:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Basketball also big in Cuba, Beardo? And is there any British influence, perhaps from the Caribbean that you know of, out of interest as I've never travelled there myself?--Zleitzen 06:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

None of these are fundamental to culture. Culture is much deeper. The Spanish and African heritage is fundamental to Cuba. The fact that Cubans like a sport invented in the U.S. is not an indication that U.S. culture is a part of Cuba. Neither is Cuban radio playing an American song, nor the celebration of Mother's Day. That Cubans watch CSI means that they are exposed to U.S. culture, and that may in the long run change their culture; but one should point to studies then, not make bald assertions. Drogo Underburrow 06:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


this line of ciritism needs to be addressed.

The Cuban American National Foundation and Lawrence Solomon of the Urban Renaissance Institute claim that Cuba masks the truth behind the Cuban health care system. They argue that real Cuban healthcare is abysmal and that what is shown to non-Cuban foreigners is a healthcare system unavailable to the average Cuban.[5][6][7] The National Review has made similar criticisms.

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

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

If this vandal repeats the POV addition, please add it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:KDRGibby. LotLE×talk 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I received this email just now, to my Wikipedia email account:
Return-Path: <>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 03:52:57 GMT
Message-Id: <200605150352.k4F3qvq1023822@localhost.localdomain>
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to using -f
To: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: KDRGibby <>
you are fucking stupid.  That is not POV material. My god. You are an idiot and wiki is 
full of people like you.  Stop censoring information and making up bullshit excuses.
It sounds like a personal attack to me. LotLE×talk 04:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Another case?

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

Lulu: Yeh YEh and then you can purge him, thus proving his point of view is inaccurate. El Jigue 5-27-06

User:Drogo Underburrow

Three revert rule violation on Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drogo_Underburrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: ~~~~


I don't want to brush against 3RR myself, if someone else would restore the most recent vandalism by Drogo, that would be helpful. LotLE×talk 06:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope everything has settled down for good! I never knew there could be so much drama on wikipedia, hatemail and all.. And to think I was planning on working on a Cuban Sports sandbox (: I think that Drogo probably made the edit under the impression that is was verifiable, and 5 seconds later found himself in the middle of that unfortunate recordbook edit war. Myciconia 07:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

Some good suggestions. Looks like #1 has already been taken care of! Something you can do is make a sandbox page in your userspace (perhaps at User:Anticom/Cuba). Myciconia 08:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add this text into the links. """ Democracy in Cuba: Issues & Answers by Dan Christensen- Very informative about the political system of Cuba and the arguments of the critics and includes good responses to those critisisms. (Only copied link works)." Teemu Ruskeepää 09:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen recommended on my own talk page that "the Christianson link be available as a link the foot of that page, but not sourced within" What do you mean? I'd like to have the text (link directs to wrong page) among the links at "About Cuba" section. What about this? Zleitzen, please answer at the subject pages, not personal pages, thank you. Teemu Ruskeepää 11:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Anticom's idea n:o 4. Let's make a category hierarchy. Terms and consepts on one page and their complete details behind one link. Critic: People must be able to decide the credibility of things themselves, not through authoritarian leaders' will. Wikipedia should aim to make people aware and civilized of all the fact, and not just say what consepts are up by the pow's and other elite just then. The western media already represents this problem. Wikipedia needs to be an unrestricted source of information. Teemu Ruskeepää 09:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No revert-warring

Okay, I have protected the page to stop this revert-warring. You need to discuss on the talk page first before reverting another editor's additions like that, and if the additions are controversial, you should post them here first and try to reach consensus. We've already received enough negative publicity for revert wars on this article (see the link at the top of this talk page), and I really do hope to see better behavior from all of you in the future. --Cyde Weys 08:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Referenced material from one side systematically removed. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV:

Human Rights Watch "Cuba remains a Latin American anomaly: an undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. President Fidel Castro, now in his forty-seventh year in power, shows no willingness to consider even minor reforms. Instead, his government continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment. The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law."[8]"
The US State Department notes that many other Latin American nations which all ranked just behind Cuba on literacy during the 1950's have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms.[9]Ultramarine 11:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Cuba has a high comparative ranking on major health indicators such as doctors per capita, life expectancy, infant mortality, and nutritional quality. Critics argue that they were high before the revolution or are in fact declining.[10]" Ultramarine 11:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The Cuban American National Foundation claims that Cuba masks the truth behind the Cuban health care system. They argue that the Cuban healthcare is poor and that what is given to non-Cuban foreigners is unavailable to the average Cuban.[11]Ultramarine 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine! Maybe you should go to Cuba and see for yourself how the Cuban health care system works! O, wait, you live in the US, so that means your country, which is a "free country", dosn't let you travel to Cuba! That is Freedom, indeed! What is democracy? The Government of Fidel Castro has huge support from its people, that is more than you can say about the Bush regime. Malcolm X said a lot of good things. Here is a quote about the US view towards goverments in countries that they don't like:"As soon as they get the mass of their people behind them, they're dictaros. As soon as they have unity of their people in their country, they're a dictator." -Bronks 12:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Ultramarine 12:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that US citizens cannot travel to Cuba, and the 'freedom' irony of that policy is not original research. [12] BruceHallman 13:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you argue that this violates the right of US citizens, then addt this to some page about the US. However, this page is about Cuba. Also, interesting info: The Dream Deferred: Fear and Freedom in Fidel’s CubaUltramarine 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that you point to a US State Dept. website in the same sentence as you advocate to keep the issue of the US travel ban to Cuba out of the Cuba article? Obviously, US and Cuba relations are intertwined. Also, objectively, how can an editor determine the credibility of the 'Fear and Freedom' article to which you pointed? How is an editor (or US citizen) to determine what, if any, of the US State Dept. material is propaganda? Wikipedia aside, if a US citizen wanted to see first hand the conditions in Cuba and not necessarily rely on information provided by the State Department, is that allowed? BruceHallman 15:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, personal experience by Wikipedia editor if orginal reseach, something not allowed. US Journalists can travel to Cuba freely. Again, If you argue that this violates the right of US citizens, then addt this to some page about the US. However, this page is about Cuba. Wikipedia NPOV requires inclusion of opposing views like the ones selectively deleted above. If you argue that they or The Dream Deferred: Fear and Freedom in Fidel’s Cuba is dubious and contradictied by other sources, add that to the article. Let the readers decide for themselves.Ultramarine 15:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a "travel ban" or an "economic embargo"?
American journalists, humanitarian workers, academic researchers and some Cuban-Americans usually are granted permission, which allows them passage on the charter flights. [13]
A contributor above suggested that the U.S. had restricted travel for the purpose of making it difficult to see the conditions in Cuba for themselves (and thus forcing them to rely on State Department "propaganda"). A quick google (I chose the first reference that came up!) shows that the purpose is to keep money out of the hands of the Cuban government - not to keep Americans from finding out how wonderful Cuban life is.
I'm going to check similar reasoning suggested by Bronks. --Uncle Ed 15:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"The reason" is, of course, to prevent trading with the enemy[14]. As travel to Cuba essentially always includes paying an airport tax, the ban effectively prohibits travel. The effect of the ban, at least incidentally, prevents US citizens from independently confirming the effects of US foreign policy in Cuba. BruceHallman 15:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I see no mention of this reason or "airport tax" in your link. More original research. Again, should be in an article about the US if you think it is important. Or add referenced information about this to this article, if important. Not an excuse for ignoring Wikipedia:NPOV and selectively deleting the arguments of one side.Ultramarine 15:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Bruce, are you disputing the "usually ... granted permission" quote? If so, is it on the basis of your reasoning that if a US citizen travelled to Cuba he'd pay an airport tax?
I think it would be better to determine how many US citizens have been permitted by the US to travel to Cuba in recent years, than to theorize about taxes and bans. I seem to remember a prominent anti-Bush filmmaker doing a documentary (complete with a Castro interview) in the last couple of years. --Uncle Ed 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not illigal for American Citizens to enter Cuba, from a Cuban point of view. The problem for the Americans is to get pass their own governemnt... All Americans I know that have gone to Cuba, (and I do know a couple), have had to go through Mexico or Canada, or some other country that that is more "free" than the US. I susspect Oliver Stone had to do the same thing. Bronks 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am disputing the "usually...granted permission" assertion.[15][16] [17] I also argue, that granting permission only to journalists, acadademics, humanitarians, is a restriction that violates the human rights of others who do not belong to those groups to travel and witness the effect of US foreign policy first hand. Also, OFAC enforcement funding was increased in 2001 [18]. Reports of 'clampdown' on permits issued [19][20]. My 'airport tax' statement is drawn from the Donna Schultz enforcement[21], where the departure tax was listed as evidence along with $18 in souvenirs, so I cannot really say that it was the airport tax alone, because the souvenirs also violated the embargo. BruceHallman 17:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Add those views if you feel them important. Again, not an excuse for ignoring Wikipedia:NPOV and selectively deleting the arguments of one side, as noted above or those stated here: The Dream Deferred: Fear and Freedom in Fidel’s Cuba Ultramarine 18:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The web site "Real Cuba" is presenting written and photographic material on the support of the upper class to Castro's revolution [22].

Other material presented discusses labor rights in Cuba during the first half of the 20th century. El Jigue 5-15-06

Sadly, the "Real Cuba" is a propaganda site which does not meet wikipedia's demand for verifiable sources. -- Beardo 06:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "propaganda" site, but yes, it is clearly a site with heavy anti-castro bias (not without reason!). But this does bring up an issue: does it make it any less true or the written and photographic material and less credible? I suppose "Real Cuba" must present this evidence to a neutral party for examination and verification? Is that what "Real Cuba" must do? And if it is, who determines the "neutrality" of the third party they choose to authenticate the material? --Mcmachete 22:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose common sense helps here. If a site devotes a page to make fun of Castros Parkinson's disease, chances are it is not credible. Of course there is the wikipedia policy to go by as well. Myciconia 03:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Real Cuba" is in fact "a site with heavy anti-castro bias", but how can you say that it "does not meet wikipedia's demand for verifiable sources"? They have a copy of a statement that comes from Luis Conte Aguero. He is a well known journalist in Cuba and was planning on running for Congress before Batista's coup ended his dreams. He is considered an expert in recognizing Castro's handwritting. He signed a statement stating that the letters on the "Real Cuba" website were indeed from Castro. Aguero also donated alot of his letters that he recieved from Castro while he was in jail to the University of Miami Cuban Herritage Collection. Evalle 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi all, I'm back after getting accidentally caught up in a Castro-esque round up of dissidents and being blocked in error. Here are my thoughts:

"Referenced material from one side systematically removed. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV"

1. Human rights watch material. Not bothered about that at this time.
2. Literacy details. Funny and obviously absurd conundrum that serves no purpose. The detail - Cuba has had high literacy rates before and after the revolution with stats suffices. Although the statement is so good it almost warrants a page of it's own.
3. The statement "the United States argue that they were high before the revolution or are in fact declining" would have to be countered by an equal weight given to the opinions of another nation, say the UK. If editors demand parochial views from outside nations (which should be unnecessary) then they should accept other nations views. Here's one, The UK parliamentary Select committee "recognise the obvious commitment to health provision by the President Fidel Castro. This is demonstrated not only in the personal interest he takes, but in the protection and proportion of the budget given the health care. During the "special period" following the collapse of the Cuban economy as a result of the break up of the Soviet Union—the health and education budgets were protected from the general reduction in GNP." [23]
4. ...argue that the Cuban healthcare is poor and that what is given to non-Cuban foreigners is unavailable to the average Cuban the article can be sourced to the earlier paragraph which states the same thing in far better language.

--Zleitzen 03:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here is the referenced material from one side systematically removed.:

Human Rights Watch "Cuba remains a Latin American anomaly: an undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. President Fidel Castro, now in his forty-seventh year in power, shows no willingness to consider even minor reforms. Instead, his government continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment. The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law."[24]"
The US State Department notes that many other Latin American nations which all ranked just behind Cuba on literacy during the 1950's have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms.[25]
Cuba has a high comparative ranking on major health indicators such as doctors per capita, life expectancy, infant mortality, and nutritional quality. Critics argue that they were high before the revolution or are in fact declining.[26]"
The Cuban American National Foundation claims that Cuba masks the truth behind the Cuban health care system. They argue that the Cuban healthcare is poor and that what is given to non-Cuban foreigners is unavailable to the average Cuban.[27]

The only sourced objectin is this: [28]. However, this source does not deny the already mentioned problem with public health care system. Also, from the source: "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" Thus, no excuse for ignoring Wikipedia:Neutrality and selectively deleting the views of one side.Ultramarine 10:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding neutrality, Ultramarine. If the US state department asserted that "the Cuban health system is the best in the world" I would still object to the inclusion and have done so on similar occasions on different pages. It's just not relevant to this article. All this propaganda and the bickering opinions between the US and Cuba should go in the Cuba/US relations article. Here we should present basic incontestable information from uncontroversial international information gathering sources such as UNESCO and the WHO.
There are endless notable international opinions on the United States and not one of those is presented on that page. There are many notable international opinions on the National Health Service and not one of those is presented on that page. To insist on setting a precedent here smacks of pandering to the propaganda of an individual body. Such inclusions will actively fail this page, and prevent its progress towards featured article status.
Feel free to enter dispute process on these matters. --Zleitzen 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It there is something wrong with the Wikipedia pages about other nations, fix them. Problems there do not justify new problems elsewhere. Note that the critics cite sources such as UN statistics. Again, Wikipedia:NPOV does not allow selective citation of just some views and deletion of the well-referenced views of the opposing side.
Feel free to cite United Nations sources, Ultramarine. I have no objections. But what "other side" are you referring to? This isn't a bi-polar battleground.--Zleitzen 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
See the well-referenced statements quoted above showing the views and arguments of people opposing Castro's dictatorship.Ultramarine 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The first source aside because I'm unconcerned about that section now. There is no "basic incontestable information from international information gathering sources such as UNESCO and the WHO" in the citations you have provided. They are propoganda views and arguments from the US State department. You can put them in if you want, but you should then allow statements from other nations. --Zleitzen 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
False, for example the State department cites UN sources and statistics. Human Rights Watch is well respected organization. And since you cite personal webpages likes this one, [29], The Cuban American National Foundation should also be allowed to present their view.Ultramarine 17:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean you cite, I haven't personally written this page and I don't know what you refer to. I've already stated that I wasn't interested in the human rights watch quote here. It is the other three that I'm concerned with, please provide United Nations citations for criticisms of the Health and education section. Otherwise those statements read as singular opinions from the US and should be presented as such. Alongside opinions from other nations. It's either that or nothing. --Zleitzen 17:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
See the sources mentioned here: Zenith and Eclipse: A Comparative Look at Socio-Economic Conditions in Pre-Castro and Present Day Cuba Ultramarine 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Public Health

Please delete the table. Reasons: 1) It’s ugly. Kills the look of the entire page. I haven’t see on any other WP page something similar (not that I read all of them). 2) It’s redundant. What is the point of the link you provide if you have the same table twice? 3) It’s propagandistic. Look, I understand the pro-Castro group is desperate to present Castro/communism in a triumphalistic way but this is not the most effective way to do it. Despite what you may believe I have no problem with presenting good stuff about Castro/communism as long they're real. And health (not everything) is one of the few good things that happen on that island for real. 4) Move the data to Table 1. It will have a bigger impact, plus will look good. 5) In exchange (Jesus, we’re negotiating now) I can tell you about a real achievement of Cuban health.--Anticom 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Anticom, it is a shame to frame this with '...the pro-Castro group is desperate...'. That label is not accurate. Fixating on 'the enemy' is not the way to write an encyclopedia article. Consider that, perhaps, there is a middle ground? BruceHallman 15:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Large amounts of text was deleted by user

Several pages of text were deleted instead of being archived, the majority was nothing that I wrote and that I had nothing to do with.

The lame justification was: "too much, to archive".

I added all of this text to archive09.Travb 05:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Surely the page should have the protection comment - why was that removed ? -- Beardo 07:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

By oversight...happens. Tag restored and everyone best yap about the problems here and not commence an edit war again.--MONGO 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. (I was visiting the in-laws and missed the excitement anyway). -- Beardo 07:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the systematic deletion of the views of one side. See the "Neutrality" section above. Or see The Dream Deferred: Fear and Freedom in Fidel’s Cuba. Ultramarine 11:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No - the problem is propagandising on both sides. -- Beardo 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Travel restrictions from USA to Cuba

Disputed points:

  • The travel ban is to prevent US citizens from finding out how good it is in Cuba (needs source: probably pro-socialists?)
  • The restriction is primarily to hurt the Castro regime economically
    • "Their focus is not only illegal travel but illegal shipments of money to the island." [30] [Thanks to Bruce for providing this source.]

At this point, we have one claim without a source and one claim with a source. I suggest we put both claims in the article; and provide the source for the latter claim. Meanwhile, let's dig into the former claim. Maybe Bruce can find a source for that, too? --Uncle Ed 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You phrased item #1 around 'intent'. Isn't 'effect', without regard to intent, as important? BruceHallman 14:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Uncle Ed, you wrote 'finding out how good it is in Cuba', which appears to misunderstand my point, which is rather: that US Citizens are prevented from finding out about Cuba first hand. Good, bad or both. BruceHallman 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand both these ideas, Bruce. Sorry, my phrasing and understanding were both poor! Let me try again:

Disputed points:

  • America's travel restrictions have the effect of preventing US citizens from finding out about Cuba first hand. (needs source, presumably socialists advocate this POV)
  • Cuba (not America) is the number one obstacle to letting the outside world know what really goes in in Cuba. (also needs source, which I think I can find readily: probably Cuban emigres in particular and anti-Communists generally advocate this POV)

Bruce, does this state the dispute more accurately? --Uncle Ed 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation rejected

Request for mediation rejected, per post here. With the disputed ' sentence ' presently omitted from the introduction, perhaps a need for mediation is moot. Also, the second item to be mediated was civility, and at present, civility seems improved too. But, the third and fourth items involved respect for alternate points of view, and this still seems to have room for improvement. BruceHallman 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Unverified Cuban Government statistics

One of the problems of comparison of health and education statistics is that international agencies UN WHO etc accept without verification the statistics provided by each government. This may work if there are agencies in free opposition to present government, however when there is not...this data must be taken with "a grain of salt."

The same applies to internal dissent which is hard to verify in countries such as Cuba where dissent is called "desacato" or disrespect and such is a crime. In a similar fashion, opposition or support cannot be measured by public demonstrations which are readily repressed or enhanced by massive government response. El Jigue 5-16-06

More problems

As discussed previously, there are systematic deletion of the views of one side. See the "Neutrality" section above. Or see The Dream Deferred: Fear and Freedom in Fidel’s Cuba.

In addition, there is refusal to follow Wikipedia:Cite sources. Thus, while deleting well-referenced arguments, unreferenced arguments removed according to Wikipedia policy are added back, still without references, in order to support one side. For example "currently has more doctors serving internationally than the World Health Organization." "Cuba has over 71,000 doctors" "The curriculum in primary and secondary schools is based upon principles of hard work, self-discipline and love of country. Students are required to work in agriculture three times a week" "Cuba is in the top quintile in worldwide comparisons of major health indicators such as doctors per capita, life expectancy, infant mortality; possibly worse in nutritional quality." "Cuba attracts paying "health tourists" who wish to obtain medical services, often at lower cost than the same procedures in their home countries." Ultramarine 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine; You keep posting that US State Department link. I am curious of your opinion of this contrary view. Whose Civil Society?: The Politicization of Religion in Transitional Cuba Partial quote: "Much of Cuba’s resistance to civil society efforts originating in the United States is based on the simple fact that they originate in the United States. ... The fact that all these aspects of international social development are U.S.-driven, creates clear and unwavering resistance in Cuba." In this context, in our article; what is the appropriate weight of relevance to give to the US State Department opinion about Cuba? As opposed to the relevance of Cuban opinion about Cuba. In other words, whose paradigm should we use? BruceHallman 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously both views should be included which is not the case now. Note that the State department cites for example UN statistics for their statemens: Zenith and Eclipse: A Comparative Look at Socio-Economic Conditions in Pre-Castro and Present Day CubaUltramarine 18:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
An alternative is to present a neutral view. BruceHallman 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should 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."
Thus, there is no excuse for hiding the views of those opposing Castro's dictatorship.Ultramarine 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this page called Castro's dictatorship? --Zleitzen 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Many people think that Cuba is a dictarship and has numerous problem. Wikipedia:NPOV requires that their views should also be farily represented. Now they are not.Ultramarine 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Still, this article is about Cuba, not Castro. BruceHallman 21:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"All significant points of view" would include pro-Cuba significant statements from scores of nations and international groups from the UK to Venezuala. I've seen hundreds of them Ultramarine. It's a waste of time Just stick to as neutral sources as possible. Keep the article concise and try to plow a neutral path--Zleitzen 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC).
Obviously only the most significant views from both sides should be included. Now the views and arguments from one side are excluded.Ultramarine 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You've lost me again, Ultramarine. What two sides? Which "side" is being presented now other than sourceable, non controversial information from the UNESCO and the WHO etc? These are not polemical arguments, they're verifiable data. There's a couple of lines here and there that discuss the complaints about the health system. So do we need huge paragraphs of politically motivated opinions from various outside sources? No. Put that in the Health and Education page if neccessary.--Zleitzen 19:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For example these views, supported by for example UN statistics. Zenith and Eclipse: A Comparative Look at Socio-Economic Conditions in Pre-Castro and Present Day Cuba And yes, we need the opinoins also of those who criticze Cuba, otherwise Wikipedia:NPOVis violated. Ultramarine 19:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Then show the figures. Who needs the "views"?--Zleitzen 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
See the reference list in Zenith and Eclipse: A Comparative Look at Socio-Economic Conditions in Pre-Castro and Present Day CubaUltramarine 19:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see a history (and a future) of editorial conflict in this article that directly stems from editors fighting over 'hot button' POV topics. (This might be a radical idea), but perhaps the editors could agree to move the 'hot button' items out on the related pages Human rights in Cuba, etc.. Then the Cuba article than can be devoted to non-controversial items and the editorial conflict reduced. The alternative, is more (and never ending) editorial conflict editing this article. BruceHallman 19:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is called "pov forking" and is expressly prohibited. Drogo Underburrow 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No it's not. I started the tradition of breaking a large, edit-war-strewn article into smaller articles to handle the Augusto Pinochet deadlock, and it worked splendidly. Only a tiny minority of Wikipedians interpret the anti-forking rules as preventing a deadlocked article from being divided. And almost always because they want to push their own POV. --Uncle Ed 20:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. - WP:POVFORK - Drogo Underburrow 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I agree with that part. And I am not suggesting that we create 2 or more articles which advocate different stances.
What I am suggesting is that we take out the most contentious section, such as "type of government Cuba has" and leave behind a link to it. Then we work on Government of Cuba (or whatever we call this sidebar article) separately from the main article. In this separate article, we can describe fairly both major points of view, i.e., that Cuba's government is a democracy, and that Cuba's government is not a democracy.
This will allow us to un-protect the main Cuba article and deal with the NPOV issue of "whether it's a democracy or not" in a separate article.
Note that this strategy worked very well with the Augusto Pinochet article. --Uncle Ed 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
We already have multiple articles on all the subjects here including Health and education etc, Drogo and have had for some time. And I've moved a lot of the controversial "Opinions" such as the US state department etc to these as a matter of course. Because they need to be addressed in detail, not on this page. There's no reason to get into them here, just show dry information.--Zleitzen 21:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Human rights in Cuba already exists, and is certainly an appropriate topic for an article. The only way it would be called a "POV fork" would be if that article said something like "Castro is a bad man who abuses human rights". If it's neutral and verifiable, it's not a problem at all. Putting the controversial stuff into a seperate article quite often makes good sense. Friday (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should 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." Thus, NPOV is not an excuse for excluding arguments. Ultramarine 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating for POV forking. I am advocating for keeping both forks of the 'hot button' items out of the main article. In other words, more on Cuban music, cuisine, geography, climate, and less about good and bad things about Communism and Fidel Castro. That kind of editorial decision is neutral, because it is equal, and it serves to reduce edit fights. Can't we neutrally and mutually agree to avoid fighting, by staying away from 'hot button' topics pro and con while writing the Cuba article? BruceHallman 21:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bruce - As a minor contributor here, I think that is an excellent idea. -- Beardo 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A problem, can I say the obvious? The two forks are not 'pro-Cuba' 'anti-Cuba', and are not 'pro-Castro' and 'anti-Castro'. The two forks are 'pro-Cuba' and 'anti-Castro'. We must be honest and face the reality that there are many editors that want the Cuba article to read negatively so it will read as 'anti-Castro'. BruceHallman 13:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that this can be used to exlude certain content. Exactly what would be the neutral description of Public Health, Education, Human Rights, and Government and Politics? Are you arguing that the main article should have nothing on this except a link to the subarticles.Ultramarine 13:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I propose that we should exclude certain content: Any and all content (pro or con) that causes editorial fights. Q: Who wants the fights anyway? A: Only people that want to POV push. If content causes an edit war, I propose that editors mutually agree that such content (pro or con) be banned from the main article and relegated to a sub article. This proposal would allow a stable and neutral main Cuba article. The Public Health, Human Rights, Government and Politics sections should be very short bland non-controversial stubs pointing to the sub articles. BruceHallman 14:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's take out the two sides, POVs or "forks" and put them into a separate article. The first thing that will be a bone of contention is what the two sides should be called. Recall that in the Abortion debate, each side tried to use the names of the sides to win the POV battle:
  1. pro-life vs. (what? anti-life?), who could possibly be against life? We win!
  2. pro-choice vs. (what? anti-choice?), who could possibly be against a women's right to choose? We win!
Bruce, you seem like the most pro-NPOV contributor here. Please help me describe each side of the controversy fairly. This starts with summarizing accurately what each side says (about "democracy" in Cuba, for starters) but will also move on to what each side calls itself and what each side calls its opponents. --Uncle Ed 14:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have started to answer your question already (see above). My names for the sides are: pro-Cuba and anti-Castro. The 'democracy' question arises from ambiguity of the definition of the word. Anti-Castro people typically use a 'free market personal freedom' definition. Pro-Cuba use a 'shared social equality' definition. Neither side primarily uses an 'election system' definition, except for the issue of campaign financing, in other words: Does money equal speech? (And, what about 'outside' money in campaigns?) Though, this is getting off topic. BruceHallman 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Back on topic, my point is: We can avoid confrontation altogether if we would agree that all details that rise to the level of POV fighting (pro and anti) be relegated to subarticles. In truth, there are plenty of significant yet noncontroversial things about Cuba to make a fine article without going in depth into the POV details in the main article. The POV details can be better and thoroughly handled, consistent with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, in the subarticles. BruceHallman 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The above description of the critical position is simply false, Human Rights Watch: "Cuba remains a Latin American anomaly: an undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. President Fidel Castro, now in his forty-seventh year in power, shows no willingness to consider even minor reforms. Instead, his government continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment. The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law."Ultramarine 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Freedom House: "Cubans cannot change their government through democratic means. Fidel Castro dominates the political system, having transformed the country into a one-party state with the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) controlling all governmental entities from the national to the local level. Communist structures were institutionalized by the 1976 constitution installed at the first congress of the PCC. The constitution provides for a National Assembly, which designates the Council of State. It is that body which in turn appoints the Council of Ministers in consultation with its president, who serves as head of state and chief of government. However, Castro is responsible for every appointment and controls every lever of power in Cuba in his various roles as president of the Council of Ministers, chairman of the Council of State, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), and first secretary of the PCC.
In October 2002, some eight million Cubans voted in tightly controlled municipal elections. On January 19, 2003, an election was held for the Cuban National Assembly, with just 609 candidates - all supported by the regime - vying for 609 seats. All political organizing outside the PCC is illegal. Political dissent, spoken or written, is a punishable offense, and those so punished frequently receive years of imprisonment for seemingly minor infractions."Ultramarine 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Which definition of the word 'democratic' do you use? BruceHallman 17:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"My" opinion is not interesting and would be original research without sources. For criticism of democracy in Cuba, see the two sources mentioned above.Ultramarine 17:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Your two sources appear to use the 'free market personal freedom' definition favored by the anti-Castro POV. Though your sources also are quite vague about their presumptive definition of the ambigous word. Instead they appear to imply that their concept of 'democracy' is a universal truth. BruceHallman 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I see no mention of "free market". Regardless, these are significant views regarding the state of democracy in Cuba. You may dispute them, if you start using sources instead of making unreferenced claims, but these views should be represented in the article.Ultramarine 17:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, what point are you making here about the inclusion of your sources in the article? Given that the subject of "democracy" is already covered and sourced.--Zleitzen 17:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm, the criticism has been reduced to "Many believe the Cuban government does not meet minimal standards of a democracy, especially in lacking multi-party contests for seats." This countered by statements like "The Cuban government and its supporters within and outside Cuba argue that Cuba has a form of democracy, evidenced by the fact that elections and nominations are held by secret ballots and that all voters have the right to reject any and all candidates." The only source I can see for this is a personal webpage [31] and a source about municipal elections [32], the results of which are unimportant for general national policy.Ultramarine 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read the page. The second link talks about the construction of participatory democracy in Cuba, and is even titled "grassroots democracy". You've also ignored the statement of Hugo Chavez.--Zleitzen 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That is the source about municipal elections. Again, these elections are unimportant for national policy. As noted, only one candidate is allowed for each position to the Cuban National Assembly. Chavez makes no explanation for his statement that Cuba is "revolutionary democracy".Ultramarine 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I imagine most people, along with myself were unaware that the term "democracy" referred exclusively to national policy as you define it. Chavez explained it in more detail only yesterday, when referring to Cuba. It's here if you wish to advance your understanding[33].
"Is it true that by electing a President or Prime Minister every five years you have democracy? Is it because you have press and TV channels that you have freedom of speech? There's a lot of cynicism behind that. So many lies behind that. Every country has its own model."
I also advise, alongside Bruce, Beardo, Ed etc that you take your arguments to a seperate page --Zleitzen 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPOV requires that all significant views should be included. If these criticisms of democracy in Cuba should only be discussed in a subarticle, then all the pro-Communist Cuba arguments should also be moved to the subarticle.Ultramarine 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course.--Zleitzen 19:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So what is your proposal for the stub in the main article? Ultramarine 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Cuban Health services

Some benighted soul (s?) removed the history of Cuban medicine, hospitals etc and left only not readily verifiable statistics from Cuban government sources or from internation agencies which accept Cuban government statistics without verification. El Jigue 5-16-06

I think it's covered in the individual article on health in Cuba, El Jigue.--Zleitzen 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: Thank you. I finally found it. However, a better lead in could be provided e.g. [Main article: Public health in Cuba] provides historical context. In addition the caveat about the original source of statistics, is necessary in this section to avoid POV; "The public heathcare system in Cuba is free and universal. Its existence is frequently cited as a positive, legitimizing factor of the current socialist system. Cuba's healthcare system is widely regarded as one of the best in the world; however WHO data cited here comes directly from national health authorities of each country [1]. Thus, there are some who do not trust this data [2] [3]." El Jigue 5-16-06

The Plague of Benighted souls

One finds that despite careful suggestions by a number of people including myself, very serious errors continue to have a presence in the article. For instance, one cannot help but notice the really erroneous description of the participants in the line up for the Batista aborted 1952 election. This circumstance apparently caused by a plague of benighted souls, continues to make the Cuba article a laughing stock for the better informed. El Jigüe 5-16-0 6

Surely the whole point of wikipedia is collaborative. Are these "careful suggestions" being removed ? Or are you expecting someone else to implement your careful suggestions ? -- Beardo 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Beardo, remember for some time now I am not allowed to insert stuff in the article, only in discussion. If you want confirmation of candidates who were to be placed on the 1952 ballot look up:

Reira Hernandez, Mario 1974. Cuba Republicana 1899-1958. Editorial AIP,Miami Fl Library of Congress number 74-16982

Try page 7 and following first El Jigue 5-16-06

EJ - I guess that you cannot edit because you have chosen not to register. Are all these people making careful suggestions unregistered, too ? And I am afraid I don't really understand your point about the aborted 1952 elections. What should the article say ? -- Beardo 04:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Beardo read what is says, if you think it is correct, perhaps you should read the suggested citation. Frankly I do not register because it is my opinion that to do so would infer or suggest agreement with what is said in the article. El Jigue 5-17-06

Photograph removal

This photograph keeps on getting removed. Why? It's a nice photograph, isn't it? Not politically biased or anything. So what's wrong with it? DirkvdM 18:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was a casualty of one of the infernal edit wars. It looks good to me.--Zleitzen 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: It is my understanding, that particular photo shows one of the then newly painted houses in Bayamo. In that sense the house has been spruced up for the photo. Perhaps it was removed by the person who owns the house and lost its use to Castro. El Jigue 5-17-06

The source information for the photo identifys the location as Trinidad, not Bayamo. BruceHallman 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Photographing a newly painted house is POV? Wow, what a divide. Here is the diff of the deletion by User 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Bruce, since the house seems to be on flat land as if on the plains of the Cauto not the hills of Trinidad, the road appears straight smooth and wide not cobble stone, hilly and curved and with high sidewalks as one would expect in Trinidad. Besides that same source erroneously identified that truck as participating in the assault on Moncada in Santiago instead of the Presidential Palace in Havana. Again I wonder if somebody is feeding false information. Could you find out more? BTW a painted house is a rarity in Cuba. El Jigue 5-21-06

Oh, dear, just like the Netherlands isn't full of windmills inhabited by tulip-growers walking on wooden shoes, Trinidad isn't all hilly with cobble stone streets (actually, the cobble stones are just in the tourist centre). You've never been to Trinidad, have you? I have, and I assure you that's where I took the photograph. And yes, Trinidad is full of freshly painted houses, for the tourists. Not just in the touristy centre, by the way, but the tourists bring in the cash for people to paint their houses. Just like any other tourist spot. The more tourists go to Cuba, the more of Cuba will be freshly painted. But even now, a freshly painted house isn't quite a rarity in Cuba.
And of course we should put the nice pics in here. You wouldn't put a photo of the South Bronx in the US article, would you?
Anyway, where the photograph is taken is hardly an argument for removing it. Alas the article is still blocked, so I can't put it back.
And what source said what about which truck? Jig, you've heard this before, and I'll say it again, you're full of shit. And why am I feeding the troll anyway? Silly me. DirkvdM 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dirk the truck photo in question as was noted from another source was used in the attack on the Presidencial Palace in Havana by the Directorio Estudiantil and the Organizacion Autentica in 1957, not by the Castro attack on the Guillermon Moncada Barracks in 1953. As to the photograph of the automobile could someone tell me the street in Trinidad where it is said it was taken, for it looks quite like the Calixto Garcia street in Bayamo. However, I looked at your image closely and the sidewalks (pavement) seem narrow, that would be unusual except in downtown Bayamo. The elaborate colonial balconies also support the your statement that the photos was taken in Trinidad, because Bayamo was burned in 1868 and essentially a war zone from 1868-1898. BTW A jigue is not a troll, for trolls supposedly live underbridges, while jigues live in jungle lagoons. In addition jigues are legendary well endowed seducers of women while trolls are said to be cannibals. El Jigue 5-23-06.

Expansion of subarticles

Could contributors propose titles for subarticles below, in order to leave the article open and free from imposed ideological statements and views. It should be the case that users are able to contribute interesting and notable details on the island and people of Cuba (such as the photo above) without it getting lost in the type of editing which appears to have been started by our esteemed colleague Dr Carr. Note that there are already subarticles to each section so much of the controversial material can be shipped there, please check all articles relating to Cuba before making a suggestion because there are many. There should be a US/Cuba relations article which I know a number of users have signed up to. And there may also need to be others where bi-polar positions can be explored. User thoughts?--Zleitzen 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are already many subarticles. The problem is what should be stated in the stubs in the main article. What is your proposal for the stub for "Government and politics" or "Public Health"? Ultramarine 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
These sections would follow the usual procedures of wikipedia practices, with the various extracts of neutral uncontroversial information, plus statements and views explored etc in a canonical fashion. There are many good examples in Wikipedia if editors need examples of how this is achieved.--Zleitzen 19:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a big fight at Wikipedia_talk:Content_forking#Creating_a_spinout over whether it's okay to create a subsidiary article. Part of the battle is what to call such an article: subarticle, sidebare, spinoff, spinout, etc.
The other part is dispute over whether it necessarily would subvert NPOV policy, if the disputed part was removed from the main article. A few Wikipedians call this creating a "POV fork" - even though I've tried several times to distinguish between (1) making an extra version of an article to subvert neutrality and (2) concentrating the dispute into a single article to facilitate neutrality. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For the "only non-Democracy" thing which got Adam so exercised (and attracted media attention), I suggest "Cuba and democracy". --Uncle Ed 19:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, there may be problames regarding what material should be in stubs in the main article. I have previously tried to move POV from one side to the subarticles when other POVs were removed, but this was immediately reverted, leaving only one POV in the main article. So again Zleitzen, what is your proposal for the stub for, for example, "Government and politics" or "Public Health"?Ultramarine 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, please show 'diffs' of when you 'tried to move' and were 'immediately reverted' which you describe as happening. BruceHallman 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
For example, restoration of statements regarding the superiority of the Cuban educational system, without at the same time restoration of that many other Latin Anerican nations also have had impressive improvement, sometimes more than Cuba.[34][35][36]Ultramarine 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the 'non-contentious' sections be as short as necessary to achieve non-contentious status. If the section has content that is subject to POV contention (pro or anti), the contentious POV content should be moved to the separate article. Only content mutually agreed as non-contentious would remain in the stub. The sections presently that meet a contentious criteria are Human Rights, Politics & Government/Elections, Public Health, Economy and Education. All of these have separate articles which already exist. BruceHallman 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Please give a proposed text for any of these stubs.Ultramarine 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think these sections should properly be called 'stubs'. I propose that editors mutually agree that contentious sections be mutually edited to be non-contentious. If material exists in the sections which is contentious (pro or anti) then such material should be moved to the separate sub-articles only. " that the sections: Human Rights, Politics & Government/Elections, Public Health, Economy and Education qualify as contentious sections. BruceHallman 20:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Education section, how about "The quality and development of the educational system in Cuba, especially as compared to other nations, is often debated by supporters and critics." Please state any objection and explanation.Ultramarine 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's perfect, Ultramarine! Just add see Education in Cuba and we're on track again.
What about non-controversial information, Ed? Meaning Data etc, the information about the universities, the school age and uniform and so on.--Zleitzen 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Criminy, I can't do everything. I have a day job! Think of a neutral title for the article about the dispute. How about History of education in Cuba or Education in Cuba under Castro (if you don't mind the connotation of "under"). --Uncle Ed 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What mostly is contentious in Education are the descriptions of the quality of education in Cuba. BruceHallman 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then, Quality of education in Cuba. --Uncle Ed 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Brucehallman writes Human Rights, Politics & Government/Elections, Public Health, Economy and Education qualify as contentious sections.

Can I conclude from this that it would be malicious of me to infer from the above, that it appears only those sections of the main article, that pass muster by the extreme left are not removed to the suggested purgatories. In addition one notices that Gibby's, more than a little to my right politically, has once again lost access, this time permanently. El Jigue 5-17-06

I actually wrote: "Presently, I think...". Of course, I am open to mutual agreement as to which sections are contentious. I chose those five because I see those as the sections with the most contention in recent history. BruceHallman 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Forking eh! Apparently whoever those who thought up this neologism are less familiar with middle English and certain word roots. El Jigue 5-17-06

Cuban sugar crop drops further

It seems that Cuban sugar crop production has fallen to even lower levels [37]. El Jigue 5-17-06

Opening paragraph

Let's remove "Cuba’s relationship with the neighboring United States has often involved political conflict."

It doesn't belong in a short description of a country but in international relations. It also hyperemphasizes the conflicts and suggests that the government of Cuba is to blame. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Teemu Of course the Cuban government is not to blame, for to blame it would be like blaming a shark for eating people. That is its declared nature, intent and actions... El Jigue 5-20-06

What, El Jigue, you'd like to say that communism is evil as are all the cuban communists. The problem is that we don't want to take political sides or characterize political sides. We are just supposed to tell what kind of relations between actual sides exist, and only in the political relations section. If we emphasize that this side is bad, we lose the facts of the other side. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Teemu anything you say even if it violates marxist internationalist thought. El Jigue 5-21-06.

Quite happy to take that out, Teema. Even though I myself put it in. We've agreed to put a lot of the more complex, controversial material into subarticles so it would be fitting to also remove that statement. El Jigue, do you have any thoughts on "Cuba's culture and customs draw from several sources including the period of Spanish colonialism, the introduction of African slaves, and to a lesser extent, its proximity to the United States"?--Zleitzen 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
El Jique, your views on marxist thought don't belong in a description of Cuba!
El Jique wrote under the new heading theatre of absurd: "And yet reality is :"Castro chastised the Bush administration for creating a transition plan for a post-Castro Cuba and accused the administration of threatening his country and its ally Venezuela with U.S. military exercises under way in the Caribbean. U.S. officials say the exercises have nothing to do with Cuba or Venezuela. " [39](Also of note is that even the UN is having difficulty accepting Cuban government data: "Cuba uses its own method to calculating economic growth that takes into account the country's vast social safety net and subsidized services.That makes Cuba's growth figures difficult to compare with those of other countries, prompting the United Nation's Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean to leave the island's numbers out of its report last year. " from same ABC report)One concludes from all this that to even infer that the Cuban government is involved in "political" conflict is to violate "NPOV" or neutral point of view. Thus were one to call the world round would violate the neutrality because some still persist in calling the world flat. El Jigue 5-22-06"
It is not our place to interpret which cuban actions are morally injust and which are not. We should only tell what the cubans do, what the americans and the rest do and how things affect everybody. It is not our duty to tell what is wrong, but to just give all the facts in respect of all sides. Also, El Jique, please don't create unnecessairy headings about a subject that is already under discussion. Teemu Ruskeepää 16:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen, omg! I think that needs to be taken out as well. Why discuss culture in the description and why express cultural history in relation to slavery and why assume without proof that USA is part of the cuban culture? Is it because Cuba is still a slavery and that USA's culture is greater that Cuba's`? Teemu Ruskeepää 05:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing to worry about Teemu, articles are expected to have introductions of 2 or so paragraphs and nation articles can mention culture (see Japan). Cuba's rich, unique culture is perhaps it's most notable facet. Proximity to the USA has played a part in shaping this culture as it has in Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Canada etc (see conversation above about this - or check any information about Cuban culture for verifiability [38]), and the combination of Spanish/West African culture is perhaps Cuba's cultural essence. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, before anyone else contests this, I advise them to read the Encarta introduction for Cuba which states;
Cuba’s proximity to Haiti, the United States, Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, and Jamaica has allowed people to migrate easily onto and off of the island. This movement contributed to the rich mixture of people and customs in Cuba--Zleitzen 07:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Arawak/Taino influences

Z: Recent archeological and growing biochemical evidence shows that the Taino cultural and biological influence on Cuban culture is far more persistent than was previously thought, or previously proclaimed "Manda abuela para la cocina, que viene visitas." One only has to look at place names in the Cuban countryside to realize that.

Even Jigues may have existed [39] [40].

The Taino are part of /afin to the Island Arawak. Greater and greater interest in the Arawak culture is arising with each new archeological discovery in Amazonia [41] [] [42]. Some are even considering the Arawak (Arahuaco, Arauaco)) as the matrix from which the great pre-Colombian American civilizations arose. El Jigue 5-21-06

Cuba-United States relations

The Cuba-United States relations article is now open for business, it presently has some material taken from Cuban foreign relations so needs some work.--Zleitzen 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

By coincidence I just meant to move "foreign relations" and "Castro and Soviet Union" from "Fidel Castro" in here. Teemu Ruskeepää 12:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain, Teemu. I'm not sure what you mean?--Zleitzen 16:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm back

Greetings comrades, I am back. As you see I have been visiting the glorious former German Democratic Republic, a country which just like Cuba held wonderful democratic elections, at which all the SED candidates were elected with 99% of the vote and where the people loved the DDR regime under kindly old Erich Honnecker so very much (just like the Cubans love Fidel), because it gave them all that wonderful free health care etc etc and built a lovely wall to protect them from the wicked capitalist west. Or so it seemed until that terrible day in 1989 when it turned out the ungrateful German workers and peasants really wanted bourgeois democracy and capitalist decadence after all. Meanwhile, I see the Fidelistas have been busy reinserting their pathetic lies in my absence, and much needs to be done at this article and the other Cuba articles. Once I have caught up with some real election results at my website, combat will be resumed. Adam 08:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that with a remark like "combat will be resumed" we need not assume good faith on your part. Any attempts to push POV will be scrutinized sharply.
Why not spend some time reading the talk pages first? Attempts are being made to move the disputes out of the main Cuba article and into various sub-articles (or "spinoffs") instead. --Uncle Ed 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! Is this a page about Cuba or the subject of this picture?!!!!!!!!! Please try to remove the pic as there are millions of readers who are not in a mood to see a picture of an editor at a discussion page of an article about a country.-- Szvest 17:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Discussion removed

Teemu removed this discussion:

Theater of the absurd

Teemu Ruskeepää| writes: "Let's remove "Cuba’s relationship with the neighboring United States has often involved political conflict."" - "It doesn't belong in a short description of a country but in international relations. It also hyperemphasizes the conflicts and suggests that the government of Cuba is to blame. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)"

And yet reality is :

"Castro chastised the Bush administration for creating a transition plan for a post-Castro Cuba and accused the administration of threatening his country and its ally Venezuela with U.S. military exercises under way in the Caribbean. U.S. officials say the exercises have nothing to do with Cuba or Venezuela. " [43]

(Also of note is that even the UN is having difficulty accepting Cuban government data: "Cuba uses its own method to calculating economic growth that takes into account the country's vast social safety net and subsidized services. That makes Cuba's growth figures difficult to compare with those of other countries, prompting the United Nation's Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean to leave the island's numbers out of its report last year. " from same ABC report)

One concludes from all this that to even infer that the Cuban government is involved in "political" conflict is to violate "NPOV" or neutral point of view. Thus were one to call the world round would violate the neutrality because some still persist in calling the world flat. El Jigue 5-22-06 (reposted after deletion 5-23-06)

One notes that removal of discussion violates Wikipedia rules El Jigue 5-23-06

I agree, El Jigue. Though some self reflection may also be in order on your part, further up the page you are to be seen contesting the location in a photo with the photographer himself. --Zleitzen 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: No I was contesting the photographers memory of the place, unlike the circumstance of the truck illustration which was obviously incorrect. Here the photographer seems to be correct, see my acknowledgement of this in previous discussion. However, one may note that usually only those who view Castro in a favorable light are allowed to photograph street scenes in Cuba. On the other hand, were I to return to Cuba I would be imprisoned. Thus statements of this photographer cannot be considered NPOV either. However, one notes that in the other images taken by this photographer, judging by the palm thatched roofs, bohios (commonly condemned by many in the Cuban government fifty years ago) can still be seen; so much for improvements in housing. El Jigue 5-24-06

Castro's Corruption

Werlau, Maria C. (2005). "Fidel Castro, Inc.: A Global Conglomerate" (PDF). Cuba in Transition. 15: 376 –395. 

  • "What is striking about defectors’ accounts is their consistency, which is impressive because they originate from independent sources, who have had dissimilar access to the structure of power, and whose testimonies cover different events and stages and have been collected over a long period.
  • "Since the 1990s Fidel Castro is said to have a fund called “Fondo de Divisas del Comandante en Jefe,” into which 15% of all hard currency revenues generated by Cubans overseas—trainers, artists, professionals, technicians, and so on—is deposited"
  • "in the 1980s Fidel Castro received suitcases full of hard currency as “gifts” for his birthday each August 13"
  • "Jesús Marzo Fernández reports that he witnessed a birthday party for Castro in the 1980s when a prominent government official gave Castro a suitcase with US$10 million."
  • "Manuel de Beunza, who managed Cuban businesses in Canada, reports having on one occasion personally delivered US$2 million to Fidel"
  • "a meeting in the late 1960s with Raúl Castro, at the time when del Pino was in charge of the commercial airline Cubana de Aviación. Raúl instructed him to open a bank account in Zurich, Switzerland, to deposit all the fees received from foreign airlines for air passage over Cuba. The accounts were opened in the names of Vilma Espín, Raúl’s wife, and Rodolfo Fernández, the right hand man of Celia Sánchez, Fidel’s longtime friend and confidant"
  • "Castro allegedly makes loans from his overseas “reserves” to the national economy to cover hard currency shortfalls at an interest of ten percent,"
  • "Fidel’s daughter, Alina, mentions several “Protocol Houses” used for dignitaries and friends of Castro, information that is confirmed by other defectors.56 The long list includes anywhere from 25 to 37 homes57 all over the island; many are said to be used only occasionally for shortrest periods during travels throughout the island or to entertain guests. These include a number of recreational residences at beaches and in the countryside, ranches, hunting grounds, specialized fishing and cattle reserves, a shrimp breeding facility, and luxuriousunderground bunkers outfitted with the latest technology.58 Some have their own electric generation and water plants, sophisticated communications’ command facilities, and enjoy amenities such as pools, tennis courts, marinas, and even golf courses."
  • "Among Castro’s overseas properties is said to be a castle in Austria,59 and large ranches in Galicia, Spain; Monterrey, Mexico; and near New Delhi, India."
  • "The involvement of high-ranking Cuban government officials in international drug trafficking under the orders or with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Castro brothers has been long alleged. Consistent reports abound from former regime insiders, members of Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, from intelligence officials of the former Soviet Union and its satellites, and from journalists, governments, and even world leaders—including the Presidents of the United States and Colombia."
  • "Fidel’s approval was won with the argument that it would not only weaken the United States, but also bring in funds for international subversive activities and hard currency for Cuba.64 Rodríguez Mernier relates that drug trafficking became a substantial source of hard currency revenue for Fidel Castro.65 Major Florentino Aspillaga explains that millions of dollars in cash delivered by Cuban intelligence agents to Castro were to be deposited in his Swiss bank accounts “in order to finance liberation movements."
  • "Roberto Ampuero, a Chilean revolutionary who in the 1970s married the daughter of Cuba’s Attorney General, in a biographical novel depicts the privileged lifestyle of a select few in Castro’s inner circle. Ampuero soon became disaffected with the Cuban Revolution as he witnessed rampant corruption by the Cuban political elite living in the mansions of those who had fled the country, with servants, drivers, and plentiful access to food and all sorts of consumer goods while the Cuban population was under strict food rationing and material deprivation. See Ampuero, op. cit."

Just some morsels. Read the best details in the article. :) Ultramarine 03:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Off topic. This article is about Cuba. BruceHallman 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Bruce! And the above material cited by Ultramarine is not about Cuba????? El Jigue 5-24-06

Fidel Castro is not synonymous with Cuba, the article is about Cuba. BruceHallman 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And the actions of a dictator in power for nearly five decades have not greatly affected Cuba? While they may not be synonymous, the are very closely related. El Cubano 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So what? Plenty of things have 'greatly affected' Cuba during these five decades, why single out just one? I am sorry to see people with an anti-Castro objective using the Cuba article to further that objective. Why cannot the Cuba article be just a Cuba article? Admit reality, the essence of the 'fight' around here has been: Shall the Cuba article be a surrogate for an anti-Castro article. BruceHallman 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
By that line of reasoning, we should omit the Soviet support of Cuba. That has also greatly affected Cuba. But then, we wouldn't want to use this article as a surrogate for anti-Soviet sentiment. It is clear that you are so biased yourself that it doesn't matter what anyone says, since you will just perceive it as an anti-Castro attack of some sort or another. El Cubano 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me. The title to this section is Castro's Corruption, not a big leap of logic to see it as anti-Castro. BruceHallman 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. How about we change it to "political corruption in Cuba"? How about "Castro's contributions to the improvement of the human race"? The article is about Cuba. Castro has been the dictator there for close to five decades. That sort of makes him a very important fixture in the history/politics/culture/etc. What I cannot understand is the problem with presenting facts about Castro's actions and the consequences of those actions. Seeing as he is the head of state, those things definitely have a place in an article about said state. In this case, it seems difficult to separate the two things without doing a disservice to the reader. El Cubano 23:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe they are addressed on some scale on the Castro page. To be honest with you El Cubana, there isn't a chance of any of these accusations making it onto the Cuba page. Even the Italian or Russian pages don't mention corruption by the Government. And I can't see how bizarre claims that Castro owns a castle in Austria really compare. --Zleitzen 23:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. I have not read the articles on Italy or Russia. If similar information is ommitted from those pages in favor of discussing it on the page relating to the specific leader, then I think it would be consistent to do the same here. I joined the debate late, so my insistence may have been a little misplaced. El Cubano 00:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cubano. A esta gente cuando le conviene los comentarios "anti-Castro" le dicen "anti-Cuba", pero cuando no les conviene no. Ellos siempre quieren imponer "la ley del embudo," muy POV... El Jigue 5-24-06

Tienes razón. Pero eso no pasa solamente aquí en este artículo. En cualqier lugar que hay gente, encuantras los que ignoran lo que no le conviene. El Cubano 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice try El Jigue, but there is only one non negotiable rule and that is NPOV. We all have to abide by it best we can. --Zleitzen 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: Basically the violations of NPOV from the extreme left are sins of omission and delition selectively employing any excuse they can find. El Jigue 5-24-06

True, but his point is that "facts" are ignored when they don't fit with someone's agenda. I agree with NPOV as a tenet of Wikipedia. I disagree with ignoring facts under the guise of NPOV. That is essentially what is happening. Facts are being ignored because they are perceived by some as "anit-Castro" and we can't have that becuase it's not "NPOV". El Cubano 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's to do with "facts" being ignored - it's more to do with context of the Cuba page. The UK site doesn't have any of the many criticisms of the British monarchy, and of course it shouldn't. Ultramarine has also posted this on the Castro page, which is the more appropriate place. It's up to the editors there to decide what to do with it. --Zleitzen 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You have a point. However, the effects of Castro's corruption are definitely on topic for the Cuba article. If the criticisms of the British royal family were based on actions that head terrible consequences for the UK as a whole, I would expect that the topic be treated in the UK article. El Cubano 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the United Kingdom, there are many things wrong that need to be pointed out and should be pointed out along with the even greater numbers of positive things. However the one that I find most humorous is the unavoidable biological consequence of selecting proven prolific breeders to rule (abiet constitionally), because under circumstances of this kind of selection, philandering and adultery are natural consequences. However, that is far better than the Sultanate of Turkey... Still think what a calming effect Royal Hareems would have if they were opened in Buckingham Palace, then all we would see in public would be very sleepy royals. xe xe El Jigue 5-24-06

Material about whether Castro is corrupt or not belongs at Fidel Castro, not here. This is a general introductory article about Cuba, not about its head of state. Adam 02:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraphs

Below are my proposed paragraphs for the Health and Education sections. The idea as discussed above is to the remove controversial "views" and statements which are now in the subarticles. The other three controversial sections are Economy, Government and Politics and Human Rights.


The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes full fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of its citizens. Historically, Cuba has long ranked high in numbers of medical personnel and has made significant contributions to World Health since the 19th Century. According to World Health Organization statistics, life expectancy and infant mortality rates in Cuba have been comparable to Western industrialized countries since such information was first gathered in 1957.
See main article Public health in Cuba

WHO merely collects Cuban government data and publishes it without verification. As to comparisons with Western industrialized countries, Cuba was there once but is there no longer. El Jigue 5-25-06

Nice try El Jigue, but what about the American Public Health Association who say pretty much the same thing. Their study is based on the fact that they were "able to travel freely within Cuba and to make observations in local communities, hospitals, clinics, research institutes, and the first national sanitarium for HIV patients. At several of these sites, we arrived spontaneously, without prior notification. In some instances, we entered into discussions with individuals who had opposed various aspects of Cuban governmental policies"--Zleitzen 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

One health advantage of the Cuban governments programs is the banning of beef. Beef may only be eaten twice a year "“Ley Seca Ganadera” "Decreto 225", and there are severe penalties (Legislación Penal de Cuba Materia Ganadera, CAPITULO XVI SACRIFICIO ILEGAL DE GANADO MAYOR Y VENTA DE SUS CARNES ARTICULO 240.1) if this rule infringed [44].


(remove WHO stats) Historically, Cuba has had some of the highest rates of education and literacy in Latin America, both before and after the revolution. All education is free to Cuban citizens including university education. Private educational institutions are not permitted. School attendance is compulsory from ages 6 to 16 and all students, regardless of age or gender, wear school uniforms with the color denoting grade level. Primary education lasts for six years, secondary education is divided into basic and pre-university education. Higher education is provided by universities, higher institutes, higher pedagogical institutes, and higher polytechnic institutes. The Cuban Ministry of Higher Education also operate a scheme of Distance Education which provides regular afternoon and evening courses in rural areas for agricultural workers.
See main article Education in Cuba

Comments below.--Zleitzen 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC) care and education sounds great in Cuba. There must be a lot of people risking their lives trying to get to Cuba so they can live in this paradise. Probably a lot of Floridians try to get there by boat, hoping for a chance to live in such a wonderful social system where the people are so well provided for. Drogo Underburrow 07:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Drogo, I believe that Cuban exiles arrived in Florida damning 19th Century doctors and color co-ordinated school uniforms. And were furious about the universities and the 1957 mortality rates.--Zleitzen 08:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not bad. Seems fairly NPOV.Ultramarine 11:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen's attempt at irony is not much of an answer to Drogo, who makes the obvious point that a million or so Cubans have failed to accept that state-provided healthcare and education are adequate compensation for the loss of political liberty and economic opportunity and have chosen to leave, often at great personal risk (as Elian Gonzalez's mother). There are a variety of responses he could make to this, but silly references to school uniforms is not a very telling one. Adam 11:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that we avoid and ignore sarcasm, and when it occurs treating it like trolling. It certainly doesn't help the editing process. BruceHallman 13:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why compare the health statistics to Western industrialized countries? Why not compare to more similar countries, say, those with similar GDPs? Are we implying that Cuba is similar to Western industrialized countries? Otherwise, I like both paragraphs. BruceHallman 13:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The key point to be made in both sections is the notably high levels of education and health regardless of the political structure of the society. They're both areas where Cubans have consistently achieved high standards. If you can find stats for similar GDP nations in the past as well as present that may be worth a look, but it sounds like a tall task. --Zleitzen 16:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My statement used irony to make a point. It didn't use sarcasm, and wasn't trolling. The point was that the material is completely biased, painting a falsely rosy picture. People do not risk their lives simply for political freedom. They risk their lives because they seek better living conditions as well. Conversely, no one is trying to escape TO Cuba; if things are so great there how do you explain people trying to leave and no one trying to enter? Obviously the vand should be re-written. Drogo Underburrow 17:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • What point are you trying to make in reference to the article?
  • What material is "completely biased"?
  • Which part of the picture painted is "false"?
Ultramarine and myself have analysed just about every source on this matter, can confirm that it even complies with US State Department reports - and both believe that it is NPOV. If you care to read it, the judgements remaining in those paragraphs mainly refer to Cuba's levels pre 1959 revolution. --Zleitzen 19:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo: That is not exactly true some spies have fled to Cuba, most recent and most strangely Rafi Eitan, an Israeli Mossad Agent who is sought by the FBI. and is thinking of "investing" in the island [45] [46] El Jigue 5-25-06

Drogo asked "...if things are so great there how do you explain people trying to leave and no one trying to enter? " . Such a question has no relation to the editing of an encyclopedia article. Instead, lets try again to follow WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. BruceHallman 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bruce: Ay Vey! Who died and left you WP G-d! the statement was offered in rebuttal because Cuba, whether you believe or not is a closed society and statistics are what the Cuban government or Castro says they are, thus some balance or logical inferences are needed to stay NPOV. BTW George Galloway is off to Cuba again, defending Castro much the same way he defended Saddam Hussein [47]. El Jigue 5-25-06

Balance, yes. But, when you advocate for logical inference, the inference amounts to original research. BruceHallman 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bruce I see So what are we going to do with data that is derived only from Cuban official sources, which are not subject to review, and is printed as is in supranational organizations at least one which as noted previously is simply omitting Cuban data. El Jigue 5-25-06

Pardon me, I misunderstood, I thought I was being asked do you explain people trying to leave...?, which is appears to me to be an invitation to edit based on original research. BruceHallman 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternate data sources on Cuban Economy

Alternate data sources on the Cuban Economy and other aspects of contemporary Cuba can be found in the volumes of "Cuba in Transition" e.g. [48] El Jigue 5-25-06

Edit wikilink please

Hey all, I moved the page List of countries with the highest suicide rates to List of countries by suicide rate. Can someone change it in the article so as to avoid the double redirect?

Also, in reading the section about suicide rates, the article currently states a rate in Cuba of 18.2 per 100,000. The list that I just moved however (based on WHO statistics which, of course, have their bias) has a number double that - 36.5. --will 07:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Koeppen, The Pan American Health organization, where the 18.2 stats are taken from, have presumably used this [49]. 24.5 men /100,000 + 12.0 women/100,100 = 18.25 average per 100,000 people. They've divided by 200,000 for the total to get 18.2, whilst you've divided by 100,000 to get 36.5. --Zleitzen 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC
Thanks Zleitzen, I've removed the total from that table until I get gender ratios for each country. See the discussion there if you're interested in my flounderings. --will 18:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that this list compiled from unexamined data from each countries' own statistics (as apparently the practice for WHO) see data on Iran. Wikipedia Kazakhstan which presents Nazarbaev as an elected leader (but he has been in power 15 years) while another site [50] writes:"Kazakhstan's President, Nursultan Nazarbaev, has been involved in the country's politics since 1977 when he served as Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan. In April 1990, Nazarbaev became interim president of the newly independent Republic of Kazakhstan, and was later elected to the post in the country's first national elections, held in December 1991. Nazarbaev was re-elected in 1999, after a 1995 referendum extended his term, and will be up for reelection again in 2006. The Kazakh executive branch was re-shuffled in June 2003 when then-Prime Minister Imanghaliy Tasmaghambetov resigned from his position. A new Prime Minister, Daniyal Akmetov, was appointed along with a new cabinet, including numerous holdovers from the previous administration. Parliamentary elections were held in 2004, during which the party led by Dariga Nazarbaev, the president's daughter, won 11 percent of the vote. Opposition parties have alleged that authorities committed election fraud, and one month after the elections were over, the speaker of the parliament resigned because he accused the election of being "manipulated." Civil rights in Kazakhstan seem quite poor [51]. El Jigue 5-26-06

Thus all this seems to prove is that Wikipedia is very tolerant of "communist" (in marxist vernacular "revolutionary socialist") dictators and that Wikipedia in its present state cannot be considered a reliable source. El Jigue 5-26-06

Casualities of rebels during Attack on the palace

It seems that the Rebel casualities of rebels during Attack on the palace, were about 31 out of 42 (34 Autenticos and the rest Directorio [52]. Marcos Rodríguez Alfonso (militant communist) betrayed some survivors and was later shot by Castro when that became public. El Jigue 5-29-06

Jeez how many times does this article say "United States"

you might as well add this to the Catergory:United States. Now it is just U.S. rhetoric like everything else on the Internet.

Twenty-four times! Myciconia 05:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I've started work on the Cuba-United States relations page - adding some background history etc - I've copied the "present relations" section from another page so that aspect needs a lot of work. Hopefully that may take the weight off the main page. I appreciate that many users from the US appear to have a different take on the central subject matter of Cuba for obvious reasons. For many outside the US, Cuba is a popular exotic holiday location where the politics is peripheral, even my own 72 year old mother went on a package trip to Cuba last year - in the UK Cuba is now a very popular honeymoon destination! So there's obviously a vast difference in perceptions of the island and no single view should dominate.--Zleitzen 12:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: there are large gaps in this coverage most notably removed materials from the 1930, dealing with Sumner Welles and his successor William Wieland (aka (Guillermo) Arturo Montenegro). In addition, Cuban/Soviet Union contacts should not be ignored. These contacts between the Cuban communist parties and the Communist International based in the Soviet Union are probably worth reinserting including references to the key Stalin Agent Abraham Semjovitch (Yunger Semjovich aka Fabio Grobart. Alberto Blanco) one of the founders of the Stalinist version of the Cuban communist party, [53] [54], [55] [56], [57]. you may notice that these citations come from both inside and outside Cuba, although I find the Cuban government sources unreliable. El Jigue 5-27-06

Interesting links El Jigue.--Zleitzen 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Z: Yes Cuban history is most baroque. Fabio Grobart Sunshine is, I believe, a son of the original Fabio Grobart El Jigue 5-27-06

Z: If you thought those references interesting read [58] and if you want to get and idea why the FBI is trying to get hold of Walter Lippman's papers go to [59]. El Jigue 5-27-06

Z: Professor Zayas-Bazan states the Castro met Fabio Grobart soon after returning from the Bogotazo [Zayas-Bazán, Eduardo 2006 (accessed 5-27-06) El Perfil Psicológico de Fidel Castro [60] For more details including Castro's shooting of Leonel Gomez, Manolo Castro and possibly others see [Diaz Balart Rafael Lincoln 1960 (accessed 5-27-06) Testimony, Communist Threat to the United States Through the Caribbean U.S. Senate Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary. Tuesday, May 3, 1960 [61] El Jigue 5-27-06