Talk:Cuba/Archive 15

message: Should we mention Fidel's no-show at today's military parade ?  And Raul's avoidance of the topic of big bro ? -- Beardo 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you guys can find verifiable sources, on this subject. Then by all mean, add it to the article. GoodDay 00:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've heard people joking, that  - as the guy whose birthday was celebrated did not appear himself - the 'Great leader and teacher' might have been dead for months already. You never know, consider that my acquaintants had lived in the USSR for decades, so if we remind us of the late comrade Brezhnev's last years...Constanz - Talk 11:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last video was 28 October - so that's five weeks and no sighting, isn't it. Odd that there wasn't even a video from him on the 2nd. -- Beardo 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately,  "between Raul and Fidel there is not the slightest bit of difference."]Constanz - Talk 11:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EJ, you've got the varifiable sources. Now add the facts to the article, it will update the article further. GoodDay 17:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But he can't do it, since the article still remains half-protected for some reason. Could someone ask for unprotection?Constanz - Talk 10:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested semi-protection again because of the continual mindless vandalism (look at the history - 7 reversion on 30.11 alone). (I mentioned that under the Castro "chemo" comments above. -- Beardo 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, article also protected from 'new' registered users. Will just have to wait until the page is unprotected. GoodDay 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant non-event ? 

message: It appears that the number of recognized political prisoners in Cuba is said to be decreasing .  However, limitations on free communication do not allow ready verification, and the actual number of political prisoners is believed to be far larger than the 399 mentioned above.  El Jigue 12-10-06
:Believed by whom ?  What do Amnesty International say ? -- Beardo 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly EJ, those links are not much use to me, as cubanet is one of the few sites blocked from here. -- Beardo 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that I can everything that would fit Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" and a lot more besides. But cubanet is blocked. -- Beardo 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: number of political prisoners said decreasing

message: is it doesn't work with just two headings. -- Beardo 16:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs four. Note to archivist - In future, please leave four items when you archive this page. -- Beardo 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forced "Contents" using "__TOC__", should work now with any number of headings. --Qyd 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only problem with skip to table of contents..... 

message: Some of the stuff from here really needs to go into the main History of Cuba article, too. -- Beardo 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EJ - which sources are they ? -- Beardo 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beardo, check the 'edit history' of this discussion page. There might be an El Jigue imposter, among us. I've informed 'EJ' himself, of the possible impersonator(s). GoodDay 01:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suitable responses to this might include *Wasn't El J always an imp poster?; or * Given El J's enthusiasm for downbeat disinformation he's probably impersonating himself; or * I have it from several reliable sources that El J has been dead for several years, the imposter's getting careless; or *It's Fidel channeling from beyond/playing games from his sickbed (depending which rumour (sorry - reliable source) you are open to); or *Might this not be a better tactic than banning him for Wikisins - drown his true voice in impersonations until he registers as the only means of claiming authenticity. MichaelW 08:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, it is EJ on a new IP address. He's started to blog again as well. Sigh, and I thought he'd mended his ways. GoodDay 21:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Cuba 

message: US and Raulist plans for a transition are well underway    Oscar Corral who favors a transition between armed forces of both countries as is already underway is considered by many to be a Castro partisan, and perhaps one of the staff members of the Miami Herald and the Nuevo Herald who inform the Cuban government of pending stories in these papers.  
What is more probable is that it will be a rescue operation, not a return of the refugees to the hands of the Raulist refugees because in resistance breaks out on a significant scale these refugees would be executed.  Such a plan as described by Corral would almost certainly violate UN refugee resolutions, and far more significantly the US armed forces uniform code of military justice which aside from the major injustice would destroy the career of any officer involved.
In Cuba in such circumstance the low ranking street members of the Comite de defensa de la revolucion who are the eyes and ears of the Cuban government's will be a very likely target of popular rage.... El Jigue 12-14-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.113.199.109 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EJ, you're blogging again. GoodDay 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well then 'Little Joe', add it to the article. If it's already there, why blog about it? GoodDay 19:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: transition

message: The "External links" section has grown again to inacceptable proportions. Many links are commercial, some are suitable for sub-articles (or can be found there). Many links have no usefull content, or content only marginally related to Cuba. Remember, this is an overview article, it shouldn't cover all details, and nor should the external links provided. I propose a thorough cleanup of that section. --Qyd 16:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Qyd.--Zleitzen 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My mistake, however I thought and still think anybody looking up Cuba on Wikipedia would like to see more recent photos from the country so I didn't see any issue with linking to my photo gallery. Not everyone that is reading the Cuba Wiki page is looking for textbook information, I would guess most people may be researching for travel purposes or just out of curiosity since the country is such an enigma, hence the value of photo links. Just my opinion.TommyImages 09:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links creep 

message: Earlier today, an anon wrote:
" 
  ==Cuber?== 
   
  Could someone PLEASE change Cuber into Cuba!!! "
This was to alert registered users of vandalism on the main page. However, that comment got immediately reverted (why ?) - and the vandalism remained on the main page for over 23 hours ! -- Beardo 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We/I missed it for 23 hrs.  BruceHallman 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment removed 

message: Indeed, Z  - the socialist nature was declared at the time of the Bay of Pigs in 1961. But Castro only entered Havana on 6 January (Che and Camillo were here first). I have put "triumph of the Cuban revolution" as the term that the Castro regime use. -- Beardo 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought 8th, too but read 6th on the Cuban revolution page. Good point. (Maybe he entered on 6th AND 8th ?) -- Beardo 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must have been an error on the revolution page, EJ's memory serves him well, it was the 8th.--Zleitzen 16:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the photographers weren't arounnd on the 6th so he did it again when they were. -- Beardo 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't look that old, EJ ! -- Beardo 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So, what date are you guys decided on (to put in the article)? GoodDay 19:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in infobox 

message: Zleitzen: I can see the point of transferring links (not just erasing them) to the relevant subpage, but why remove the UK solidarity group link and not all political links? I've replaced that one.  A better link would be a collective solidarity links of the world but the existing ones are years out of date.MichaelW 12:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Michael. I wasn't aware that I was removing certain political links and it seems to be an oversight. --Zleitzen 12:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed those links some time ago, and stand by that edit; only general links closely related to the article should be placed there as 1)wikipedia is not a link repository, and 2), as I said in the previous discussion, this is an overview article, it shouldn't cover all details, and nor should the external links provided. A UK group supporting some ideea on a general country page? No-no. You are right, ALL political links should go, unless they provide content related to the article text, and then they would show up at references as sources, not dumped in the external links section. --Qyd 16:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see this working for a polarised subject like Cuba.  As long as Cuba remains such a strongly politicised subject political links are IMO a necessary extension of the article, they are a way of fleshing out the bones of contention. They may help move the battleground from the wording of the article to an easier arena: what are valid links? MichaelW 20:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that political links should go to Politics of Cuba or Human rights in Cuba, links about economy in Economy of Cuba or Tourism in Cuba and so on, in specific articles listed at . Cuba itself sould be kept as un-controversial as posible (by showcasing only well known and well referenced facts), it should just be an overview article. Having one too many external links is an invitation to spamlink and/or only loosely related links, that only dilute the quality of information. --Qyd 22:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limiting Links

message: It seems clear that Fidel Castro is dying after a series of failed gastro-intestinal operations  .El Jigue 1-16-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for the Communist prediction of Castro living 150 years. Perhaps that could be added to the article. GoodDay 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a citable source, we'll consider it. -- Beardo 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro dying after a series of failed operations

message: I think this article should cite the human rights violations by the U.S in Cuban territory. Guantanamo Bay should be cited.
Chico 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The special situation of Guantanamo Bay is mentioned in this article. The human rights violations are discussed in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp articles, let's leave it to that. This article is an overview, it should not cover every single detail.--Qyd 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guantánamo Bay Human Rights Violations

message: * Needs lots more references especially history, which only has about 6
* Remove the external links from the infobox
* Demographics is terrible formatted
*  tags
* In addition, a lack of investment in infrastructure has forced the closing of many mills.[1], convert external link to reference
* Some references are just URL's and are missing details such as publisher, last access date, check  for more info
* cut down on the external links
Reference 6 comes after the full-stop
: format refs with , converted inline external links to refs (including the ones in the infobox). --Qyd 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: Despite major efforts of well intentioned editors, it is difficult to maintain the content of this page due to politlcal pressures and the difficulties with scholarly access to the Island.  Scholars who visit Cuba are subject to prior screening to assure their intellectual product supports the present government, access to archives is selectively limited. "Data" produced by the Cuban government is incorporated without change or obvious citation into data provided by international agencies (e.g. WH0) then cited as "fact."  This article is subject to constant "purging" most commonly by partisans of the present Cuban government.  With some frequency citations to material that the Cuban government disapproves of are removed (for various odd reasons), and then claiming that the matter is not supported by references the "offensive" material is removed. Even material in discussion section is removed.  El Jigüe 1-26-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA fail, needs more referencesM3tal H3ad 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the above

message: Currently the infobox has:
*"Independence from Spain  
*- Declared October 10, 1868  
*- Republic declared May 20, 1902  
*- From the U.S. Administration January 1, 1959"
which most anyone should agree is not correct. Both independence and a republic were declared on October 10, 1868 (although the movement was retrospectively called "the Republic of Cuba in arms"). Cuba gained independence from US administration on May 20, 1902. The 1959 date may be the date of the revolution, but it did not change Cuba's status. Even if Cuba under Batista was a US protectorate, it was still independent from 1902 (or 1898 depending on the point of view of some). As the page is currently semi-protected (most likely due to fanatics, trolls, trouble-makers or the generally misinformed attempting to change the info regarding Castro) perhaps a frequent user/watcher of this page should change the "Independence" info in the infobox.72.27.87.141 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct of course, it seems that it was a piece of vandalism that nobody spotted.--Zleitzen 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuban independence?

message: It is commonly known that Batista was friendly to and often protected the left. For instance,  Koch, Stephen. 1994 (2004 edition) Double Lives,Enigma Press,
New York  on page 103 states: " He (Otto Katz) is known to have
worked closely there (Mexico City) with the long time NKVD chieftain
Umansky, spending the war (WW II) much involved in Soviet operations within
the United States and the Caribbean, working among other things with Fidel
Castro's predecessor, Fulgencio Batista.  Batista was at this time much
admired and promoted by the left, and Katz was empoweredto make Batista grand
offers on behalf of the Soviet Union if Batista would enter Stalin's sphere of
influence. (footnoted to Otto Katz, FOIA dossier #65-9266)
El Jigue 2-6-07208.65.188.149 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Batista and the left

message: Does it make sense to have two separate articles, one about the island of Cuba and the other about the Republic of Cuba, which consists of the island of Cuba plus many smaller islands? As an example of the potential confusion, this appears in the "Geography" section of the current version of the article: "Cuba is an archipelago of islands located in the Caribbean Sea, with the geographic coordinates 21°3N, 80°00W. Cuba is the principal island, which is surrounded by four main groups of islands." "Cuba" is the subject of consecutive sentences, but with different meanings in the two.  I don't want to try to create distinctions where none exist, but I think in this case it might help clarify things.--Rkstafford 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split? 

message: There is a report  that "Comandos F-4" group is actively raiding into Cuba and has penetrated into a Cuban military unit and removed large amounts of weapons.  No confirmation as of yet. Meanwhile in case of widespread exodus from Cuba the US is preparing a refugee camp in Guantanamo   El Jigue 2-16-06 208.65.188.149 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comandos F-4 group active again?

message: Pointing out the lack of beef in the common Cuban diet[ is apparently objectionable to some.  El Jigue 2-21-07208.65.188.149 16:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EJ, what is that source? It appears to be a letter from someone called Carlos to a friend on an unnamed website. -- Zleitzen(talk) 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Another useful thing would be to try to find how many Cubans rely only on the libreta for their food. Or related to that. how many Cubans have a source of convertible currency. -- Beardo 13:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meat for thought

message: In a move that suggests a wave of increased repression is imminent more interanational reporters have been ordered to leave . El Jigue 2-23-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Foreign press evicted

message: Thirty years to the date of his imprisonment, he was released and reunited with his four sisters in Miami.Bustos, Sergio 2007 (accesse 2-25-07) Cuban political prisoner dies (Mario Chanes de Armas) Miami Herald, Sun, Feb. 25, 2007  “Considered one of the founders of the Revolution, Chanes de Armas survived the Moncada attack, trained in Mexico, came over on the yacht Gramma and lived to greet Castro in Havana on Jan. 9, 1959, when the conquering heroes arrived on top of a U.S. Sherman tank.  …  Thirty years to the date of his imprisonment, he was released and reunited with his four sisters in Miami.” El Jigue 2-25-07208.65.188.149 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moncada, Granma survivor and political prisoner dies

message: The new location map is wrong, it did not high lighted Isle of Youth which is also part of Cuba. Petrovsky18 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Location Map

message: Although we all know that Cuba is considered "communist" by most westerners, the Cuban government following marxist dogma claims that a communist society has not been achieved. This is a religious concept in other context it could be called heaven on earth.  Of course this is nonsense, however it seems insulting to multiparty democratic socialist countries to call Cuba a socialist state. Arguments on this matter are equivalent to calculating the number of angels who can dance on the head of pin (by my calculations infinity since angels occupy no space, and I am not a Baptists so I believe angeles if they exist can dance).  Thus I modified socialist to one party socialist state.  What modifier do you prefer. Authoritarian, rigid, controlled, while far more fitting are only going to cause trouble.  My  preference would be socialist absolute monarchy (;>). El Jigue 3-6-07 208.65.188.149 23:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EJ, I don't know why you've added info about China, Vietnam and so on to the page. Could you explain?-- Zleitzen(talk) 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello EJ, Britain is defined as a constitutional monarchy - whatever that means - by almost all encyclopedias, but there is no need to list the other constitutional monarchies on that page to clarify is there? Likewise Cuba with Socialist republic, an equally uniform and established title across the board. I understand the reasoning for your addition of China and so on and don't see it as a big issue, but I hoped that the government section would attempt to convey the actual nuts and bolts (how many seats are on the assembly / what is the official title of Castro / How many municipal assemblies are there etc) rather than impressions (Cuba is a bit like China / is a controlled totalitarian state / is a workers paradise etc) which I fear leads only to edit wars, conflict and a poorer page. That said, China, Vietnam and so on are also termed Socialist republics so there can be no dispute about your accuracy. -- Zleitzen(talk) 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One party Socialist state?