Talk:Cuba/Archive 10

message: I suggest to everybody to right down whatever you think “left”, “socialism” and/or “communism” means. There are no good or bad answers. Let's start from here. --Anticom 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already too much irrelevant personal opinion on these talk pages.  I'd hate to see us encourage more of that sort of thing.  Friday (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just so you know, there are only three basic rules on Wikipidia: they are WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is peculiar. Editors are not supposed to argue about what is true, then come to a middle ground. Basically all editors are supposed to do is read books and other sources, then copy what is in them in their own words. But most editors either don't know that, or don't care and do what they want anyway. Drogo Underburrow 22:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's define socialism and communism 

message: "Remaining a Soviet-Styled economy" is inaccuarate 172, Cuba attempted a Soviet-Style economy after the revolution but moved to a Maoist form for ten years or so. They tried to re-centralise during the 1980's (trying a 5 year plan etc) but after the Soviet collapse were forced to improvise a patchwork of economic policies. Basically Cuban handling of the economy has been a unmitigated mess, and doesn't bare close relation to the heavy planning of the Soviet model.  --Zleitzen 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but relatively speaking, it comes closer than just about any country in the world today. At any rate, I'm out of here for now. 172 | Talk 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your words 'unmitigated mess' seems polarized.  In the last decade, their pharmaceutical industry and their tourism industry, both somewhat successful, have 'mitigated' the economic mess a bit.  BruceHallman 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh go live off a ration card. 172 | Talk 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought that it was Che Gevara who was the first to undermine sugar industry on Cuba on purpose, because it symbolised opression and capitalism to him.--RockyMM 17:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the pair of them shared that ideology. --Zleitzen 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't misunderstand me to think I am saying that the sugar industry is not degraded, a mess so to speak.  I just tried to point out that their economy is not entirely 'unmitigated'.  Isn't another recent problem in the agricultural sector the high cost of petroleum and fertilizer?  This explains in part the push for organic farming methods, fertilizer is expensive.  Also, the private farmers markets are a 'mitigation' of the economic 'mess' or at least a start, both for the ease of the transportation costs and for the 'free market'.  Also, the paladoras are a mitigation of the 'mess' too. BruceHallman 17:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair points, Bruce. And as most Latin Americans know by now, politically motivated economic "mess" is by no means exclusive to the policies of leftist governments. --Zleitzen 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've had a look at the summary of the report here  and it seems that the press report may have slanted the findings. Top marks for eagle-eye Hallman and another factoid to go into my burgeoning Cuban notebook!--Zleitzen 14:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: Now that User:172 appears to be on a break, and User:Adam is away with meatspace work, those currently editing should perhaps ask whether they are 'NPOVing' what was here before, or simply reinserting their own POV, which will then be viciously redone by the other parties when they return? Etc Ad Nauseum, when alternatively this could become easily an FA? Are we working together for a better tomorrow or??? Or do we all need to step back & take three deep breaths? Just wondering....Bridesmill 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points Bridesmill. The aim should be to reinforce the article to protect it from all sides. --Zleitzen 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor note of caution 

message: The Society|Education section currently notes "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721; prior to 1959 there were other official universities including: Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857); private universities included: Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado. In 1961 private schools and universities were nationalized (without reimbursement)."  The wording in bold is strange.  It seems to imply that after 1959 something happened to all the other official universities.  In fact, the only key difference between pre and post-revolution was that the private universities were nationalized.  To reflect this fact more clearly, would I suggest the paragraph be re-written "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721.  Other official universities include Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857).  Private universities, which were nationalized without reimbursement along with private schools in 1961, include Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado."  Key changes in bold.  Any thoughts? Patiwat 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. LotLE×talk 07:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Zleitzen 13:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Society | Education: Suggestion to clear up wording